The General Council of the Judiciary issued its report this Friday in which it considers the Government's candidate for Attorney General of the State, Álvaro García Ortiz, unsuitable.
In the document, advanced by EL MUNDO, the governing body of the judges relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court where the appointment of Dolores Delgado as Chamber prosecutor who had been promoted by García Ortiz was annulled.. The High Court, unanimously, concluded that the attorney general had incurred in “misuse of power” and the Council highlights that the “spurious use” of his powers discouraged the appointment of this prosecutor.
On this point, the devastating report – approved with the vote of eight members in favor and with seven councilors against – maintains that “the aforementioned ruling annuls the appointment with the argument as evident as it is proven that the same had been incurred. vice of misuse of power, that is, and without it being necessary now to reproduce the terms of the sentence, what the sentencing Chamber concludes, based on the evidence, is that the power to appoint the new Chamber prosecutor was not properly done by the person the best requirements of merit and capacity, inherent in said election, were met, but in a way of gratitude from the proposed candidate to the appointee and in correspondence with an alleged institutional duty, despite recognizing that legally said appointment was not legally appropriate, as is reasoned with sufficient arguments in the sentence”.
After analyzing the High Court's resolution, the Council indicates that “it does not seem that anyone who makes such spurious use of the important powers conferred on the Attorney General of the State can be considered suitable for appointment.”
Likewise, the Judiciary reproaches the attorney general for his delay in executing the Supreme Court ruling that annulled the promotion of Eduardo Esteban to prosecutor of the Juvenile Coordinating Chamber.. The members emphasize that “among the record” of the attorney general is that “he has delayed the execution of the final sentence (July 20) until precisely November 30; that is, the execution of a sentence has been delayed for more than four months” when the execution period is two months from the notification of the ruling.
Discretionary appointments
Likewise, the Judiciary highlights the biased appointment policy carried out by García Ortiz as attorney general and his refusal to condemn the term 'lawfare'.
Regarding discretionary appointments, the CGPJ emphasizes that the current attorney general of the State, during his previous mandate, of just over a year, “has proceeded to the appointment of 33 discretionary appointments, of which 22 have been members of the career associated with the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF)”, to which García Ortiz belonged until being appointed in 2022 as attorney general.
The Council highlights that the UPF, of which Ortiz was an association spokesperson, “has 200 associates out of the 2,700 total in the prosecutor's career, that is, 7.4% of the prosecutors have been appointed to 66.6% of the discretionary positions.” , with the addition that 14 of them have been promoted in a higher category”.
The report contrasts these data with the appointments and promotions to prosecutors of the Association of Prosecutors – five appointments despite being the majority in the prosecutor's career – or non-associates – four appointments despite representing 970 prosecutors – to conclude that “of these magnitudes that the members of a specific minority association have that degree of excellence and that those who do not belong to any association deserve ostracism to access the judicial leadership requires a very reinforced justification that has never been made because said appointments have been made, in the almost all of the cases in which there was competitive competition, in favor of the proposal made by the Fiscal Council”.
The 'lawfare'
Regarding the alleged judicial war against the independence movement, the members criticize the attitude of the attorney general, whom they accuse of acting “in tune” with those who defend lawfare.
The State Attorney General is “the only one who can and should react to such an unworthy smear campaign” while “the performance of the proposed candidate has been, not only the most absolute inactivity, but in his public appearances, due to his attitudes, “has shown a harmony with those who were the promoters of such campaigns, offering the more than suspicious risk that said inaction is not based on sharing such serious accusations of the actions of the Prosecutor's Office.”
It so happens that before being proposed again as attorney general, García Ortiz refused to protect the prosecutors of the process against lawfare, which led to a letter of support to his colleagues from the prosecutors of the Supreme Court and of criticism towards your boss.
Finally, the Council concludes that “it does not seem that the appointment of a candidate who has demonstrated such deficient care in the neatness of the performance of the most important positions in the Prosecutor's Office can merit a judgment of suitability.”
It is the first time in democracy that the Council issues a report against the appointment of a State Attorney General.