The Appeals Room of the Supreme Court He has unanimously dismissed the resources against the registration of the Office of the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, and the provincial chief prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez, in the case for revelation of secrets of the couple of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, Alberto González Amador Amador . The court has fully endorsed cars which instructor Ángel Hurtado, in charge of the investigation on October 30.
The car has unanimously issued the three magistrates who have studied the matter, Julián Sánchez Melgar, Andrés Alomo and Eduardo de Porres. The three have advocated dismissing the resources presented by prosecutor Ángeles Sánchez-Conde; the State Advocacy, which represents García Ortiz; and the defense of Pilar Rodríguez.
In the cars appealed, the instructor Ángel Hurtado ordered the UCO to entry and register in the offices “in order to proceed to the intervention of all those computer devices, objects, documents and other effects that could be related to a crime of relief of Secrets “. The cause against the State Attorney General, and given the obstacle that the professional journalistic secret, The Supreme magistrate chose to investigate the accused mobile phones.
His approach now has received the very clear support from the Chamber, which he considers that this was “the only way to clarify what happened” and remember that “neither the State Attorney General’s Office nor any other institution have a guarantee of immunity.”
Rodríguez’s mobile analysis revealed the interest of the attorney general to obtain the emails of the Prosecutor’s Office and the lawyer of González Amador on the same night that they ended up leaking completely, once the chief of the Cabinet of Ayuso had already spread a part. The analysis of the attorney general only revealed that García Ortiz treasured “zero messages” exchanged at the time of filtration, between March 8 and 14, 2024.
While the Prosecutor’s Office and the defenses of Rodríguez and García Ortiz considered that the diligence ordered by Hurtado was “disproportionate” and was an unjustified interference in the right to privacy, the Appeals Chamber sentence now that “the investigation was necessary.”
The Auto argues that Hurtado was assigned the cause because there were “sufficient indications to investigate the crime.” In addition, being a crime “supposedly committed by telematic means, It can only be investigated by those own means“.” It is the only way to clarify it. “The Chamber, in fact, emphasizes in the 47 folios car that the indications of crime are” not only enough, but exhaustive “, and remember that these have been valued both by the court Superior of Justice of Madrid, as for the Admission Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Also, the car emphasizes that García Ortiz’s office is “the only place where the devices that must be studied are found, because that is where such devices are found.” Motivation, therefore, is “reinforced” by the “concrete circumstances of the investigated case”.
If it was concluded that García Ortiz’s office, due to his status as State Attorney General, is “a place of impossible judicial prospecting”, this “would lead to the resignation of the same investigation and the consequent creation of an area of impunity that is not anywhere or section of our legal system. ”
This is stated by the Chamber, which later reformulates it by rejecting the possibility of instituting “a privilege for the agoras that, constitutionally, cannot be proclaimed in our rule of law.” In short, the high court indicates that the registration took place “In a public building”in which “of course the fulfillment of legality must be guaranteed.” “Without the entrance to the public building, the intervention of the devices and communications that are considered indispensable to continue with the present investigation would not be possible,” summarizes the Appeals Chamber.
In any case, the Court admits that, “certainly” in these units there are “multiple files whose revelation could affect the administration of justice and the privacy of third parties.” But in this regard, the Chamber has an effort to “insist once again that the alleged crime would have been committed through communication technology” and in pointing out that “The crimes committed by computer or telematic means must be investigated by the commission’s own route.”
Therefore, the measure adopted by the instructor Ángel Hurtado is “absolutely suitable” in the eyes of the room, which considers that “the need is also evident, because it is the only way to access the way in which the email” investigated “was revealed . The Supreme Court acknowledges that initially, when the instructor ordered to analyze the information contained in mobile phones between March 8 and October 30, “The initial cars were excessively extensive”. “Of course, such a temporary amplitude was inadequate and unnecessary.” However, the magistrate himself retracted in a car of November 8 in which he limited the analysis to six days, between March 8 and 14.
#Supreme #Court #endorses #registration #García #Ortizs #office #dump #mobile #clarify #crime
