In a landmark legal development, the Supreme Court has decided to open a case against the State Attorney General, igniting a firestorm of debate over transparency and the boundaries of official secrecy. The Attorney General is accused of improperly disclosing confidential information, raising critical questions about the balance between public accountability and the need for confidentiality in governmental proceedings. As the court prepares to examine the implications of these revelations, legal experts and the public alike are poised to engage in a discussion about the principles of justice, the role of the Attorney General, and the ethical responsibilities that accompany such a powerful position. This case not only challenges the integrity of the office but also sets a precedent for how such matters will be handled in the future.
The decision to initiate proceedings against the State Attorney General has been reached unanimously by the entire Criminal Chamber, with Judge Susana Polo serving as the rapporteur for this significant resolution. Judge Ángel Luis Hurtado has been designated as the instructor for the case now unfolding against the Attorney General. The high court’s decision follows a reasoned statement from the TSJ of Madrid, alongside complaints filed by Alberto González Amador and the Illustrious College of Lawyers of Madrid (ICAM). These documents indicate that both the Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutor of Madrid are facing allegations of the crime of revealing secrets, specifically related to the disclosure of an informative note dated March 14 concerning González Amador.
Indictment of the Attorney General
The Public Prosecutor’s Office released an informative note aimed at countering claims made the previous night, which suggested that a settlement agreement had been offered to businessman Alberto González Amador, who is under investigation for two tax crimes. This revelation prompted a swift response from senior officials within the Prosecutor’s Office, who gathered all email communications between the case’s prosecutor, Julián Salto, and González Amador’s attorney to draft a statement denying the allegations. The note outlined a detailed chronology of the proceedings concerning González Amador, which, by their nature, are confidential.
One fundamental principle of the investigative process is the confidentiality afforded to individuals under investigation. The released note clarified that it was González Amador’s lawyer who initially proposed a settlement to the Prosecutor’s Office, not the other way around. An email dated February 2 acknowledged the criminal acts and included the proposal for an agreement. However, the subsequent press release issued by the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Madrid—drafted by the General Prosecutor’s Office—contained confidential information, prompting the Illustrious College of Lawyers of Madrid (ICAM) to file a complaint with the court.
The complaint was assigned to Court of Instruction Number 28, which forwarded it to the TSJ due to the prosecutors’ immunity. During the investigation, Judge Francisco José Goyena took testimonies from involved parties and witnesses to determine the origins of the press release. Notably, Almudena Lastra, the Madrid Chief Prosecutor, testified that she received direct orders from the Attorney General in the early hours of March 14 to distribute the pre-prepared press release. She requested written confirmation of these orders, and subsequently, the press department of the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office published the statement through its regular channels for court journalists.
In a parallel development, the Attorney General of the State submitted a document acknowledging his responsibility for the press release. García Ortiz defended his actions, claiming they were intended to dispel misinformation, and asserted that he could not have committed a crime because the emails referenced in the release had already been leaked to the media.
The Prosecutor’s Office has contested the complaint against García Ortiz at the Supreme Court. María Ángeles Sánchez-Conde, his deputy, opposed the initiation of this procedure, echoing García Ortiz’s stance that no secrets were disclosed. However, the Supreme Court has opted to proceed with the investigation, emphasizing that the central issue is whether the actions attributed to García Ortiz and Pilar Rodríguez violate Article 417 of the Penal Code, which penalizes the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information with prison sentences ranging from one to four years.
The Supreme Court referenced relevant case law regarding the disclosure of secrets and highlighted the confidentiality guaranteed to individuals under investigation. They also recalled Instruction 2/2019 from the State Attorney General’s Office, which underscores the obligation to protect personal data within the Public Prosecutor’s Office. While the Supreme Court noted that the Attorney General “apparently” did not reveal any confidential information since the emails had already been reported in the media, the inquiry established that these emails were in the possession of both García Ortiz and Rodríguez, as confirmed by prosecutor Salto during his judicial testimony. Salto reported being contacted during a football match and instructed to quickly provide all emails exchanged with González Amador’s lawyer.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the case about?
The Supreme Court has opened a case against the State Attorney General for allegedly revealing confidential information related to an investigation involving businessman Alberto González Amador, who is accused of tax crimes. This follows a public note issued by the Attorney General’s office that allegedly disclosed sensitive details about the case.
Why was the case initiated?
The case was initiated due to complaints from Alberto González Amador and the Illustrious College of Lawyers of Madrid (ICAM), which claimed that the Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutor of Madrid improperly disclosed confidential information in a press release intended to refute allegations of a settlement agreement.
Who is involved in the case?
The key individuals involved include the State Attorney General, García Ortiz; the Chief Prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez; and the prosecutor handling the case, Julián Salto. Additionally, the complainants include González Amador and representatives from ICAM.
What are the specific allegations?
The allegations center on the violation of Article 417 of the Penal Code, which prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. The Supreme Court will determine whether the actions of García Ortiz and Rodríguez constitute a breach of this law.
What did the public note claim?
The public note was intended to deny claims that a settlement had been offered to González Amador, clarifying that it was his lawyer who proposed a settlement to the Prosecutor’s Office. However, the note included confidential information about the investigation.
What are the potential consequences for those involved?
If found guilty, the individuals involved could face prison sentences ranging from one to four years, depending on the court’s interpretation of their actions in relation to the law.
How does this case impact the confidentiality of investigations?
This case raises critical questions about the confidentiality protections afforded to individuals under investigation, emphasizing the need for prosecutorial authorities to handle sensitive information carefully.
What is the role of the Supreme Court in this matter?
The Supreme Court’s role is to investigate the allegations and determine whether the Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutor violated any laws regarding the disclosure of confidential information.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to open a case against the State Attorney General for allegedly revealing confidential information marks a significant moment in the intersection of law, ethics, and public accountability. As the investigation unfolds, it underscores the critical importance of maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive legal proceedings, which is essential for protecting the rights of individuals under investigation. This case not only addresses the specific actions of the Attorney General and the Chief Prosecutor but also sets a precedent for how similar issues will be handled in the future. The outcome will have lasting implications for prosecutorial conduct, the integrity of the judicial system, and the balance between transparency and confidentiality in government. As the legal proceedings progress, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court to see how it navigates these complex issues and upholds the principles of justice.
