Let no one be fooled. The entire political, media and judicial framework does not point directly to the State Attorney General but, by elevation, seeks a possible accusation of the President of the Government, who had an unfortunate intervention when he said that the Prosecutor’s Office depended on the Government
In the course of a judicial investigation, the accumulation of solid incriminating evidence against the person investigated logically and rationally provokes the decision of the person involved, presumably on the advice of his lawyer, to request from the Public Prosecutor’s Office the possibility of reaching an agreement on the penalty that could arise from an unequivocally criminal act. I do not have verified statistical data, but it can be assured that, over the course of a judicial year, there may be thousands of requests to reach an agreement that ends with a judicial resolution in accordance with the interests of the petitioner.
If we project this incidence on crimes against the Public Treasury, the figure increases proportionally because it is a crime that admits few possibilities of defense when the inspection of the Tax Agency, after a laborious and methodical procedure, has reached the conclusion of that the fraud exceeds the 120,000 limit, the limit of the criminal border.
The request for a consent, in no case can be considered as a secret, the knowledge of which interferes with the investigation procedures underway or with the defense possibilities of the person who takes it. There is a Protocol, signed on April 1, 2009, between the State Attorney General’s Office and the General Council of the Legal Profession of Spain that regulates the way in which possible conformities should be developed. The Prosecutor’s Office has issued an Instruction to develop the conformity mechanism. Requests addressed to the prosecutor by defense lawyers must be attended to with maximum speed and diligence, offering personal and direct contact in the minimum necessary time. Try to avoid a forced and formal bureaucratic procedure for the relationship between lawyers and prosecutors. When there are injured parties and victims, compliance cannot be carried out behind closed doors.
Conformity must be carried out with full transparency, according to the Protocol, without prejudice to the fact that negotiations, exchanges of proposals, haggling or adjustments enjoy confidentiality. In the case that is being investigated, what appears in the media is the address of an email, which is unquestionably private data of the person, in this case a lawyer, who owns it. Requesting possible compliance from the Prosecutor’s Office is a personal initiative that does not affect the secrecy of the proceedings nor compromise your defense possibilities. The Protocol allows that you can withdraw, at any stage of the procedure and even at the moment of beginning the oral trial sessions, which shows that your defense possibilities remain intact.
The person who freely and voluntarily states that they want compliance cannot allege, if this fact is published, that their privacy has been violated or their secrets revealed. Consequently, your complaint, in my opinion, has no chance of succeeding due to the absence of a crime. The only personal data contained in the widely disseminated email is that which emerges from the acronyms or component elements that identify its owner. Knowing the name of the lawyer involved in a case of public relevance provides him with publicity that in no way harms him.
In the case that is being pursued against the State Attorney General, everything starts from the publication of a note from the president of the Community of Madrid (I do not conceive that any chief of staff acts without the permission or consent of his superior) addressed to the newspaper He World which reaches levels of distortion and lies that are hardly compatible with the obligations of any public servant in the framework of political confrontation. It was said that it was the prosecutor who had approached the president’s partner’s lawyer proposing a compromise and that the State Attorney General had opposed this decision. The writer of the note should have known that in 99.99% of cases it is the lawyer who logically requests compliance and that in the vast majority the attorney general does not know how said request is processed.
Faced with this falsehood, the attorney general reacted indignantly. He considered that public opinion deserved truthful information according to the guidelines established by the Constitution. The information note issued by the Prosecutor’s Office is impeccable, to the point that the Supreme Court has considered that it does not constitute a crime; However, surprisingly, it considers that there is a possible crime of revealing secrets that affects the right of defense. I fail to understand what the objective of the investigation has been set by the investigating magistrate who has been responsible for processing the complaints in which, of course, Clean Hands could not be missing.
The attitude of the Governing Board of the Madrid Bar Association is also surprising. He files an unprecedented complaint, at least in the recent annals of this institution. There are several lawyers who are waiting for a reasoned and reasonable explanation of this initiative because, as they themselves say in their writing, we are faced with an extraordinarily singular, anomalous and unprecedented intervention by the Bar Association.
Finally, let no one be fooled. The entire political, media and judicial framework does not point directly to the State Attorney General but, by elevation, seeks a possible accusation of the President of the Government, who had an unfortunate intervention when he said that the Prosecutor’s Office depended on the Government. From the perspective of the general principles of law and the guarantees of due process, it can be affirmed that the investigating magistrate of the Supreme Court, with serious violation of the principle of proportionality and notorious lack of rationality, ordered entry into the office of Álvaro García Ortiz (sic) and not that of the Attorney General of the State, to seize and dump the hard drives of all the computer terminals of the general service of the Prosecutor’s Office in which information from all the Prosecutor’s Offices in Spain and the organizations in charge are contained. of state security.
The Organic Law of the Judiciary considers it a very serious offense to issue resolutions that cause serious harm to the public interest or harm fundamental rights. It does not seem that a disciplinary file will be initiated nor is a statement or comment expected on the seriousness of the decision to authorize entry into the headquarters of the State Attorney General’s Office without justified cause. I predict a future of the procedure that will surely surprise many readers. It is almost certain that some of the accusations will request that a reasoned statement be submitted to the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court so that the President of the Government can be investigated and possibly agree, it is a hypothesis, the nullity of the procedure followed against Amador González (A very particular citizen) for violation of fundamental rights. True things, friend Sancho.
#Compliance #secrets #hard #drives
