Fiscal Council Attorney General Dolores Delgado faces a difficult mandate. The association he belonged to, the Progressive Union of Prosecutors, collapsed in an election in which the Conservative and Majority Prosecutors Association (AF) won an absolute majority. The professional and independent association, which is highly critical of its management, won a seat on the board for the first time in its history. Towards the end, the stage that was most interpreted by those closest to Delgado as a positive change, and which others, however, saw as an attempt by the progressive sector, was taken by the prosecution.
Dolores Delgado, who is currently recovering from surgery, remains at the head of an apparently hostile fiscal council from day one after a convulsive first term. On the same Monday, January 13, when it became known that Delgado, the former Minister of Justice, was going to be the Attorney General, the Association of Prosecutors made its position clear. This is a statement Which showed his “discomfort and concern about the image of politicization due to the lack of independence and impartiality conveyed at the head of the prosecutor’s career by appointing him Minister of Justice.”
Then the opposition of this association also had a counterweight in the fiscal council itself. The Progressive Union of Delgado Prosecutors had only one member less than them, and this gave them much more power than in other mandates to defend their positions. The criticism was instantaneous, and it took AF a year and a half because of Delgado’s resignation policy, which he considered “arbitrary” and which did not take long before the court.
The electoral system, which had hitherto been unquestioned, became, in the eyes of the FA, chaired by Christina Dexus, a way to control key positions in the prosecution and into the hands of the UPF. For example, in December 2020, the five prosecutors of this association abstained when he nominated Juan Ignacio Campos as the Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, the only one to run for office. They say the reason is not the candidate himself, but the fact that some media outlets have reported that he is the favorite.
The inconsistency in some of the appointments quickly ended in court, a resource that had recently borne fruit. The Supreme Court revoked the appointment of Eduardo Esteban as a juvenile court prosecutor after assessing the allegations of another candidate and the Prosecutors Association. The resolution, cited by a majority association, was received with skepticism by other parts of the prosecutor’s career, highlighting Esteban’s suitability for the position and forcing Delgado to repeat the process.
This is not the only position complained of, nor has it been the most criticized. AF’s allegations are not limited to appointments: they confirm that Delgado’s intention was to create a panel of prosecutors in the courtroom, the headquarters of the prosecution, by members of a favorable and dominated progressive association. One year ago, In another statement, Confirmed that the Attorney General’s goal was “to give birth to the Chamber of Prosecutors, which does not intimidate him.” Recently, for example, more than half of the members of this Council of Prosecutors wrote to Delgado asking him to suspend the PSOE legislative initiative in Congress.
The version is not the same on the other side of the Fiscal Board table. Many are surprised that the Association of Prosecutors has been so hostile to the attack on Dolores Delgado’s discretionary appointments after not questioning the system when positions were taken by members of their association. The Progressive Association expressed discomfort This is a statement “Last March, he reprimanded AF, for example, before the Supreme Court for defending a juvenile court prosecutor candidate with more experience than Eduardo Esteban, but then also backing him in voting, such as the auxiliary department or immigration where he had.” Less experience. ”
In any case, Delgado’s wear was public, which will now have to deal with the Fiscal Council by an absolute majority of the Association of Prosecutors. Therefore, they are less inclined to support their appointments. The opinion of the Fiscal Council is not obligatory to offer an appointment, but the 1983 rule governing its activities stipulates that it must “be heard in connection with the appointment to various positions”. Controversy serves, therefore, if Delgado offers a candidate who has no AF support. Ignacio Stampa – one of the prosecutors in the tandem case – was also fined for Delgado’s departure from anti-corruption. Request for resignation Majority and Conservative Association.
The new fiscal council will have an unprecedented composition. In addition to the classic balance of power between the AF and the UPF, there is a third association that first won a seat on the Fiscal Council: the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF) and its president. , Salvador Viada. A prosecutor for more than 37 years, Viada has worked in the Public Ministry of the Supreme Court and has recently acquired a very pronounced profile when it comes to criticizing the appointment system of which he will be a part and the distribution of appointments. Between two dominant associations.
The new fiscal council has a tense schedule ahead. The body is awaiting, for example, to publish its report on the Trans Law after the General Council of the Court has already done so with a critical text approved in recent weeks. He should also manage to overturn the appointment of Eduardo Esteban as juvenile court prosecutor. With the support of half the members of his old association, Dolores Delgado will have to meet with a majority of the Fiscal Council, which is ready to condemn his appointments if necessary.
Source: El Diario
