The Attorney General of the province of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez Fernández, asked the Supreme Court to archive the case in which she is being investigated, as did the Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, for allegedly revealing secrets for allegedly releasing to the media documents on an investigation into the friend of the President of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso.
The Crown, in an application presented on her behalf to the High Court, states that it is not possible that she disclosed information due to a matter of timing, which is why it considers that there is a ” error in the definition of the element of suspicion” before it.
The State Legal Services, which believes that “there is no solid indication” of a leak by any member of the public prosecutor’s office, asserts that “it is clear from the documentation provided in the file that the leak of the February 2, 2024 email to the media took place before Ilma. The Attorney General of the Province received the email thanks to the punctual notification ex article 25 of the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor’s Office by Ilmo. Mr. Prosecutor Julián Salto Torres [su inferior jerárquico a quien Rodríguez habría pedido la documentación para proporcionársela a su vez a Álvaro García Ortiz]”.
Press release and emails
On March 14, the prosecutor’s office published an information note containing information about the case against Alberto González Amador. Information that, according to the legal representation of the person concerned, was in the hands, the previous night, of the Attorney General, the Provincial Attorney General and the Economic Crimes Prosecutor in charge of the case, Julián Salto. Therefore, I consider that the leak should have come either from Pilar Rodríguez or from the Attorney General.
However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in its appeal, maintains that “on March 13, 2024, several media outlets already had access to the emails before Mr. Salto’s notification to my client and to her, in turn, to the State Attorney General “. Therefore, he considers that “the premise on which the indication of guilt against Ms. Rodríguez Fernández is based does not respect the reality of the facts documented in the present case.”
