Since Dolores Delgado landed in the State Attorney General’s Office, a little over two years ago, the shadow of politicization has not stopped hanging over her management. The recent elections to the Fiscal Council, the body that represents the race, have become like a boomerang against the former Minister of Justice and have punished her association, UPF, with the loss of two members in that body. Cristina Dexeus, president of the majority Association of Prosecutors, the great winner in those elections, once again calls for an impartial Prosecutor’s Office. The one who wants the race. Which
—What is your reading of the results of the Fiscal Council?
—There has been majority and overwhelming support for the Association of Prosecutors, which corroborates that the work we are doing of constructive legal criticism of Delgado’s management is shared by our colleagues.
The Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF) has completely followed the attorney general; There has been a tremendous symbiosis between Delgado and UPF, which has been damaged by this lack of criticism.
“Is it a punishment for Delgado?”
—It is a punishment to UPF for its absolute follow-up and zero criticism, but also to the Attorney General for its forms and way of acting in the State Attorney General’s Office.
—Was it foreseeable that the race would react like this?
—There was a lot of discomfort among colleagues about the current situation of discrediting the Public Prosecutor’s Office; We were always questioned precisely because the attorney general has come from the field of politics without a solution of continuity. That and, of course, the demonstrations by Pedro Sánchez saying “who does the Prosecutor’s Office depend on” was having a negative impact on us and we were in the eye of the hurricane. What was discussed in the offices, in the cafes and in the corridors has been revealed in the polls: the weariness, the boredom of the race for this situation.
—Does the AF still think that the attorney general should leave her post? She has been asking for it from day one…
– What we denounced was that the appointment of a person who had just held the position as Minister of Justice of a government, who had also been a deputy, was going to imply a breach in the image of impartiality of the State Attorney General’s Office. Even so, we kept waiting to see the result of her first performances before we started criticizing them. But there have indeed been occasions in which we have asked her to formally refrain from matters that, precisely because they come from politics, she should not have been aware of. And she hasn’t. It was after a series of successive actions that we asked for her resignation. Our position has not been belligerent or tense, it has not been a battle against Dolores Delgado. We have given room and we have asked her to behave appropriately and use the statutory channels and she has not done so. There is nothing right now that makes us think that she is going to change the way she acts or that motivates us to stop asking for her resignation.
— Do you think that after these results you should leave your post?
—That is something that she would have to value, if that criticism makes her reflect and change her attitude. The race has said at the polls that it does not want the roller to which we are subjected right now.
—What do you think has been the trigger for this weariness, the Stampa case, the appointments?
—Everything, I think it has been a series of situations; the Stampa case is one of them. Also the ethics commission, paralyzed because the attorney general did not like the results: the massive support of colleagues for candidates who happen to be from the Association of Prosecutors. The appointments, indeed, have been a roller, in such a way that now the constitution of the Board of Prosecutors of the Chamber, which are the legal advisers of the State Attorney General’s Office, has been reversed, and the majority, half of that board, they are members of UPF already appointed by Delgado. What does that mean? That if the majority of the degree program is not associated and that if the majority of those who are are from the AF, UPF is overrepresented, so that when Delgado can raise relevant questions to that board, a relaxed or loose majority is ensured to obtain support for their claims.
—Why has the FA brought to the Supreme Court only one of those appointments made by Delgado when it questions many more?
—Appealing all the appointments indiscriminately did not seem to us a reasonable way to act. This (that of Eduardo Esteban as Coordinator of Minors) was absolutely unfounded, there was no way to substantiate it beyond the “positive synergies” of one of the candidates. It seemed to us that it was a very clear exponent that this appointment system did not respond to the needs of the public service or to the minimum grounds required in terms of discretionary appointments.
—Taking into account that the most important appointments of this mandate have already been made, what counterweight can the six members of the AF do now?
—It is true that the Fiscal Council should have other types of functions beyond the current ones and that its votes should have a specific weight when determining the resolution of the State Attorney General. But beyond the issue of appointments, which is relevant, there are other matters that are also of interest, such as the legal reports on the bills that are reported to the Fiscal Council. If sometimes the members of the AF had to cast a particular vote because they did not share the opinion of the draft, perhaps now they have to be the others who make that particular vote. The Fiscal Council should also assume the protection of its colleagues when they are bothered in the exercise of their position from abroad, when they receive pressure.
– Is there pressure? Are they perceived more since Delgado is attorney general?
-That does not benefit, of course, because any action carried out by the prosecutor in a matter in which politicians of one party or another are concerned there will always be a suspicion that it has acted in one way or another, because it is you who you are, because you belong to a party or because the complainant or plaintiff belongs to the other. That is why we complained about that appointment from the beginning, because that suspicion, that doubt that clouds the actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is absolutely harmful to the interests of the career and to the interests of justice and the defendant. We have to be above all this, we must safeguard the impartiality of the institution and the appearance of impartiality. Although it was acting without any kind of submission to anyone, that action is questioned. How is it not going to be questioned, if there is the original sin that we denounced from the beginning.
—Under these conditions, can the Prosecutor’s Office assume the criminal investigation?
-I think that a reorganization should be made in the form of appointment of the State Attorney General, now with more reason because the reality of what happens when the Attorney General is appointed, without solution of continuity, who has been exercising political functions has been exposed and relevant positions in the Government. Once a health effort has been made in this direction, a new organic statute is needed that clearly establishes the duty to abstain, the incompatibilities… Letting the hangover from the ‘Tsunami Delgado’ pass, we could be in a position, because I think we are those of us who are best equipped to do so.
—Is there any way to avoid appointments as politicized as this one? Through the revolving doors?
—Indeed, revolving doors must be regulated and a veto must be put in place. One who is developing political or governance functions cannot return the next day to the judicial or prosecutorial career as if nothing had happened. It is necessary to put some vetoes, some sufficient periods of time that can separate that political work from the judicial or fiscal work.
—There is a certain buzz in the race that the investigation into Don Juan Carlos remained open longer than it should have. Do you share that opinion?
—Without knowing the content of some actions, I am not in a position to give an opinion on the work carried out by my colleagues. It would seem very frivolous of me to pronounce on whether it should have been closed sooner or later, although I know that rumor exists on the street and in the race.
—Why this effort by the European Public Prosecutor to take on the investigation of Ayuso’s brother?
—Perhaps this question should be addressed to Conchita Sabadell (the Spanish prosecutor in Europe) to fully understand the grounds on which this bitter request to attract the competition of masks in the Community of Madrid is based.
—Is the reaction of the fiscal leadership against the amendment that rewards Delgado after his dismissal justified?
—The prize that Dolores Delgado’s promotion to the first category entails for her dismissal as attorney general worries me relatively. There is an even more relevant aspect, and that is that the Attorney General, ‘motu proprio’, informs the Government of the relevant matters that are being carried out in the Prosecutor’s Office and, furthermore, without any filter, because the amendment does not make any kind of nuance, of justification. That is the most serious aspect, it is approaching the Executive Power in a brutal way, instead of letting go, of separating ourselves and positioning ourselves as a Judicial Power with functional autonomy. Europe did not ask for that. He asked to shield the attorney general from all political interference, increase his impartiality, that communications be in writing and with publicity.
—Are you worried about the image that Spanish justice is giving in Europe?
—Yes, our credibility is weakening and Europe and the institutions require us to be careful with that image of impartiality of the organs of the Administration of Justice. It seems that we are walking in the opposite direction. Underlying here is a duality of conceptions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office: the one that prevailed in the Constitution, which is our fit within the Judiciary, and another as an organ of transmission or representation of the Executive in the courts, which had been in the dictatorship. Taking advantage of this situation, there are governments that want to drag us towards the Executive, turning us into officials of the Ministry of Justice.
—Do you think that the reluctance to renew the General Council of the Judiciary is justified until the judges are allowed to elect their own?
-I understand the concern because the normal functioning of the judicial career is being blocked through the reform that has been made so that if there is no renewal of the CGPJ within its term, neither can it continue to act in functions with absolute normality. I think it is good for this image of impartiality to row everyone towards a way of selecting members that frees them from that appearance of political interference like now and that they can be elected, as in the Fiscal Council, directly by their colleagues. It seems that there are some who never want to let go of that quota of power. I don’t know to what extent the Council can continue to function indefinitely with its capacity for ordinary action diminished. Theirs is that the judges can choose their representatives directly.
—Is there any use for opening an investigation in Spain into the crimes committed in the Ukraine or is it a toast to the sun?
—We have been told that victims who may arrive in Spain will be followed up to collaborate with international justice in the event that a procedure against Putin is followed. It seemed to me in a certain way a make-up operation. Beyond that legal aspect is the humanitarian aspect, the support for the families of judges and prosecutors who have exchanged the toga for arms.
2
