----::::euskalherriawatch::::----

Case 18/01, which in strictly formal terms is unconnected to Case 18/98, began as a separate piece –called “piece A.A”- within the mother case 18/98. However, this “piece A.A” was separated from Case 18/98 by Baltasar Garzón and ended up being a case unto itself: Case 18/01.

On 06/03/01, Judge Baltasar Garzón issued arrest warrants against fifteen young Basques, alleged members of HAIKA , stating that they were “incorporated” within the armed organisation ETA through their membership of HAIKA. In his conclusions, Garzón inferred that both youth organisations are “but an appendix, integrated within the ETA terrorist structure” and the states that “they complement its activity and serve as a recruitment pool” adding that “the link between Jarrai-Haika and Kale Borroka (Urban Struggle) is beyond doubt according to the documents we have studied. It is the ideal structure for this form of complementary armed struggle, which is necessarily a form of terrorist activity, whether it is carried out in support of ETA or in communion with ETA”.

On 05/02/02 Preliminary Inquiry 172/01 was opened –later to become Case 15/02- against people accused of belonging to SEGI, which was considered to be the successor organisation to JARRAI-HAIKA. Based on this decision, Garzón ordered another police operation on 08/03/02 against twelve young Basques. He used the same thesis for the outlawing of SEGI as the reasoning to support the entry, search and arrest warrants. He considered SEGI to be an organisation within “the ETA-Ekin network”; stating that it “is continuity for the outlawed JARRAI-HAIKA” because its aims “independence and socialism”, its self-definition “a revolutionary organisation struggling for an independent and socialist Basque Country and opposed to the youth-exploiting capitalist system” and its structure “are identical”. He admitted that in his investigation, those who “appear as leaders of Segi have been identified due to their appearing in public” and “monitored telephone conversations whereby it is clear that they are the ones making decisions, organising activities and ordering others to do various jobs”, as well as because of their “attendance at organisational meetings”. He affirms that the detainees are “the highest leaders” of Segi and direct “its activities, which refer to Kale Borroka, threats and coercion against people linked to the Administration of Justice, the Police, the Guardia Civil, businesses and other people opposed to ETA-Ekin postulates”. None of these generic charges was distributed individually.

After taking their statements, on 11/03/02, Garzón accused them all of “a possible crime of being integrated within the organisation ETA-Ekin-Segi” as well as 46 crimes of “inducing to terrorism”. The Court insisted in not limiting responsibility for taking part in the alleged crimes to specific individuals and made the whole organisation responsible for the alleged crimes.
Meanwhile, this case has been plagued with a completely unacceptable level of inactivity during four years. The trial has begun precisely two months before the date when several of the accused will have spent four years in jail (6 March), the maximum legal period for a person to be in jail awaiting trial. If this limit were to be exceeded, the accused would have to be released. It would have been difficult to explain this inefficiency of the Spanish legal system, but it seems even more difficult to attempt to carry out such a complicated trial in such a short period of time and abide by all the legal guarantees.

1.In 1999, following a long process of debate and discussion, Jarrai and Gazteriak (a youth organisation from the part of the Basque Country under French administration) merged to create a new organisation for Basque young people on both sides of the border, called HAIKA. This new organisation began work in various fields, from the defence of the collective rights of the Basque Country to specific campaigns on the difficult social and economic situations the Basque youth faces.