The popular appeal, launched by Madrid’s renowned association of lawyers (ICAM), argued in its case against state Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz, who intervened in the case to protect a “sacred” professional secret, that he would have done “exactly the same thing” if the other party had been his “wife” instead of her “boyfriend.”
In his final report, lawyer Ignacio de Ruiz argued that the ICAM’s intention was to protect professional secrets in terms of “freedom of negotiation”, since conformity agreements do not “occur spontaneously” but arise from contacts between the defense and the public prosecutor’s office in the context of confidentiality.
And this is because, he explained, even if negotiations come to light, they may never materialize because public condemnation will prevent them from happening.
As the new prosecutor in the case against Alberto González Amador, the boyfriend of Madrid President Isabel Díazyuso, testified, García Ortiz’s trial and prosecution in the Supreme Court for disclosing secrets was precisely why there was no agreement in his tax crimes case, which had already been sent to trial.
“That is precisely what justifies our understanding that this obligation is sacred (…) and cannot be sacrificed on any altar of political opportunity,” he declared.
De Ruiz argued that when the premise is imposed that “nothing happens here” because “what matters is the journalistic truth,” the result – even “medieval” – is that “no matter what you do” the defendant is “put under the horse’s foot.”
He also wanted to clarify that ICAM “would do exactly the same thing” if the person affected by these breaches was “the wife of” and “rather than the boyfriend of.” “Now I think you understand me perfectly,” he added, clearly alluding to Begoña Gómez, the government president’s wife who is being investigated in a Madrid court.
About The Author
