García Ortiz Denies Revealing Secrets Amidst Crossed Reproaches from His Prosecutors

The Supreme Court held the first session of the trial against the Attorney General for a crime of revealing secrets, for which he faces up to six years in prison and 12 more of disqualification. The scene of Álvaro García Ortiz sitting in the courtroom, dressed in his robe after arriving alone at the judicial headquarters in his official vehicle, is now part of Spanish judicial history. He is the first serving head of the Public Prosecutor's Office to sit in the dock. The top official of the 2,800 prosecutors in the career and the head of the institution that guarantees legality is under the scrutiny of seven judges of the Criminal Chamber. His only response so far—his statement is scheduled for November 12—was a resounding 'no' to the specific question from its president, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, about whether he assumed the writings of the accusations involved.

The inaugural day displayed the inherent tensions among all the actors involved and the crossed reproaches between two of García Ortiz's subordinate prosecutors, who highlighted the personal fractures in the leadership of Madrid. These differences were shown during the preliminary issues phase and in the first testimonies, which kicked off the trial.

On one side is the State Attorney's Office, defending García Ortiz, and the Supreme Prosecutor's Office vehemently advocating for the defendant's acquittal. They also detailed the series of alleged violations of fundamental rights that supposedly occurred during the investigation, which the court announced it would resolve in its ruling. On the other side, the defense of the complainant, Alberto González Amador, and the lawyers of the popular accusations involved, who strived to uphold the defendant's authorship.

García Ortiz, with a serious expression, impassively attended the interventions of the lawyers and the first witnesses, his subordinates. More than eight hours of oral hearing in this first session, which continues today with the presence of Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, chief of staff of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the Madrid president.

The first of the 40 witnesses to appear was prosecutor Julián Salto, key in the negotiation with the lawyer of Ayuso's partner. The member of the economic crimes unit declared two relevant things for the procedure: that his superiors learned from him on March 12, 2024, a day before the alleged revelation of the email by the Attorney General, about the offer from González Amador's lawyer to acknowledge the tax crimes in exchange for avoiding a prison sentence. Secondly, that they conveyed García Ortiz's urgency in reporting all the negotiation emails to prepare a press release that would refute certain published information that was not accurate. A request he saw as normal: 'It was legal, they told me that the interest of the case was González Amador's relationship with the president of Madrid,' he stated.

His boss at the Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Madrid preceded him in the room. Pilar Rodríguez, who was also investigated, assured the court that 'there was no secrecy' in reporting to her superiors about the 'emails' that were revealed to the press and for which García Ortiz is accused. But above all, if anything was clear from her testimony, it was her differences with the superior prosecutor of the Community of Madrid, Almudena Lastra, whom she blamed for the 'outburst' of the leak pointing to her top boss.

Rodríguez also expressed her surprise that since March 7, 2024, six days before the alleged email revelation, her colleague Lastra did not issue any press release about the complaint filed against González Amador for tax crimes when they already knew about the relationship with Ayuso and, therefore, it was not just any citizen.

In the case of Lastra, who presented herself as a theoretical witness against the Attorney General, she reiterated that she asked García Ortiz on March 14 about the email leak the previous night: 'He called me, and when I hung up before even saying good morning, I blurted out: "Did you leak the emails?" to which he replied: "That doesn't matter now, we need to issue the note" to refute the "hoax" by Miguel Ángel Rodríguez about the prosecutor's pact with González Amador's lawyer, when the offer was the other way around.'

Previously, the defense of the accused, led by State Attorney Consuelo Castro, highlighted 'the irregularities committed in the investigation' by Judge Ángel Hurtado, whom she accused of acting with 'the preconceived idea that the Attorney General was guilty,' seeking only 'incriminating evidence.' 'A lot of abstract complaints and none concrete,' responded the complainant's lawyer, Gabriel Rodríguez Ramos, in his turn.