The final trial for the state attorney general was held this Thursday. Alvaro Garcia OrtizThis is already seen in sentencing settings, where all parties have submitted final reports, but there are clear differences as to what evidence is most appropriate to consider in order to reach a verdict. innocent or guilty of the accused.
The first person I spoke to was a lawyer. Gabriel Rodriguez Ramosprivate prosecutor’s legal representative Alberto González Amador. In his speech, he very harshly criticized the role of journalist witnesses who took part during the proceedings.
“What will happen to journalists?” the lawyer asked himself about his intervention. “They have no legal obligation to respond, so they can take advantage of the following rights: Do not reveal sources” was the answer.
He compared his situation to that of the defendants, saying, “They have to be more careful than other witnesses because they are not obliged to answer questions if they don’t want to.” “I only said that because it means journalists are protected by their right to self-defense.” not self-incriminating. “Journalists’ statements should not be evaluated as ordinary testimony, as it is impossible to demand truthful statements from them,” he asserted.
He added: “We know that information is leaked from the prosecutor’s office to journalists and that journalists have a financial interest in preserving their sources. Need to be evaluated in a preventive manner journalist’s statement. ”
The rest of the accusations maintain this line of questioning intelligence experts’ statements. “Doesn’t seem to be particularly relevant “We bring the charges against the private whistleblower and his partner, the president of the Community of Madrid,” said the pseudo-union’s lawyer, Manos Medicas.
On the contrary, everyone protected me. UCO behaviorwhich focuses on García Ortiz’s guilt, is being questioned by the Ministry of Public Affairs and the defendant’s defense.
Since the accusations by Madrid’s prestigious association of lawyers (ICAM), they have downplayed the fact that the UCO completely copied the Attorney General’s device, even though it limited the number of hours lecturers could take. Even if everything fell apart, he insisted “Absolutely nothing was tested.” It does not result in “an invalidity of any kind” as it is outside the set time frame. He therefore calls the problem “artificial” and attributes it to the defense’s attempts to defeat the stop and search.
lawyer of Professional and Independent Prosecution Association (APIF) made similar interventions and lied in an attempt to defend the UCO and trial judge Ángel Hurtado.
He indicated that this margin was not mentioned in the first order and was introduced in a later order, and wanted to criticize UCO officials for not knowing that there was a time limit on the information they had to obtain from the attorney general’s office. That did not happen and the October 30th order showed a restriction between March 8th and that date, and the subsequent November 8th order showed a restriction. It was limited to March 8th to 14th..
The lawyer used his intervention to make a somewhat unfortunate analogy in order to eliminate the taboo that many people had access to the leaked emails before Garcia Ortiz. “Sometimes, multiple rapes“No one can imagine that a second or third rapist will go unpunished because the victim’s sexual freedom has already been violated with the first violation,” he asserted.
In response, Deputy Prosecutor Ángeles Sánchez Conde questioned the UCO’s report, particularly regarding the entry and search of the defendant’s office. “There is no evidence against the state attorney general in this report,” he argued, asserting the existence of a “” case.big logical failure that disables it. ”
In contrast, he emphasized the importance of journalists’ testimonies. According to prosecutors, these statements will allow them to objectively follow the trail and refute or confirm hypotheses about the cause of the leak. In it, he gave the example of Alfonso Pérez Medina, a journalist from La Sexta, and said that by showing a screenshot of the media’s courtroom WhatsApp group, it “undoubtedly proves that several journalists were talking about the following:” There were 2 emails”.
Along similar lines, the state attorney general’s office, which represents the attorney general, charged that “parallel trials may have occurred based on speculation, leaks, and partial readings that produced the facts.” Unfavorable environment for the presumption of innocence”.
Therefore, they focused on Request “cancellation” A look at the raids carried out at the offices of the Attorney General and the State Attorney General in Madrid, when UCO personnel cloned the electronic devices of both men.
They claim: private security guard himself They testified in court, photocopied all available materials, and took them away for later screening. “No legal compensation” This is because the investigative judge’s resolution, which set a deadline, was “executed under unexpected conditions.” “It has been proven that judicial police personnel do not comply with the orders of the investigating judge,” they said. “Alvaro García Ortiz is completely innocent,” he concluded.
About The Author
