The Spanish Supreme Court has taken a significant step toward prosecuting the Attorney General, a historically unprecedented move, following an investigation into the leak of confidential data concerning Alberto González Amador, the partner of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, President of the Community of Madrid.

This incident occurred in March of the previous year and involved allegations of tax fraud.

After an eight-month investigation, Judge Ángel Hurtado has decided to prosecute both the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, and Pilar Rodríguez, the Chief Prosecutor of Madrid, citing sufficient evidence that García Ortiz committed a crime of revealing secrets.

This revelation culminated in the publication of an email dated February 2, 2024, in which González Amador’s then-lawyer informed the prosecution of his client’s admission of tax fraud and willingness to reach a plea agreement.

Judge Hurtado indicated that a series of communications had been exchanged among various prosecutors, primarily through WhatsApp, following indications received from the Presidency of the Government.

This was aimed at countering claims made by a news outlet on March 13, 2024, which suggested that it was the prosecution that had offered a plea deal to González Amador.

The judge noted that this effort was aimed at controlling the narrative about the negotiations, claiming that the initiative for a deal had not originated from the Attorney General's office.

According to the judge’s findings, evidence suggests that instructions were received from the Government’s Presidency to utilize the information available for political purposes.

The information involved sensitive details about an individual’s case that were intended to be kept private between the defense attorney and the prosecutor.

The judge emphasized the confidentiality protocols outlined by the Attorney General’s Office, which mandate discretion during such negotiations, reinforcing that unauthorized disclosures could significantly harm an individual's reputation.

The leaked contents are said to severely undermine the credibility of the prosecution, as the office is constitutionally tasked with functions bound by principles of legality and impartiality.

Such external influences could threaten the fundamental rights of the accused.

With the court now elevating the proceedings to a preliminary hearing phase, García Ortiz is nearing trial, contingent on the submission of formal charges from private accusers, as the prosecution itself has refrained from pursuing this action—maintaining support for García Ortiz throughout the investigative process.

The judicial order details the rapid actions taken by the Attorney General to obtain emails exchanged between the prosecutor handling González Amador's fraud case, Julián Salto, and the businessman’s defense counsel, which included the pivotal February 2 email acknowledging the accused’s intention to negotiate a plea.

The investigation also notes that this email was funneled to governmental officials, including a director in the Prime Minister's Cabinet, who subsequently instructed a Socialist Party spokesperson to present the information during a parliamentary session targeting Ayuso.

Additionally, allegations have surfaced that García Ortiz deleted messages and all information from his devices, potentially obstructing the investigation's progress.

Judge Hurtado rejected the defense's argument that since some journalists were reportedly aware of the admissions made by González Amador, no confidential information was being disclosed.

He clarified that secrets are intrinsically linked to personal privacy and have constitutional protection, meaning that unauthorized revelations can cause significant harm.

The deliberations also stressed the sensitive and confidential nature of the personal information contained in the email dated February 2, 2024. The judge argued that the confidentiality of this information was violated when it was disclosed without the individual's consent, distinguishing it from other communications that lacked such sensitive content.

In a further note, the prosecutor’s office attempted to publicly clarify aspects of the negotiation process, which included sensitive particulars that were not authorized for public release, thereby reinforcing the legal protections surrounding such private communications.