Thirty years later The nightmare of state rationality resurfacesturned into a “party cause.”
It is true that this time it is not about murders, but about revealing secrets. It may seem less dangerous. That’s why the prosecutor isn’t at risk either. The risk of being sentenced to prison Two numbers.
But on the other hand, on the other side of the scale, there is something that must be weighed, which is that the crime was not committed against members of a terrorist gang, but rather against a group of people. Political opponentwho also had to be defeated no matter what.
Not to preserve the constitutional order, not to preserve the lives and property of citizens, and not to avoid further escalation of events. Social destabilization due to terrorismbut in order to “win the story” from Ayuso’s hated PP.
That is, to give the best Controversial ammunition for the government side Compared to the false version spread by the opposition. So your neighbors can look down on their critical neighbors. So that the seat in the waiting room for express polls is softer. That’s why The president will fight with more authority Against the “mud machine”.
This is what we have left. Or rather that’s what Power ethics.
An illustrative picture of the State Attorney General.
Naturally, the tyrant is insatiable: he begins by kidnapping some men, torturing them until they pull out their fingernails, shooting them twice and burying them in quicklime, and ends up leaking tax information to one of the half-addict’s friends, which is an embarrassment to the girl’s friend. President of the Community of Madrid.
This is what happened, regardless of whether or not it is proven that Garcia Ortiz did it.
What is even more surprising is to see how Reproduces the moral challenge Of alarmingly self-exculpatory condemnation.
Because what García Ortiz ultimately proposes to us, which combines text and subtext, is exactly the same as what Barrionuevo, Vera, and their colleagues claimed. Political and media heroesWe didn’t do it, but we could have done it and we were justified in doing so.
In both cases, the presumption of innocence, prior to and prevailing over any other decision, was not consistent with the ruling. supreme court. But to the “I am the highest.”
The only difference is between saying that “there is no evidence and there will never be” and saying that “the Public Prosecutor is innocent, and even more so after what we saw in the case.” Judgment“Is this at least Felipe Gonzalez did not dictate his sentenceAs did Sanchez, in the middle of the oral hearing.
***
The second element, of an ostentatious nature, achieved GAL status retroactively. “Mary left the cabin alive because Barrionuevo and Vera are good people,” he announced. Rodriguez Ibarra 15 years after the kidnapping. It wasn’t until 2010 when Felipe revealed he had the opportunity ETA’s leadership was killed in 1992.
Instead, Garcia Ortiz applied the bandage at the same time as the wound. When he claimed just over a year ago to Xavier Fortes: “We prosecutors deal with a lot of information. I assure you that if I want to harm a political spectrum, I have a lot of information, with which Of course I will never use it“.
he A tripod of this troubling self-justification The condemnatory nature in both cases is completed with an emphasis on the state of need and urgency resulting from the intolerable aggressions that must be confronted.
Whenever GALs are discussed in the press, parliament or the courts, the number of such cases is highlighted by their participants and spokesmen The murders committed by ETA. A large portion of society believes that the end justifies the means.
Now, in addition to the desire to “win the story”,… Garcia Ortiz He admitted at the oral hearing his “obsession with protecting prosecutors” against “Completely coordinated process“.
He previously admitted in his testimony during the investigation that he had made the decision Include the literal meaning of the letter from Gonzalez Amador’s attorney Otherwise, “the press release will be weak.”
Combining the two statements, it is clear that the Attorney General’s greatest priority was effectiveness in refuting the hoax that the Public Ministry had offered a matching agreement.
There are multiple indications that this desire to be effective takes precedence over compliance with the law. Because maybe It was not possible to officially deny the false information Without violating the secret?
Yes, it was, but the “lameness” of such an option prevented Ayuso from landing the desired kick, and upholding her alleged boyfriend’s status as a confessed criminal.
By emphasizing it in this way, the lawyer Gonzalo Rodriguez Ramos turned to me, Looks very consistentthis press release whose author García Ortiz identifies in the smoking gun that was missing in the process.
It is true that González Amador was shot first by the person who leaked the email, but it was the confirmation of that newspaper report with the institutional seal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office that killed him with a second bullet.
There could have been two shooters or just one, but it is the press release that in my opinion fulfills the purpose of “winning the story” and thus revealing the secret. Moreover, the tight timeline of events – everything happens in a night and a half in the morning since García Ortiz fired prosecutor Salto from football – suggests a unity of action.
This was a “perfectly coordinated operation.” Moncloa And its media stations in dance. Hence the Chief of Staff’s memory loss Chief of Staff About who sent him the most important email of his life was the perfect complement to the prosecutor’s cell phone deletion.
***
The context is well established by analogy in some Barrionuevo’s statements in 2022: “The ETA members said it was war… I could not move against those shooting from my trench, even if they fired wrongly.”
That “misfire” that then killed ETA members and those who weren’t, now left civilians in a coma. Gonzalez Amador.
Under the rule of law, the law protects everyone equally – whether they are members of ETA or even close friends of Ayuso – and no authority has the right to ignore it. That’s why they sat on Bench Barrionuevo, Vera, or General Galindo. That’s why Garcia Ortiz is doing it now.
Although he kept Barrionnuevo on the rosters, Felipe González had the initial wisdom to fire his top officials beforehand. On the contrary, he encouraged Sanchez Garcia Ortiz to double the challenge by remaining in officeeven at the expense of leading justice to absurdity Try to appoint a public prosecutor.
This encouragement from his “Mr. It undoubtedly contributed to Garcia Ortiz enjoying his luckBy sitting on the stand with his jacket and fists clenched and refusing to answer any of the accusations from the bench.
He claimed that this is what he said The accusations maintained “unfair performance.”” Barrionuevo and Vera did the same, asserting that they were victims of a “dirty political calculation.” And Oriol Junqueras at the trial: “I understand that I am in a political trial. “I am accused because of my ideas and I will not answer the questions of the accusations.”
The four of them were within their rights. But what becomes of the principle of inconsistency in the judicial process, closely linked to effective judicial protection, when this is the case? The state’s attorney general is boycotting his practice?
***
It is not surprising that his strategy is linked to the “trial of separation” strategy formulated by the “devil’s advocate” Jacques Verges in word and deed, when He took advantage of the trials against the Algerian National Liberation Front To try to delegitimize the French judicial system.
Sánchez and his government are moving on the same wavelength, trying to turn the trial of García Ortiz into a trial against him. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court is in the court of public opinion.
Before the actual start of the oral hearing, she warned that whatever punishment the seven judges would hand down, Sanchez already had his own ruling. All that remains is to limit or expand List of those “convicted” of lawfare On the playgrounds morning, afternoon and night.
If Garcia Ortiz is declared innocent, the stigma will fall solely on the coach Ángel Hurtado, in Julián Sánchez Melgar and Eduardo de Porreswho supported the treatment, and in those who cast opposition votes.
If García Ortiz is declared innocent, the stigma will fall only on coach Angel Hurtado, Julián Sanchez Melgar and Eduardo de Porres.
If García Ortiz is declared guilty, those who sign the judgment will accompany the aforementioned in those defamatory to the public media and in those defamatory to the public media. Those of a concerted nature From its newsrooms came all the journalists who tried to acquit the accused by chance.
By the way, that’s not what my father was constitution: Representatives of the Fourth Estate are trying to get a lieutenant of the executive, legislative and semi-judicial branches out of the predicament.
And using professional secrecy as a removable trick Acquit the partner and play hide and seek with the court: I can’t say who it is, but I can give you clues to prompt you to look elsewhere.
Lucia Mendes found it “weird”. I will be more severe. Anyone would think that during the era that began with the Watergate scandal, credit was given to providing evidence of this Make cheating rulers reelSome colleagues now believe that their greatest success is their support in court.
Whoever knows the summary, follows the oral hearing, and knows the minimum level of judicial jurisprudence will agree that even conviction The Attorney General is not acquitted It should be a surprise.
Everything will be settled in the conscience of the seven judges with Adequate technical ability To distinguish between “judgment of possibility” and “judgment of certainty”. This is what “in dubio pro reo” consists of.
Even though they are aware of it The political significance his decision will have for the direction of the legislature Thus as to the direction of Spain, with its judicial independence at the end of the eaves, I am convinced that they will fail in law.
Everything will settle in the conscience of seven judges who have sufficient technical ability to distinguish between a “rule of possibility” and a “rule of certainty.”
That they will be able to divest themselves of all that political and media chatter in which there were also a few prosecutors from the Union de Pelotas Furibundos, speaking out against the UCO and giving the president a pass.
What these seven judges decide may, of course, be subject to criticism, but it deserves not only compliance, but also respect. Especially by those who don’t like what they decide. There are enough institutions already in the market to continue – Weakening the prestige of the Supreme Court.
What’s different is the feeling that stays in Public domain. The key question Page asked and was immediately answered: “Should a prosecutor be aware of the political narrative?”
Of course not.
So when Garcia Ortiz clung to what “someone” had told him before entering the room That “the truth is not filtered, the truth is defended,” and I am sure that, whether they had actually rendered a ruling on the case or not, the seven judges whispered to themselves in unison: “Yes, but within the framework of the law.”
About The Author
