I accuse the Attorney General

On October 27, 2020, the State Attorney General, Dolores Delgado, took to the Fiscal Council, its advisory body, the proposal not to grant one of the two fixed positions in the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, requested by Ignacio Press, the prosecutor who began to instruct in commission of services, in 2017, a macrocause that has ended up adding about 30 pieces against the former commissioner Jose Manuel Villarejo. Instead, the attorney general gave the green light in the same act to grant the other place to her partner Miguel Serrano.

Dolores Delgado, lawyer’s partner Baltasar Garzón, former judge who runs the Ilocad law firm, which defends some investigated, obtained the support of the Fiscal Council, did not abstain when formulating its proposal on Stampa, nor did it expose, according to judicial sources consulted, the circumstances of a potential conflict.

Stampa has not been able, therefore, to take the stand in the oral trial of the three pieces that he instructed and that will be the first prosecuted by the National audience when the hearing resumes on November 15.

Claim for patrimonial reparation

The prosecutor Stampa, now in the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office, has filed a claim for patrimonial reparation for the alleged maneuvers of the State Attorney General against him, which culminated in the formula of denying him the fixed place that he requested in the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, an aspiration that had the support of its chief prosecutor, Alexander Luzon.

The prosecutor of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court Salvador Viada, President of the Professional Association of Independent Prosecutors (APIF), has registered this Thursday, November 11, a series of questions before the Fiscal Council that put into question the decision approved on October 27, 2020 to deny Stampa the position.

Viada asks if you knew the Fiscal Council in the vote on October 27, it was quoted that “the office led by the sentimental couple” of the State Attorney General “was defending several implicated persons and that it had intervened in any proceeding in defense of any of those implicated.” The prosecutor refers to the assistance that Garzón provided to the investigated ex-commissioner Enrique Garcia Castaño upon being arrested on July 11, 2018.

In a maze

The prosecutor enters with his questions in the labyrinth of what was the investigation opened by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid against Stampa for alleged leaks in the ‘Tandem case’Proceedings that ended up archived but were artificially extended to give the appearance that the prosecutor was under investigation.

“It is true that the prosecutor of the technical secretariat of the State Attorney General, Alvaro Garcia Ortiz, addressed at least two occasions by means of ‘suggestions’ in writing to the instructor of the investigation proceedings [el teniente fiscal Carlos Ruiz de Alegría] to make him reconsider his proposal to file the proceedings and urging him to carry out new proceedings? “Why if the complaint that gave rise to the investigation into leaks sought to open proceedings against Stampa and Serrano only were carried out against the first of them?

But Viada, citing Stampa’s lawsuit, raises another very relevant aspect of the labyrinth in which the state attorney general got into. “Is it true that the writings of the chief prosecutor of the technical secretary ‘suggesting’ the instructor continue the investigation have been removed from the file of the aforementioned proceedings despite being the reason why the proceedings were prolonged beyond the date of October 27, 2020? “

“Maximum severity” issue

Related news

This point is relevant. Because Dolores Delgado manages to extend the proceedings on Stampa precisely when it leads to Fiscal Council the proposal to deny him the place. The self accuses that Stampa raises in his claim for patrimonial reparation and that Viada collects points out that, when the instructor, the lieutenant prosecutor Carlos Ruiz de Alegria, refuses to continue prolonging the proceedings, at the suggestion of the technical secretariat, the direction of the same was advocated to the superior prosecutor of the TSJM, Jesus Knight Klink.

Prosecutor Viada concludes: “The matter belongs to the maximum gravity. The Fiscal Council must debate an event that has had an immediate impact on a case [Tándem-Villarejo] from political and police corruption, also producing direct damage to a prosecutor [Stampa] to which all the cases opened against him have ended up shelved “.