a logical sentence consistent with the facts

More than the strictly legal basis it has, the sentence is based on a logical conclusion. And this also raises the old philosophical dilemma formulated by Kant as to whether, beyond appearance, we can access the essence of things, that is, the truth. In the case of García Ortiz, There is no reliable and indisputable evidence to determine the authorship of the leak.but there are strong indications on which the Supreme Court is resorting to to convict him. To say that the phrase sounds like “a Hollywood script” is nonsense that only shows ignorance or bad faith.

Was Karl Popper who formulated “the theory of falsifiability” which establishes that a theory is only scientific or of universal validity if it is capable of being refuted by experiment. In other words, to invalidate it, it must be possible to design an experience or facts that dismantle it. If there is no other alternative hypothesis, it must be accepted as good. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the father of Sherlock Holmes, expressed it very well in other words: “Once the impossible has been excluded,what remains, however improbable it may be, “It must be the truth.”

It was very unlikely that a high-ranking official like García Ortiz would commit the crime of disclosing confidential data, but he did so because All the evidence points to this conclusion. and because there is no alternative explanation. This is the reasoning of the Supreme Court and, in my opinion, it is correct. The dissenting opinions of the two judges are well-founded and intellectually tenable, but they do not formulate any alternative hypotheses. They argue that there is reasonable doubt about his guilt, but they cannot contradict the rational evidence provided by the other five judges. They say that things could have gone differently and they remain in this possibility as theoretical as the existence of a multiuniverse.

The signs

Let’s examine the evidence that led the majority of the court to conclude that García Ortiz was disqualified. First, the ruling ensures that the state attorney general or someone acting under his orders disclosed the emails between Alberto González Amador and Attorney Salto to Miguel Ángel Campos, SER journalist, who broadcast them at midnight sharp. The Supreme Court establishes, and this is important, that the emails were sent to García Ortiz’s personal account by Prosecutor Rodríguez at ten o’clock in the evening and that the SER published a summary of their contents an hour and a half later. And a few minutes later, a literal quote from the documents. It is very difficult to believe that this is just a passing coincidence.

The Supreme Court clarified that, even if it were true that Campos and other journalists had obtained the information from other sources, García Ortiz had to maintain secrecy. And he gives the example of the doctor who must refrain from confirming the veracity of the fact that one of his patients suffers from a sexually transmitted disease, even if this is in the public domain. In this sense, the Supreme Court considers not only that Leaking emails was a crime, but also the informative note, written by the state attorney general and published the next day, was a violation of their duty of secrecy of the negotiation with the lawyer of González Amador, Ayuso’s boyfriend.

“The attorney general cannot respond to false news by committing a crime,” specifies the judgment, which emphasizes that there was “an excess of functions”. “Informing public opinion does not mean participating in media controversies, which implies the sacrifice of the rights that assist those who communicate to the prosecutor their desire to achieve compliance,” concludes the judgment.

Another important element of the decision is that the Supreme Court denies the affirmation of that the emails revealed were on a server of the prosecution to which hundreds of people had access, which allowed us to assume that one of them was responsible for the leak.

The judgment indicates that the lawyer’s emails were sent to his personal account, which shows that García Ortiz did not have access to them. In this sense, the Supreme Court rejects the theory according to which hundreds of prosecutors and officials could have knowledge of these emails. Such an allegation is unfounded and, if proven, would reveal a serious security failure within the institution. The judgment recalls that the public prosecutor’s office has an internal organization and data protection regulations which must guarantee that only the prosecutors concerned have access to these confidential documents.

“The truth is that the only evidence produced, the testimony of prosecutor Salto, does not allow the complaint made concerning the possible knowledge by all officials of the files being processed to be declared founded.” In other words, it is very unlikely, if not impossible, that the leak came from someone who was not in the case or who was not García Ortiz himself.

The “conscientious” removal of the mobile

Regarding the deletion of the cell phone, the Supreme Court highlights that García Ortiz proceeded to delete the messages from his phone on October 16, 2024, one day after the Court issued an indictment. “There was a complete double wipe. “The choice of such a unique day is a very striking coincidence.” There is no other explanation than to carry out “the strategic destruction of all information that could compromise him”. The question is common sense: if he was innocent, why did he destroy the evidence proving he was not responsible for the leak?

Some jurists remember what Justinian’s Digest says: “Negativa non sunt probanda”, which amounts to emphasizing that what does not exist cannot be argued for or against. The systematic deletion, change of device and destruction of the SIM card are, according to the Supreme Court, confirmation that García Ortiz wanted to remove the incriminating elements from the instructor. They are not enough to support a conviction, but they reinforce the hypothesis that the attorney general was guilty of the leak.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court considers the telephone conversation between the prosecutor as clearly incriminating evidence. Almudena Lastra and Garcia Ortiz. Lastra expresses his protest at the leak and the attorney general responds: “It doesn’t matter now.” The judgment reproduces messages in which García Ortiz assures Lastra that “it is imperative to get the grade”, that “they are making us look like liars” and that “they are going to beat us”. Finally, García Ortiz gave the order to hand over the note to the provincial prosecutor’s office after Lastra’s refusal to make it public. As an ABC exclusive revealed, he Juan Lobato, socialist leaderharbored similar apprehension after being urged by La Moncloa to use the escape.

As stated in the judgment, García Ortiz was so involved in this case that he decided to remove prosecutor Salto, who had been urged by his boss to send the emails so that García Ortiz would know about them, from a football match. Would you have done this if González Amador was not Ayuso’s boyfriend? The question answers itself.

The Supreme Court also considers that García Ortiz exercised his legitimate right to defense by not responding to the accusations, but indicates that his strategy subtracted “the elementary principle of contradiction which underlies criminal law”. It specifies that “when the accused prevents his testimony by virtue of the requirements of the principle of contradiction, the probative value of his answers suffers in a more than understandable way”.

Taking into account the possibility of appeals against the conviction which will certainly be filed before the Constitutional Court, the judgment rejects the idea of ​​a violation of rights, a lack of guarantees in the process, a loss of impartiality and an attack on the principle of equality. There are almost a hundred pages in which the five magistrates strive to close the door to any loophole so that the Constitutional Court can annul the judgment.

A postulate of classical logic says: “Tertium non datur”. EITHER It’s one or the other, but there is no third alternative.. It’s like this in this case: García Ortiz disclosed the emails or he didn’t disclose them. But the two hypotheses do not have the same weight. That of his guilt is much more probable and better explains what happened than that of his innocence. The authorship of the note is already enough to condemn him because he recognizes responsibility for it. But it is also true that there is no “irrefutable proof”there is not a 100% possibility that he was involved in the escape of the SER journalist. There is almost never one in criminal proceedings, which does not allow one to conclude that the verdict is arbitrary.

The Supreme Court’s decision is well-founded, draws logical conclusions and leaves no trace. This is not to say that it is indisputable, but it does mean that anyone who expresses disagreement will have to resort to legal and factual arguments to refute their conclusions. In other words, you must formulate another alternative hypothesis in which the facts go beyond an implausible “in dubio pro reo” without relying on objective evidence. Cicero said that justice expects no reward. The magistrates knew very well that not only would they not be rewarded for this decision, but that they would also be vilified by those who had already pronounced the sentence before the trial.