The first words of the state attorney general’s final defense argument contained a clear message disguised as flattery towards the court. “It was a trial characterized by an exceptional media context, which at times went beyond the legal framework”, began State Prosecutor José Ignacio Ocio, on behalf of Álvaro García Ortiz. “A parallel trial based on conjecture,” Ocio continued, before concluding with a message wrapped in diplomatic velvet: “None of this will have any influence on the seriousness or independence of this tribunal.”
When, at around 5.30pm this Thursday, the president of the court, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, pronounced the “pass for sentence”, the time was beginning for one of the most compromising decisions the Supreme Court has faced in recent decades. The trial ends without providing new evidence to those who led the sixth state authority to be tried for the first time in history, accused of revealing secrets. And in the midst of a political and media turmoil in which seven magistrates must slip: four considered conservatives (Manuel Marchena, Juan Ramón Berdugo, Antonio del Moral and Carmen Lamela), two progressives (Ana Ferrer and Susana Polo) and another without such a defined affiliation (Martínez Arrieta).
Politics accompanies the case from the beginning: the actions of García Ortiz against the maneuvers of Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s entourage to present as political persecution the complaint of the Economic Crimes Prosecutor’s Office against the partner of the president of Madrid for a fraud of 350,000 euros against the Treasury. Since the case was opened, the PP has presumed the guilt of the accused. The Government, its innocence. The last time, already in full trial, the president himself, last week in this newspaper. Knives fly in the media and at rallies in the capital. Among other things because journalists had a great role in the process. Because what is being resolved is a leak, that of the “disputed document”, as the legal jargon calls it: an email to the Prosecutor’s Office from the lawyer of Alberto González Amador, Ayuso’s boyfriend, to offer an agreement, subject to recognition of two tax crimes. There were even polls, even in the middle of the trial, as if the sentence corresponded to a popular court.
During the six days of the trial, the prosecution’s evidence that the investigations had not found did not appear. The UCO pointed the finger directly at García Ortiz but, as its leader, Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Balas, admitted at the trial, this conclusion is based on “inferences”, essentially on certain temporal coincidences. “There is absolutely no evidence because there can’t be,” the state’s attorney said in his plea of innocence. On the other hand, the accusations – the private one and four other popular actions – invoke a “plurality of evidence that allows us to reach a full conviction”, as explained by Mani Pulite’s lawyer – and PP councilor in the Senate – Víctor Soriano.
The defense’s final report sought to refute those “indications constantly manipulated by the prosecution,” in the words of José Ignacio Ocio. Among these, the most repeated: the deletion of the attorney general’s communication history, which both he and his legal representatives assure was a monthly practice for security reasons since before the investigation against him was opened.
Both Ocio and the deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Ángeles Sánchez Conde, denied that there was any question of revealing secrets. What had leaked, they stressed, was no longer secret. To do this, they appealed to the testimonies of six journalists from four different media outlets who declared that they were aware of González Amador’s confession before Cadena SER which detailed quotes from the “controversial document” for the first time. Even if the court rejects this argument, Ocio added, García Ortiz cannot be singled out as the only possible leaker. The “famous email” – in the name of prosecutor Condé – had been accessible for days to hundreds of people in generic email addresses and applications of the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office, the defense underlined. The attorney general’s action, Ocio summarized, aimed only at refuting Ayuso’s entourage after having attributed “prevaricating conduct” to the Public Prosecutor.
In the year and a half that have passed since the opening of the works, a guadiana element. That piece that appears and disappears depending on the moment is the note published by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on March 14, 2024, which, among other things, reported González Amador’s admission of the crimes. The declaration acquired corpus delicti status when the Superior Court of Madrid elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. This, however, denied that there was anything criminal and made a breakthrough: he ordered an investigation into García Ortiz for the leak of the email.
The note, however, was an essential part of the thesis of the accusations, despite being connected to the rest of the facts. It helped Gabriel Rodríguez-Ramos, González Amador’s lawyer, to argue that García Ortiz leaked the email with the aim of paving the way for the statement and including the reference to the confession of the crimes. The final objective, according to the lawyer, was to prepare “an institutional account of guilt”.
A substantial part of the reporting of the allegations was aimed at reducing the credibility of SER journalists, Eldiario.es and EL PAÍS who, without revealing their sources, stated that their information did not come from García Ortiz. Rodríguez-Ramos conceded the right of journalists to benefit from professional secrecy – but not another of the accusers, Juan Antonio Fargo, a colorful lawyer from the minority Independent Professional Association of Prosecutors – but stressed that this diminishes the value of his statements.
Between citations of legal codes and legal literature, the accusers entered fully into political considerations to accuse García Ortiz of acting “aligned with the government.” Laws, politics and journalism: the cocktail on which the Supreme Court will have to decide.
