The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has accepted for processing the complaint filed by Alberto González Amador, partner of the Madrid president, against Pilar Rodríguez, chief prosecutor of the Madrid Provincial Prosecutor’s Office; and Julián Salto, prosecutor of the Economic Crimes Section of the same Prosecutor’s Office, for the alleged commission of the crime of revealing secrets by an official for leaking through a press release the content of some emails between the prosecutor investigating González and your lawyer to reach a settlement agreement and avoid trial for tax fraud.
In the same order, the Chamber accepts the reasoned statement submitted by the titular magistrate of the Court of Instruction number 18 of Madrid, corresponding to the complaint filed for the same facts by the Madrid Bar Association, which is held to be a party in quality of popular accusation.
In the order, the Chamber considers that “without the admission of a complaint being ever understood as an act of advance accusation, nor a finalized classification of the facts, the true scope of all the facts related in the written statement must be investigated.” the complaint, and likewise analyzed in the reasoned exposition, since only in this way can an essential purpose of the summary be fulfilled” and study whether a crime was committed.
The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJ of Madrid does not agree with the Public Prosecutor’s Office when it considers that the complaint should be inadmissible, given that, in its opinion, “the facts reported therein are atypical”, that is, that It does not involve any crime.
The judges, on the other hand, understand that this argument limits the debate from a very specific perspective that does not seem to encompass all the projections of the criminal sphere of the revelation of secrets.
Although – say the magistrates – in its report the Public Prosecutor’s Office gives reasons for why it provided an information note “to get to know certain information, and denies that this information note contains anything that was not known, and affirms that it was seen empowered by its own organic regulations by linking to the free exercise of freedom of information the duty to convey to society the newsworthy fact”, what is involved in this case – the resolution continues – is to analyze whether it has been violated. the duty of confidentiality and secrecy inherent to criminal proceedings, which includes pre-procedural proceedings carried out by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Hence, he believes that, in his opinion, an investigation is required that “can only be adequately addressed through the timely investigation of the case.”
“It must be investigated – the order clarifies – whether the criminally permitted limit has been exceeded in the area of ??the right to information that assists the Public Ministry as these are criminal proceedings, and therefore reserved, and also to what extent they could have been harmed. the constitutionally recognized rights of the complainant.”
