Barcelona.- The one element on which Spain’s progressive and conservative press agreed when assessing the unprecedented ruling of the two-year disqualification of the state prosecutor, Alvaro Garcia OrtizThe crime of disclosing secrets is defined as a “historical event”. As for the rest, the contradiction is complete. Since the meaning of the Supreme Court ruling leaked last Thursday, analyzes of the García Ortiz trial, in both the political and media spheres, have faithfully reproduced what happened. The bitter political division existing in Spain Between those who support the government of socialist Pedro Sanchez and those who want his immediate downfall. In the midst of battle, The first victim is the image of judicial independence.
The accusation against Garcia Ortiz followed He resigned today, Mondayarises from a controversy over the content of negotiations between the prosecution and a lawyer Alberto Gonzalez Amadorpartner of Madrid president Isabel Díaz Ayuso (PP), who is currently on trial for tax fraud. Gonzalez Amador is charged with the alleged preparation of Fake invoices worth 350,000 eurosIt is a crime he could face Nearly four years in prison.
The case took a political turn, as Ayuso’s chief of staff admitted during the trial: Miguel Angel Rodriguezis the same as leaking A Fake news The central government was accused of interfering in the Gonzalez Amador file. The next day, the Attorney General’s Office issued a statement denying the account, but by then… Official documents have already been leaked to the press proving that the accusation is false..
The trial focused specifically on identification If Garcia Ortiz was the one who provided those documents to the media and whether this constitutes an irregular leak.
The Supreme Court’s decision was celebrated at the PP headquarters A great victory over the government. “(The verdict) confirms that whoever was supposed to prosecute the crime committed it,” said its leader Alberto Nunez Viejo, who described García Ortiz as “confirming that the crime was committed by whoever was supposed to prosecute it.” A “pawn” of the executive branch In his strategy against the People’s Party.
Immediately after that, for the umpteenth time, Feijóo He called for President Sanchez’s resignation.
For its part, the governorate newspaper said: the world He congratulated himself on the ruling, which he considers an example of the independence of the judiciary. The newspaper’s editorial stated, “His removal as Attorney General is a moral and political removal of the government he served outside the bounds of the law.”
On the other hand, on the other side of the ditch, the assessment was quite the opposite. The Minister of Justice, Felix Bolaños, limited himself to announcing that the government had done so The “legal duty to respect the ruling”, but also the “moral duty” to say that one does not share it.
However, the parties that support the executive have been more scathing in their criticism, with many of their representatives describing the ruling as… “Judicial coup”. From his point of view, the lack of conclusive evidence against the public prosecutor, but rather mere indicators, and the fact that the journalists who published the leak denied before the court that Garcia Ortiz was their source, makes the ruling unfair, and is further evidence of The will of the judicial leadership to overthrow the government.
While politicians and journalists rushed out to evaluate the landmark ruling, many legal experts called for caution until the text of the ruling is published with its corresponding legal arguments. Among them is the distinguished law professor Jordi Neiva Viñol, who is concerned about the effects of the current vitriolic controversy on the “image of judicial independence.”
In an article published in CountryNeva Vinol notes that when the composition of the court was known, some journalists actually categorized each justice under the labels “conservative” or “progressive.” “Some even dared to say that the first would vote to convict and the second would vote to acquit. Well, that’s exactly what happened… It does not serve the image of independence that justice must maintain until its servants wear shirts,” he laments.
a question Politicization of justice in Spain It’s an old debate that has been strongly revived in recent years. In fact, European justice has previously issued several warnings to Spanish institutions due to the lack of independence of the judiciary. But each side, progressives and conservatives, only listens to their statements when it suits them.
For example, European judges have criticized on numerous occasions that the government unilaterally appoints the state prosecutor. But this did not prevent Sanchez from choosing to appoint Garcia Ortiz, whom the opposition considered very close to the executive branch. In fact, the General Council of the Judiciary, the administrative body for judges, described it as… “Not suitable” for the positionThe judge was also rejected by the Senate with a conservative majority.
On the other hand, the PP also ignored the opinions of European judges when it was convenient for them to do so. The most recent occasion was, in the same month, when a lawyer for the Court of Justice of the European Union ratified the legality of amnesty for independence leaders and activists in the 2017 self-determination referendum, a complete setback for the Supreme Court, which had refused to apply it in several cases. The amnesty law is considered one of the most politically important that was approved in this legislative body.
Although Garcia Ortiz submitted his resignation on Monday, his legal battle probably won’t end here. The judge can appeal to the Constitutional Court, which includes a majority of progressive judges, unlike the Supreme Court. Now, this is tougher than the conservative decision of the Supreme Court, so its decisions are more unpredictable. In any case, the Constitutional Court has already modified the Supreme Court ruling in several important rulings, which constitutes another blow to the prestige of the Spanish judiciary. Above all, some analysts interpret Garcia Ortiz’s conviction as an expression of a battle within the judiciary between judges with different ideological sensibilities.