The State Attorney General, Dolores Delgado, has communicated to the entire career that the next Fiscal Council will address the situation after the complaint of the former prosecutor in the Villarejo case, Ignacio Stampa, who has filed a claim for assets due to irregularities in the process that led him to lose his place in the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office.
“Given the very serious and defamatory accusations that have appeared in recent days in various media in relation to the Fiscal Council and other organs of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, I made the decision to add a specific point to the agenda of the next Plenary of the Fiscal Council, which will take place on November 24, in order to gather detailed information on this issue, “says the message sent by Delgado to the Fiscal Race to which ABC had access.
As he states, this Monday he contacted the senior members of this advisory body where the majority of the Association of Prosecutors and the Progressive Union of Prosecutors are present “in order to inform them of this point and share with them this institutional concern». This is how it has resolved to put the issue on the agenda.
As reported by ABC, Stampa has filed a claim for assets before the Ministry of Justice for what it considers to be an “abnormal” operation of the Administration of Justice and, in particular, of the State Attorney General. As argued, she, who should abstain from the appointments of Anticorruption prosecutors that were resolved in October 2020 by
his “personal and direct interest” in the Villarejo case, not only did he not, but it would have maneuvered to harm him.
Stampa’s letter stated that its Technical Secretariat gave “Commands and instructions” in the form of “suggestions” to the prosecutor who in Madrid was investigating a complaint for the disclosure of secrets against the two officials of the Public Ministry in the Villarejo case. As a result of these indications, always according to the affected party, the proceedings were lengthened in an “artificial” way until once those places had been awarded and against the criterion of the instructor, who had already twice proposed to shelve the matter.
The complaint did not go unnoticed by the prosecutors’ associations, although they have reacted differently. The Independent Professional Association (APIF) that does not have a presence on the Fiscal Council, submitted a battery of questions to this body requesting to contrast the claims of Stampa’s complaint, such as Delgado’s interference in the investigation by revealing secrets or that he would not have informed the members of the real situation in which those proceedings were found.
UPF talks about merit and AF asks for explanations
In response, the Progressive Union, to which Delgado is attached and that in that election of Anti-Corruption prosecutors did not propose Ignacio Stampa but did propose his partner in the case, Miguel Serrano; He answered defending the procedure: «We assume that your questions refer to whether any of the facts to which you refer, of which we do not know for certain, could have had some relation with not having supported the candidacy of comrade Ignacio Stampa for the position that he requested in the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office. The answer is clear and forceful: NO ».
In that letter, they claimed that «no question unrelated to merit and capacity was not taken into consideration for the voting of the places of the total of the candidatures presented »and they recalled that Stampa did not file an appeal against the resolution of the Minister of Justice that, at the proposal of the attorney general and in line with what was agreed in that Council, awarded the places.
Meanwhile, the Association of Prosecutors, to which Stampa was attached in his day and which neither proposed to him nor to his partner to obtain the position, speaks of asking for explanations. «The recent information that appeared in some media about the alleged maneuvers of the State Attorney General to justify not appointing a prosecutor for a specific position sare undoubtedly very serious accusations that require a very detailed explanation from the attorney general herself within the Council ”, says a message to its members that ABC had access to.
As he states, Delgado’s “career” at the head of the Prosecutor’s Office is “marked by the intentional ignorance of what is established” in the regulations that regulate him and “Whose provisions have been systematically ignored in matters as relevant as those relating to the duty of abstention”. “The episode that is now known is not new, but is part of a way of running the institution that is generating a credibility crisis for the Public Prosecutor’s Office,” they point out.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism