State Prosecutor Alvaro García Ortiz testified before the Supreme Court for two and a half hours in which he denied that he was the one who leaked the email confessions of Ayuso’s partner and defended his actions to deny the “hoaxes.” García Ortiz responded only to the district attorney’s office, the district attorney’s office, and the court.
These are their main statements:
Regarding the accusations: “There is an unfair procedure.”
The State Prosecutor, Álvaro García Ortiz, did not answer the questions of the special prosecution, carried out by Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s accomplice, nor to the popular accusations presented in the proceeding. Before the court, Garcia Ortiz justified that he was doing so because of his “disloyal behavior toward the court” that was trying him, and pointed to “four landmarks” that led him to make this decision. Among them, the fact that the complaint filed by businessman Alberto Gonzalez Amador that led to the investigation “ignores” the fact that the email containing the businessman’s confessions and whose alleged leak led him to the bench “was sent to other people from another organization unrelated to the operation” or that another email from that chain – dated March 12 – was given by the affected party “to someone else” so that they could benefit from it “politically.”
About email: “I didn’t send it to you”
“No, I didn’t send it.” Alvaro García Ortiz denied with this brief sentence that he had leaked the email containing the confession of tax fraud by Isabel Diaz Ayuso’s partner. He did so in response to questions from Prosecutor María Ángeles Sánchez Conde
About El Mundo News: “A distorted idea contributes to the formation of public opinion.”
The State Prosecutor, Álvaro García Ortiz, defended the importance of refuting the “hoax” published by El Mundo newspaper about the actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the partner of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, because it presented a “distorted idea” of reality. It was said in that information that the Public Prosecutor’s Office offered an agreement to Gonzalez Amador, when in fact it was the opposite. “The idea was launched that there was a temptation for Gonzalez Amador to bite because of the harmful actions of the prosecutor’s office,” Garcia Ortiz said when asked by his defense. This is information that, in his opinion, contributed to “public opinion getting a distorted idea of what is happening.”
“Treachery” directed by Miguel Angel Rodriguez
The prosecutor referred to Miguel Ángel Rodriguez’s tweet in which he wrote: “Today’s insanity summary: The prosecution via email offers an agreement to Mr. Gonzalez before he can respond, and the prosecutor’s office itself says it received orders ‘from above’ so that there is no agreement, and after that, they go to trial.” García Ortiz said that Ayuso’s chief of staff once again “put in the same terms this deception, this slander, on the Spanish prosecutor’s office. No one ordered the withdrawal of what was not offered, there are no orders of any kind, it is direct slander.”
On whether Almudena Lastra asked him if he leaked emails: ‘I didn’t hear that’
The prosecutor pointed to the bad relationship he has with Almudena Lastra, the public prosecutor of Madrid, whose testimony in this process is key to the charges. “I didn’t hear those words,” she said when the state prosecutor asked her whether, as she herself said, Lastra had asked her if she had “filtered” the emails. She explained that they did not have a “relationship of trust” to “address him on those terms” and that that morning she had to “persecute” the public prosecutor in Madrid to issue the statement.
“There is discontent between Ms. Lastra and the management team of the Attorney General’s Office. I think she feels neglected on a professional level. I think this attitude that she has, I think it’s personal, toward me and toward others, she goes into any judicial or prosecutorial forum that she’s in, and she’s not ashamed to say it. What I found difficult to understand is how a prosecutor in this country gets five or six calls from a state attorney who has something else more important to do. (It was difficult for me to understand) that I had to go after the prosecutor and I didn’t receive “An immediate response, and it seems to me there was no cooperation.”
A press release clarifies “that there are strict measures” against “what was said.”
During his statement, he explained the motive behind publishing a press release in which he explained the truth about what was published. “The memorandum that must be submitted is an institutional response from the Public Prosecutor’s Office to a news story questioning the work of prosecutors in the field of economic crimes. We were interested in showing that in the face of what is being said, there are strict measures,” he defended. García Ortiz intended to highlight “the impeccable work done by colleagues of the Madrid Economic Crimes Prosecutor’s Office.”
Regarding the search of his office: “A particularly serious and distressing event for the Prosecutor’s Office”
During cross-examination by his attorney, the state prosecutor considered “a particularly serious and distressing fact for the prosecution” the fact that UCO entered his office and made his Gmail account “available” to clients. “I think I gave them the passwords to everything I had, and some of them took a while to get in because they had to ask for permission, but for my cell phone and my account, I gave them all the passwords I had,” he concluded.
About the journalist who published the electronic confession: “I did not speak to him.”
“I did not have any conversation with (Miguel Ángel) Campos. I knew that I would have received an incoming call through the UCO report. At that time, I was talking with (Regional Public Prosecutor) Pilar Rodríguez and I realized that the mailbox had gone up and that it would generate a message. He said that and I repeat it. I have not received calls since I was the Public Prosecutor because I would go crazy, and even less so that night (…), when there are so many derivatives,” he explained in response to questions from his defence. Miguel Angel Campos was the Cadena Ser journalist who published excerpts from the email of Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner on the night of March 13, 2024, and also denied in the Supreme Court that it came from the state prosecutor.
He did not attempt to prejudice the “right of defence” or the “honour” of Ayuso’s partner
He stressed that he had never tried to undermine the “right of defence” or the “honor” of Alberto Gonzalez Amador, Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner. “There is no doubt about that.” When asked by his defense, García Ortiz defended that the press release issued by the Attorney General’s Office denying distorted information about the case “only describes” the actions of the Public Ministry and that “any statements were handled admirably.”
“The truth is not filtered, the truth is defended.”
He concluded: “Before entering the courtroom, someone I did not know told me a phrase that I really liked: The truth is not filtered, the truth is defended. And I think that is what happened here.” And that was the end of his statement.
About The Author
