The Supreme Court responds in its judgment against the Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, to the complaint of the defense of Ayuso’s partner regarding the fact that his possibility of defending himself was diminished when he sits on the bench for tax evasion and falsification of documents. “The judges will be fully aware of the impossibility of using this poorly distributed message as evidence in the process,” they say, referring to the email from the businessman’s lawyer in which he confessed to two tax crimes.
The Supreme Court responds that “it is hasty and unfounded to give the impression that the judges called upon to resolve this criminal case will not be able to resolve it professionally and in accordance with the law.” Even if they criticize that the content “should never have been made public”, the judges “will oppose any attempt to introduce it, directly or indirectly, as evidence”, they continue. And if it were otherwise, “the defense will have the means to challenge decisions that contradict this premise”: “If the trial does not comply with the rules of a fair trial, it must be reported.”
Thus, the judgment maintains that there is no reason to doubt the “professionalism” of any magistrate and his ability to adhere “strictly and exclusively to the evidence produced in his presence with all guarantees”. “Any judge or court easily understands that they cannot value, in criminal proceedings, confidential conversations aimed at an agreement when no agreement is found,” they add.
They reject that a compliance agreement was not obtained due to the fact that it was made public that González Amador was ready to recognize these crimes, but that he seemed to obey “more the need to obtain the consent of all parties than the dissemination of the email or “some fanciful and non-existent orders to abort it”, as Ayuso’s entourage, led by Miguel Ángel, claims Rodriguez.
The businessman’s defense alleged that his right and opportunity to defend himself in these proceedings, which still have no date, as well as his right to the presumption of innocence and, ultimately, his right to a fair trial had been “irreparably and irreversibly” harmed. The Supreme Court judges understand that this formulation was made “with certainly exaggerated and enormous connotations, although understandable given their prosecution position and their interests.”
Despite everything, the court considers that “part of these damages can be attributed to this unfortunate distribution of the ‘e-mail'” and imposes on the former attorney general of the State the obligation to compensate the businessman to the tune of 10,000 euros.
About The Author
