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

Several private companies, professional projects, which were legal and dealt with commercial sectors related to Egin and Egin Irratia, were placed under administration due to their alleged links to what the investigation judge calls the “ETA-KAS organisation”.

On 25/05/98, the operation against what at the time was termed “the ETA financial network”, in other words, against businesses which, according to the Investigation Court, favoured or co-operated towards funding ETA. Garzón takes the alleged “integration” of these companies within ETA as a starting point to state that any member of the boards of these companies was committing a “crime of terrorism”.

On 15/07/98, agents of the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía carried out a final search of the premises of the daily newspaper Egin and of the radio station Egin Irratia, based on the thesis that both media were part of the financial network of ETA and were but a “tool” ETA used in order to carry out its activity. At the same time, Judge Garzón dictated the closure of the two media companies and the sealing of the publishing company, the offices and the print-works.

The 4th section of the Penal Court at the Audiencia Nacional –the body in charge of dealing with the appeals against Garzón’s decisions- passed a resolution on 11/01/99, acknowledging the inappropriateness of the cautionary measures taken against Egin. In addition, the 4th section issued an order on 04/07/01 stating that “mere membership of KAS or the administration board of ORAIN SA does not imply membership of an armed group. Specifically, it said that “there is no rational basis whatsoever for inferring a crime of membership of the terrorist organisation ETA from the fact that a person is a member of the administration board of the company ORAIN SA”

On 09/07/03, the defence demanded permission to re-open the closed premises, skating that five years had passed since the closure of the newspaper. The 3rd Section issued its decision on 13/07/03, whereby it “decreed the opening of the premises so as to allow the owners access”. However, it immediately added a series of measures which made use of the premises impossible and prevented the possibility of continuing the media project. All that was left was a ruined business enterprise and old and weathered premises, affected by the passage of time. Above all, it was clear that the main aim of the case was to remove a daily newspaper with an editorial line which was uncomfortable for those in power.

2. Case 18/98
Separate piece AEK

The investigation was incorporated into Case 18/98, and this part appears as a separate piece within the main piece of the Case. On 22/11/00 the judge issued a summons for nineteen members of AEK to appear in court for statements.

The summons established the charges of membership of an armed group and other economic crimes –including a debt with the social security of 1,300 million pesetas. Judge Garzón accused those responsible for AEK of “integration within ETA” because AEK and GALGARAKA S.L. “constitute entities integrated within ETA-KAS, in the so-called mass-front, […] as well as in the financial and economic front or network […] within the large-companies section”. He added that “through the principle of unfolding and double activism set by ETA-KAS, AEK and its instrumental company –Galgaraka S.L.- have been controlled by full-time members of KAS who were inserted in its ruling bodies, which are practically the same in both cases”. He also stated that AEK, which he places within the “plan for shared funding designed by ETA-KAS, has contributed to funding other structures in the organisation –ORAIN-Egin, Gadusmar, Jarrai...”

In his injunction of 24/12/01 he changed his mind and stated that the people charged in relation to AEK and GALGARAKA are not members of ETA, nor do they cooperate with this organisation; rather, the case is sent to the Bilbao Province Court, due to the alleged fraud against the Treasury – a charge which would later be dropped- and the Judicial Administration over the Basque language teaching organisation was lifted. The Court admitted the fact that there was no link whatsoever between AEK and ETA. Indeed, there were no rational elements to support these charges for over three years. Nevertheless, the Court pushed the charges in a malicious way, causing irreparable damage to AEK via the shadow of suspicion it cast.

3. Case 18/98
Separate piece Xaki

The proceedings against Xaki began with the arrest of Nekane Txapartegi and Mikel Egibar on 09/03/99. after a year-long investigation, the judge decided to include these proceedings within Case 18/98. during a second police operation, on 29/01/00, a number of arrest warrants were issued, as a result of a police report called “UCI report on the external relations of ETA-KAS and the rest of the BNLM and the European Association Xaki”. These proceedings were to remain secret from the time of the first arrests, 09/03/99, until 26/07/99. part of the first police operation in these proceedings involved a police raid on the offices of the political party Herri Batasuna in Donostia, on 01/03/99, following an order from Audiencia Nacional Central Investigation Court Nº3.

The main piece of evidence in these proceedings was the statement made by Mikel Egibar while under arrest, and later ratified by the detainee before the judge, while he was still not allowed to see his lawyer. Mikel Egibar made a complaint to the courts about the torture he was subjected to during his detention. Several of the people mentioned in his statement expressed their willingness to appear before the judge to give statements. At the time, the court stated it did not believe these statements to be necessary. Later, on 29/01/00, despite the fact that there was no new evidence against these people, the judge issued arrest warrants for eight Xaki members. Later on (07/08/00), CIC Nº5 indicted sixteen people and brought another nine into the proceedings for alleged membership of ETA.

On 08/02/01, the 4th Section of the Penal Court of the Audiencia Nacional made a decision in response to the appeals made by the defence. It rejected the charges against several of the people indicted by Central Investigation Court Nº5, which meant some of them were released from jail. The decision by the 4th Section showed up Baltasar Garzón’s thesis. It’s decision stated that “the clear fact, which this tribunal must admit, is that the aims of the European Association Xaki present no signs of being illegal, and it is an association that carries out its activity publicly and is legally constituted”. “Affording legal or medical assistance to deportees in other countries, carrying out actions to prevent extradition requests from being approved, criticising the Spanish legal system, promoting international recognition for the right to self-determination, or even publicising the so-called Democratic Alternative for the Basque Country inside or outside Spain, is behaviour which, in itself, lacks any criminal significance, whether these are done by an individual or by several people who have associated to such an end”.

The spokesman for the Spanish government of the time considered this decision by the 4th Section of the Penal Court of the Audiencia Nacional “especially serious”. The decision invalidated the indictment of the people charged by judge Garzón due to their involvement with Xaki. José María Aznar’s government publicly stated its “belief that Spanish society will find the decision made by the 4th Section very difficult to understand". The pressure being exerted by the government on the 4th Section began to be clearly perceivable.

4. Case 18/98.
Separate Piece Pepe Rei-Ardi Beltza

José Benigno Rey, Pepe Rei, was the former head of the investigation team at Egin daily newspaper and, after it was closed down, became the editor in chief of the Ardi Beltza (Black Sheep) magazine. As a consequence of the police UCI (Central Investigation Unit) report of 15/02/99, proceedings against this journalist were opened up, for an alleged crime of “co-operation with an armed group”, in the belief that his activities as the head of Ardi Beltza “are clearly in line with the kind of penal category the accused is being indicted with and far from any kind of activities linked to journalistic work”. The indictment order added that his activity “amounts to placing the means at his disposal –the Ardi Beltza magazine- at the service of the terrorist organisation ETA-KAS-Ekin or other groups under its discipline, in order to aid in the selection of targets”. According to the injunction, “adjudicating responsibilities or satanising is in line with the traditional strategy of ETA-KAS-Ekin, within which Pepe Rei’s activities fit in”.

Garzón added that the magazine “has no informative interest whatsoever, except for ETA or its groups” and highlighted the fact that this information work is the same as the work Rei carried out as the head of the Egin investigation team.

On 13/06/01, Pepe Rei was released, having spent five months in jail. Contradicting Garzón’s theses yet again, the 4th Section of the Audiencia Nacional accepted the appeals made by the journalist’s defence lawyers and, consequently, revoked the imprisonment order, convinced that there was no indication that Rei had committed any of the crimes he was accused of. The tribunal concluded that “we have found no incitation to commit crimes of terrorism” in the reports contained in Ardi Beltza. Furthermore, this Section of the Penal Court highlighted the fact that “adjudicating responsibilities is not a legal-penal category” and that “in itself, it is not relevant in terms of the penal law”. Again, this 4thSection of the Audiencia Nacional suffered an intense campaign by certain media and public powers due to its actions, discrediting several of Garzón’s decisions. This campaign achieved its aims: on 06/02/02, the magistrates of the 4th Section issued a decision, this time confirming Baltasar Garzón’s indictment order against Pepe Rei for “membership of an armed group and terrorist threats”. The Tribunal justified its change of opinion with alleged new evidence and accused the former director of Ardi Beltza of having published information about certain people in order to “stigmatise them and point them out as possible targets for the terrorist organisation”.

5.A. Case 18/98.
Separate Piece Ekin

On 12/09/00, twenty alleged members of Ekin were arrested and a number of homes and premises allegedly used by the said organisation were searched. Within the same raid and under the cover of the arrest warrants, premises and offices belonging to the political party Herri Batasuna in Donostia, Bilbo and Iruñea were also searched. The proceedings were added to the main Case 18/98 via a court resolution on 17/10/00.

In its response to the appeals by the defence, the 4th Section of the Audiencia Nacional contradicted the investigation judge again. in its decision of 04/04/01, this tribunal stated that “the accused are charged with having taken part in setting up Ekin, as a organisation subordinated to ETA […] in order to “co-direct”, on behalf of the terrorist organisation, the network of political and social organisations that make up the so-called BNLM and, according to the explanation given, such an activity can be considered criminal both if the creation of Ekin was decided by the terrorist organisation itself or if, once Ekin had been set up, it developed its activities in a way that is completely subordinated to the orders of the armed group. […] in both cases, relating to the existence of a relation of subordination between ETA and Ekin, upon which the remand in custody order is based, but the verification of which is essential for the said events to be relevant in penal law. This relationship can by no means be assumed and must be established in a precise and conclusive way”. The 4th Section, therefore, doubts the precision of the accusation.

This decision caused a virulent reaction in the media and by government officials. The government spokesman even said that “this decision goes against a substantial part of the mechanisms we have to combat terrorism with the law”. Judge Garzón himself accused the 4th Section of acting “in ignorance”.

On the same day as the 4th Section criticised Baltasar Garzón’s arguments with reference to the alleged link between ETA and Ekin, the judge banned Ekin, declaring it illegal and reiterating the arguments that the 4th Section had rejected; in other words, that ETA created Ekin, that Ekin succeeded KAS and fulfils the same functions, that it exercises control and leadership over the whole of the BNLM, that it carries out and controls Kale Borroka and that it controls ETA’s alleged civil disobedience campaign.

5B. Case 18/98.
Separate piece Ekin, referring to the Joxemi Zumalabe Foundation

On 04/10/00, an operation co-ordinated by Baltasar Garzón took place against the Joxemi Zumalabe Foundation, whereby its premises were searched as well as those of ABK, and nine people were arrested. The Minister of the Interior at the time, Jaime Mayor Oreja, stated that the arrests amounted to the “dismantlement of a part of ETA’s political network on the inside [of the Spanish state]” the aim of which was “civil disobedience and to overcome the constitutional framework”.

The arrest warrants issued by judge Garzón against these nine people were based on the publication of a document called “Piztu Project”, upon which the activity of the intervened organisations was based and which would allegedly show their link to the “ETA-KAS disobedience project”. With this reasoning, Garzón accused the detainees of being linked to the armed organisation and of promoting “the ETA-KAS disobedience project, with the declared aims of subverting the constitutional order and creating spaces for counter-power”. Upon hearing part of the content of Garzón’s orders and the media interpretations being made, Mikel Zuloaga, the true author of the Piztu document, appeared in public to categorically deny any links to ETA and to take responsibility for the content of the document, which was a proposal for debate and a proposal for peaceful civil disobedience

On 01/11/00, judge Baltasar Garzón issued an arrest warrant against Mikel Zuloaga, for him to be brought to make a statement at CIC Nº5 the following day. Zuloaga told how he was violently arrested and subjected to pressure during his time in police custody, which caused him to suffer a nervous breakdown and to hyperventilate. Following his statement at CIC Nº5, he was remanded in custody under the charge of “being a legal (unknown to the police) member of the political apparatus of ETA”.

At this point in time, there was a new element affecting the appeal made by the defence for the people arrested in relation to Ekin-Joxemi Zumalabe Foundation. The magistrates in the 4th Section had been removed from office –as will be explained later- and, on 03/12/02, the new 4th Section rejected this appeal and rectified the criteria used by the former 4th Section. All the people affected until then were kept inside the proceedings. The order declaring the activities of the Foundation illegal hinges not only on the fact that they were allegedly fostered by ETA or favour ETA’s activities –which would be a criterion of objective responsibility- but also the fact that the said civil disobedience seeks to overcome the legal framework. In other words, the various civil disobedience initiatives attempt, in practice, to overcome the Spanish legal framework, disobeying its rules –again, always in a peaceful way- and it is this, in itself, which is considered illegal, deserving penal punishment, but not only as an act which disobeys the law –which would bring on a minor punishment- but as a form of terrorist activity. We are evidently in the presence of a move to criminalise aims, not actions.

5.C Case 02/03
Iker Casanova

Iker Casanova was arrested on 13/09/02. He was placed under incommunicado detention, taken to Madrid, to the Spanish Policía Nacional quarters and delivered before the judge on Monday, 16/09/02. He had to make his statement to the judge whilst still incommunicado (therefore unable to be aided by his own lawyer). The imprisonment order refers to him as “the head of the financial-economic area of Ekin” and also accused him of “organising the protests and demonstrations on the occasion of the death of ETA members” as well as of “co-ordinating actions following the suspension of the activities of HB-EH-Batasuna” and insisting on describing him as a “dynamiser” for Ekin; all of which would amount to a “crime of membership of the terrorist organisation ETA-Ekin”.

On 03/10/02, Rubén Nieto, Paul Asensio and Javier Balantzategi were re-arrested, following an order from the 3rd Section of the Penal Court, based on a report by the UCI stating that these three people were carrying out work for the by then illegal Batasuna, specifically, taking part in the demonstration which, under the motto Gora Euskal Herria (Long Live the Basque Country) took place in Bilbao on 14/09/02. When they were delivered to the 3rd Section of the penal court, they were sent to jail, in other words, while up until then they had been under a provisional release order they went on to be provisionally imprisoned, as the Tribunal decided all three of them had re-offended. Nevertheless, the charges are absolutely irrelevant or absurd from the point of view of penal law: having managed the sale of premises belonging to Batasuna and acquiring other premises for the said political organisation –at the time when it was still a legal political party- having managed the payment –with money with accounted-for sources- of bail for one of the people accused within Case 18/98, organising demonstrations and protests against the ban on Batasuna –all of which were legal and did not bring about any legal actions whatsoever- organising publicity for the said demonstrations… However, we must insist upon the fact that the arrests can only be correctly understood within the context of the confrontation following the demonstration of 14/09/02, intended to cause dramatic effect and as part of an attempt by Garzón to take revenge and appear tough and forceful.