The State Attorney General’s Office defends the “impartiality” of Dolores Delgado by removing Ignacio Stampa, one of the two prosecutors driving the Villarejo case, from the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. This is stated in an official communication released after the Fiscal Council on Wednesday, which has addressed the circumstances in which the attorney general refused in October 2020 to give a place in property in that department to Stampa, which was no longer attached to the Villarejo case and that he now exercises in the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office. At this meeting, the chief prosecutor of the Tax Inspection, Antonia Sanz Gaite; the chief prosecutor of the Technical Secretariat, Álvaro García; and the Chief Anticorruption Prosecutor, Alejandro Luzón, have given explanations on this matter.
Delgado brings to the next Fiscal Council the circumstances of the dismissal of the former prosecutor in the Villarejo case
Delgado did not propose Stampa following the criteria of the Fiscal Council, where he was not endorsed neither by the five members of the conservative Association of Prosecutors (AF), to which he is associated, nor by the four members of the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF) . At that time, the prosecutor had been pointed out by Vox of collusion with Pablo Iglesias and Podemos, the party that exercises the popular accusation in the case about the dark business of the commissioner and other members of the police leadership. The investigation into these events was finally archived.
This matter has returned to the present more than a year later after it was revealed that Stampa, who did not appeal the appointments in court, has presented a patrimonial claim for an impairment of his career and his image for which Delgado is directly responsible. He claims more than 200,000 euros in compensation from the Ministry of Justice. According to the prosecutor, Delgado should have abstained from the process of allocating places since he had a “personal and direct interest” in the case, in which there were “indications” of “the participation of his sentimental partner”, Baltasar Garzón, who exercises the defense of several investigated.
The State Attorney General’s Office defends, however, that “in this specific case, despite the information released, there was no objective cause that affected the impartiality” of Delgado. In fact, as reported in the course of that meeting by the chief prosecutor of the Tax Inspection, Antonia Sanz Gaite, “there is no legal coverage” for a general attorney to refrain from making proposals for discretionary appointment.
Last week, Delgado tried to appease the controversy by including a “specific point” on the agenda of the meeting this Wednesday to “gather detailed information” on this matter, which had generated “very serious and defamatory” accusations in the media in relationship with the Fiscal Council and other organs of the Fiscal Ministry. The Attorney General summoned the current Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor, Alejandro Luzón, who has participated with a “very tough” intervention in which he has valued the need to opt for “reserved” prosecutors and “oblivious to any prominence in the press”, according to the sources consulted by elDiario.es.
Luzón has also affirmed that Stampa knew, due to its participation in the case, that there is both an Anti-Corruption report and an order from the National High Court stating that there is no relationship between Villarejo and prominent prosecutors such as Delgado herself, the chief prosecutor of the National Court, Jesús Alonso, or the prosecutor of the Supreme Court Javier Zaragoza despite the statements in this sense of the commissioner, affirm the aforementioned sources.
The Chief Prosecutor of the Technical Secretariat, Álvaro Ortiz, has also appeared in the Fiscal Council, indicated in several information published in recent days that suggest that he suggested extending the investigation into Stampa when the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office wanted to archive it. According to the note released by the State Attorney General’s Office, Ortiz has described this information as “false” and has uncovered, in his opinion, “possible defects” of those who suffered from these investigations. Thus, it has ensured that the prosecutor in charge of the investigation, Carlos Ruiz de Alegría, proposed the file on up to two occasions without having carried out previously agreed procedures.
He has also ensured that this prosecutor even made Stampa aware of “internal documents of the institution and of a reserved nature” issued by the Technical Secretariat of the State Attorney General’s Office. It was these events that, according to Ortiz, led him to “warn” the superior prosecutor of Madrid, Jesús Caballero Klink, of the possible irregularities detected. Last February, the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office agreed file those proceedings by rejecting that Stampa leaked information and not seeing a crime in its performance. A month later the Tax Inspection also ruled out a disciplinary offense in his performance.
The meeting has not convinced the members of the conservative Association of Prosecutors, who in a statement have criticized that the State Attorney General has rejected, as “reserved matter”, a battery of questions related to their “doubts” regarding this affair. Among them, if the office of his partner, the former judge Garzón defends those investigated in the Villarejo case to which Stampa was assigned or the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the prosecutor, in which he considers that Delgado should have abstained.
The Association of Prosecutors, which did not support the appointment of Stampa and neither that of his colleague Miguel Serrano, who is still attached to the Villarejo case, defends that this matter “cannot be considered reserved because his knowledge is necessary for the exercise of the functions own of the Fiscal Council and because the interested party has requested its exhibition “. According to this group, there is a “general concern” throughout the race for events that “are damaging their image and the institution itself” due to Delgado’s “lack of credibility with public opinion.”