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

As one of the original members of the Euskal Herria Watch Commission, made up of legal scholars from different countries, I had the opportunity to attend the trial regarding Sumario 18/01 (Jarrai-Haika) and Sumario 15/02 (Segi), a prosecution brought against 42 members of youth organizations in the Basque Country. I attended two days of the trial, on the 25th and 28th of February, 2005.

This group of defendants is accused of “integrating” the ETA organization through their alleged membership in the youth organizations Jarrai, Haika and/or Segi. All are confronting accusations regarding activities in favor of ETA or integration in the armed organization, through their activities in these youth groups. These groups were completely legal organizations, operating openly. The youths are accused by the justice system in Spain of “belonging to an armed organization”, and of “genocide” through what is called a “popular accusation”.

I saw the testimony offered by 7 witnesses over the two days, all of whom were presented by the state. Four members of ETA testified, as did several youths who had previously given declarations to the state regarding their participation in youth groups in Euskal Herria.

What follows are some of my observations concerning the process:

The collective accusation

During the time I observed, I was unable to perceive a single allegation containing concrete, particularized facts. Nor did I observe any evidence concerning precise conduct on the part of any of the individuals being accused. Everything seemed to indicate that the state intends to prove this case on the basis of the generic participation of these youths in groups which were subsequently made illegal, and insinuations about activities by these groups which might be characterized as illegal, rather than on the basis of proof of the defendants’ individual participation in criminal acts. In this context, it is interesting to compare the possible sentences these youths are facing with those which have been imposed on others who have actually been convicted of directed participation in the armed struggle. How is it possible that the Spanish government is requesting prison terms of decades for the youths accused in Sumario 18/01 y 15/02, while lesser sentences have been imposed on those who have been charged and convicted of much more serious crimes, in cases where there have been accusations of direct participation in acts of violence?

The use of preventive detention to repress dissident movements

The fact that several of these youths will complete four years in preventive detention in approximately one week’s time raises significant concerns with regard to the use of preventive detention as a means of repression. The attendant circumstances seem to indicate that the prosecutions stem not from the interest of the Spanish State in accusing those who may be guilty of crimes, but rather from a political interest in repressing the movement in the Basque Country through preventive detention of those who participate in the most active sectors of that movement.

The performance of the attorney representing the “popular accusation”

In addition to the prosecuting attorney and the defense counsel, an attorney representing the “popular accusation” presented by the Association of Terrorism Victims, Pedro Cerracin. This attorney has the right to interrogate witnesses after the prosecutor completes his turn. From what I was able to observe, the participation of this representative of the “popular accusation” bordered on the ridiculous. Attorney Cerracin tried to enter into a debate with a former leader of ETA, José Luís Álvarez Santacristina, (Txelis), who has been jailed since 1992. The attorney would engage in extensive political diatribes, which were directly answered by Txelis. Through his questions, attorney Cerracin demonstrated a manifest incapacity in understanding the nature of popular participation in a national liberation struggle, and the work of social, community, political organizations and the like in such a movement. The arguments presented by this attorney were so illogical and offensive that even the presiding judge of the courtroom, Félix Alfonso Guevara, ended up telling him to shut up (in so many words). An example of this behavior occurred when attorney Cerracin asked Txelis about the supposed link between ETA and Jarrai during the 1980's, covering a period before Txelis was jailed. Faced with the witness’s answer denying such a link, Cerracin tried to conclude that therefore, during the later period in the 1990's — the period comprehended in the accusation against the members of the youth organizations — the links actually did exist. Starting with a false premise, followed by a denial of the premise, Mr. Cerracin went on to culminate with supposed proof of the opposite of the denial, based precisely on the lack of knowledge of the witness about the facts charged in the case before the court.

The poor quality of the proof concerning links between the organizations:

In order to prove the case against these youths, the state has the obligation to establish the link between ETA and the Basque youth organizations, the latter having operating openly and in a state of complete legality. In order to do this, the state is presenting proof about the Coordinadora Abertzale Socialista, KAS, in which the organization Jarrai participated at one point in time. The idea is to prove links in a chain: Defendant A participated openly in Segi; Segi is the successor organization to Haika; Haika is the continuation of Jarrai; Jarrai at some point was one of the organizations which participated in KAS. And, supposedly, KAS was controlled by ETA. Accordingly, Defendant A is a member of ETA.

Neither the prosecutor nor attorney Cerracin has had any success in proving this theory that “everything is ETA”. They have tried to prove the link through testimony offered by members of ETA, who have been in jail since long before the facts which gave rise to the case now before the Audiencia Nacional. The testimony offered by the ETA members certainly did not favor the position of the state. These witnesses, in a very clear and logical manner, explained the difference between illegal, military action and the spontaneous expression giving rise to organizations or actions of a people through legal and open organizations. In point of fact, the ETA witnesses testified about the absence of any link between the armed organization and the youth organizations, stressing that which cannot be denied: that two organizations can share goals — such as the independence of Euskal Herria --- without their necessarily being links between the organizations.

Illogical Premises

At times, the lines of questioning were based on ridiculous and illogical premises, far removed from the reality of political activity. This occurred during the testimony of David Plá, a young man who had first been a member of the youth organization Haika, and who had later become a member of ETA. While the witness spoke in very clear terms about his own personal evolution and the decisions he had taken regarding the scope of his political activity, the prosecutor and the attorney for the popular accusation tried to establish that this individual history was proof that membership in the youth organization inexorably led to a later link with ETA.

The Torture Issue:

Two of the witnesses testified that prior declarations they had made, linking their membership in the youth organizations with acts of sabotage, were false, having been secured by the police through acts of torture to which the witnesses had been submitted, after several days of being held incomunicado. Remarkably, the members of the Court appeared to show no interest in these facts or in the need to investigate these accusations which, if true, would constitute crimes under Spanish law. It was also apparent that they were not going to look into the accusations, to see if they case any doubt on the veracity of declarations made under such conditions. Apparently, it is the intention of the court to consider these declarations, possibly secured through torture, as competent proof in order to obtain convictions in this case.

The issue of authentication of documents

Many of the documents received into evidence during the proceeding have come from the police investigative file, without being submitted to a rigorous authentication process. In addition to procedural concerns, moreover, there are substantive reasons which call into question these documents. One example will suffice: During the trial, the prosecutor made reference to certain documents which allegedly proved the connection between Jarrai-Haika-Segi and ETA, and which were supposedly obtained during a search and seizure associated with the former ETA militant, José Luís Álvarez Santacristina (Txelis) in 1992. Some of these documents, however, were generated in 1993, approximately one year after the search was carried out.

Through this list, it is not my intention to cover the totality of that which I observed during the two days of trial or the information I ascertained through interviews with concerned parties. Before concluding this report, however, I must mention the admirable spirit I was able to see on the part of the youths who are facing these trials (many after years of detention) and their family members, as well as the tenacity and quality of their legal representation, performing this difficult work with the same admirable spirit and excellence.