The 19th Penal Court in Madrid has warned of delays in the trial of Alberto González Amador, the partner of regional president Isabel Díaz Ayuso, due to a heavy workload. The court stated that the trial will proceed 'when circumstances allow,' suggesting it may not occur before 2027, seven years after the alleged tax fraud and forged invoices. The court’s decision follows a document outlining the evidence to be presented during the trial, including witness testimonies and reports. However, the magistrate rejected all proposed testimonies from the Popular Accusation (led by PSOE and Más Madrid), meaning Fernando Camino, a director at Quirón, will not testify. The case against González Amador includes extensive evidence from the Tax Agency showing two instances of tax fraud and a scheme involving fake invoices. The Provincial Court approved the trial in November 2025, but the case could be resolved through an agreement between the prosecution and the State Attorney, representing the Treasury, rather than a conviction. González Amador faces potential prison time if the trial proceeds, though his legal team claims he has not testified due to work commitments with Quirón. Meanwhile, the
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the legal proceedings involving a high-profile individual connected to a regional politician. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing. The content remains focused on procedural updates and legal details without
Why factuality (85): The article reports on a court ruling regarding delays in the trial of Alberto González Amador, citing a primary source document from the court. It references the Spanish PSOE and Más Madrid as accusers, and mentions the tax agency report and the Provincial Court's approval. The information aligns w
Why objectivity (78): The article presents the facts in a neutral tone but uses emotionally charged language such as 'horizonte judicial de Alberto González Amador es sombrío' which implies a negative judgment. While it reports the court's decision objectively, the phrasing suggests a certain bias towards the defendant's



