The first words of the State Attorney’s final argument contained a clear message camouflaged with flattery to the court. “This was a trial characterized by an exceptional media context, which at times went beyond the legal framework,” prosecutor José Ignacio Osio began his intervention on behalf of Álvaro García Ortiz. Osio continued: “A parallel trial based on conjecture,” before concluding with a message wrapped in diplomatic velvet: “All of this will have no impact on the seriousness or independence of this court.”
When it’s on the verge of 5:30 p.m. On Thursday, the chief justice, Andres Martinez Arrieta, declared “trial to judgment,” and the clock was ticking for one of the most compromising decisions the Supreme Court has faced in decades. The trial ends without providing new evidence to those who led the sixth authority in the state to bring them to trial for the first time in history on charges of divulging secrets. In the midst of a political and media uproar into which seven judges must slip: four considered conservatives (Manuel Marchena, Juan Ramón Perdugo, Antonio del Moral and Carmen Lamela), two progressives (Ana Ferrer and Susana Polo) and one without such a specific affiliation (Martínez Arrieta).
Politics has accompanied the case since its beginning: the actions of García Ortiz against the maneuvers of Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s entourage to file a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Crimes against the partner of the President of Madrid for fraud against the Treasury in the amount of 350 thousand euros as political persecution. Since the case was opened, the Public Prosecutor has accepted the guilt of the accused. The government, its innocence. Last time, already in full court, the president himself, last week in this newspaper. Knives are flying in the media and rallies in the capital. Among other things, because journalists had a major role in the trial. Because what is being settled is a leak, that is, a “suit document,” as the legal term calls it: an email to the public prosecutor’s office from the lawyer of Alberto Gonzalez Amador, a friend of Ayuso, offering an agreement, and the prior admission of two tax crimes. There were even opinion polls, in the middle of the trial as well, as if the ruling was identical to a people’s court.
During the six days of the trial, the prosecution’s evidence that the investigation did not find did not appear. The UCO pointed the finger directly at García Ortiz, but as its president, Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Bottas, admitted at the trial, such a conclusion is based on “inferences”, which are essentially certain temporal coincidences. “There is absolutely no evidence because there cannot be any,” the state’s attorney said in his acquittal request. On the other hand, the charges – the private and four other popular lawsuits – call for “a body of evidence that allows us to reach a full conviction,” as explained by Hands Cleans’ lawyer – and People’s Party Senate counsel – Victor Soriano.
The defense’s final report sought to refute those “indicators that are constantly being manipulated by the accusations,” in the words of José Ignacio Osio. Among the most frequent: deleting the Public Prosecutor’s communications record, which he and his legal representatives confirm has been a monthly practice for security reasons since before the investigation was opened against him.
Both Osio and the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Angeles Sanchez Conde, denied the possibility of talking about revealing secrets. They pointed out that what was leaked is no longer a secret. To do this, they relied on the testimonies of six journalists from four different media outlets who declared that they were aware of González Amador’s confession before Radio Cadena Ser, which presented for the first time quotes from the “judicial document.” Osio added that even if the court rejects this argument, Garcia Ortiz cannot be identified as the only potential leaker. The defense emphasized that the “famous email” – in the name of Prosecutor Conde – was available to hundreds of people for several days via public email addresses and applications of the District Attorney’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office. Ayusu summarized that the prosecutor’s actions were only aimed at refuting Ayusu’s entourage after he attributed “evasive behaviour” to the public ministry.
In the year and a half since proceedings opened, there has been Guadiana element That piece that appears and disappears depending on the moment is the memorandum published by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on March 14, 2024, which stated, among other things, González Amador’s confession to the crimes. The statement received consideration in the body of the crime when the Supreme Court of Madrid took the matter to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, this rejected the existence of a criminal matter there and gave a change: he ordered an investigation into García Ortiz due to the email leak.
But the memorandum formed an essential part of the arguments supporting the accusations, despite its connection to the rest of the facts. This helped Gabriel Rodríguez Ramos, González Amador’s lawyer, confirm that García Ortiz leaked the email for the purpose of paving the way for the statement and including the reference to the confession of the crimes. The ultimate goal, according to the lawyer, was to prepare an “institutional account of guilt.”
Much of the reporting on the accusations was aimed at diminishing the credibility of SER journalists. eldiario.es And EL PAÍS, which announced, without revealing its sources, that its information did not come from García Ortiz. Rodriguez Ramos acknowledged the right of journalists to the benefit of professional confidentiality – but not one of his co-defendants, Juan Antonio Vargo, a minority lawyer of color from the Independent Professional Association of Prosecutors – but asserted that this diminished the value of his statements.
Between citations of legal rules and legal literature, the defendants entered fully into political considerations to accuse García Ortiz of acting “biased with the government.” Laws, politics and the press: the cocktail that the Supreme Court will have to decide.
About The Author
