EH Bildu says that the passage of ETA has political value. What would you think about?

I would say that he put a damn on it. This verification group was set up to verify the ceasefire already declared by ETA in a statement. Now, ETA has demonstrated its willingness to seal the arsenals and has asked that group to undertake the work of implementing them, given the attitude of the Government of Paris and, in particular, of the Community of Madrid. That is why it is important, because ETA expresses its willingness to continue to take steps above all obstacles, and not with few risks, as the verifiers have pointed out.

The members of the Commission have recognized that from now on it will be very difficult for them to verify disarmament without the involvement of governments.

This shows that the position of the government does not make sense and that it is the only one that is putting obstacles. To justify their blindness, the arguments have been changing. First was that ETA let it go, then you had to disarm ... For here there is a real exponent of the will to disarm. One fact pointed out by the verifiers is significant: it has never occurred unilaterally in the world. The advantages of this are that you act unconditionally and show that you are convinced.

For me, it's not a matter of size, it's more qualitative. The majority of society was very clear about what ETA said two years ago, and what it said then is the most important thing, but it is gradually becoming clearer that this is a real chance of peace and resolution and that it cannot be allowed to pass. But the involvement of the Madrid Government is necessary, not everything can be done from unilateralism.

The act has generated great expectation and expectation. What do you say about that?

I believe that hope is not the responsibility of the protagonists, but of others. We all have to make self-criticism of our responsibilities, including the media. I have the feeling that great hopes have been created, whatever it may be, to put an end to the forces. I do not think it is a small step, the verifiers say it is a necessary step, without which the disarmament process cannot be initiated.

Is there no danger of repudiating society with so many steps?

It's a process, not a fact, and a process requires taking steps. Of course, we would rather take fewer steps and those in less time; that is what society, the agents and I would dare to say that both the verifiers and ETA would like. Surely, society has a more important key than it believes to make this possible: For the state to move is because, to a large extent, people have asked for it. So, of course, that risk exists, but I would stay with the two words that Ram Manikkalingam said: that the process is credible and meaningful.

How do you see the role of lehendakari Iñigo Urkullu?

By placing the step itself, he said it was unilateral, unconditional, reliable and safe. These terms are important. The verifiers are working under many pressures and insults, and both they and the process itself need institutional support. In addition, Urkullu has ensured that his party will continue to support the work of the committee headed by Patxi López. We've said many times that Urkullu has a leadership role here, not just the monitor. I hope that behind these words there will be a commitment effort, I would like to highlight that positive aspect.

Beyond institutional protection, do you believe that the Basque Government can provide technical assistance?

I believe that the verifiers do not dare to say that this can be done here without the participation of the Madrid government. But I don't know about that. I'm sure Urkullu has a lot to do, and that's clear to me. It would be very important to put pressure on Madrid on behalf of the Basques, not only in the disarmament process. There is another urgent area here, that of the consequences of the conflict, in which steps must also be taken. It is up to all of us to do things and move them around, but each one has its place and its weight and he also has his task.