Jarrai-Haika-Segi Summaries:

Trial in Court, chronology

Whole text of the haika-segi sentence (in spanish)
Summary of the haika-segi sentence


20/06/05
Spanish National Court gives minimum sentences of two to three and a half years to the 24 members of Jarrai, Haika and Segi and declares that the youth movement is "not terrorist"

Four of the youngsters have been acquitted

The court ordered the dissolution of Jarrai, Haika and Segi as illicit organizations, but states that those organizations cannot be considered to be terrorist because they never used weapons in their activities.

The court has ordered the dissolution of the three organizations, but states that they cannot be considered as terrorists because despite their sharing the same goals as ETA, they never used weapons in their activities.

Most of the defendants won't have to go to prison, since they already spent four years in preventive detention.


27/04/05
Twelve of the defendants, who were in custody, released to await the sentence

During her final remarks, lawyer for the defence Arantza Zulueta requested a verdict of innocence for all the defendants and the release of those who were still being held in jail, stating that there was no evidence against them and that the conditions required by law in order to maintain provisional imprisonment, amongst which se cited co-operating with justice and the issue of risk of absconding, did not occur. Thus, in an unexpected decision, the court ordered the provisional release of the defendants to await trial and decreed the end of the court trial.

Ainara Frade, Iker Frade, Arkaitz Martínez de Albeniz, Asier Otxoa de Retama and Aitziber Pérez left Alcalá-Meco jail; Gorka Betolaza left Valdemoro; Xabier Abasolo and David Lizarralde were released from Navalcarnero jail; Asier Iñigo and Unai González from Aranjuez; and Xabier Gojenola and Aiboa Casares, were released from Soto del Real, meanwhile, Aiora Epelde and Arkaitz Rodríguez had to remain in jail as they are involved in other cases.

According to court sources, the judge who will be in charge of drafting the court decision on the case, was the judge who issued an individual vote against the decision to release the defendants. Santiago Pedraz, the third member of the tribunal, voted for the release.

25/04/05
Counsel for the defence continued with their remarks

Counsel for the defendants continued to argue for acquittal as “there is no evidence whatsoever against them”.

Referring to the tapped telephone conversations, lawyer Iker Urbina said that their having been deficiently carried out means that both the information contained in the recordings and the actions carried out on the basis were unusable as evidence; these actions included searches of homes and seizure of documents. He said that, even if the recordings had been carried out in a legal way, they would have added no incriminating elements. The state prosecution only tried to use the recordings as proof of the defendants’ membership of Haika-Segi, as they included no criminal contents whatsoever, rather, they were conversations that could prove the existence of “an organic connection among the defendants”. Lawyer Aitor Ibero also spoke about some of his defendants, who admitted holding posts in Haika. Ibero rejected the idea that this could serve as a basis to convict them of “integrating an armed group at leadership level” since the police investigation has been unable to prove that there are any links between Haika and ETA.

As to documentary evidence, he said that the documents which would allegedly prove the connection between Haika and ETA –referring to a letter seized in Amaia Arrieta’s possession- did not appear in the list compiled during the search. Four years later, the Police said that there were papers with the names of people who could allegedly be recruited. He doubted the validity of this document, which was possibly added to the case at a later stage.

All in all, Urbina reproached the tribunal as they had to “clothe a political decision in legal robes; although they do not have enough cloth. The only thing they can do is to acquit all the defendants”.


16/03/05
Expert witnesses compare Jarrai to the Guardia Civil

The Guardia Civil expert witnesses called the youth organisation a “school for cadres” and based this on arguments such as a salute between Jarrai and ETA in a letter and a proposal allegedly made by Jarrai to ETA, which was rejected by the latter organisation. According to these witnesses called by the prosecution, in order to “penetrate their mentality”, they had to read work by Lenin, Marx and Mao and in order to understand Basque society, they had to read the Basque newspapers Gara and Berria every day.

Throughout the day, they tried to link Jarrai, Haika and Segi to the armed organisation ETA. The expert witnesses attempted to explain the way the youth movement from a military outlook, comparing Jarrai to the Guardia Civil and even saying that, “they are more disciplined than the Guardia Civil”

The session was entirely taken up by the three Guardia Civil’s statements and their interpretation of various ETA documents dating all the way back to the 1970’s. They were hidden behind a screen during the session.

Involved explanations

In order to support their thesis that ETA “sent instructions” to Jarrai, they gave two examples. The first one was the heading of a letter which, they said, was seized from the “political apparatus” of ETA, and which began with the phrase “Hello, comrades in struggle from Jarrai”. The other was a proposal allegedly made by Jarrai, which was rejected by ETA.

The guardias civiles admitted their explanation of their interpretations is “rather involved”. They later said that “at times, our knowledge is grater than the activists’”

The rest of the afternoon was spent on a digression about whether expert witnesses called by all the parties should attend each others appearances, in order to allow a hypothetical future face-to-face, or whether they will merely be called back to give evidence at the end of all the parties expert witnesses appearances. After much discussion, the court chose the latter option.

More trouble with translations

In addition, expert translation witnesses gave evidence. These were placed under “maximum” security measures, meaning that even the state prosecutor and the lawyers were unable to see them. This caused counsel for the defence to raise an objection, calling it “extremely serious”; as it “directs suspicion towards us” because it implied that the guardias civiles would be at risk if the lawyers for the young defendants could see them.

The issue of translations again caused moments of confusion, in this instance with reference to written reports. An expert witness whose job is to verify whether translations are correct accepted a mistaken translation: he was asked about the translation of a letter and requested to pay particular attention to the end, which said.


15/03/05
“Expert witnesses” begin to give evidence

The thesis held by Judge Baltasar Garzón, “it is all ETA” and, specifically in this trial, “any member of Jarrai-Haika-Segi is an ETA activist, and is conscious of this fact” is mainly based upon alleged reports by experts. These reports were actually written by the intelligence services of the Guardia Civil or the Policía Nacional [the two main Spanish security forces], portraying themselves as “experts” in order to afford a simple police opinion or suspicion with a greater level of credibility. Document seizures, the translation and interpretation of these allegedly seized documents, etc. all done in an atmosphere of obscurity, become infallible scientific analysis thanks to the intervention of these “experts”. The value as evidence ascribed to these “expert reports” will be decisive as to the sentence passed.

During the session today, “expert witnesses” from the Guardia Civil began giving evidence, referring to documents allegedly seized during various police operations, some of which went as far back as the 1970’s. They spoke of the historical moment when “ETA took advantage of the circumstances, the new system being set up in Spain” after the dictatorship, in order to separate a number of fronts from armed struggle, as the former would be able to operate legally, whereby “ETA kept the monopoly of armed struggle for itself”. Among these fronts, they mentioned “mass grassroots struggle” and “self-defence”, as functions “allocated to KAS and Jarrai, the latter organisation getting most involved in these struggles” through the letters “Z, X, Y”. The first of these, “Z” would refer to the “legal level”, meaning demonstrations and picketing; “X” would include “semi-legal” actions, according to the guardias civiles, such as “counter-demonstrations, blocking roads, etc.”; and “Y”, “illegal” struggle would refer to “sabotage activities”.

In these “expert” witnesses’ opinion, the youth organisations on trial did “not work for youth rights at all and used youth issues and problems in order to have a bearing on young people”. “Their mission is to prepare cadres for ETA, like an officers academy” said the members of the Guardia Civil.


14/03/05
Witnesses insist upon the autonomous nature of the youth organisations

The witnesses who took the box today and young defendant Olatz Egiguren restated their view that these organisations “have their own decision-making framework and their own structure”. Today, former councillor for Lezo and Udalbiltza member Xabier Alegria, musician Fermin Muguruza and former head of Emakunde (Basque Women’s Institute) Itziar Fernandez, among others, gave evidence in court.

Xabier Alegria highlighted the autonomous nature of the youth organisations on trial in Madrid. Similarly Olatz Egiguren, prosecuted for the Ekin case, insisted that this organisation “does not follow anyone else’s orders”.

Musician Fermin Muguruza stated he was hired to play at a number of concerts by Jarrai, Haika and Segi and that he would have “never asked his band to play for ETA”.

The lawyer for one of the defendants, Amaia Maestre, called Itziar Fernandez, who was the head of Emakunde between 1988 and 1999; IU councillor at the Gasteiz town-hall (1995-2003) Soledad Bengoa and Juana Fernanda Tostado Soledad, president of the Araba Women’s Assembly between 1993 and 2004.

All the witnesses explained how they met Maestre when she was a member of a feminist movement and not of Jarrai and how they took part, together with the defendant, in a number of events.

In addition, Fernandez said that the organisation she led had no contact with Jarrai, Haika or Segi and explained that “although certain media are saying these organisations and ETA are one and the same, I have no never had any indications whatsoever that this is so”.


09/03/05
Witnesses deny ETA controlled Jarrai

The defence called María Arantzazu Santesteban, a member of Elkartzen, a platform campaigning for social rights. Santesteban declared that Segi took part in the platform, as did many other organisations, being one of the many social agents in the Basque Country. She denied that Segi members ever attempted to direct or control the platforms activities and she also stated that they never proposed carrying out violent activities.

The next witness called was Gaizka Larrinaga. He admitted he was a member of Jarrai between 1990 and 1992. In 1992 he was arrested, accused of carrying out sabotage against the Spanish national rail company, RENFE. Gaizka stated that the proposal came from another one of the people who took part in the action, who was not a member of Jarrai, and that they carried out the action individually and they were not induced to do it by anyone in Jarrai or any other person. At one point, the public prosecutor read out the statement Gaizka made while in police custody, which caused the defence to raise an objection, as the statement was not included in the case proceedings. The judge overruled the objection and allowed the public prosecutor to continue questioning the witness. The defence asked the objection to be recorded in the minutes. The private prosecution by the AVT, in the same tone as they have used throughout the trial, asked the witness: “why sabotage against RENFE and not against Fagor?”

After this, three youths who are serving sentences for an action of Kale Borroka, which the admitted, went on to give evidence. All three of them stated that they were not induced to do the action by anyone, that the carried out the action spontaneously and they paid the expenses out of their own pockets. The last witness during the morning session was Joseba Arregi Erostarbe, who was arrested in Bidart in 1992 and has been in jail ever since then. He denied any links between Jarrai and ETA, and between the armed organisation and Kale Borroka.

During the afternoon session, ETA leaders from different times Julen Atxurra Egurrola and Francisco Garmendia Mujika gave evidence. Atxurra declared that, as an ETA member, he had written up a document proposing the organisation gained control of Kale Borroka, but the ETA leadership decided it was not their remit to control spontaneous protest activities in the Basque Country.

Finally, Joseba Enbeitia Ortuondo, jailed for membership of ETA, gave an extensive account of the history of KAS. He explained how it came to be created, the debates and discussions in 1974-1975 and what its role was. He reiterated that ETA was not part of KAS. The lawyer for the AVT asked no questions.


04/03/05
Six prisoners released

At about ten o’clock in the morning, before the beginning of the session, Judge Guevara ordered Olatz Dañobeitia Ceballos, Garazi Biteri Izagirre, Garikoitz Etxeberria Uria, Olatz Karro Boado, Igor Ortega Sunsundegi and Ugaitz Elizaran Aguilar to be released from prison. They are all facing charges of membership of an armed organisation. Thus, the request made by the prosecution to extend the four years the six young Basques have spent in jail, awaiting trial, by a further 126 days was rejected. All six defendants left the “fish tank” [the bullet-proof glass room where defendants charged with terrorism are kept during trial] and joined the defendants who are not being held in jail in the court room.

After these preliminaries, the morning session began. The two first witnesses were the former member of Gasteizko Gazte Asanblada (Gasteiz Youth Assembly), Zigor Olabarria, and Alvaro from the 8812 campaign on housing in Gasteiz. They both stated that the assemblies in which they took part were public, open and autonomous and they did not ask anyone for ID before they could take part. As an anecdote proving how diverse the 8812 campaign was, Alvaro explained how the person who is currently the PP Town Planning Councillor used to attend these meetings.

During the court recess, there has been much rejoicing among the released defendants, the other defendants and the lawyers and families present. Next, three witnesses who are being prosecuted for the proceedings against the herriko tabernas, Jon Garmerdia, Koldo Alaña, and Rubén Granados, took the witness box. Jon Garmerdia and Koldo Alaña were questioned about their work in Banaka consultancy. They both made it clear that they merely advised those herrikos that asked for advice on management of the bar and always with the date provided by these customers. Rubén Granados was Herri Batasuna treasurer for several years and he is also involved in another court case. He made it clear that the contributions made by Sozialista Abertzaleak MPs to Batasuna were individual, in their own name.

After this, Israel Brull, former member of Gazte Abertzaleak and Martin Aranburu, former EA MP testified. They explained how their organisations were organised and what their aims were. Decisions in Gazte Abertzaleak were taken at assemblies and it had social, left wing and pro independence aims. This proved that the youth organisation and EA worked in similar ways to the organisations on trial. As to the funding issue, they explained how the EA statutes specify that Eusko Alkartasuna elected representatives must contribute a certain minimum amount to the party and that this is not a “non-transparent” financial activity, as the prosecutions are attempting to say.


02/03/05
The first witnesses called by the defence begin giving evidence.

During the first of the two sessions today the last witnesses called by the prosecution were questioned. These witnesses were five police officers who arrested and dealt with the interrogation and statements by Roberto Maiza, Xabi Kamino and Jon Markel Ormazabal, allegedly related to urban struggle. Both the state and the public prosecution wanted to afford maximum credibility to the statements the three young Basques made in police custody, when they said the had links to Haika-Segi and with sabotage actions, so they attempted to prove that the three of them answered the questions posed by the police in a spontaneous way and that none of the officers were convicted for ill treatment or torture.

Conversely, the defence wished to play down these statements give in police custody, insisting they were obtained through torture. The defence backed this belief with evidence of a bruise on Markel Ormazabal’s face upon leaving the police station and which was noted in the forensic report. The police officer who took down the young man’s statement admitted he didn’t remember the circumstances of the statement or the bruise, but said he did remember that “his answers were spontaneous”.

In addition, former political prisoner José Ibañez denied the founding document for Jarrai had been seized in his home. The prosecution wished to use this alleged document to establish a connection between Jarrai and ETA.

During the afternoon session the witnesses called by the defence began to take the witness box. Alex Marañon, Azaitz Gartzia and Miren Zabaleta, spokespersons for Ikasle Abertzaleak, stated that this student organisation is not an “appendix of Jarrai”, which is how it has been branded in the case documents. I.A.’s activities are public, its decisions are made at assemblies and the organisation is open to any students who take part as individuals, so it is possible for members of Segi or any other organisation to take part in I.A. they explained how nobody from the youth organisations on trial has ever given them guidelines or orders or has ever proposed carrying out violent actions or threatening anyone.


01/03/05
Witnesses called by the prosecution explain they had made confessions on links between Jarrai-Haika-Segi and sabotage actions under torture

Jose Antonio Goitia, head of the Central Information Services of the Basque regional Police, Ertzaintza, spoke about the kinds of documents the Audiencia Nacional used to request on the issue of sabotage actions and what became known as the Kale Borroka and about their content and the dates when they would send these reports. He admitted they were always asked for information about events and never about their connection to specific people.

The rest of the witnesses, people charged with sabotage or convicted of crimes related to ETA, appeared in court, handcuffed, and were questioned about the “interrelation of mass struggle, political struggle and armed struggle”. Miguel Angel Zarrabe was asked about a document whereby the subordination of Kale Borroka to ETA orders could allegedly be proven. He said “I belonged to the border-operations division of ETA, I would not be in possession of such documents, it would not make sense” because he “did not belong to the political division”. Asked about the Basque Patriotic Left-wing attempt to expel non-nationalists from the Basque country using violent means, he said “our political line has always been favourable to incorporating immigrants into our country”. The prosecution then questioned Ugaitz Perez Zorriketa and Jon Crespo Ortega along similar lines. The prosecution sought to contribute statements they made to a judge in the Audiencia Nacional after being arrested by the Ertzaintza for sabotage actions whereby they admitted a connection between sabotage actions and the youth organisations. In these confessions, they allegedly gave information on the financing and structure behind these actions. However, they both rejected their confessions, saying that although they had been made in front of a judge, the content had been prepared by the Ertzaintza and they had repeated that content under pressure from the Ertzaintza. Pérez told how he was “a wreck because of what I’d been through in Arkaute –the main Ertzaintza station- and I just wanted to get out of that black hole”. Haritz Arnaiz Lazkurain, who is currently serving a sentence for membership of ETA, was asked about “semi legal” types of struggle linked to armed struggle, referring to a document allegedly found in his possession in 1999, when he was being held in Cáceres jail. This document, titled “Some quick thoughts on types of struggle” was allegedly found in a bag with his clothes which he was sending out of the jail. Nevertheless, he had never been notified of the seizure, nor was he ever punished for it. Anonymous witnesses Nºs 77690 and 71327, the prison wardens who searched Arnaiz’s bag, were unable to recognise the document and could not remember whether the prisoner had been notified. One of them said he remembered “a hand-written page, but I can’t remember any pamphlets” with anything to do with that document on types of struggle.

28/02/05
More witnesses called by the prosecution take the box

José Luis Alvarez Santacristina finished giving evidence. His appearance in court had been abruptly ended on Friday the 25th. When the prosecutor questioned him about certain documents allegedly found in his computer, he replied that he was not familiar with the codes or the style of the documents. He stated that the documents did not “come from my pen”. Among these documents, with which the prosecution was attempting to prove a connection between ETA and the youth organisations, there were several which were seized between February and September 1993, months after his arrest in Bidart –in the French state- while he was already in jail. Alvarez Santacristina also stated that his computer had not been investigated in his presence. Following a request by the defence, the court secretary checked and found that there were no records to back up the use as evidence of the documents that the prosecution maintains were found in that computer.
Carlos Iñigo Blasco stated he had been a member of Haika until 2002, when he fled his home after realising he was under police surveillance and because he was “afraid of being arrested because of my political activities”. That was when he went underground and became a member of ETA. The public prosecution also questioned him about his statement to the police when he was arrested in 1998, accused of having taken part in sabotage actions ordered by Haika. Iñigo replied that the aforementioned statement was untrue and had been made under torture.

David Pla Martin declared he had been a member of ETA and an activist in Jarrai “during different stages in his life”. Upon being questioned about “low-intensity violence” and its links to ETA activity, Pla stated that urban struggle “stems from different strategies and modes of political thought and is part of a pattern of spontaneous response, mostly response to repression”. Jarrai never made any calls to carry out any such activities.

25/02/05
The prosecutor requests extension of period of imprisonment pending trial by 126 days

The session on February 25 continued with the appearance in the witness box, at the prosecution’s request, of Josu Arkauz, Jose María Dorronsoro and Jose Luís Alvarez Santacristina, ETA members currently serving sentences in different prisons in the Spanish state. By bringing these people in to give evidence, the prosecution –both the public prosecution and the private, AVT, prosecution- were attempting to prove a connection between Jarrai-Haika, Segi and ETA through KAS. Their strategy is to attempt to prove tutorship of ETA over the youth organisations; the latter would thereby use them to carry out sabotage and other actions of street violence. Nevertheless, this thesis is not forthcoming from the evidence given by the witnesses, who repeatedly denied having perceived any such connection. Alvarez Santacristina, called to the witness box as the leader of ETA’s “political apparatus”, admitted that his job was “to know about and assess the opinions of all the political, social and cultural agents in the Basque Country and the Spanish state through every possible medium: documents, books, magazines… thereby to set the organisation’s political-armed strategy”. Therefore, they found their own ways to compile information on the youth organisations, as they would “on any other agent”.

The lawyer for the AVT, Pedro Cerracín, attempted to extend the ETA leader’s questioning in order to find some evidence of the connection the witness insistently denied. At one point an argument erupted between the Chair of the tribunal, Alfonso Guevara, and Cerracín, the lawyer for the private prosecution. The Chair ended the argument with a resounding “you shall shut up, sir, and you are expelled from the court”.

In addition, public prosecutor Enrique Molina made a request to extend the legal maximum for a person to remain in jail pending trial by a further 126 days, arguing there had been “undue delay in the process” which he blamed on the defence. This would mean that the legal absolute maximum period a person can spend in jail awaiting trial, four years, would be extended. This request arrived in a context where the trial has been hurried along, precisely because several of the accused will fulfil those four years on March 6. The lawyers for the defence stated this request was a “scandal” and “abusing the law” and they condemned the “dishonest and illegal attitude” of the prosecutor.

24/02/05
Witnesses called by the prosecution deny any link between the youth organisations and ETA

Inma Berriozabal and Joseba Kamio, called by the prosecution, took the witness box. Kamio, a Jarrai press officer ten years ago, reiterated prior statements by witnesses, denying Jarrai’s activity –or Haika, or Segi’s- had any links to ETA’s activity or any other violent actions. In his answers, Kamio insisted that the youth organisation received no guidelines of any kind from external agents. “Jarrai was fully autonomous and would not accept anyone telling it what to do. We zealously safeguarded that autonomy, which was the envy of many others”. He also said that “young people were never induced to go and carry out `street struggle´”.


23/02/05
Second session with witnesses called by the defence: Jon Salaberria

Prosecutor Enrique Molina was attempting to establish a hierarchical connection between ETA and Jarrai, so he called upon Jon Salaberria as a witness. The Basque MP and former member of Jarrai was adamant that “if there was anything by which to define Jarrai, it was that it made its own decisions. I was never aware of any kind of order coming from KAS”. Salaberria said, on several occasions, that the way of thinking of KAS and Jarrai as structurally dependent “is mistaken” and he denied any dependence relationship. He explained that the KAS coordinator was created as a result of the Burgos Trial and postulated “a program of minimum democratic demands based on Basques’ right to decide. From that starting point, it went on to deal with defending those minimum demands. Jarrai would make its contributions, but it both organisations were on equal terms”. The prosecutor asked about his confession to the Guardia Civil when he was arrested in 1995, charged with “being the Jarrai activist responsible for communication and of coordinating groups active in urban struggle in the province of Gipuzkoa” whereby the thesis of connection between Jarrai and urban struggle appeared to be confirmed. Salaberria replied that his statements to the Guardia Civil were “induced by the torture I suffered”. He also reminded the court that the case had been closed.

He ended by pointing out that, in view of what was being used as evidence against the 42 young people and the charges against them, “I should be one of them now”. The truth is that there is an important contradiction in attempting to directly link people to ETA just for being members of the three organisations, and not taking action against the MP who had publicly admitted his former membership of Jarrai.

21/02/05
The witnesses for the prosecution begin to give evidence

After Markel Ormazabal, the last of the accused to give evidence, who denied involvement or links to Jarrai, Haika or Segi, the witnesses called by the public prosecution began to give evidence. Imanol Iparragirre, a well-known activist in the Basque pro-independence movement, spoke of the relations between Jarrai and KAS –Abertzale [Basque patriotic] Socialist Coordinator, a political grouping formed in 1975 in order to coordinate the political groupings and parties that made up the Basque National Liberation Movement and which Garzón believes to be ETA’s political front. Iparragirre explained that Jarrai was a “sovereign and autonomous mass organisation” and KAS was a political organisation that arose in the context of the trial known as the Burgos Trial. In his view, “KAS would develop a general political approach with which Jarrai agreed, but there was no structural connection between them”.

Batasuna member Juan Joxe Petrikorena went on to state there was no link between activists in Jarrai Haika or Segi and his party and rejected the charge that Batasuna cooperated in any way in sabotage actions. The prosecution proposed two witnesses who were arrested in 1995 by the Guardia Civil accused of “having petrol bombs” and who the Guardia Civil had tried to link to Jarrai. They made it clear that, firstly, they had denied any such links in their statements to the judge; their confessions in custody had been made under torture


18/02/05
The accused continue giving evidence

In this session, both the public prosecution and the AVT prosecution attempted to prove that “Jarrai-Haika-Segi” are all the same organisation and that the accused know each other and have jointly organised various activities, which, on the other hand, do not constitute a crime. Thus “this trial uncovers the attempt to criminalise Basque youth” according to Unai Gonzalez, Arkaitz Martinez de Albeniz, Xabier Gojenola, Asier Iñigo, Dabid Lizarralde and Asier Otxoa. Lizarralde was the only one to admit his membership of Segi, underlining its “participatory, horizontal and assembly-based” nature; it was due to this nature that it maintained its autonomy from other organisations in both financial and political terms.


17/02/05
Fifth session

The fifth session of the trial of the Jarrai-Haika-Segi case continued in the same vein, with the accused giving evidence. Igor Ortega, former spokesperson for Jarrai and Haika, explained the reasons that drove the disbandment of Jarrai, which had become “obsolete” and the creation of Haika, a “national” organisation with a way of working that would take into account “the different situations within the Basque Country”. He explained that the Amaiur debate process was “a great success” because around 4.000 young people took part. “We reached places where neither Jarrai nor Gazteriak had ever been before. The police operation against Haika was their reply to our success”. Igor Ortega insisted upon the “totally autonomous” nature of the youth organisations, which he said was “a unique instance in Europe. We are not a hatchery for ETA; neither are we the youth wing of Batasuna”. In his view, that sovereignty of the youth organisations is “an absolute good”.

During the afternoon session, Aiora Epelde, admitted having been a member of Haika although she said she had not held any post within the organisation and she denied any involvement with ETA or with street struggle activities. Gartzen Garaio explained his work in various cultural and social organisations and admitted having taken part in demonstrations called by Haika, because that organisation was “the one that best represented his ideas”. Sonia Jacinto went on to tell how she worked in a feminist organisation, which led her to have a working relationship with members of Jarrai from her town.

“My having to prove my innocence here is a disgrace. There is no crime here; this is a political trial”. Was Patricio Jimbert’s categorical statement. Egoitz López de Lacalle said how his relationship with Jarrai and Haika was limited to his work in the 8812 platform in Gasteiz, an organisation set up to protest about the housing situation. He remembered how “there was even a PP councillor in 8812”, the town hall councillor for housing issues. In 2000, he took part in the Amaiur debate process, which gave birth to the Haika working plan. He highlighted the fact that shortly after that he was “kidnapped” and held in jail for ten months. When he was released, he became a member of Segi.

Later, Arkaitz Rodríguez, Garazi Biteri, Xabier Abasolo, Gorka Betolaza, Aiboa Kasares, Ainara Frade and Iker Frade went on to give evidence. They all explained their involvement in social r cultural groups and denied having held any responsibilities in Jarrai, Haika or Segi. They also denied links to ETA or involvement in street struggle activities.

15/02/05
Fourth session; Court adjourned due to faulty translating

This session began with Gorka Urbiola, Aitziber Perez and Amaia Maestre giving evidence. All three of them denied any involvement in ETA or Jarrai, Haika or Segi and told the judge how they had taken part in campaigns against compulsory military service, against poor quality employment and for women’s rights.

During the session, the translators hired by the Audiencia Nacional to translate from Euskara into Spanish were shown to be incompetent. Aitziber Perez had to repeat statements up to seven times due to the translator not understanding many of the words she used.

The Permanent Commission of the General Council of the Judiciary (the highest institution in the Spanish Justice System) criticised the decision by the Basque regional Government to send an observer to the trial. They argued that penal trials in the Spanish state are public, so there is no need to send observers, but they immediately added that this was an attempt to cast doubt on the independence of the judiciary, attempting to “control” its actions and sow doubts about the Spanish legal system, which the Council says is “absolutely trustworthy” because “Spain has one of the most advanced systems of guarantees.”

14/02/05
The accused continue to give evidence

The trial continued with Olatz Dañobeitia and Ugaitz Elizaran giving evidence. They explained how the youth organisations which they had been members of worked. The former was spokesperson for Jarrai and these latter was treasurer for Haika. Both of them underlined the non-existence of structural links to ETA, both in economic terms and in decision making. They insisted that they worked on youth rights issues with a Basque national and left-wing outlook. They explained to the court how these organisations were involved in organising public activities such as conferences, talks, concerts, demonstrations, youth encounters or press conferences and that decisions were taken by assemblies based on the local branches of the organisations.

After a break, Garikoitz Etxeberria gave evidence. He spoke for a short time as he denied having had any level of responsibility within Jarrai, Haika or Segi, as well as having been a member of or cooperated with ETA.

11/02/05
Second session; the accused begin giving evidence and the court is sued for perverting the course of justice

Upon resuming the trial, the defence raised their objections to the Court because several preliminary issues had not been properly resolved. They also announced they intended to take legal action against the judges of the Audiencia Nacional penal court Nº4 for “perverting the course of justice” and for “impeding the exercise of civil rights”. The lawsuit is due to the content to the decisions made up to now, rejecting requests for a series of tests to be carried out, because of the attempt at hurrying the trial on and because the main concern for the court is to prevent those accused who will shortly have fulfilled the maximum preventive imprisonment period from being released, regardless of all the fundamental rights and legal guarantees.

At 14:40, the trial continued, with several accused giving evidence. Maider Alonso, Amaia Arrieta, Mikel Ayllon, Unai Beaskoetxea, Olatz Carro and Iker Chillon refused to answer the questions asked by public prosecutor Enrique Molina and the AVT, arguing that this was a political trial and the role of both the prosecutions was merely to criminalise the Basque youth movement. They spoke in the Basque language (Euskara) and denied all charges. In general, the young Basques admitted to being members of Jarrai, Haika or Segi, but they denied any responsibility within these organisations. They also explained that the said organisations are publicly known due to the work they do on youth issues. In addition, the denied having any links to ETA or any involvement whatsoever in carrying out, preparing or organising actions of street struggle (rioting and sabotage).

The intemperance shown by the chair of the special tribunal is worth mentioning, as he issued numerous rather inappropriate remarks, such as “I shall allow no one to interrupt me while I am talking, unless we must evacuate due to a bomb alert! And I might be giving people ideas here”.

The observer designated by the Justice Department of the Basque regional Government, Abel López de Aguileta (director of the Bureau for Legal Studies), attended this session. His attendance caused much controversy in the media.

07/02/05
Beginning of the trial; adjournment due to procedural irregularities

The tribunal was set up with judges Fernando Bermudez, Carlos Ollero as deponent and Alfonso Guevara as chair. The public prosecution was represented by Enrique Molina and Pablo Cerracín appeared as the lawyer for the private prosecution, by the Association of Victims of Terrorism. The defence was made up by lawyers Iñigo Iruin, Jone Goirizelaia, Arantxa Zulueta, Aitor Ibero, Iker Urbina and Endika Zulueta.

Upon verifying that the accused were present, the chair of the court, it was discovered that Asier Tapia e Izaskun Lesaka were absent. The chair, Alfonso Guevara, issued search and arrest warrants against both these youths. The defence highlighted the fact that there were mistakes and irregularities in the notification of the beginning of the trial.

The defence lawyers also protested due to the difficulty to prepare their defence, caused by what is known as the Prisoner Dispersal Policy. The accused are being held in several jails, far away from each other. In addition, several of the accused were not moved to jails in the province of Madrid a month before the trial, as the Barberá sentence of the established. The private prosecution argued for abidance by European jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the chair refused to intercede before the Prison Service to aid the defence.

The beginning of the trial was hindered by such procedural issues as by the rejection of the expert witnesses and the faults in the notification. Therefore, the defence moved for adjournment, because there were still preliminary issues to be resolved. The defence protested that “the tribunal knew that the trial could not start today, this is clear”. In his argument, Iruin insisted on the fact that “the imperative rules of procedure are being skipped” in order to impose “undue hurry”.

The AVT prosecution also argued for adjournment as they had not been notified of the objections made by the defence and because the irregularities could cause problems in the future, stating that “not applying the jurisprudence would be to make it easy for the defence”.

Therefore, the chair of the tribunal decided to adjourn the court and postpone it until February 11.

02/02/05
Decision on the date for the trial; problems with the notification

The accused were notified about the date for the beginning of the trial, five days later, on Monday 07/02/05. The defence lawyers gave a press conference to denounce the fact that the hurry to begin the trial was due to the attempt to prevent six of the accused from recovering their freedom, as they will have spent the maximum four years in jail pending trial on March 6. They also denounce that “a number of important issues” brought forward by the defence, such as their challenging of the tribunal and of the expert witnesses proposed by the prosecutions, had not yet been resolved. Therefore, until these prior procedural issues had been resolved the court trial could not begin.