The prosecution practiced by the Illustrious Bar of Madrid (ICAM) claimed in the trial against the State Prosecutor, Álvaro García Ortiz, who intervened in this case in defense of “sacred” professional confidentiality, asserting that he would have done “exactly the same thing” if she had been a “wife” instead of her “boyfriend”.
Attorney Ignacio De Luis argued in his final report that the intention of ICAM is to protect professional confidentiality in its dimension of “freedom to negotiate” because conformity agreements do not arise by “spontaneous generation” but from communications between defense counsel and the prosecutor’s office in the context of confidentiality.
He explained that this is because, if the negotiations come to light, they may never be achieved because popular accusations prevent them.
As the new prosecutor testified in the case against Alberto González Amador, a friend of the president of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, whose complaint ended with García Ortiz being tried in the Supreme Court on charges of revealing secrets, this is precisely why no agreement was reached in his case for tax crimes, which had already been sent to trial.
“This is precisely what justifies our understanding that this duty is sacred (…) and cannot be sacrificed on any altar of political opportunities,” he declared.
Day-Lewis argues that if the premise that “nothing happens here” is imposed because “what matters is journalistic truth”, the result – even “medieval” – is that “whatever the accused does” is left “at the feet of the horses”.
Furthermore, he wanted to make clear that ICAM would “do exactly the same thing” if the person affected by these leaks “instead of being a friend” was a “spouse”. “I think you understand me completely,” he added, in an apparent reference to Begonia Gomez, the head of government’s wife who is under investigation by a Madrid court.
About The Author
