REPORT ON 95/2010 SUMMARY AGAINST ASKAPENA by Askapena prentsa-bulegoa

REPORT ON 95/2010 SUMMARY AGAINST ASKAPENA

INTRODUCTION The present report addresses the special circumstances the process developing since September 2010 and carried out by the Spanish National Court against Askapena, 5 members of the previously mentioned organization Walter Wendelin, Gabi Basa単ez, Aritz Ganboa, Unai Vazquez and David Soto and also against associations such as Askapena, Elkar Truke and Herriak Aske. The purpose of this report is to state the measures that have exceptionally been applied throughout this process and to also state the situations of helplessness and violation of rights that previously mentioned individuals, societies

and organizations

have su.ered

throughout it. For the preparation of this report authors' sources have been used. First, people who in one way or another have 2rst-hand seen the circumstances of this case have been consulted: lawyers who have followed the case; people under investigation; defendants; legal representatives of the associations Elkar Truke, Herriak Aske and Askape単a; relatives of people who got arrested and imprisoned; Askapena members; witnesses attending the trial and a long etcetera. Also in order to be as close as possible to the development of the process, we have taken into account the circumstances which without being strictly tied to the process, to some extent reinforce some circumstances discussed in it. For this, organizations that work directly with relatives of prisoners su.ering dispersion have been consulted and information has been collected on people who had reported tortures during the length of the detention. In a more indirect way other information has been obtained through the various edicts that have been known throughout the procedure, as well as other written submissions presented by the defence and the prosecutors. Finally, newspapers' libraries have been

used as a source of actual facts in order to try to explain that in this particular case, the most signi2cant issue has been the interpretation that media made out of the case, not so much the facts themselves. At the end of this report, you will 2nd a series of Annexes which intend to complement the information developed throughout the report itself. 2.

INDEX

Page 4: Precedents.

Page 5: Circumstances surrounding the period of detention and searches.

Page 7: Exceptional circumstances occurred during the period of detention.

Page 8: Situation of detainees and 2nally not processed. Situation of people initially charged in the preliminary investigation. People under investigation.

Page 10: Exceptional measures applied once entry in prison occurs.

Page 13: Release on bail of arrested people.

Page 14: From September 27th 2010 to October 19th 2015.

Page

15: Charge sheet of the Public Prosecutor and Private

Prosecutions

Page 16: Development of trial against Askapena. Unrecognised rights to the defendants.

Page 18: Development of the trial against Askapena, Elkar Truke,

Askapeña and Herriak Aske.

Page 20: General conclusions.

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Mass media and presumption of innocence.

Annex 2: Political and institutional positions. Presumption of innocence.

Annex 3: Torture testimonies.

Annex 4: The dispersion.

Annex 5: F.I.E.S.

Annex 6: Information on 18/98 case.

Annex 7: Information on proceedings against youth organization Segi.

PRECEDENTS On 27th September 2010 a police operation takes place ending up with the arrest of 7 people in the Basque Autonomous Community and another one in Navarre. The police burst into the houses of Walter Wendelin, Gabi Basañez, Aritz Ganboa, Unai Vazquez, Dabid Soto, Ruben Sanchez and Itxaso Lekuona. In addition to arresting these people, their homes and premises of the internationalist organization Askapena are searched. After these arrests, Uberka Bravo is arrested in the town of Hendaye. This operation is based on certain events that took place in 2008. In August of that same year, a solidarity brigade of Askapena brought

before the courts a complaint about some events that occurred in Colombia on July 20th of that year. On this date the solidarity brigade receives a call from someone who identi2es himself as a member of a Colombian paramilitary group called "Black Eagles". This person accuses Askapena and the brigade of being "spokespersons of FARC in Europe" and says "we are watching you and we're going to kill you." In addition to the previously mentioned threat, 5 of the solidarity brigade's members pictures appear who are identi2ed as "suspected terrorists of ETA," trying to establish relations with FARC. The truth is that his visit to jails to meet with FARC prisoners was authorized and falls solely on the need to collect data on rights violations that routinely occur in Colombian jails. The Spanish justice, instead of trying to identify those who have posed these threats, focuses on trying to reinforce the idea that there are in fact, links between Askapena and FARC. And with this element as a starting point, we need to add all the di.erent documents lost in various basements and summaries, it develops what later would become the indictment which would culminate in the police operation against Askapena. 4. CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE PERIOD OF DETENTION AND SEARCHES. The arrests are carried out around one o'clock in the morning. In all cases there is a heavy police deployment, also accompanied by a large media hype. The circumstances under which the arrests and searches are produced are only the 2rst link in a long series of exceptional measures that are applied to the detainees.

The fact of carrying out the arrests at dawn and in the homes of those arrested would be understood only if a series of exceptional circumstances were to occur. Those arrested could have been summoned to testify or in any case be arrested in circumstances in which their rights were fully respected. This does not occur from the very moment in which the houses are literally assaulted by dozens of armed people in homes occupied by people, families with children, to proceed to detain people for which in any case could be assumed they would pose a risk. That very fact that the search is taking place at the same time by an unspeci2ed number of policemen makes it impossible to ensure an organized search in which the presence of the court clerk or someone acting as a witness is ensured at all times and places. As noted above, the police action was accompanied by a huge media display. This circumstance makes it clear that at that time the competent authority decided to precede the media coverage of the operation, rather than preceding the right to privacy, a right which cannot be violated in order to obtain a clear political purpose. This situation is further aggravated by the signi2cance and interpretation of the generality of the media gave the news of the arrests and searches. Any hint of objectivity and professionalism that the media should show, disappear when broadcasting the news. The rights to accurate and authoritative information were denied to both the detainees and to their immediate environment and citizens in general. It should also be noted that this circumstance is played systematically throughout the entire procedure. Even more serious it is to check that the headlines and content of the information evidenced an interest of such media to deny the right

to presumption of innocence of all persons, including those arrested. (Annex 1). As evidenced by the documentation provided and regarding written media, objectivity is zero in the case of media such as Diario de

Navarra, ABC, El Pais and La Vanguardia. As regards the circumstances of the arrest, noting that the same right to presumption of innocence was also violated by plenty representatives of the political class and even institutional positions. The role played by those political positions that directly blamed the people arrested or the organizations investigated by unproven crimes, evidence partisan interests that lay behind this operation, given the political context in which this occurs. And 2nally, we want to note that these two circumstances, the role of certain media on the one hand, and party interests, have forced from the very moment that this judicial procedure begins and until the day of today, people and organizations have undergone a real parallel trial. 5. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRED DURING THE PERIOD OF DETENTION. Detainees are handcu.ed and are informed that they are now under incommunicado detention regime. This measure is an exceptional procedure that prevents all detention period detainees have the possibility of being assisted by a lawyer you trust. That period of isolation also becomes a space of impunity that often enables the practice of torture. This practice was in fact denounced by those arrested only 15 days before in another police operation. Thus, the mere fact of being incommunicado generated a feeling of defenceless in those arrested in the operation against Askapena, violating this way the right to e=ective judicial protection. Following the arrests and searches of those who got arrested, the detainees were taken to Spanish National Police (CNP) police stations in

Bilbao, Gasteiz and Iru単ea. All transfers were done with the detainees handcu.ed. Hours after the arrests occurred, the detainees are transferred in the morning of September 27 th . During the transfer apart from being handcu.ed, they are also obliged to remain with their heads between their legs. The period of incommunicado detention goes on for 40 hours. At 11 am on 30th September the National Court judge Pablo Ruz begins to take statements from detainees. They declare after the isolation period is over. During the period of isolation they are interrogated without the presence of a lawyer the detainees trust. And the statement before the judge is made without the detainees having had the opportunity to be advised by lawyers of their trust. In his statement to the judge Aritz Ganboa claims to have been threatened during the transfer to Madrid. 6. SITUATION OF ARRESTED AND FINALLY NOT PROCESSED PEOPLE. SITUATION OF PEOPLE INITIALLY CHARGED IN THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. PEOPLE UNDER INVESTIGATION. Since this report's goal is to reGect the exceptional circumstances experienced during the process against Askapena, it is essential to reGect the following situations: 6.1.

Arrested and @nally not processed people. Along with the arrest warrant signed on September 30 2010, judge Pablo Ruz signs avoidable prison on bail for the other two detainees, Ruben Sanchez and Itsaso Lekuona. The bail for the 2rst one: 10.000 Euro. And 5.000 Euros for the second one. Also in the indictment a warrant for the arrest of Uberka Bravo is issued. He was arrested on October 11 th in Hendaye. His arrest was denounced by his lawyer, who had spent days trying to make Uberka appear voluntarily before the judge. On 27th October the French courts accepted the European arrest warrant requested by the Spanish State

and nevertheless left him on probation, leaving the prison of Seysses the same day. On October 28th he was again arrested and on the same day the extradition of Uberka was carried out. After spending four days in prison and brought before the judge he decreed freedom on bail of 50,000 Euros with the obligation to sign with the court weekly. In the case of these three people it is remarkable that despite the long process of investigation to which they were submitted, none of the three eventually ended up being processed. However, they had to wait long periods as in the cases of Uberka and Ruben were higher than four years, until they were 2nally totally removed from the process. The fact that they had not been charged eventually does not in any way mean that justice has been done for them. They were subjected to a real parallel trial, and indeed the process lived to be 2nally o. the case

was

already

genuine

conviction

itself:

their

arrests,

investigation they underwent, the four-year process, the bonding requirements, it is all a punishment for which the Spanish justice can never 2nd a possible compensation. 6.2.

People initially charged in the preliminary investigation. At 2rst besides the arrested people, four other people were called to testify: Aitziber Martinez, Naroa Iturri, Beatriz Ilardia and Humberto Trapero. All of them are oHcially out of the procedure after the prosecutors failed to appeal against the indictment charges. This indictment dates from September 2nd 2011, so in practice these people had to wait more than a year before knowing whether they had been removed from the proceedings or not.

6.3.

People under investigation. Dozens of people have been investigated throughout the investigation phase of this summary. The total lack of proportionality is a general trend in the whole process, which is aggravated by the indiscriminate research which have been subjected to persons for whom

there was not a single sign of responsibility. Dozens of current accounts of individuals were intervened. Those in which the owner appeared linked to Askapena, but also all the other of which was a title bolder. Data for these people, their families, friends, or related solely to the personal and private sphere were violated during the investigation stage. The

police

investigation

conducted

without

respecting

minimum guarantees as to the rights to privacy and inviolability of communications is concerned. A thorough investigation of all accounts, we must add the systematic and continuous intervention of telephone communications. The

research

developed

through the

network widened the investigated range of people to levels that cannot be admitted in any state of law at all. 7.

EXCEPTIONAL MEASURES APPLIED ONCE ENTRY IN PRISON OCCURS. The judge of the Spanish National Court decreed the 30 th September 2010 the unconditional imprisonment for Walter Wendelin, Gabi Basañez, Unai Vazquez, Aritz Soto Dabid Ganboa for "belonging to a terrorist organization." They all enter in prison Soto del Real in Madrid.

7.1.

Application of dispersion to political prisoners of the internationalist organization Askapena. On 1st October 2010 the 2ve people for whom the judge orders imprisonment are transferred to di.erent prisons:



Unai Vazquez is transferred to the prison of Aranjuez, 511 kilometres away from Barakaldo.



Aritz Ganboa is transferred to the prison of Navalcarnero, 485 kilometres away from Arruazu.



Walter Wendelin is transferred to the prison of Estremera, 516

kilometres away from Gasteiz. 

Gabi Basañez is transferred to the prison of Alcalá, 463 kilometres away from Sopela.



Dabid Soto stays at Soto del Real prison, 421 kilometres away from Iruñea. The policy of dispersion is a special and discriminatory measure applied by the Spanish and French governments since 1987. It is special because it is widely applied to the entire group of Basque political prisoners and it is also discriminatory because it is the only group to which it is applied. And it is also a measure that goes against the principles contained in the Spanish Criminal Code: " Enforcement of

the sentence where the o.ender has social roots. Spanish prisons are scattered

throughout

the

country

allowing

inmates

serve

their

sentences in the nearest to their place of origin and thus avoid uprooting the family and society. " The truth is that this policy was applied to the 2ve imprisoned persons, with the aggravating circumstance that this poses to their own situation, but especially for their relatives and the people who come to visit them. To the huge expenses regarding travel and accommodation must be added the tremendous risk to the families and friends involved in conducting visits. Hundreds are the incidents that have occurred on the road, dozens of accidents su.ered and a total of 16 people have lost their lives when they came or returned to make long journeys this policy of dispersal of prisoners means. 7.2. Application of the Files of Specially Monitored Inmates to the Askapena political prisoners. As soon as these 2ve persons entered prison, they were informed that they were included in the Specially Monitored Inmates regime. These persons were under precautionary detention. They had not been tried, and, therefore, they had the universal right to presumption of

innocence. However, they were held under rules applied to “all those belonging to armed bands or terrorist groups...” In any case, once more, the exceptional nature of this regime becomes norm, and is applied in all cases directly or indirectly related to the Basque conGict.

From the very 2rst moment that this regime is applied to them, these persons’ rights are absolutely infringed. Among other restrictions, being under the Specially Monitored Inmates regime implied the following for the 2ve Basque internationalists:

•

All their written communications were controlled. Letters were

photocopied and sent to Security Coordination. In many cases, this means having to wait several weeks to receive correspondence. They could write only two letters a week, and, in some cases, there are limits established on the use of your mother tongue (if it is the Basque language). •

All oral communications were tapped.

•

Closed lists of visiting persons. This is applied with such abuse of

discretion that a person’s political aHliation may be reason enough to exclude him or her from the list. The subsequent appeals stall visits of friends or even relatives for months or even years. Sometimes, these obstacles are insurmountable. •

Retention of magazines, books, journals... that do not have legal

deposit or threaten Security (such as the Law states). In practice, the selection is absolute, on political terms. •

Daily observation and noting of their conducts.

•

Regular change of cells.

•

Continuous cell searches.

•

Etc.

8. Release on bail for the detained persons Aritz Ganboa and Dabid Soto left Navalcarnero and Soto del Real prisons on December 23rd, 2010, after 87 days of imprisonment.

Gabi Basáñez, Unai Vázquez and Walter Wendelin left the Alcalá, Aranjuez and Estremera prisons on April 2nd, 2011, after 187 days in prison.

The precautionary measures applied on them in order to grant them provisional release are still in force today: •

Each of them deposited a 60.000 € bail.

•

Their passports have been withheld and they cannot leave the

Spanish State. •

All their bank accounts, as well as diverse personal and family goods

(homes, businesses...) have been con2scated. •

At 2rst they had to appear daily before the court; later on, weekly,

and they continue doing so even today.

9. September 27th 2010 to October 19th 2015 One of the complaints brought forward during the trial by the lawyers of the 2ve people accused was precisely the unjusti2ed temporal duration of the proceedings, so-called wrongful delay. The Law says that if there is no justi2ed cause, or cause ascribable to the accused, the proceedings between the commission of a crime and the trial should be completed in the shortest possible time. This is done to protect the rights of the defendants, and, otherwise, it is understood that an unnecessary and irreparable damage is caused to those defendants. In the case of the proceedings against Askapena, Askapeña, Elkar Truke, Herriak Aste and the 2ve imprisoned persons, there is not even one fact to justify the prolongation of the process along 5 years. On September 2nd 2011, National Court judge Pablo Ruz issued an order of indictment against Gabi Basáñez, Dabid Soto, Walter Wendelin, Unai Vázquez and Aritz Ganboa. By then, all the required documents had been incorporated to the proceedings, and, from then on, the following procedures implied neither complicated paperwork nor deadlines. In spite of that, the Public Prosecutor’s charge sheet, as well as those of other accusing parties, was made public along the month of February 2015. Finally, in June 2015 the dates were set for the trial, which began on Monday, October 19th 2015 and ended on Monday, November 2 nd of this same year. We must underline the undeniable damage that this protracted process has caused on all the persons that have been accused at one point or another. Thus, to the seriousness of the accusations still standing against the 2ve accused, we must add that, back in September 2011, appeals were presented by diverse accusers to the order of indictment of Judge Pablo Ruz. Ruben Sánchez and Uberka Bravo were persecuted for almost two years by the Public Prosecutor, the Association of Victims of Terrorism (AVT) and Dignity and Justice Association before being 2nally left out of the case.

10. Charge sheet of the Public Prosecutor and Private Prosecutions

The Public Prosecutor’s charge sheet is dated January 29 th 2015. Comparing the fundamental elements that supported the order of arrests signed September 27th 2010 and those that appear in this charge sheet, it must be pointed out that, along those 2ve years, there are no important new elements brought into the case.

The searches carried out in the homes of the arrested persons or in the premises of Askapena association incorporate to the proceedings a series of documents that only con2rm the links of those arrested to Askapena, as well as other documents relevant to the organisation’s political activity.

In the charge sheet no special relevance is placed on the statements presented by the defendants. In fact, those declarations just con2rm that, in a natural and fully conscious way, all of them recognise and claim their militancy in the internationalist organisation Askapena.

However, two elements in the charge sheets of the prosecutions do have great relevance, and both appear in the speci2c section of bill of indictment. One a.ects the defendants and the other one the organisations.

•

Regarding the defendants. To the contrary of what can be read in

Judge Pablo Ruz’s order of imprisonment, in the Public Prosecutor’s bill of indictment Dabid Soto, Walter Wendelin, Aritz Ganboa, Unai Vázquez and Gabi Basáñez are no longer accused of “being members of a terrorist organisation”. The total lack of elements that could uphold the thesis of the Judge lead the Public and Private prosecutions to reduce the indictment

organisation”.

crime

“collaboration

with

terrorist

These accusations request di.erent sentences: o

Public Prosecution: 6 years’ prison sentences; 20-month 2nes, with

a daily fee of 12€; and complete disquali2cation for 14 years. o

AVT: 10 years’ imprisonment, 24-month 2nes with a daily fee of 50€.

Dignidad y Justicia: 7 years’ prison sentences.

•

Regarding the associations. Both the Public and Private accusers

request the banning and dissolution of the organisations and societies Askapena, Askapeña, Elkar Truke and Herriak Aske. This is a new element, implying a 180º-degree turn of the proceedings, for the Judge did not 2nd reasons that would justify declaring Askapena “terrorist organisation”, and, in fact, took no precautionary measures to suspend its activity. It seems unnecessary to point out that, had there been any sort of information that led to suspecting the terrorist or criminal nature of the activities of Askapena, Askapeña, Elkar Truke or Herriak Aske, their continuity would undoubtedly have been suspended from the 2rst moment of the Police operation in 2010.

11. The

trial

against

Askapena.

Unrecognised

rights

the

defendants.

When the trial 2nally opened, the magistrates’ court, made up of judges Jesús Martínez Lázaro, Nicolás Poveda and Fermín Echarri, banned all those wearing T-shirts bearing any sort of political claim from entering the National Court. The order was directed both to the public and to the defendants themselves. Although it may seem a rather incidental fact, the truth is that limits to freedom of expression in the National Court’s courtrooms are not contemplated in any law, as long as they do not hinder the normal course of the trial. Such was the case here.

Regarding the development of the trial, there were two elements that could well question the necessary impartiality of the judges, and, therefore,

the right to a just trial: •

The use of members of the National Police Corps as experts. This

practice has already been denounced in many previous occasions in di.erent proceedings. That cannot keep us from stating once more that it is really very diEcult to believe that someone so involved in issues relative to the struggle against ETA as a policewoman of the NPC may o=er an impartial, objective and dispassionate analysis during this kind of trial. The interrogation of these “experts” only con2rmed their interest in bringing forward incriminating elements, even though, in so doing, they kept contradicting themselves. An expert cannot extract paragraphs of a document suggesting that they are incriminatory, and omit that, only two pages after there are exculpatory elements that refute the aforesaid. Yet that is what happened. •

The brusque intervention that the president of the court, Mr. Jesús

Martínez Lázaro, had during the testimony of one of the accused bears analysis as well. Dabid Soto, defendant, had already stated his desire to not reply to the questions posed by the prosecutions, and was answering those of his lawyer when he was interrupted by the president of the Court. He interrogated the defendant over his personal attitude as well as that of Askapena regarding ETA’s activity. Apart from the opportunity or not of the judge’s interruption, it is clear that he made an abusive use of his right to have his say by introducing an element that was not under trial in any case. Consciously or not, the judge introduces an element, that of an unworded opinion, trying to turn it into a reason for accusation. Freedom of opinion is a right, never an obligation, and under no circumstances should it be used as an incriminating element. The same situation was repeated with the next defendant, Aritz Ganboa. Then the Public Prosecutor systematically repeated it with the defences’ witnesses. Finally, it must be pointed out that the accused persons’ linguistic rights were, in certain measure, a.ected during the trial. The insuHcient preparation of the Basque-Spanish translators present was obvious, and the defendants themselves as well as their lawyers had to constantly correct the interpretations made.

12. Trial against Askapena, Elkar Truke, Askapeña and Herriak Aske.

It is not the object of this report to evaluate in juridical terms the arguments used by the prosecutions or the defence, but a circumstance that came up during the proceedings does deserve assessment, as it could well exemplify, not so much the trial itself, as the proceedings as a whole. In the 2rst stages of the juridical process, Askapeña, Elkar Truke and Herriak Aske organisations and societies are singled out as a source of funding for a terrorist organization. Without any di.erent element or circumstance coming into play, in February 2015 the AVT Association and Dignidad y Justicia, in their charge sheets, demand the illegalisation and dissolution of them all, as well as of Askapena. It should be kept in mind that this circumstance was not brought up during the 2rst stages of the proceedings nor later on.

The bases of Rule of Law rest on the central concept of liberties and their exercise. Their restriction is contemplated only under exceptional cases. Thus, when one tries to attack such basic pillars as the right of association, intending to ban associations and/or organizations, the reasons must be very powerful and have to be well-reasoned.

Askapeña, Elkar Truke, and Herriak Aske were labelled during the 2rst stages of the proceedings, their illegalization was requested before the trial, but, both during the trial as well as in the bills of indictment, these organisations just disappear. We can thus understand that they have been left aside of the proceedings and, therefore, they can continue with their work.

The frivolity with which the prosecutions –specially among them the Public Prosecution, acting on behalf of the State- have cast very serious

doubts on the purpose and work of these organisations, with an absolute lack of accuracy, is very worrying. A State that claims to be â&#x20AC;&#x153;guarantorâ&#x20AC;? of rights cannot attack such a basic one in such an unwarranted manner. There was no objective new element to justify the request of banning made in February 2015.

And this being in itself a very serious fact, the proceedings against these organisations could well be branded as a juridical aberration from the point of view of a juridical process. The proceedings opened against these co-operative

businesses,

and

indirectly

against

their

legitimate

representatives, constitute a Iagrant breach of the elemental right to a trial with all due juridical guarantees.

It is absolutely reprehensible that, even though all these organisations and associations had their legal representatives, not one of those received any noti2cation, subpoena, or requirement of any kind, by means of which they would have been informed of the proceedings opened against the associations and of their right to legitimate defence.

Given the lightness with which the prosecutions, and in particular, the State through its Public Prosecutor have acted in these proceedings, clearly breaching the rights of these associations and organisations, we might suspect that the criteria employed to request the illegalisation and dissolution of Askapena may respond to interests other than those of Justice alone.

13. General conclusions.

All the aspects described in the foregoing sections are, one by one, facts that should at least cast serious doubts over the proceedings in this Case 95/2010.

Both in the preliminary phases as later on and stretching up to the end of the trial itself on November 2nd 2015, we meet with situations created under cover of exception legislation, applied in these proceedings with no real justi2cation.

Under these laws, the rights of persons who, as was evidenced, have had no responsibility in criminal deeds, have been infringed. In spite of that, their privacy, and with it their rights have been arbitrarily breached along these years.

Other persons were even arrested, to be freed and left out of the proceedings later on, thus demonstrating their innocence. Before that, though, they were deprived of such basic rights as freedom or presumption of innocence.

Regarding the 2ve persons who were 2nally tried in this case, Walter Wendelin, Gabi BasĂĄĂąez, Dabid Soto, Unai VĂĄzquez and Aritz Ganboa, the chain of exceptionalities they have experienced even before being sentenced can only be branded as a continuing infringement of rights.

The

circumstances

their

arrests,

their

imprisonment,

the

exceptional conditions during their stay in prison, the unjusti2ed protraction of the whole process, and the development of the trial itself constitute, de facto, a surreptitious sentence.

And to the personal factor we must add the absolutely gratuitous and unjusti2ed demand put forward in these proceedings for the illegalisation of organisations and associations whose activities can only be understood in the light of the exercise of the rights of expression, association or to demonstrate.

The @nal conclusion of this report is that the fundamental rights of individual persons and groups have been systematically infringed all along these proceedings.

In this report, to the gravity of this situation along all this time we can add the hypothesis of the continuation of the breach of rights in these proceedings in the near future as well.

The aforesaid, far from being a mere hypothesis, is based on the evidence of the steps taken up to now by the National Court.

To the contrary of the logic that assists all legal proceedings, once more, and in the case of trials directly or indirectly connected to the Basque conGict, there is recourse to exceptional measures that infringe upon the rights of accused persons in a serious and irreparable way.

In this case, the exceptional measure applied could be called â&#x20AC;&#x153;preventive detentionâ&#x20AC;?. Such a practice means that people who are awaiting a 2rst juridical decision of the National Court are arrested even before the sentence is made public.

We are talking about persons who are on provisional freedom, and have for years ful2lled the precautionary measures imposed on them. They are persons who, in any case, have the right to appeal to the Supreme

Court.

If they were to be arrested in the intervening period between the 2rst instance sentence and a possible 2nal acquittal decision of the Supreme Court, they would have been deprived of their freedom in a totally arbitrary manner.

If that were so, the damage would be irreparable, for how are months spent in prison compensated if the Supreme Court’s 2nal judgement is the person’s acquittal, therefore annulling that 2rst sentence by which she or he was gaoled?

Going back to 2009, the cases of Natale Landa, Mikel Aznar and Olatz Altuna, arrested before the sentence on Case 18/98 was made public, are very clarifying. By the time she was acquitted by the Supreme Court, Natale Landa had spent 512 days in prison; Mikel Aznar, 360 and Olatz Altuna 200.

Very recently, and therefore much to be kept in mind, are the cases of Xabat Moran, Bergoi Modernaz, Marina Sagastizabal, Aiala Zaldibar and Igarki Robles. All of them were arrested in May 2015, in application of the measure we have de2ned as “preventive detention”. Six months later, on November 4th 2015, all of them were set free by the Supreme Court.

In view of the evolution of this case, given the lack of preciseness and of factual elements with which to construct an accusation, we consider that the de2nitive closure of these proceedings is the only acceptable end to this case, though even that would not mean justice had really been done.

But even before that could happen, we must face up to the fact that “precautionary character” measures may be taken against the persons implied in the proceedings against Askapena

and against Askapena association itself.

We end this report, therefore, turning on the alarms before the very real possibility of new episodes that would be added to the long list of infringements of their rights that the defendants and the organisations involved have undergone over the last 2ve years.

In the Basque Country, on 20th November 2015

ANNEX 1 Askapena volunteers have been travelling to Colombia for years, very much concerned about the situation of the Colombian conflict, infringement of human rights of trades-union members, peasants, Human Rights workers, students, political prisoners, etc. After Miguel Valverde, inspector-general of the Spanish Police, visited Colombia, the UNO News Bulletin identified the five persons who had been on the Askapena Brigade to Colombia in the summer of 2008 as “Basque citizens” and “presumed ETA members”. •

http://noticiasunolaredindependiente.com/2008/07/19/noticias/comision ado-farceta/

•

https://youtu.be/EHueJ9rnBSk

This piece of news and the death threats from the “Black Eagles” forced Askapena to suspend the Colombia Brigades, because of the criminalisation of its members and the above mentioned death threats. Finally, we attach information published by Askapena in November 2008 about the complaint filed before a court because of the death threats. There are also a series of links about the poisonous information and criminalization campaign against Askapena that was being carried out in 2008. Among others, there is the “news pieces” where Spanish and Colombian media wrongly identified a person appearing with Walter Wendelin in a picture taken in a public Congress in Quito, Ecuador, as Raúl Reyes. •

http://www.askapena.org/es/content/denuncia-de-las-amenazas-demuerte-recibidas-por-un-brigadista-de-askapena

These are the pictures of the complaint filed in the Bilbao court. •

https://www.flickr.com/photos/askapena/sets/72157607513078975/with /2889720034/

And the article about the complaint printed in the Basque paper Deia as well as an article by the Basque internationalist organisation “Komite Internazionalistak”. •

http://www.deia.com/opinion/foros/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5142&start=0

•

http://komiteinternazionalistak.org/index.php/es/blogs/brigadacolombia/339-persecucil-internacionalismo?format=pdf

Etxerat.eus Relatives and friends of the Basque political prisoners

DISPERSAL POLICY MAP Nowadays there are 455 Basque political prisoners imprisoned.

Bapaume 2 973

Numbers in each prison: Rennes 3 701

Prison Prisoners

Km.

Alençon 2 735 Fresnes 7 810

Poissy 3 838

Nanterre 3 829

Fleury M. 12 806

The reference to calculate distances is the city of Donostia (San Sebastian)

Zaballa 2

Curtis 9 651

Monterroxo 5 643

A Lama 12 738

Martutene 2

Basauri 1

El Dueso 2 166

Burgos 6 218 Logroño 5 165 Soria Valladolid 4 261 7 349 Brieva 1 402 Segovia 1 408 Teruel

Huelva 14 994

Puerto I, II y III 31 1.020

Córdoba 11 818

Jaén 9 766 Granada 14 860

Liancourt 3 892

Clairvaux 3 962

Roanne 2 746

B.-en-Bresse 1 864 Lyon 3 875

Arles 1 662

Number of prisons

Daroca 3 343 1

432

Valencia II y III 22 601 Alacant II (Villena) 11 707 Alacant I 9 Murcia I y II

Tarascon 3 699

Zuera 12 300

Castelló I y II 17 574

Herrera M. 13 620

Sevilla II 11 960

Beziers 3 520

Ocaña I y II 10 513

Badajoz 9 756

La Santé 5 817

Moulins-Yzeure 3 710

Muret CD y Seysses 2 329 Lannemezan 6 231

MADRID

SPAIN

Meaux

Mont de Marsan 3 156

Dueñas 5 305

Cáceres II 6 657

867

Villepinte 3 847

FRANCE

Gradignan 2 233

Mansilla 8 366

Topas 12 467

Osny 875

Reau Bois d´Arcy 3 824 5 834

4 442 St. M. de Re

BASQUE COUNTRY

Villabona 6 384

St. Maur 6 560

Poitiers 5 467

Source: Etxerat. Map: GARA

Bonxe 1 613

PARIS

750

S. del Real 5 421 Aranjuez 7 511 Alcalá 4 463 Navalcarnero 3 485 Estremera 6 516

Basque Country

Number of prisoners

Spain

352

France

Germany

England

Portugal

455

Serving sentences at home

TOTAL

18 818

#BSQsHUMANRIGHTS

ASSOCIATION

1. We are relatives and friends of Basque political prisoners, exiles and deportees. Being a relative of a prisoner is not a matter of choice, but rather a situation imposed on us by the imprisonment or exile of our relatives. As such, there are different opinions and ideas among us. 2. This situation (of our relatives in exile, imprisonment and deportation) not only puts us face to face with the violation of their rights, but also of our rights as we do not abandon our emotional bonds with them. 3. We denounce the violation of our relatives’ rights and the violation of our rights, as well as using these rights as an instrument of blackmail, pressure and revenge. 4. We demand respect for all these people’s rights as an essential step towards resolution and peace. 5. We also demand recognition of these people’s suffering as a guarantee of a narrative based on truth and also as a guarantee of non-repetition.

WHAT IS ETXERAT? It is an association where relatives of Basque political prisoners, exiles and deportees can find: •

Assistance, advice and support to help them minimize the damage due to a harmful and traumatic situation that affects all aspects of their physical, mental, social and economic life: prison, exile, and deportation.

•

A space where their experiences can be shared and understood

•

An area of work: information, testimony, denunciation of wrong and demand for justice.

WHAT IS DISPERSAL POLICY? It is a special discriminatory policy applied by different Spanish and French governments for nearly three decades to the Basque political prisoners against the principles contained in the Spanish Penal Code: â&#x20AC;?The Spanish prisons are scattered throughout the country allowing inmates to serve their sentences in the nearest prison to their birthplace in order to avoid family and social uprooting.â&#x20AC;? 455 Basque political prisoners are imprisoned in 76 prisons.

DATA Distance

Percentage

Total distance for relatives

More than 1.000 km

14,06% (64 people)

More than 2000 km on average per visit

Between 990-800 km

26,81% (122 people)

1800 km on average per visit

Between 790-500 km

36,48% (166 people)

1300 km om average per visit

Between 490-400 km

6,81% (31 people)

900 km on average per visit

Less than 400 km

14,72% (67 people)

600 km on average per visit

Portugal, England and Germany

0,65% (3 people)

More than 2000 on average per visit

Therefore, the dispersal policy was designed with the aim to uproot the prisoners of their social, emotional and family environment, in addition to denying their right to take part in the political life of their country.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES? This special measure applied to our imprisoned relatives directly affects their family and close environment. To exercise our right to visit them, we, relatives and friends are forced to travel in the worst conditions thousands of miles to visit them for an hour and a half (half an hour in Spain). The physical, financial and emotional toll is evident, even more in the cases of very remote prisons or in cases of very long sentences (some prisoners have served sentences of up to 31 years in). The most serious consequence is that in more than 25 years of dispersal policy 16 relatives and friends have died on the road, when travelling to visit an imprisoned relative. As long as this dispersal policy does not stop these families are at risk of death. As we do not abandon our emotional bonds with them, nowadays the family and friends of Basque political prisoners are doomed to continue traveling and to have high expenses. Our right to family conciliation, to life and in several cases, to health are subject to a political decision. We are unrecognized victims of a policy that seeks to pressure Basque political prisoners through their relatives. Victims of abuses, harassments, discriminations and systematic violations of our fundamental rights.