A conviction without evidence for the state prosecutor?
MadridIn these pages we have already recalled on other occasions that on November 2, 2017, the then Secretary General of ERC, Marta Rovira, warned that what the Spanish justice system, hand in hand with the PP, was doing against the independence movement—imprisoning an entire government—would one day turn against the PSOE. That this moment has arrived is demonstrated once again with the start of the trial of the Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, a high point in the war that the right-wing-dominated Spanish judicial leadership launched against Pedro Sánchez when he agreed to an amnesty with Junts in exchange for remaining in power. Executive, because it would be inappropriate not to specify.
It is also worth remembering that José María Aznar asked that"Let whoever can do it, do it." And the judiciary has decided to challenge the political power in the Spanish government and Congress, both dominated by the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party). This context is essential to understanding several factors surrounding García Ortiz's trial. One is that under normal circumstances he would have resigned to face the trial, and that his refusal to do so is because it would set a dangerous precedent for the future that a "lie"—as his associates maintain—could bring down an entire institution like that of the Attorney General.
The second factor concerns the verdict. When the trial concludes, the court will face the dilemma of acquitting García Ortiz or convicting him without evidence. "Conviction can also occur based solely on circumstantial evidence," legal sources note. And this is the diabolical scenario of this case, which goes to trial despite journalists denying that the State Prosecutor leaked the email of Isabel Díaz Ayuso's partner—in fact, some have said they had it before he received it—and despite the judge finding no incriminating messages, García Ortiz claims.
Can the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court allow a conviction of the State Prosecutor without evidence? Can the right-wing judiciary—at least five of the seven members of the court are considered conservative—allow itself to acquit García Ortiz, which would deal a blow to the narrative of Ayuso's chief of staff, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, and a breath of fresh air to Pedro Sánchez?
Sources at number 4 Fortuny Street, the headquarters of the State Prosecutor's Office, are reluctant to say that a hypothetical conviction would be for "reasons unrelated to logical inference." In other words, for political reasons. But this week has been one of tour A retired judge, Manuel García-Castellón, became a media sensation. While the PSOE and Junts parties were negotiating adjustments to the amnesty in early 2024, he was attributing alleged actions to those investigated by the Democratic Tsunami movement that were not covered by the law. The magistrate's maneuvers forced changes to the wording to circumvent his attempts to torpedo the amnesty.
Who will speak out?
A hypothetical conviction of dubious merit would open a new opportunity to challenge such fundamental pillars of the State as the Supreme Court. Groups like the Catalan independence movement and Podemos have already launched a structural challenge, but will the PSOE, the party that shares the top positions in the Spanish judiciary with the PP, dare to do the same? The trial of the Attorney General, like that of the Catalan independence trial, is pivotal.
