The attorney general presents himself as the victim of an "unfair" and "biased" procedure.

MadridA brief No This was the only intervention by the Attorney General in the first session of the trial at the Supreme Court. Álvaro García Ortiz denied with this monosyllable that he considers himself "responsible" for the disclosure of secrets of which he is accused, when the presiding judge, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, asked him the question at the beginning of the hearing. His defense team was responsible for presenting their arguments – they will not testify until November 12. The Attorney General, Consuelo Castro, issued a comprehensive rebuke of Judge Ángel Hurtado's investigation, deeming it "biased," "inquisitorial," and "prospective." "He was subjected to an unfair procedure," Castro emphasized, arguing that García Ortiz suffered "defenselessness" and that a series of fundamental rights were violated, including the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and effective judicial protection.

With this argument against Hurtado's actions, the state attorney in charge of the defense of the attorney general has tried to deactivate one of the key elements in the case, namely the absence of messages on the devices seized during the search of his office on October 30, 2024. A report from the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard He concluded that the Attorney General deleted them at the same time as his indictment. What the prosecution considers evidence of guilt, the defense and the Public Prosecutor's Office see as grounds for acquittal, since no proof could be found that he sent any journalist the email in which Alberto González Amador, Isabel Díaz Ayuso's partner, admitted to tax fraud and proposed a plea bargain. Castro has requested the annulment of the search and all subsequent proceedings and reports, which would render the case meaningless because the absence of messages could not be considered evidence.

"The seizure of devices is not to determine guilt; if they say so, it's because they know there could be incriminating evidence," countered one of the private prosecutions, brought by the far-right organization Foro Libertad y Alternativa. All of them have opposed the defense's request, which was supported by the Public Prosecutor's Office. The court has decided not to resolve the matter until the verdict, given the complexity of the debate, which has caused the witnesses scheduled to testify this Monday to begin late and prevented adherence to the initially established timetable.

Internal contradictions

In a session lasting over eight and a half hours, four prosecutors testified who were involved in the critical moments that led to the email leak. The questioning of Madrid's provincial prosecutor, Pilar Rodríguez, and the chief prosecutor of the Community of Madrid, Almudena Lastra, with contradictions between their accounts, highlighted the internal power struggle within the Public Prosecutor's Office. According to Lastra, she warned Rodríguez that it was dangerous to give information about the case to the State Attorney General's Office. "Pilar, they'll leak them. Please don't do anything," she said she told the provincial prosecutor regarding the steps she was taking, at García Ortiz's request, to obtain the emails of prosecutor Julián Salto, who was in charge of the tax fraud investigation against González Amador. Rodríguez denied that Lastra gave her this warning. "A lightbulb would have gone off in my head if someone had told me that. In any case, I never think that any member of the Public Prosecutor's Office would intend to carry out a leak," she replied. For his part, Salto recounted how Rodríguez made it clear to him on the night of March 13, 2024, while he was attending a football match, the Attorney General's urgency to know the details of the plea agreement after The World It was published that it was an initiative of the Prosecutor's Office. From the stadium, Salto forwarded the communications that refuted the newspaper's version to both Rodríguez, who sent them to the Attorney General, and to Lastra.

The prosecutor for economic crimes has framed the act of informing his superiors about a matter of media relevance as "normal" and "legal," given that the Prosecutor's Office is a hierarchical institution that includes "the obligation" to "report" to the Attorney General. Although they all had the emails at the time the investigators placed the leak, Lastra agreed with both the investigating judge and the prosecution in focusing on García Ortiz.

Lastra criticized the Attorney General's haste as well as the fact that he was willing to disseminate personal information that she considered unnecessary in the press release. In contrast, Rodríguez recounted that the chief prosecutor of Madrid harbored animosity towards the team at the State Attorney General's Office and had to intervene herself due to the obstacles being placed in the way of preparing a press release that would refute the false version of events.The World. Lastra defended her reluctance to report on González Amador because he was "a private citizen" and not a public figure, even though he was Ayuso's partner.

The trial will continue this Tuesday with the testimony of two witnesses the court has not yet had time to hear – the press officers for the State Attorney General's Office, Mar Hedo, and for the Madrid Prosecutor's Office, Íñigo Corral. In the afternoon, two of the key figures in the proceedings will testify: Ayuso's chief of staff, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, and the Madrid president's partner.