The Supreme Court magistrate Ángel Hurtado, , has partially lifted the secrecy of the proceedings in terms that, according to sources from the Prosecutor’s Office, García Ortiz’s right to defense is affected and may violate the principle of equality of arms between the parties of the process.
The instructor emphasizes in his resolution that the agreed partial lifting affects the entry and registration orders at the headquarters of the State Attorney General’s Office and the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Madrid, proceedings that were carried out on October 30. The consequence is that the accusations will be able to oppose the appeal presented by the Prosecutor’s Office against the aforementioned search order with full knowledge of the allegations made by García Ortiz and by the chief prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez, investigated for an alleged crime of revelation of secrets. According to the aforementioned sources from the Prosecutor’s Office, those investigated, on the other hand, did not have the same opportunity to learn the basis of the judicial decision to have their offices searched before presenting their challenge against said measure, since they had only been able to access the part of the resolution, that is, to the order given by the magistrate.
In his new order, the instructor gives the parties a period of five days to present allegations in relation to the Prosecutor’s Office’s appeal against the aforementioned records. The magistrate also mentions that the partial lifting of the secrecy of the proceedings affects another order, dated the 8th of this month. This resolution specified that the Civil Guard should limit its investigation to the material collected that referred to the period between the 8th and last March 14. All of this to clarify whether the attorney general or the chief prosecutor of Madrid committed acts that constituted the revelation of secrets regarding the investigation of tax crimes attributed to Alberto González Amador, partner of .
Judge Hurtado states in his order that the partial lifting of the secret is carried out so that the rest of the parties in person can have access to the resolutions that have been issued to date. It mentions in this regard that the accusations were not able to know the content of the preceding orders, while the Prosecutor’s Office was able to have knowledge of them, and not only of their operative part. Sources from the Prosecutor’s Office, however, have specified that the attorney general and the chief prosecutor of Madrid were also not aware of the basis of the aforementioned orders. The lieutenant prosecutor of the Supreme Court, María Ángeles Sánchez Conde, did receive notification of said resolutions, but not those investigated. Sánchez Conde, on the other hand, issued a decree from the beginning of this procedure to make it clear that in this matter he would refrain from reporting the evolution of the case to the attorney general.
The order of the investigating magistrate explains, in turn, that “he does not consider it reasonable for (the parties) to formulate their allegations in response to the appeal formulated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, almost blindly.” The document adds that “complete knowledge” of his car “does not compromise the result of the investigation.” In the previous resolution, the magistrate stated when ordering the entry and search that the assistance of the lawyers of those investigated was not necessary because “judicial public faith is guaranteed” through the presence of the lawyer of the administration of justice, and that in this investigation there is “urgency to avoid the concealment of evidence.”
In this sense, the order appealed by García Ortiz – on which the accusations will now present allegations – added that “they will wait for the arrival of the lawyer (for the defense) as long as the wait does not prejudice the entry and search procedure, ensure effectiveness and the place is police secured.” Ángel Hurtado explains in his new order that one of the reasons why he agreed to the secrecy of the proceedings “was because it was considered that, in this way, the diligence of entry and registration would be better ensured” and its effectiveness, so that “It was advisable for a better result of the investigation.”
