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

Individual reports:

On July 3, 4 and 5, 2006

Report nº16

Pascale TAELMAN- SAF

REPORT ON THE OBSERVER MISSION TO THE AUDIENCIA NACIONAL

BACKGROUND TO THE OBSERVER MISSIONS:

We decided to carry out this mission following a request from the lawyers in the EUSKAL HERRIA WATCH initiative, whom we met during the AED symposium. The issue raised our interest, especially in relation to the particular conditions of this never-ending trial, called 18/98, which began eight months ago.

It is a proceeding followed against sixty people from various organisations and associations, who worked in Basque social movements and who, following an investigation led by judge Baltasar Garzón, were accused of working for ETA.

In addition, a number of parallel investigation pieces were created by judge Garzón against members of social movements, political parties, newspapers… totalling around 250 people from all walks of Basque society, all ages and all sexes, charged in this case.

The hearings I attended dealt with cross examination of the witnesses for the defence in the piece referring to the activities of the JOXEMI ZUMALABE FOUNDATION, created in 1997 by Fernando OLALDE ARBIDE, with funds he had inherited upon his father’s death. He invested the money into this Foundation in order to allow various social movements to have premises, technical aid, grants, means for coordination, etc.

Most of the witnesses speak in Spanish.

Some speak in Basque with the help of an interpreter.

1-FACTUAL REPORT

Session of July 3 2006:

The session begins at 10 o’clock. The session today deals with cross-examination of defence witnesses, which will take place from 10.00 to 14.00 and from 16.30 to 21.00 hrs.

In Spanish procedure, the Tribunal only has a role as a regulator of the session, cross examination of witnesses is carried out by the defence lawyers, the prosecution and the civil party or “private prosecution” (specifically, associations of victims of terrorism taking both civil and penal collective legal action).

Therefore, witnesses are examined by the defence lawyers and then cross-examined by the state prosecutor and the lawyer for the private prosecution (although in practice they hardly ever do it).

Witnesses today are appearing in relation to the alleged link of the JOXEMI ZUMALABE Foundation to ETA (see the analysis of the case and the CD Pedro Landa, one of the defence lawyers, gave me)

The following 14 witnesses will appear today:

-The mother of one of the defendants, Fernando Olalde, a founder of the Joxemi Zumalabe Foundation, whish is accused of carrying our activities for ETA. In fact, this Foundation (it continues to function openly and legally after the arrest and charging of its leaders and many members) is aimed at helping various social and cultural movements, such as environmentalist movements, women’s movements, youth movements, antimilitaristic movements, conscientious objection movements…

This woman explained that her son has always been an unselfish person who, coming from a wealthy family, wanted to use his inheritance to help others, which is why he invested it in the said Foundation.

-The brother of the same defendant, who testified in the same vein.

-Members of the board of the Foundation and workers at the Foundation, who all testified that if this Foundation had any links whatsoever to a political party or dogmatic organisation, they would never have participated in it or with it. As far as all these people are concerned, it is a Foundation where the leaders and active members came from very different walks of life, with different beliefs. Decisions are made by consensus, but often after long debates, because the involved parties are rarely in agreement right from the beginning.

This is manifestly a Foundation working with maximum accountability, respecting the rules of social law.

Its aims were to support and aid the various social and grassroots movements, giving them grants to carry out their activities, offering technical or legal help. It was also about organising debate forums on various issues, for example, on “civil disobedience”, just one more issue among many others, but which seems to have powerfully grasped the attention of judge Garzón as evidence of involvement with ETA.

Among these witnesses, there is a student of anthropology, who worked for the Foundation and who explained that during a period during the investigation, the accounts of the Foundation were blocked. However, the Foundation continued working, with great difficulties; later on the accounts were restored and the activity of the Foundation resumed in full.

She explained that the people who knew of the activities of the Foundation were so surprised by the charges against it that a broad movement of self-incrimination began; it was called “from one hundred to one thousand”. Over 1,500 people signed a document accusing themselves of the same as the members of the Foundation, as they saw it as their duty to stand in solidarity with the persecuted members of the foundation.

-Various other people who had different kinds of contact with the Foundation testified too. These are mainly social workers (Emaus, literacy teachers…) people from the university community, sociologists, social-cultural neighbourhood workers, mountain guides… All their words were to praise and express respect for the work of the Foundation and none of them believes the Foundation had any kind of link to ETA, even stating that the way the Foundation works is contrary to the way in which it would work if there were any kind of link to ETA (due to the Foundation’s links to non-violent movements, antimilitaristic movements, conscientious objectors… its being open to the most diverse opinions…)

Among these people, we heard JOSÉ LEÓN OTAÑO UGARTEMENDIA, who was in charge of Basque literacy for adults. He was a member of the association AEK (Umbrella-group for literacy and Basque language learning). He was arrested due to this Case and the charges against him were dismissed; his association was subjected to in-depth investigation, especially in relation to its accounting, as it was suspected of being a means for financing ETA.

The expert investigation allowed the charges against association and its members to be completely dismissed.

However, during the session it is found out that 12 boxes with documents relating to the funding of AEK are still in the Case and that they continue to be used as the basis for certain accusations made by the Prosecution.

One of the lawyers asks these documents be removed from the Case and the person responsible for AEK be informed that those documents are still in the hands of the Prosecution, despite the fact that the charges against him have been dismissed.

Session of July 4, 2006:

The hearings recommence at 10.10 hours and continue in similar conditions to the day before.

The session begins with a reading by the Secretary, informing the Tribunal that a German lawyer called as a witness has sent a fax in which he states he is prepared to appear, but only under guarantees that the proceedings will be regular.

-Testimony of witness PAC VILLAHOZ Isabel:
She is a former worker at the Foundation; she worked on compiling a directory of social organisations (a piece of evidence used by the Prosecution arguing it was compiled following orders from ETA). It is a list of the various organisations and associations in the grassroots and social movements of the Basque Country. The reason she is being interrogated about this point is that in the minutes of the investigation she is referred to as someone who works in recruiting for ETA. However, no charges were ever brought against this person.

-José Ignacio MARKO JUANIKORENA
University student and independent worker in the field of associations, who had contacts with the Foundation, on the one hand, when the aforementioned directory was published, and on the other hand, in relation to grants given to certain associations. He took part in the compilation of the directory. The witness believes the directory is a quality product because it is an interesting tool from the point of view of analysis of social movements and not just as a catalogue.

The prosecutor asks him about the “Ibaeta Manifesto”, written by a number of associations and regarding activities to defend Basque prisoners; the question indicates that the said manifesto, also signed by the witness, is some kind of emanation from Batasuna, a currently outlawed political party.

- Jesús María CONGIL INFANTES:
A teacher by training and a technical civil servant. Since the late 70s, he has taken part in movements and associations against drugs and drug dependency. He is very well known in the Basque Country.

He had contact with the foundation since 1997/1998. He has knowledge of the Directory of social movements and believes that this work was a very good idea. He was present at the public presentation of the directory. It was a good means for getting the various associations to know each other and to do transversal work.

The prosecution says that the meetings organised on the issue of this project were really meetings aimed at setting up an indoctrination programme created by ETA. The witness rejects this. In addition, the people who took part in these meetings and who have not been charged are independent people, not easily indoctrinated, if one bears in mind their previous commitments.

-Iñaki BARCENA HINOJAL:
An important person in the Basque environmental movement. He is a graduate in law and has a PhD in Political Science. He wrote a thesis on social movements. He has also written a number of books, particularly about environmentalism.

He was consulted on the preparation of the directory and, specifically, regarding the classification of the various organisations included in it.

He also took part in discussion conferences organised by the Foundation, which included representatives with a broad span of opinions.

He states it cannot be thought that the Foundation is controlled by ETA. There are different and varied opinions expressed in this Foundation. The idea that ETA may try to control the whole of the Basque social movement is a waste of time and makes no sense.

The prosecutor cross examines the witness: is there a link between the Foundation and the pro-amnesty movement? Answer: no, it is just one of the many existing social movements.

-Javier XIMENEZ XIMENEZ
Psychologist and social worker. He is also an anti-military activist. He attended the public launch of the grassroots movement directory.

Nothing in his statement could indicate any kind of criminal involvement by the Foundation.

-Leire CARIDAD LOPEZ
Holds a post with responsibility in the Basque nationalist Party. Was a member of the Basque Youth Council. The aim of the Council is to promote youth participation in social and po0litical life in the Basque Country. She is asked about the meetings organised by the HERRIA MUGI initiative (“an active grassroots movement”) and whether those meetings were aimed at indoctrination favourable to ETA. The witness certifies this is impossible; in addition, the opinions expressed at the meetings were very diverse, which would completely exclude such a hypothesis.

-Ainhoa PERMACH MARTIN
Graduate in IT; she works as a journalist at a radio station. In 2001, she worked for ZAI ZOI at the SAN SEBASTIAN Culture Centre. She attended the launch of the grassroots movement directory. During this launch, there was talk of creating a joint work group for the various associations. This group decided to call itself HERRIA MUGI.

The witness was the conductor of the first meetings organised by this group. She states the biggest difficulty at the meetings was finding time so that every attendant could talk, because there were many people and many opinions, people had to wait a long time for their turn to talk and the positions expressed were varied. At no point did she feel that anyone attempted to monopolise the floor or indoctrinate anyone.

Initially, there was no thought of signing a manifesto. The only agreement possible was about very generic things, about the will to work jointly.

-Iñaki SOTO NOLASCO
Philosophy graduate -31 years old, researcher for the Basque regional government, currently writing his thesis. In 1999, he worked to publicise the first encounters set up by HERRIA MUGI; he prepared posters.

He confirms that people from every ideological and political field took part in these meetings.

-José Ramón CASTAÑOS UMARAN (a very well known person):
Teacher, activist in social movements for a long time. He therefore had relations with all the political and social associations in the Basque Country.

He also believes that the Directory of Social Movements was an essential piece of work, and the same goes for the various meetings organised by HERRIA MUGI. Everybody could take part and the most diverse opinions were expressed at these meetings. It cannot be said that these meetings sought to indoctrinate people in any way.

In relation to a question by the Prosecutor, he explained that he was one of the founders of ETA VI, a splinter from ETA, which appeared because of fundamental disagreement on the use of armed struggle.

-Eneko LANDABURU PITARQUE:
A doctor (well known), active in the associative movement and, specifically, in the search for an alternative medical science. He explains that, having taken part in several of these meetings, he can confirm the diversity of points of view expressed during them.

-Martín BARRIUSO ALONSO:
Graduate in Philosophy and Education Science, he has been active in environmental movements and various associations for the de-criminalisation of marihuana, for the last 25 years.

He took part in civil disobedience actions. He explains how he can confirm, due to his participation in meetings organised by the Foundation, the diversity of points of view held at the meetings, especially in ideological terms, and therefore exclude ETA directed these meetings.

-Tomás GOIKOETXEA ARANBURU:
A log-time member of the Communist Party, a very well known character, he was a member of ETA until it doubled up, going on to9 become a member of the CP and, later, of IZQUIERDA UNIDA.

He has full knowledge of the meetings that took place in SAN SEBASTIAN, under the auspices of the Foundation; he was present when issues of civil disobedience were discussed. He is certain that ETA has nothing to do with any of that.

For the Prosecutor, doubling up in ETA means that a member of ETA works both in ETA and in a social movement at the same time, whilst for the defence, these functions are incompatible. For the activist, doubling up means that on the one hand there is ETA politico-militar, and on the other hand, a movement or political party, with no link to the former. The witness confirms that there is no double activism in ETA.

-Mabel CAÑADA ZORRILLA:
She worked with groups that promote non-violence. She is around fifty years old and lives in an abandoned and rehabilitated village. She defines herself as an active non-violent person.

She took part in several HERRIA MUGI meetings; as far as she is concerned, these were people who came together because they enjoyed the meetings and could work together enthusiastically. At no point did she feel that there were any attempts to manipulate the meetings to the benefit of ETA.

-Miren ERASUN URCELAYETA:
A graduate in sociology, she worked with a group of sociologists and is a Basque teacher. She took part in the drafting of the Directory together with other sociologists, particularly in its analytical part.

The aim of HERRIA MUGI was to find common points among the various participating social movements. There were five work subgroups for different issues. There were no political guidelines.

It was all about trying to find a common factor among the different movements.

-Iñaki OTAMENDI GUTIÉRREZ:
35 years old, a social worker at public library. He worked with anti-militaristic groups and non-submitters to the military service. He highlighted the absence of any attempts to impose any guidelines and the joint will moving them all, with no indoctrination.

-Joseba IMANOL IBARBURU URANGA:
50 years old, a member of the SANTI BROUARD association; he confirms all the views above.

-Iñaki GOYOAGA LLANO:
Lawyer; everyone knows him because he regularly defends clients at the AUDIENCIA NACIONAL. Thus, everybody, including the Tribunal, greets him cordially with a smile. The atmosphere is rather surrealistic, if one bears in mind that this is a trial about terrorism and there are long sentence requests against many of the defendants.

He explains that one of the defendants, MIKEL ZULOAGA, went to see him to explain his surprise when he read in the press that a document called PIZTU was ETA’s work. This document was really a basis for work and discussion, he had written it himself and he wished to see judge GARZÓN to explain and clear up this point; therefore he asked the lawyer to intervene to this effect. It seems that right from the beginning, judge GARZÓN refused to take this “confession” into account and to accept his voluntarily appearing in court; the judge ordered Zuluaga to be arrested, having sent no summons, by the security forces, in very humiliating and violent conditions, after ZULUAGA had publicly stated he was the author of the said document at a press conference.

PIZTU is a document written in Basque, a reflection on civil disobedience; the authorities have translated its title as “PIZTU definitive phase or phase of execution” when the correct translation is: “PIZTU: definition phase”.

Session of July 5, 2006:

It took place from 10 hours to 13.30 hours.

It is a similar hearing to the two previous ones.

The following witnesses testified:

- Jesús SANTAOLALLA PRESILLA:
Manager of the Foundation’s funds.

- José María GONZALEZ BLONCH ROCO

- Ignacio RUIZ DE PINEDO UNDIANO:
Sociologist, works on issues of poverty and town planning. He has published several works on social insertion. He was an MP for HERRI BATASUNA.

He read the "PIZTU" document written by ZULUAGA. It was a document presented as a basis for work and debate. It was by no means an ETA initiative. The witness says he wrote contributions to the initial draft.

- Patxi AZPARREN OLAIZOLA:
37 years old, upholsterer, graduate in anthropology, teaches adults, he has taken part in conscientious objection movement since he was 18 years old.

He worked in civil disobedience movements, specifically, he worked on the creation of a Basque ID card, he took part in the movement to return Spanish or French ID cards and to place postage stamps with the head of the King of Spain etc. upside-down on letter and postcards.

He took part in the launch of the Directory of social movements and in the HERRIA MUGI meetings in May 1999.

He stated he has read the PIZTU DOCUMENT and he made contributions.

He was arrested in relation to this case, before the charges against him were dropped. He was released on bail (he has still not been reimbursed with the 6,000 euro he had to pay). Hearing this, the Chair of the Tribunal suggests he visit the secretary’s office and see how this situation can be solved.

- Luis BARINAGARREMENTERIA OLAIZOLA:
Lawyer, he explained his arrest in relation to this case. There are currently no charges against him; the case against him has been dropped.

- Ramón LABAYEN SANSINENEA:
78 years old; former Mayor of SAN SEBASTIAN, medal of merit in the army, very well known. He explains that he was asked to lead a campaign to set up a Basque ID card. He states this had nothing to do with ETA. It is a card produced and backed by an association of town halls. He complains that this trial is giving eat an importance they do not have.

- Joseba GOÑI ALZUETA:
64 years old; coordinator of a collective that publishes yearly studies, ELIZA 2000 (a Christian association), former priest. He backs what previous witnesses have said.

2- IMPRESSIONS ON THE ORAL HEARINGS

The sessions I have attended have taken place in a calm and quite respectful way by both parties. They take place at Audiencia Nacional premises outside the main building, in the suburbs of Madrid (the Casa de Campo).

The defendants are obliged to be present, but for many of them the sessions are not relevant because they are not all members of the same organisation and the trial is a rather artificial juxtaposition of several cases on the only common basis that the organisation responsible for everything is allegedly ETA.

Most of the defendants wear T-shirts with logos relating to the trial.

Seven of the defendants are lawyers.

All the lawyers for the defence (11 in total) are Basque except for one who is a member of the Madrid Bar Association.

The statements of the witnesses cause shock because, given the level of involvement they had, they have not been subjected to judicial action. What justifies some of them being charged and others not? I can find no answer to this question.

Throughout the sessions, there was mention of the fact that many people from Basque civil society have publicly expressed their self-incrimination, because they wish to completely take on the deeds of their friends and defendants. There are around 1,500 self-accusations.

The surprisingly “relaxed” atmosphere of the sessions is quite astonishing too: there is very little security, a rather cordial climate, two of the defendants present are currently in jail because of other charges; they sit with their co-defendants with no restriction to communication…

And this is a trial of people accused of terrorism, where the Prosecutor is asking for sentences between 10 and 15 years in jail!

Another aspect that surprised me very much was the presence of three colleagues, sitting with the defence lawyers in full defence lawyer capacity whilst they are simultaneously defendants in this case.

At the end of the session, I had the opportunity to talk to the Chair, who told me that the whole business had begun in quite a brutal way (see reports by previous observers) but that she had later realised that everyone was prepared to play fair; that these sessions were very heavy going, for the defendants especially, because they were lasting over months, taking up three days a week, which is very heavy going, and that she was trying to get everything to evolve in the best possible way for everyone.

The lawyers also confirmed that the sessions had never taken place in such calm, except for the days I happened to attend.

The trial will continue, according to the previsions, until December. The defence lawyers have requested more observer missions to be organised, as it can say that this trial is really “very noisy considering the little substance”.

What I saw shocked me in terms of the time and money spent in this trial, for nothing.

In September, the “expert witness” sessions will begin; these are but members of the police who write reports on espionage and whom the defence rejects, as experts, obviously.

The lawyers I have met requested the presence of more international observers at the hearings in this trial.

Finally, let us take a look at the distribution of the courtroom:

The Tribunal, the Lawyers, the State Prosecutor, and the Lawyer for the Private Prosecution all sit at the same height, on a raised platform.

The defendants cannot have contact with their lawyers during the hearing, as, if they are prisoners, they are held in a completely closed glass cage, and the only way to communicate is through a microphone. When the defendants are not prisoners, as in this trial, they are in the courtroom. If they want to communicate with a lawyer they have to walk across the room.