Individual
reports:
30 January 1 February 2006
Report Nº 14
Tim Potter,
Lawyer in the UK, member of Haldane Sociaty of
Socialist Lawyers
Report of Observations of Trial 18/98 in Madrid
against 59 Spanish Citizens from the Basque Country
30 January 2006 Audiencia
Nacional, Madrid
The
trial is not being heard in the official Audiencia
Nacional building but at a specially formed court
house in the Casa de Campo park in Madrid. Prior
to the proceedings starting I was able to observe
the arrival of many of the defendants. They are
accused of being members of ETA owing to their
activities and work for newspapers, associations
and companies alleged to be part of ETA. None
are on trial for alleged violent acts but for
their alleged association with ETA.
The
defendants travel from the Basque country to the
tribunal in mini-buses and cars and stay in Madrid
during the trial sessions. As the defendants met
outside the court house in the morning there was
a visible TV news media presence filming them
and the court house, including 3 camera crews
one of which was from CNN. Threre was also a police
presence outside the court house of a police truck
and 5 policemen, a couple of whom wore balaclavas.
The
session in the special courtroom began an hour
behind schedule. During this time friends and
family of the defendants mingled in the lobby
of the building next to members of the 2 victims
associations who also attend the trial. One of
the victims groups identify themselves by t-shirts
bearing message 'Justicia y Seguridad' - Justice
& Security.
The
trial had been adjourned on January 9 to permit
the defence to have time to look at documents
from the 75/89 preliminary proceedings. The defence
lawyers regard these documents as the basis of
the charges brought against the accused and that
is why they state they need to be able to examine
the documents in order to conduct their defence
properly. When the session recommenced submissions
were made by the defence that they had not had
sufficient time to review these newly disclosed
100,000 pages from the 75/89 proceedings. Arantxa
Zulueta, defence counsel, argued for a 1 month
adjournment. She submitted that the defence had
made personal efforts over the christmas period
to get copies of these documents, alleging that
the prosecution had not assisted them. She submitted
that the defence had not had sufficient time to
make copies of the 100,000 pages of the 75/89
proceedings. The state prosecutor Enrique Molina
opposed these requests for an adjournment citing
other adjournments as well as stating that all
the relevant information is contained within the
tomes of the 18/98 proceedings. During the submissions
he was flanked by a private prosecutor representing
the victims associations and Eduardo Fungairino,
the chief prosecutor of the Audiencia Nacional.
The private prosecutor argued that the right to
a defence was conflicting with the right to a
speedy trial.
Following
these submissions the panel of 3 judges left the
courtroom to consider the arguments. Lawyers for
the defence and prosecution were called in to
meet with the judges. In the meantime the courtroom
was left to relax in an informal state. During
this time a member from one of the victims associations,
sitting behind me, remarked "Are they ours
or theirs?", about my presence and that of
a catalan lawyer observer representing the European
Democratic Lawyers. Defence lawyer Arantxa Zulueta
emerged from her meeting with the judges and announced
to all the defendants that she was 99% certain
that the tribunal will order an adjournment for
a further 15 days. Another catalan lawyer, who
is here to observe, remarks to me "We come
to see this process but we never learn anything
as nothing ever happens."
The
entire courtroom was left with a frustrated atmosphere
as the wait continued for the judges. Upon re-emerging
the Presiding Judge, Angela Murillo, announces
the decision to adjourn the trial until February
13 in response to the defence requests for an
adjournment. The defence lawyers are warned that
it would be "the last time" the trial
would be adjourned.
For
an outsider the most peculiar sight was seeing
all of the defendants having to appear at the
court not to hear anything said against them.
For the most part they sat in the court room reading
newspapers and books. There is a glass holding
area but the defendants all sit in open court
in front of the judges. The decision to adjourn
the trial gave the impression that these 100,000
pages of the 75/89 proceedings were key to the
defence team and to a fair trial.
.............................................................................
31 January 2006
Meeting with Defendants Miriam Campos & Txema
Matanzas
Following
the adjournment of the trial the Basque human
rights organisation Behatokia arranged for me
to meet with some of the defendants and with one
of the defence lawyers.
Miriam
Campos and Txema Matanzas are both lawyers and
2 of the 59 accused of being part of the network
of ETA. They expressed how their political activities
had been conducted entirely legally and in public
until 1998 when new anti-terror laws criminalised
their political activities. The organisations
they told me that had lost their legality under
this new law included: Xaki - described as a European
level representative association for the Basque
country; Ekin - described as a policy development
unit which had been in public existance for 20
years; Egin - the paper and radio; and the Amnistia
group - described as campaigning for Basque political
prisoners. Both defendants expressed alarm that
these organisations lost their legality overnight
after operating in the public arena for a long
time. They told me of their belief that there
is not evidence to link these groups and those
people involved in them to ETA. Their belief was
that Judge Baltasar Garzon's investigation had
cast the net too far, that it had been conducted
based upon assumption and that the adjournments
being experienced at trial were a reflection of
the absence of evidence against them.
Both
defendants expressed exasperation with how they
had been treated upon arrest. Txema Matanzas described
a system of being held in detention incommunicado
where statements are prepared and given under
torture. He spoke of being granted access to a
lawyer for approximately 2 hours but only after
the police have conducted their interrogation.
Their joint concern was that alot of evidence
being presented against the defendants involves
statements given in police custody in the absence
of lawyers or procedural safeguards. They both
felt that torture complaints are not investigated
by the National Court.
.............................................................................
1 February 2006 Meeting with Defence Lawyer Aitor
Ibero Urbieta
Defence
lawyer Aitor Ibero Urbieta told me how the defendants
had been charged with cooperation with terror
organisations and others charged with membership
of ETA under Articles 515 & 516 of the Spanish
Penal Code. He spoke of how the common thread
to the charges is that of membership of a terror
organisation. His sentiment was that the investigation
was based solely on police theory, that cooperation
& membership require contact with ETA and
that there is no evidence of this, no communications
or examples of decision making.
He
spoke of how the defence had initially been denied
the evidence cotained within the documents of
the 75/89 preliminary proceedings. When they finally
acquired it some defendants had already given
evidence in court and been cross-examined. The
documents of the 75/89 proceedings were contained
in 500 tomes which the defence team then had to
scan. He stated that they were in no particular
order and included police reports into multiple
investigations. He spoke of how many of the actions
in 18/98 stemmed from the 75/89 proceedings.
He
interestingly stated that the less used evidence
in the 18/98 trial was that obtained through torture.
He spoke of 5, 6 or 7 cases where this might be
so. Instead the most used evidence is said to
be that of police reports. The police are afforded
the status of expert witnesses. His concern as
defence counsel was the weight the tribunal can
attach to the testimony of an expert witness.
I was told that the evidence given by 1 expert
witness is enough proof to satisfy the tribunal
on a question of guilt. Aitor Ibero Urbieta told
me that the validity of this 'expert' evidence
is a key objection of the defence.
...........................................................................
|
