The Supreme Court sends a document to the European Commission in response to the prohibition of broadcasting the trial of the attorney general

The Supreme Court has responded to the European Commission, due to the restrictive device for journalistic coverage, before which the court prevented the broadcast of the signal both live and on the internet. The body led by Isabel Perelló protests against the harsh criticisms of the ruling, by judicial and academic media, especially with two specific votes which denounced the violation of basic constitutional guarantees of the condemned.

In its response to the European Commission, the court highlights that "the trial took place before the Supreme Court last November and received extensive media coverage," and that, in addition, "the hearing sessions, which occurred without notable incidents, were fully broadcast by an internal channel to more than 200 accredited journalists from national and international media located in the Court's premises."

Despite all the commotion and controversy caused by the trial of Gracía Ortiz, the Supreme Court has relied on it to contribute to the latest report on the EU Rule of Law, to complain about the criticisms received. They do not cite him by name, but one of them is that of the Minister for Digital Transformation, Óscar López who, when assessing the ruling before the media, states that, "many Hollywood scripts" had "less creativity" than the resolution.

The same defender of García Ortiz, also a State lawyer, referred to the instruction of the case during the trial as "inquisitorial." However, the Supreme Court's report does not refer to the State's legal services. In its text, they have not stopped here, and have also remembered the accusations of lawfare, as they consider that, "they portray the accused as the victim of a politically motivated procedure." "Some political representatives have used expressions such as 'judicial coup d'état' and have reiterated that the conviction is part of an 'organized and coordinated' operation to destabilize the Executive," the court maintains.

Finally, they also comment that "many of these statements were made even before the text of the judgment had been made public," and that, "the Supreme Court has not responded to any of these manifestations," they conclude in the document sent to the European Commission.