The final hearing in the Valencia Gürtel case took place yesterday, bringing to a close a long-running episode that placed the spotlight on the former president of the Generalitat, Francisco Camps, and a total of twenty-five co-defendants. The proceedings stretched over forty-five sessions, spread irregularly across eight months, as testimonies and evidence were weighed and debated. The atmosphere in the courtroom reflected a case that had become a touchstone for discussions about political finance and governance in the region.
As the courtroom drew toward its close, Camps’ attorney, Pablo Delgado, presented a closing report that spanned nearly two hours. The objective was clear: to secure an acquittal for the former head of the Generalitat. Delgado did not mince words as he criticized the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, arguing that the allegations against Camps extended beyond the specifics of the case and into a broader media frame. He suggested that there had been a relentless focus on his client for years, framing the prosecution as overly personal and sensational. The lawyer paused at one point to pose a pointed question to the court: who controls the prosecution, he asked, underscoring his call for accountability. He began his remarks with a firm statement of purpose: they had come to seek detention and justice, and to defend the integrity of Camps’ public service record.
The defence voiced concern that the charges stemming from a single expired contract—related to the so-called Orange Market matter—were not consistently or precisely framed. They argued that Camps faced potential penalties over traffic offences, influence, and lies, but maintained that the evidence did not substantiate a conviction that would stand up under scrutiny. The day’s argument framed the case as a clash between a formal, legal process and a media narrative that had grown larger than the facts at hand.
Delgado’s comments touched on the main points of the Gürtel narrative as it intersected with Valencian governance. He noted that the case had emerged as a significant moment for the region, with the Gürtel network accused of orchestrating events during Camps’ era when Eduardo Zaplana led the Generalitat. Delgado described a history in which influential figures from different corners of the Valencian political landscape had interactions with the Orange Market, emphasizing the perception of a political culture shaped by alliances and strategic appointments. In his portrayal, inviting influential figures to Valencia appeared as an attempt to stimulate economic activity and political collaboration, a common practice in many regions facing rapid development and complex public projects. He also recounted an instance where a prosecutor, Ignacio Stampa, participated in Valencia during a break in testimony, a detail he used to illustrate the ongoing, real-world nature of the investigation.
Delgado directed sharp remarks toward Manuel Morocho, the police inspector who had overseen the Gürtel inquiry, jokingly noting the inspector’s academic credentials while critiquing what he described as a prolonged investigative process. He argued that continuing inquiries should have a clear justification, rather than becoming a protracted exercise that could be viewed as aimed at extending scrutiny beyond reasonable limits. The defence also scrutinized statements from Álvaro Pérez, a key figure associated with the Orange Market, and Ricardo Costa, former general secretary of the PPCV, suggesting that their admissions should be weighed carefully in relation to the broader truth of the case. Delgado argued that neither Costa nor Pérez nor Lina Morgan had engaged in the rounds of accusations they were alleged to have made, asserting that the public prosecutor’s office did not fully embrace their accounts. He suggested that there were doubts about how those testimonies aligned with the wider record, while acknowledging that some witnesses had confessed to certain crimes in exchange for agreements with prosecutors. By presenting these points, Delgado framed the discourse as a need for precise evidence and fair evaluation rather than a narrative built on conjecture or partisan rhetoric. He underscored Camps’ reputation as a public servant, casting him as a man of integrity whose career deserved respectful consideration in the courts.
In a closing moment, Camps himself exercised his right to speak before sentencing. He expressed gratitude to the court for its work and to the National Court, the three judges, and the presiding official, adopting a measured tone that contrasted with the more impassioned delivery of his lawyer. The defendant’s remarks were brief, but they carried a sense of respect for the judicial process and a willingness to comply with what lay ahead in the courtroom. Among the other defendants, only Isabel Jordan chose to address the court directly, offering a message of remorse for actions she described as irregular, though she framed them as part of a broader pattern of conduct she believed warranted leniency. She also indicated a readiness to cooperate with ongoing proceedings. Officer Patricia Callaghan asserted her innocence, claiming a steadfast commitment to the law across her 34-year career as a civil servant and reaffirming her belief in the integrity of her actions throughout the investigation and trial. The courtroom thus concluded with a mosaic of positions, from acquittal to confession, from apology to firm defense, all shaping the final phase of a case that has loomed large over regional politics for many years.
Citations accompanying this summary reflect coverage of the Valencia Gürtel proceedings and the surrounding political and legal context, offering a grounded reference for readers seeking to understand the sequence of events and the legal arguments presented during the final hearing.