A high-profile case in Madrid continues to unfold, involving allegations of leaking classified information. This time, the spotlight is on prosecutor Álvaro García Ortiz, who deleted all his emails and messages. This move has aroused the court’s suspicions and led to accusations that he was attempting to cover up a possible data leak.
However, in a surprising turn, Agustín Hidalgo, the data protection officer at the General Prosecutor’s Office, came to the defense. He stated that each prosecutor is personally responsible for taking steps to prevent information leaks. In his view, deleting data from devices is not only permitted but also necessary to minimize the risks associated with storing confidential information.
Hidalgo emphasized that the value of the information handled by prosecutors far outweighs the cost of the devices themselves. Therefore, when an employee changes their phone or computer, they have the right to erase all data to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. According to Hidalgo, this practice has been implemented among staff in the Prosecutor’s Office for several years now to increase security and avoid storing unnecessary information that could be compromised in the event of hacking or loss of equipment.
Case details and the defense’s argument
At the heart of the trial is the question of who leaked to the press an email in which the lawyer for businessman Alberto González Amador admitted to committing tax offenses and offered a deal to avoid prison. The prosecution argues that García Ortiz’s deletion of the correspondence is further proof of his involvement in the leak.
Nevertheless, Hidalgo pointed out that investigations into such incidents are only possible at the request of the parties involved. In this case, neither lawyer Carlos Neira nor González Amador himself requested an inquiry into the leak’s source. Moreover, Hidalgo saw no signs of a security breach by the prosecution, even though the timeline of the negotiations between the lawyer and the department was published.
Reaction to public statements and consequences
Particular attention during the hearings was given to an official statement by the prosecution published in March 2024. In it, rumors that the deal originated with the department itself were denied. The prosecution insisted that publishing details of the negotiations violated the confidentiality principle between the defense and the prosecution. However, Hidalgo disagreed, emphasizing that such actions do not pose a threat to data security.
Ultimately, the stance of the information security officer played into the hands of García Ortiz’s defense. His testimony cast doubt on the prosecution’s arguments and could influence the further course of the trial. The question of who is truly responsible for the leak remains unanswered, but now the defense has new arguments in its favor.
