In order for 8 April 2017 to be possible, the French state changed its attitude until then and decided to rely on peacekeepers, so that civil society would agree with ETA on its disarmament. The trial revealed the importance of this historic moment, involving the conviction of the representatives of the State, who agreed to testify in court 7 years later, when the former Minister of the Interior and the Prefect of the time stated that the action was positive and would not be involved in the event of terrorism.

Making the peace process in Euskal Herria a global benchmark

The expert Jean Pierre Massias explained that the peace process in Euskal Herria has become a model in the world, because in the absence of State involvement civil society has assumed and assumed the progress of the peace process.

He has made it clear that Luhuso's action provoked a change on the part of the State, the capitulation of the institution sought up until then has been omitted and has shown his willingness to carry out positive actions to promote the peace movement.

On the other hand, thanks to a chain of trust and curia, as Mr Morvan explained in the trial, with him and his peace representatives, known in other frameworks, the trust between Mr Morvan and the Baiona prosecutor, and, of course, the trust between Morvan and Prime Minister Caseneuve, and between Mr Morvan and Mr Fekl.

If a single link failed, everything could be different. Luhuso's action allowed it to disarm for four months. The desire of civil society ended up being understood by the State at that time, even by justice.

In 2017, the Baiona Prosecutor and behind him Pariskoa were able to open court proceedings against peacekeepers. They decided not to do so. This was achieved politically, judiciously and socially in 2017. After 7 years we have seen a great setback when the anti-terrorist Prosecutor has launched his retrograde vision. In order to legitimize the procedure, at that time it was happening to disarm with the arrests of ETA members and with the weapons being taken along that path.

Anachronistic judgment

In this anachronistic judgment we are in a surreal situation, peacekeepers have been judged a few weeks later by the same actions agreed and protected with the State, that is, the transport of weapons and explosives in order to perpetuate peace.

Those who in 2017 were the state’s peace partners, consider anti-terrorism public ministries as “terrorists” in 2023 and 2024.

In the agreement on 16 May, we hope that its peaceful character will be recognized. Just as in 2017 civil society, political power and the judiciary joined in favor of peace, by 2024 ratifying it. Judges are not asked to make policy, but to take a decision based on criminal law to dispel peacekeepers.

If it is possible to judicially translate the situation raised in the trial, the court has its stone to transfer it to this building.

"Etat de nécessité" or "Vital State"

It is the application of the criminal concept "etat de nécessité". This concept is the mechanism for neutralizing the legal element of the crime. In certain special circumstances, loss of criminal qualification of a crime is allowed where action has been required to protect a basic freedom or a primary interest.

All the components of this legal situation are present in the Luhuso question: before the Luhuso affair, peace was in grave danger. The Luhuso affair allowed disarmament.

In the end, in a simplified manner, justice cannot say that the facts accused were destined for the perpetuation of peace.

Justice cannot be as disconnected from reality as requested by the Prosecutor; justice must contextualize the facts analyzed to draw legal conclusions. Its legitimacy is also based on this.

With the judicial decision that we hope is that the prayer will be curled so that society can finally close the grain of disarmament.

Xantiana Cachenaut, lawyer