Judges for Democracy (JJpD) spokesman and Vizcaya Regional Court judge Edmundo Rodríguez Achutegui believes that the resignation of the state prosecutor, Álvaro García Ortiz, from his position after learning of the Supreme Court ruling against him, is “extremely responsible,” in order to prevent the institution from continuing to suffer.
In statements to RNE, reported by Europa Press, Rodríguez Achutegui expressed his appreciation for García Ortiz’s resignation, although he does not know the reasons that led to his conviction, but only the ruling, which “indicates, very clearly, that he has been excluded from the job he exercises.”
In any case, he indicated that he could have waited to learn the arguments for the judicial decision. He pointed out, “I believe that his responsibility prompted him to submit this resignation, which was forced, since the procedure is irreversible.”
In his opinion, the resignation does not pave the way for him to take the case to the Constitutional Court because he could have waited to learn the ruling and the reasons that prompted five judges from the second chamber of the Supreme Court to issue this ruling.
He added: “He could have done that, and that would not have diminished his procedural capabilities at all, but what he did was anticipate this so that the institution would not continue to suffer.”
A “completely exceptional” ruling without penalty
A spokesman for the Progressive Association said that it seemed “absolutely unusual” for the ruling to be known before the content of the ruling, because the Public Prosecutor was convicted but the reasons were unknown.
He pointed out that there are “at least three judges in the Supreme Court, two in the chamber and one at the time of agreeing to start the trial, stressing that there are no reasons to issue this ruling.”
He added: “At the same time, everyone is wondering whether this was done for one reason or another, and whether the one person was cheated, found guilty of issuing a press release, but was put aside at the time of opening the investigation. We all speculate that the country is immersed in a state of uncertainty.”
For this reason, he regretted the existence of misinformation and “it is shameful that this came from the decision of five judges from the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court.” JJpD also does not understand how the conviction was known so quickly and without giving reasons.
He pointed out, “When this happens, and it happens on other occasions, the matter is usually related to the presence of a citizen in pretrial detention, who has been tried, and the chamber has concluded that he is innocent, and what is done immediately is his release, although the formulation of the ruling takes a few days because it specifically prevents that person from continuing in prison.”
“When the procedure is known in the court of second instance or in the Court of Cassation, the terms of the ruling are already known and, therefore, it is not necessary, as in this case, to know the legal basis because, if what the previous court said is to be ratified, it is already known to the public,” the spokesman for “Judges for Democracy” stressed.
He added: “But here we find ourselves facing an individual procedure, where the ruling was expected, and there is an accused, a convicted person, sentenced without a sentence.”