The dean of Madrid lawyers, on the 'Ayuso case': “Any leak is reprehensible, but the person who could have committed the crime is the Prosecutor's Office”

The Illustrious Bar Association of Madrid (ICAM) has fully intervened in the case of the boyfriend of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, president of the Community of Madrid.

This institution has denounced the Prosecutor's Office for issuing a statement that denied the distorted data and falsehoods that Ayuso's team was making against the public ministry as a result of the procedure opened against her partner, Alberto González Amador, for alleged tax fraud and document falsification. .

The dean of ICAM, Eugenio Ribón, defends his actions.

Ask.

Why did they decide to resort to criminal proceedings against the Prosecutor's Office?

Answer.

The public statement from the Prosecutor's Office is an unprecedented event, it is something absolutely unusual.

We understood that there is a breach of the principle of trust, of the secrecy of communications between the parties, between the lawyer and the prosecutor.

It means blowing up the compliance protocol in the reservation terms.

Breaking the secrecy of communications is attacking the essence of the right of defense and diluting the principle of effective judicial protection.

Therefore, faced with an event of extraordinary seriousness, we had to have a response up to the task to clarify the responsibilities of this case and ensure that the necessary reinforcement mechanisms are established so that it does not happen again.

More information

The judicial horizon of Ayuso's boyfriend: from an agreement with the Prosecutor's Office to facing prison sentences

Q.

Who came up with the idea?

How was the initiative created?

A.

When I became aware of it, the first thing I did was contact the chief prosecutor [of Madrid] to make sure that it was not

fake

, because it was so absolutely unusual to us that the first thing was to verify that it was TRUE.

Once we confirmed it, a very important alarm was generated, not only in the governing board [of ICAM], but among the rest of our colleagues.

An emergency meeting was held and, in it, the first decisions were adopted.

Q.

Did you speak with the affected lawyer or with the individual he was defending, [Alberto González Amador, Ayuso's boyfriend]?

A.

As a governing board, we do not go down to the specific case.

That is already part of a particular case, of the defense strategy that the specific affected person may have.

The obligation that the school has is to ensure the secrecy of communications, the duty of confidentiality of the parties and the right of defense in general terms, because it transcends a specific case.

What worries us is that a colleague, who is within the framework of an eventual compliance and is having conversations with the prosecutor, could be surprised because those conversations subsequently come to light.

Q.

Ayuso's team previously leaked a distorted email to accuse the Prosecutor's Office of offering an agreement, when it was the other way around.

Does that condition the case?

Because the Prosecutor's Office alleges that he is defending himself against a misrepresentation and a lie.

A.

Leaks to the media, unfortunately, have existed for many years.

This is nothing new.

And the school does not comment on that because it does not have any type of jurisdiction over the medium, which carries out its work of disseminating information.

The particularity of this case and what is absolutely new is that, in response to this, an official statement is issued that details those conversations in quotation marks, with the time at which the email was produced... And all kinds of details are given.

The school reacts to that statement.

Q.

Do you limit your complaint only to that statement?

Don't they extend it to the leak of the February 2 email [from González Amador's lawyer, which denied the Ayuso team's version]?

A.

The complaint refers to the statement from the Prosecutor's Office.

That is its content.

What he is accused of is infidelity in the custody of documents.

The Prosecutor's Office is subject by its own organic statute to maintaining secrecy, a reserve and a duty of confidentiality regarding those facts that it may have learned within the framework of its actions.

And that is the breakup that occurs.

Eugenio Ribón, dean of the Madrid Bar Association, before the interview last Friday.Samuel Sánchez

Q.

The Prosecutor's Office alleges that they did not reveal anything that was not previously known in the press.

What do you think of that explanation?

A.

That is a key point.

One role is that of the media and another is that of the Prosecutor's Office as an institution.

The Prosecutor's Office cannot go down and make public the specific content of the communications, regardless of whether it was known through a media outlet.

Q.

And aren't you worried that the Ayuso Government previously leaked an

email

of those conversations and brought them to light?

A.

The school cannot enter into the filtering that one of the parties does to the media because it is not its responsibility.

The school has to comment on the statement issued by the Prosecutor's Office.

Regardless of that, any leak that goes outside of what should be the reserve between the parties is absolutely reprehensible.

But, in this case, the one who committed or could have committed the illegal act is the Prosecutor's Office: the authority that, due to its knowledge of the facts in the exercise of its position, makes that statement.

Q.

Are you concerned that ICAM may be perceived as taking a political position in favor of the Community of Madrid or a certain party?

A.

The legal profession defends the right of defense as the cornerstone of our effective judicial protection.

This same demonstration would have occurred if we were dealing with the case of the president's wife, an anonymous citizen or Paco el Chatarrero...

Q.

The Free Association of Lawyers (ALA) attributes “overreaction” to “defend the interests” of a certain Government.

A.

The governing body to rule on this matter is the Governing Board, which is the one that has been democratically elected.

Within a group of 75,000 colleagues, there may be diversity of opinions.

But it is paradoxical that, in the first paragraph [of a note issued by ALA], this association refers to unacceptable behavior by the Prosecutor's Office and then speaks of overacting.

If the school does not react to an event of such magnitude, it would have no reason to be the school itself and what it would deserve is the reproach of the rest of its classmates.

Q.

The current secretary general of ICAM, Luis Banciella, was previously attorney general of the Community of Madrid.

Has he participated in any way in the decision to report?

A.

Absolutely nothing.

The college has a very differentiated organic structure between the legal services and the general secretary.

This issue only affects legal services and the governing board;

and, therefore, it is totally unrelated to the general secretariat.

Q.

How was the meeting with the State Attorney General's Office?

A.

I left disappointed.

What we expected was, first, a coherent explanation of what had happened;

secondly, an apology and a commitment from the Prosecutor's Office itself to investigate and clarify responsibilities;

and thirdly, the purpose of modifying the current system of compliance protocols so that this could not be repeated.

Faced with this, we found a meeting in which a certain victimization on the part of the Prosecutor's Office was expressed, which tried to justify the statement and the breach of that principle of confidentiality.

Q.

Before that meeting, had you already thought about going to criminal proceedings?

A.

No, it was a very early stage and we didn't even have all the data.

It is a case that requires great caution.

Q.

Why didn't you sign the joint statement that was offered?

A.

Because, to begin with, it was based on the victimization of the Prosecutor's Office itself, which legitimized the existence of the statement.

And we cannot assume the validity of that statement.

Any statement that started from that premise was already unacceptable in itself.

Q.

What do you think that Ayuso's chief of staff, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, attacks journalists and spreads hoaxes about them?

R.

Acijur (Association of Legal Communicators and Informants) already made a statement [condemning the “intolerable attack on the right to information”].

And as soon as I read it, I retweeted and supported it.

It is absolute nonsense and a loss of direction.

Q.

ICAM has had a very active position against the amnesty law.

Aren't you worried that this will deepen accusations that you adopt a political position?

A.

ICAM does not have any political position.

It is a neutral and apolitical institution.

But it is conditioned by the purposes to which it is subjected.

And, in article 3 of our statutes, we swore or promised to defend the Constitution, our rule of law and human rights.

And, in that context, what ICAM defends is the rule of law.

What the college expresses is its concern about maintaining the separation of powers, about the reference to

lawfare

, about the creation of parliamentary commissions to review jurisdictional action...

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_