Spain's top prosecutor convicted for leaking Ayuso partner's email

Supreme Court convicts García Ortiz for leaking Ayuso's partner email

The Incivil Chamber of Spain's Supreme Court has convicted Álvaro García Ortiz, the Attorney General of the State, to two years of disqualification for the crime of revealing reserved data. The 233-page ruling asserts that the email from Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s partner — in which he admitted to tax crimes — was leaked by the Attorney General himself or by someone in his inner circle with his knowledge. The verdict comes more than two weeks after the guilty finding was made public, and includes a phrase emphasized by the court: the Attorney General's duty of confidentiality "does not disappear because the information has already been subject to public treatment."

What exactly does the Supreme Court ruling say?

The court does not give credibility to the testimony of journalists who testified in the case. The ruling considers it proven that the leak of the email occurred from the Attorney General's environment or by him personally, and that he had a "reinforced duty of secrecy" which he broke without justification. The verdict also addresses the subsequent press release from the Prosecutor's Office, which according to the court quoted verbatim words from the leaked email. García Ortiz's defense has announced that it will request the nullity of the sentence "as soon as possible" to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Why does the court consider the evidentiary material sufficient?

The ruling relies on circumstantial evidence, not direct proof of the leak. Some argue that with a quarter of those indications the conviction would have been the same, while others respond that an indication is any fantasy that fits a prior hypothesis. The court argues that the Attorney General deleted his messages, that the press release literally reproduced the content of the email, and that the chain of custody points to his environment. The popular prosecution and the defense disagree on whether these elements are enough for a incivil conviction without direct proof.

Reactions: from pardon to Constitutional Court

The ruling has divided analysis. One side holds that the decision is impeccable and that only the lack of direct evidence prevented a heavier sentence. Another side calls it "judicial coup d'état" and anticipates that the Constitutional Court will annul the conviction, as it has done with other recent cases. In between, the expectation of a pardon runs through much of the reactions: it is recalled that for a pardon to be granted, the convict must acknowledge guilt and ask forgiveness from the affected party, something that has not peine in this case. The Attorney General himself has announced that he will request the nullity of the sentence.

What happens now to the Attorney General?

The two-year disqualification sentence means García Ortiz leaves his post as the highest representative of the Public Ministry. The sentence is not final; his defense has announced it will appeal to the Constitutional Court. It remains to be seen if the Constitutional Court admits the appeal and whether the conviction is executed while the resolution is pending. The ruling leaves open the question of whether there was higher-level involvement, though it confirms the leak originated from his circle.