Why hasn't the Supreme Court made the sentence against the Attorney General public?

MadridThe Supreme Court reported two weeks ago that disqualified the Attorney General of the StateThe decision was communicated, but the full text of the ruling—including the reasons for the conviction—was to be released later. The urgency with which the judges deliberated, barely a week after the trial ended, surprised everyone. Since then, every morning the question lingers: will this be the day we learn the verdict? But it still hasn't arrived. And this has prompted multiple interpretations: Supreme Court sources consulted by ARA maintain that the delay "is neither extraordinary nor unusual," while the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF) expresses "deep concern" and denounces "institutional mistreatment." Be that as it may, the reality is that Álvaro García Ortiz resigned from his position and the Spanish government initiated the replacement process, which will culminate in the coming days with the formal appointment of her replacementTeresa Peramato, in fact, could take office before the content of the sentence against her predecessor is known.

Is it common to announce a decision in advance? When asked by this publication, sources within the Supreme Court themselves justify that announcing the decision in advance is normal practice in "high-profile or significant cases" or in cases with dissenting opinions—those that disagree with the majority verdict. In this case, the two progressive judges were in favor of acquittal and will issue a dissenting opinion. Furthermore, they point out that the Constitutional Court usually announces its decisions before releasing the full judgments.

A lawyer representing a private prosecution against the Attorney General told ARA that the waiting time "is nothing out of the ordinary" and denies that there is "any delay." Another lawyer adds that "it would be strange if the sentence were issued more quickly," because the Supreme Court "must reason extensively" and considers it "reasonable and logical" to first announce the sentence and then draft the judgment. However, retired Supreme Court Justice José Antonio Martín Pallín believes that "it is not normal" that so many days have passed and sees it as "disrespectful."

The Supreme Court cites other examples of cases in which time has passed between the announcement of the decision and the issuance of the sentence: one month and ten days in the murder of Asunta by his parents, fifty days in the case of the EREs in Andalusia –with August in between–, eight days in the cancellation of the acquisition of Bankia shares in its initial public offering and six days in the appeal by the Franco family against the exhumation of the dictatorFurther back, in 2003, the Supreme Court outlawed Batasuna: first it announced it, and ten days later, the ruling was published.

An "inappropriate and inappropriate" comparison

Progressive prosecutors reject this comparison, deeming it "clearly improper and inappropriate," given that in previous cases—except for the Batasuna case—the Supreme Court resolved appeals—the final instance after lower court rulings—whereas in the case of the Attorney General, it must "issue the first instance," they argue. Furthermore, in this case, with an Attorney General in the dock, they demand "enhanced standards of justification, transparency, and respect for due process." The UPF's latest move has been to request that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers... Review the case against the state attorney general following the "serious anomalies" and the "succession of irregularities" that he believes have occurred.

In a statement released last week, the UPF (Progressive Prosecutors' Union) denounced the "lack of legal justification," which keeps society in a "state of uncertainty" that is "incompatible" with the "regular functioning of justice in a democracy." "The justification is essential and cannot be delayed," they emphasized. The progressive prosecutors argued that announcing the decision without detailing its reasoning "breaks democratic standards of transparency and justice," produces "serious legal uncertainty," and generates "institutional and personal damage that is difficult to repair." "When the justification is delayed for days or weeks, public trust weakens, democratic debate is muddied, and suspicions are fueled that harm all institutions," they added.

The change of rapporteur

Partly, one of the reasons that precipitated the announcement of the Attorney General's conviction was the change in the presiding judge. Initially, the progressive Susana Polo—known in Catalonia for having handled the Tsunami Democràtic case against Carles Puigdemont—was tasked with drafting the opinion. However, since she favored acquittal and was in the minority—only Ana Ferrer supported her—the drafting of the opinion ultimately fell to the president of the Criminal Chamber, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, shielded by the court's conservative majority: five to two. Sources at the Supreme Court admit that it was foreseeable that this change would become public knowledge and, therefore, it could be deduced that the verdict would be a conviction. And the Supreme Court chose to make it official and prevent Álvaro García Ortiz from finding out through other channels.

In fact, six days after the Supreme Court's decision was announced, The Hour of La1 He released an audio recording In the recording, Andrés Martínez Arrieta was heard saying, "I conclude that I have to deliver the Attorney General's verdict," at the end of his presentation at a course organized by the Center for Studies of the Madrid Bar Association—which was one of the private prosecutors in the García Ortiz trial. With hindsight, this suggested that if he were to deliver the verdict, it would be a guilty one.