The dean of the Madrid Bar Association, who is prosecuting the popular accusation against the attorney general, assures that “the defense cannot be sacrificed on the altar of the media story.” Eugenio Ribón insists, just a few hours before the trial, that “there is no legal or ethical coverage that allows professional secrecy to be violated.”
Why should García Ortiz be convicted according to the ICAM?
Because, in our legal opinion, there is qualified evidence and sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence. All the elements of the criminal offense of revealing secrets are present. Such indications have been appreciated by both the TSJ of Madrid and the Supreme Court.
The presence of the College as a popular accusation has been the subject of criticism. Was it unavoidable?
Whoever launches that type of criticism does so from a political perspective and, in law, that is not acceptable. It was an institutional duty. According to our legal analysis, there is a violation of the right to defense and fair process. The right of defense is not an abstraction or a theoretical approach, it is a real and operational guarantee that the Constitution enshrines. We judge facts, not types of people; The condition, political color or any other subjective consideration of one or the other is indifferent.
What is at stake in this trial for the legal profession?
The solidity of one of the stones of the Rule of Law: the inviolability of the right of defense. What is discussed here is not a political or media question, but rather whether it is admissible for a criminal negotiation protected by professional secrecy to be publicly disseminated from the very institution that should guarantee its confidentiality. If this becomes normal, the constitutional system of guarantees will crack, and with it the confidence of citizens that they will be able to defend themselves equally before the law. Fundamental rights cannot be trivialized under the cover of political stories, hoaxes, or possible journalistic neutralizations.
What does it mean for the world of Justice that an attorney general sits on the bench?
That we are all subject to the law and a test of the maturity of the system. That the attorney general is tried with full guarantees, with the presumption of innocence, but without privileges due to his position, reaffirms the idea that no one is above the law. Obviously, it is an unprecedented event, but the underlying message must be constructive: democratic institutions are strengthened when there are mechanisms that allow irregularities to be controlled, even in high State institutions.
Should I have resigned?
That is a decision that corresponds to the affected person themselves. We do not enter into demands for institutional responsibility. The suspension corresponds to the Prosecutor’s Office itself, since there is no specific regulation for a case like this, certainly anomalous. That said, the presumption of innocence is not incompatible with circumventing the charge in order to preserve institutional neutrality. But that is a general reflection, not a requirement.
The ICAM has not commented on the request for precautionary suspension of its position that other popular accusations have claimed. Because?
Because it was not at all clear that the Second Chamber could rule on a question of an administrative nature, and this has been understood by the instructor, confirmed by the Appeals Chamber. Our function focuses on the criminal assessment of the facts and the defense of essential principles of our profession. The decision corresponds, as I have said before, to Mr. García Ortiz and the Prosecutor’s Office as an institution.
Does denying a hoax justify disclosing negotiations for a conformity agreement?
At all. There is no legal or ethical coverage that allows the professional secrecy or confidentiality of communications between the lawyer and the Prosecutor’s Office to be violated, not even to deny inaccurate information. What can never be done is to correct a media error by committing another more serious one. The defense cannot be sacrificed on the altar of the media story. Procedural guarantees are not interchangeable for criteria of political or communicative opportunity.
The attorney general deleted his messages the same day the Supreme Court opened the criminal case. Does that strengthen the evidence against him?
It is an objective fact that appears in the case and that will be assessed by the court. We are not going to anticipate conclusions now, but we will point out that this behavior, at the very least, raises legitimate doubts. The disappearance of potentially relevant communications can be interpreted as interference in the search for the truth. In any case, that assessment corresponds to the trial chamber. We have included it in our factual account because we understand that it is relevant.
If García Ortiz is acquitted, what situation is the ICAM in, which asks for 4 years in prison?
First, a nuance. We have provisionally classified it as maximum because, for the sake of the principle of proportionality, the indicative facts are of notable seriousness. After the practice of the test, the final qualification will come. That said, prosecution is a task that can yield various results, including, not surprisingly, acquittal. If so, the College will not be compromised at all. What had to be done has been done. If the court considers that the elements for a conviction are not met, we will abide by that decision with the same firmness with which we have defended our position. In law, an outcome of conviction or acquittal must be accepted with the same degree of normality, because in both cases the guarantees will have worked. The important thing is to have urged the purging of responsibilities and not to remain aside.
Will it leave consequences in the relationship between the legal profession and the Prosecutor’s Office?
At all. It is an isolated case. The Prosecutor’s Office operates daily with a very high level of competence, professionalism and legal rigor. The ICAM has been very clear on this: a specific action, no matter how serious, cannot cloud the tax career or the fluidity in professional relationships. If something should come out of this case reinforced, it is mutual respect and the need to improve mechanisms for the protection of secrecy and confidentiality, the nuclear essence of any negotiation of criminal compliance, whether it crystallizes or not.
Beyond the fact that he must appear as a witness, will he attend the trial sessions?
I’ll go when it’s my turn. The ICAM exercises its role with full functions, which translates into an active presence in the trial through the procedural action of our legal direction.