The member of the Prosecutor Council Salvador Viada has requested this Tuesday the State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, to submit to the body for deliberation the “conflict of interest” between the prosecutor Dolores Delgado, candidate for the position of Human Rights prosecutor and Democratic Memory, and former judge Baltasar Garzón, sole administrator of the Ilocad office specializing in this matter, and his current sentimental partner.
The representative of the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF) has sent a letter to García Ortiz where he warns him that the Fiscal Council has a decision-making “competence” to rule on the concurrence of incompatibilities, as established in article 58 of the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (EOMF).
The spokesman explains that “it is at stake” to know “whether or not there is a possible conflict of interest between the candidate for the position and the legal activities of Baltasar Garzón”, owner of Ilocad and head of the FIBGAR Foundation (Baltasar Garzón International Foundation), that it has an object and an activity that could conflict with the functions that the law attributes to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Democratic Memory Room”. Not in vain does he emphasize that Delgado herself is a regular collaborator of the aforementioned foundation.
“This is a question that must be resolved prior to the award of the position in question, which is why I request that the debate on the award of the position of Prosecutor of the Chamber of Democratic Memory and Human Rights be postponed, and that in the Council next Prosecutor, announced for June 19, the debate on the possible relative incompatibility for the position to which the aforementioned candidate aspires is included in the agenda, proceeding to vote on the matter in the Fiscal Council”, reads the letter sent to Álvaro García Ortiz.
On the other hand, in his letter, the APIF spokesman affirms that “it is necessary to have a few days so that the Fiscal Council can get an idea of ??the eventual consequences that such an important position could be awarded to a person whose full impartiality in the exercise of the position could be, before third parties, compromised. And also, naturally, to hear the affected colleague on the matter”.
Finally, the prosecutor of the Supreme Court maintains that “if said request is not granted”, the attorney general “would be preventing the Fiscal Council from deciding on one of its most important powers, established for the benefit of the Institution and the citizens, as well as causing enormous reputational damage to the Attorney General’s Office, showing itself incapable of reacting to an event of the magnitude of the one at hand”.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
