When the sentence condemning the State Attorney General for revealing secrets of Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s boyfriend is notified, at least one of the popular accusations, the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF), will ask the Supreme Court to execute the sentence.
For Álvaro García Ortiz it means that he will be disqualified for two years from holding the position he holds today, that of top head of the State Attorney General’s Office.
But, after hearing the sentence, it is assumed that García Ortiz’s defense, the State Attorney’s Office, will raise an incident of annulment, which must be resolved by the Chamber itself and implies the exhaustion of the jurisdictional avenue. Although some legal sources suggest that it would not be mandatory to go through the historically required nullity incident, after the TC modified its doctrine in 2013.
The legal sources familiar with the case point out to LA RAZÓN that the key will be whether the court decides not to execute the disqualification until it resolves the allegations with which García Ortiz will defend that his fundamental rights have been violated and he has not been able to previously denounce it by other means.
It is the previous step to going before the Constitutional Court for protection (for violation of fundamental rights), based on the two dissenting votes of the majority issued by judges Susana Polo and Ana Ferrer.
Within this allegation before the Court of guarantees, it may include the request that, as a very precautionary measure (with an “express” resolution) or precautionary measure, the processing of which takes around two months, the execution of the sentence that removes him as attorney general be suspended until his appeal against the decision of the High Court to declare him guilty is resolved.
Sources from the TC explain that it is foreseeable that the provisional suspension of the execution of the sentence will not prosper and recall the precedent of Judge Javier Gómez de Liaño, when the Supreme Court sentenced him in 1999 to 15 years of disqualification for prevarication.
The magistrate asked the high court to suspend the sentence while it decided on the petition for pardon that he had registered and the appeal for protection that he proposed to file. The court denied it, arguing that the application of the disqualification would not frustrate the purpose pursued by the pardon.
Liaño tried again through his appeal for protection, once again requesting the provisional suspension of the execution of this sentence, as a precautionary measure, and, after forming a separate piece of the TC, months later he gave up his attempt.
Furthermore, the ruling confirming that García Ortiz would have revealed secrets of the tax case against Alberto González will also be used by the businessman’s defense in the trial for defrauding the Tax Agency. Sources close to him indicate his intention to bring before the court that judges him that he would not have had the right to a trial with all procedural guarantees.
“He’s going to try, it’s another matter if he succeeds,” says a jurist with knowledge of his case, and leaves a reflection: “That the leadership of the Public Prosecutor’s Office commits crimes against you may have relevance for the body that prosecutes you.”