The State Advocacy considers that the conclusions reached by the magistrate of the Supreme Court Ángel Hurtado to propose to sit on the bench to Álvaro García Ortiz are “patently erroneous” and include “unfounded or volunteer” imputations that lack “of any base or foundation.” This is stated by the defense of the attorney general in the appeal he has presented against the judge’s decision for the alleged filtration of an email linked to Alberto González Amador, a couple of Isabel Díaz Ayuso and processed by tax fraud.
García Ortiz, like the Prosecutor’s Office and Provincial Chief Prosecutor of Madrid, formed by three magistrates, and has ruled out challenge the car against Hurtado himself (in Reforma), considering that there was no chance of success. In a 72 -page brief, to which the country has had access, the Advocacy alleges that the facts attributed to the Head of the Public Ministry are not a crime and that when he received the email that focuses the investigation – denied on February 2, 2024 by the lawyer of the Ayuso couple to the Public Ministry – the information he collected was already known by several journalists, according to the judge, the editors mentioned before the judge. In addition, according to law, in the event that the dissemination of that email was criminal, there are no sufficient indications to consider that the author of the filtration was the Attorney General.
García Ortiz’s defense emphasizes that, after eight months of instruction, and despite the fact that “invasive” actions have been carried out as the registration of the office of the two prosecutors accused, the judge “has not been collected just any novelty” that corroborates his thesis that the Attorney General leaked the mail in which González Amador’s lawyer admitted that his client had committed two fiscal crimes and proposed to the prosecutor Let him get rid of entering the jail. If indications have not been collected, the law warns, “it is not due to the fact that it has not been done to reach another result. It is due to the fact that there is no other possible result for the innocent than that of verifying his innocence.”
According to the law, far from achieving indications of guilt of the Attorney General, “a set of evidence of discharge has been obtained before which the scarce incriminatory collection obtained, given the effort made” permeally. Among these evidence, García Ortiz’s defense cites the testimony of many journalists, of different media, “in activity that cannot be concerted” and that, in some cases, which confirms that the editors knew the details of the pact proposed by González Amador before the mail that collected them arrived at the Attorney General. The law also indicates the publication of several news about the negotiations in accordance that the Civil Guard has not included in its reports or the judge in its cars; and “certain inaccuracies when there is no falsehoods” of Ayuso’s couple or his lawyer in the complaint with which the cause began.
According to law, all these elements can only lead to a conclusion: throughout March 12, 2024, the day Eldiario.es published that the Prosecutor’s Office had denounced by fraud to the Treasury to González Amador, it was revealed, also by sources of the defense environment and in response to that publication, which there were negotiations in accordance between the couple of the Madrid president and the Prosecutor’s Office. And the instruction has accredited, recalls the defense of García Ortiz, that the attorney general did not receive the mail that detailed that pact until the next day (at 21.59 of March 13).
The defense of the Head of the Public Ministry also warns that, even “in the hypothetical case” that the information about González Amador remained secret when García Ortiz received it, there are no “rational indications of crime” against the Attorney General. The law ensures that the judge insists that there are “multiple incriminatory indications – they are mentioned in almost all the foundations – but at no time are facts, objective data or factual elements that justify the imputation” of García Ortiz. “It would have been enough to enumerate them by points – although out of succinct manner -, which would have evidenced, due to its scarcity, the parking lot of incriminating sources actually available,” says the state lawyer.
The letter also focuses on statements included by the judge in the order for which the instruction ended that, in his opinion, lack “factual livelihood.” Among them, he emphasizes that Hurtado maintains that García Ortiz leaked the email of the Ayuso couple “following indications received from the presidency of the Government.” “The instruction proceedings practiced do not allow such an inference,” says the law that, among other arguments, recalls that the brief supposedly received by the Attorney General has different typography and format than the one who supposedly sent him the former high position of Moncloa Pilar Sánchez sidewalk to the then leader of the PSOE of Madrid, Juan Lobato.
The law also reproaches in his letter that Hurtado developed the order he proposes to judge García Ortiz before reading the letter presented by his defense in which he requested the case file. According to the State’s lawyer, his request for dismissal, of 42 pages, was notified in the resource, the judge was notified at 10.04 on Monday, June 9. And just 90 minutes later, at 11.35, the instructor notified his car. “The conclusion is imposed: the order of June 9, 2025 was already written before formally receiving the writing of this part, subsequently joining only generic dismissors of dismissal to appear – at least in the formal – a judicial assessment of our writing of dismissal of dismissal […] that in reality it never existed, ”says the law, for whom this way of acting directly violates constitutional law to a resolution already motivated a process with all guarantees.
