As soon as the ruling in the case of disclosure of confidential data committed by the state prosecutor, Álvaro García Ortiz, was known, the country exploded. With wasted political ammunition worth fighting a trench in war. In Spain, where there is tribal fighting, any decision is immediately eaten up by both sides’ desire for victory. It is one thing to disagree and another to turn your back on the rules of the game. Once again, moderation was the first victim. There is Oscar Lopez, Spain’s Minister of Digital Transformation and Public Service, sitting in the ring to deliver the verdict: “Whatever the Supreme Court says, García Ortiz is innocent.” This is how one of the government’s main spokesmen understands the principle of separation of powers. If the decision had been acquittal, Lopez would have praised the independence of the judiciary.
It did not help that the land had been perfectly fertilized for several months.. Media sympathetic to Sanchismo were preparing the story of the prosecutor’s indisputable innocence, but Madrid’s president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, and her team were not far behind. The country was once again forced to choose between red and blue. An atmosphere so polarized that it prevents any calm analysis.
In the same way that acquittal was entirely possible — and the dissenting voices of the dissenting justices would certainly argue forcefully — partial conviction also has a clear basis. This is why it is irresponsible to assert – as many opinion leaders do – that Garcia Ortiz was “convicted without evidence” and that we are witnessing a “judicial coup.” The Supreme Court did not act impulsively: it weighed the indicators, the facts and the testimony. In criminal law, what is required is not hard evidence, but rather a coherent set of elements that lead to a result for which there is no reasonable alternative explanation.
It is also worth noting that this ruling, if known, Gonzalez Amador will not be acquitted of the tax crimes charged against himBecause now this issue has not been judged. Each person must answer for his actions: the Public Prosecutor, for disclosing confidential data under the protection of his position; The president’s partner, for trying to evade their obligations to the treasury.
If something is missing, Anger increased when the ruling was announced, but the ruling had not yet been written In order to avoid leaking the meaning of the judges’ vote before the text is finished. It is clearly wrong because it only served to fuel criticism of the court. But the real sentence falls on us: we are embedded in a tribal logic that erodes democracy. What’s worse is that it seems we haven’t hit rock bottom yet.