The question now is to investigate how this email, which only the prosecution had, reached the journalists who published it. Obviously the path is strewn with pitfalls because it will come up against the professional secrecy of journalists and that of certain lawyers.
When the laws are clear and precise, the judge’s role is simply to prove a fact. »
There are columns that are not pleasant to write and this is one of them.
The Supreme Court has opened an unprecedented criminal investigation against the state attorney general for revealing secrets. There was no other option. So neither one nor the other right No nonsense: there is a shady matter that directly affects a confidential attorney-client communication and infringes on a citizen’s right to defense. It doesn’t matter who the citizen is. That it is not about the Ayuso couple, Ayuso and the socialist government. That’s what it is. For me, this is not a political battle but a battle for limits. Democracy is made up of limits and prohibition of violation of rights, also and above all of the public prosecutor of the State and of those who represent it.
According to the unanimously signed order of the Supreme Court – whose spokesperson was a progressive magistrate even proposed by this sector to chair the TS itself – what is being investigated is not whether the press release could have violated citizens’ rights. the accused; The question is whether it was the state attorney general who disclosed to journalists the information that allowed him to prepare the press release and whether that is how those rights were violated. The crime – if there is one, only if it is proven during the investigation – is the evasion of the admission of guilt formulated by the lawyer when seeking the agreement. I already explained in another column – Portrait of a prosecutor in black and white – that making public a sentence of admission of guilt written by a lawyer, completely clumsy but a lawyer, to communicate with a prosecutor endangered the right of defense.
The Prosecutor’s Office has always maintained that the press release did not violate any secrets because the media had already broadcast it before. This explained nothing since there could only be two origins for the previous leak: the person concerned himself or the prosecutors. Disregarding the fact that the person being investigated himself had pointed his gun at his chest, all that remains is the prosecutors and that is what the Supreme Court order says. On the other hand, the process of filtering something and then putting it together in a note is very simple, especially when even the press director of the Madrid prosecutor’s office has already told you that he does not plan to send the note that is handed over. in writing and that you ordered shipment that same evening.
This is not a trivial subject. The right to defense is a pillar of the rule of law; Violating it, through the violation of lawyers’ secrecy, is a very serious crime, so much so that it cost Baltasar Garzón’s career due to the wiretapping of lawyer Choclán in prison while he was communicating with his client. On this occasion, it was also the lawyers, through their collegial organization, who filed a complaint before a court which decided to make a reasoned presentation before the Supreme Court, taking into account the quality of Alvaro García. To limit and discredit it because of the rest of the complaints from more or less contemptible organizations, which are also accumulating, is to deflect the shots. I challenge you to find a lawyer who applauds the release of this attorney-attorney email.
The question now is to investigate how this email, which only the prosecution had, reached the journalists who published it. Obviously the path is strewn with pitfalls because it will come up against the professional secrecy of journalists and that of certain lawyers. Therefore, if the path taken by the email screenshots cannot be proven, it will be rejected and an abbreviated procedure will not be launched, but an investigation will have to be carried out. These statements highlighted the path taken by the booked courier from its original guardian, the economic crimes prosecutor of Madrid, to the state attorney general. What the Supreme Court will now look for is the path that goes from prosecutors to journalists, given that it has established in this authorship the crime of revelation of which it considers that the elements of the type exist: the authority which could have committed them and the infringement of the rights of the defense. Even the court does not know if the path was direct or if there were intermediaries and, in truth, to think that the information traveled from Fortuny to a certain office in Moncloa and from there to the journalists is dizzying but it is not ruled out either.
Thus, for the first time in history, the state attorney general is accused of a crime punishable by more than four years in prison. Should he defend her from his position or should he let her defend herself without involving the institution? This is a delicate question, insofar as the institution can give orders to prosecutors who must intervene in their own case. In any case, the legislator never thought that the main defender of legality would end up being accused of violating it. Nothing is therefore planned, even if logic immediately suggests the answer.
I’m sorry to say it, because I know Álvaro García much better than most of my readers, but this decision – and the fact that “we are losing history” – was a big mistake on the part of the visible leader of an institution. who should have known how to stand above good and evil. Damn, and excuse me, does the prosecution care about this story? Since when has the prosecution been denying hoaxes with nocturnal and treason? Is it not truer that the government wanted to attribute the guilt to Ayuso’s entourage? Do you know how many inaccuracies or malice are published about secret court or legal proceedings? Those of us who have worked as communications directors for judges and prosecutors know that it is neither a mission nor a habit and that there is no need to disclose published information, no matter how inaccurate it may be. , and that, in any case, they are denied. and nothing more. If there is one thing that the holder of a position like that of Attorney General must know how to do, it is to be above right and wrong, not to lose his temper, not to follow instructions and to put the dignity of the institution and his own above all else. another consideration. That night they lost their temper, they followed instructions and pressure and they forgot that the dignity of the institution is paramount, because people pass but the institution remains and is essential.
Wild times. I have already said all this to Álvaro García Ortíz himself. I never had another opinion. The Supreme Court has no choice but to investigate this matter which, whatever anyone says, is serious. It’s not about Ayuso, the government or the media fight. It’s about democracy, rights, controls and the law being the same for everyone.
And that matters more than anyone’s story.
