The prosecutors investigated in the complaint against Ayuso’s boyfriend confirm that García Ortiz ordered the note to be disseminated

The chief prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez Fernández, and the Economic Crimes prosecutor, Julián Salto, have declared before the magistrate investigating Alberto González Amador’s complaint against both of them for an alleged crime of revealing secrets that the direct order for the issuance of the explanatory note from the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office corresponded to the State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz.

Both have testified this Thursday as investigators in the case being investigated in the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) by Judge Francisco Goyena in relation to the explanatory note from the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office regarding the conversations between the couple’s lawyer. the regional president and the prosecutor on the case of alleged tax fraud.

Firstly, Julián Salto Torres, prosecutor of the Economic Crimes Section of the same Prosecutor’s Office, declared that he responded to the questions posed by the parties for one hour and ten minutes. After a ten-minute break, María Pilar Rodríguez Fernández, chief prosecutor of the Madrid Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, appeared for just over an hour.

Both have agreed to hold the State Attorney General responsible for giving the order to issue the note disseminated on March 14 by the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office in which they reported on the crossing of mail and have alleged that they obeyed orders for its dissemination, This is a hierarchical institution, legal sources have pointed out to Europa Press.

The State Attorney General himself verbally assumed responsibility for the dissemination of the press release in an institutional event held at the headquarters of the Prosecutor’s Office on April 15 and subsequently ratified it in a letter addressed to the TSJM on the 10th, in which also requested that the case be sent to the Supreme Court. The instructor has informed the parties to speak out and everything seems to indicate that the case will end up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

In it, García Ortiz maintains in the writing that this press release would not have been published without his prior authorization and “express and direct” instructions, therefore, as he was granted jurisdiction, the competent body would be the Supreme Court.

The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid rejected in an order known this Wednesday the appeal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office against the initiation of proceedings against both, which it considers pertinent and endorsed that there is sufficient evidence to instruct the case against prosecutors.

On June 13, the senior prosecutor of the Community of Madrid, Almudena Lastra, testified before the magistrate, who also declared that she received a direct order from the State Attorney General to disseminate the explanatory note on the aforementioned conversations between the lawyer and the prosecutor.

As he alleged, despite refusing to disseminate the document as it was incompatible with the duty of confidentiality, he finally complied with article 25 of the Fiscal Statute, which establishes that “the State Attorney General may issue to his subordinates the orders and instructions appropriate to the service and to the exercise of functions, both of a general nature and referring to specific matters.”

In statements to the media, the dean of the Madrid Bar Association (ICAM) – who exercises the private prosecution in this case -, Eugenio Ribón, has stressed that “professional secrecy is a cornerstone of the practice of law. ” and, although he has avoided making assessments on the prosecutors’ statements, he has emphasized the College’s “firm position” so that “violations of confidentiality are not tolerated” and are addressed “with the utmost seriousness.”

“Improper disclosure of confidential information not only jeopardizes the trust between the lawyer and his client, but also undermines the right to defense. Our objective is to ensure that the practice of law is carried out within a framework of respect for the rights that govern our profession and our rule of law. ICAM’s action highlights our determination to not allow any violation of these principles to go unpunished,” he defended.

The person responsible for the communication

In the open investigation, the magistrate tries to investigate at the request of Alberto González “who or who were the specific natural persons who intervened in the decision to make said press release public and the highest person in charge (in rank) of the prosecutor’s career who agreed or gave approval to the decision to disseminate the statement.”

In the requested proceedings, the magistrate requested that a list and copy of the original support be sent of all the communications maintained by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (emails received and sent) with Alberto González Amador’s lawyer on the occasion of his defense before and after make the statement public.

In the order admitting the complaint, the Chamber considered that “without the admission of a complaint being ever understood as an act of advance imputation, nor a finalized qualification of the facts, the true scope of all the facts must be investigated.” recounted in the written complaint.”

“Only in this way can an essential purpose of the summary be fulfilled, as contemplated in article 299 of the LeCrim, and which consists of the determination of all the circumstances that may influence the classification of the facts, provided that these They are indicatively criminal in nature,” he pointed out.