Following the conviction of the Attorney General, could the case against Ayuso's boyfriend now come to nothing?

BarcelonaThe Supreme Court's decision to disqualify the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, came just a week after the trial ended, but the drafting of the ruling could take much longer and run to dozens of pages. Legal experts consulted by ARA are awaiting the judges' arguments, which will require them to justify how, based on the evidence presented at the trial—the journalists exonerated him—they concluded that García Ortiz was the one who leaked the messages in which the lawyer for businessman Alberto González Amador Ayuso attempted to reach a plea bargain with the Prosecutor's Office and admitted that his client had committed tax fraud. While awaiting the judges' justification, the connection between the two cases is leading various voices to question the potential impact of the Attorney General's conviction on the González Amador case.

For Montserrat Nebrera, professor of constitutional law at the International University of Catalonia (UIC), the Supreme Court's decision presents González Amador with "a very clear possibility" of requesting the annulment of the proceedings. "Evidence has been compromised, as has his right to a defense. Even if it is a plea agreement, this does not negate the fact that it reveals the defense strategy," Nebrera argues. Conversely, Josep Antoni Rodríguez, a judge of the Barcelona Provincial Court, believes that the tax fraud procedure It should proceed without any impact from the Attorney General's conviction. "What has occurred is an incident in the negotiations with the Prosecutor's Office to reach a plea agreement, which is done once the investigation is complete," and, he adds, without the judges who are to try him having any information. "The defense can try, but the evidence against him will be the expert reports and the reports from the Tax Agency," Rodríguez says, in agreement with other legal sources.

"I didn't see any conclusive evidence"

Criminal lawyer Mercedes García Arán, professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), raises "doubts about the responsibility" of García Ortiz and his authorship. Nebrera also admits that after following the trial, "he didn't see conclusive evidence for a conviction." Rodríguez is surprised by the sentence because "it seemed that, from the point of view of the presumption of innocence, it could have led to an acquittal."

Awaiting the publication of the text of the court ruling, the magistrate anticipates that "the reasoning for the conviction is most likely based on circumstantial evidence, from which a deduction must be made," and expresses his "concern" that, in this case, there will be no option for another court to review the reasoning. The Attorney General's protected status has meant that he is being tried directly in this court, and now the only possible appeal is to the Constitutional Court—after a motion for annulment before the Supreme Court itself—which can rule on violations of rights but cannot review the Supreme Court's reasoning. Since it is a disqualification from public office, experts say there is no possibility of a pardon. Regarding the €10,000 compensation set by the court, García Arán believes the payment should be borne by the State, which is subsidiarily liable in cases of officials who commit crimes while in office. Nebrera, however, points out that if it is an amount that García Ortiz can afford, then the State should not have to pay it. This detail will be clarified in the ruling when the judges publish it in the coming days.