The trial for these events will be held from 16 September. There are many defendants, more than 160 witnesses of the defendants’ defenses in the case. The defendants must go down and up to Madrid for three months between the week. In addition to the State Prosecutor’s Office, two associations of victims will act as a private indictment: Dignity and Justice and AVT, led by Daniel Portero.

The 47 Basques will be tried in 2019, but the first arrests related to this case were made in 2013 by the state security forces. All police operations were carried out by the Civil Guard, following the orders of the Central Examining Court No. 6 of the National Hearing headed by Eloy Velasco. The first was the raid on the people, which remained in line.

Chronology of injustice

On 30 September 2013, the Guardia Civil arrested and incommunicado 18 people in an operation against the Navarra locality of Herrira. Judge Velasco decreed the closure of the premises of the movement for political prisoners and exiles and the suspension of his activity for two years. Those arrested were released on provisional release on 3 October following a meeting with the Ertzaintza. The judge also issued the European Arrest Warrant against Emilie Martin, a French national, but after two years he was left out of the case.

On 8 January 2014, eight members of the EPPK Mediation Group were arrested, including three eta lawyers. After five days of incommunicado detention, all eight were imprisoned. On 16 January, in the same operation, Naia Zuriarrain declared as an indictee and was released on provisional release after giving a statement.

A year later, the National Court ordered an operation against lawyers of Basque political prisoners and exiles in the Caribbean country. On 12 January 2015, the Civil Guard arrested 12 lawyers and recorded the offices of the three detainees. In addition, he arrested three members of Herrira, who are also charged with a terrorist financing crime. On the same day the Civil Guard entered the LAB headquarters in Bilbao and in the massive demonstration in January brought the money (EUR 104,000) provided by the citizens to support prisoners and exiles economically. The lawyers were released on 14 January, pending trial. For their part, Herrira's members were imprisoned. Judge Velasco also asked the Supreme Court for the prosecution of lawyer and Senator Iñaki Goioaga, charged with a crime of murder.

The repressive chain did not stop. Three months after the last operation, on 15 March 2015, the destinations were Etxerat and Jaiki Hadi. Two persons per association were arrested and incommunicado, three of them psychologists. Confidential documentation has been seized by the Civil Guard between psychologists and patients who have taken over the records. After a two-day period of incommunicado detention, the four took to the streets on provisional release with a bond of EUR 15,000.

Mass oppression of individual and collective rights

In general, there are four crimes that the State charges against the 47 defendants: belonging to the terrorist group, terrorist financing, continued tribute to terrorism and violation of precautionary measures. However, the actions presented as proof of these serious crimes were public at all times: the defendants gave press conferences, produced reports, organized mobilizations, held meetings with social and political actors.

As far as individual rights are concerned, all defendants on probation must sign monthly in court, have their passport removed and are prohibited from leaving the state. Herrira’s militants are forbidden to “organize” and “participate” in mobilizations for prisoners. Lawyers and psychologists cannot visit any prisoners, which greatly limits their work. Repression goes a little further with the people of the mediation team: Most remained in prison for one year, until he left prison with a bond of 20,000 euros. Jon Enparantza and Arantza Zulueta served two and three years in prison, respectively, in very harsh isolation measures.

In the area of collective rights, there is also a wide list of infringements. In the area of the right to freedom, for example, judges ordered unjustified pre-trial detention. In the rights of association and expression, in addition to prohibiting Herrira’s activity, the state closed 38 web pages, 32 Twitter accounts and 125 Facebook accounts. There was a violation of professional secrecy in cases of lawyers and psychologists. The unauthorized records were numerous and some of the detainees were denied legal assistance, leaving the right to defence without effect. The right to physical integrity of Zulueta and Enparantza was seriously violated.

Political decisions related to the political situation

With all these operations, the State wanted to impede the movement for the rights of prisoners and exiles, as well as their legal and assistance protection. It wasn't just any time in Euskal Herria. In 2011, ETA announced the definitive cessation of its armed activity. Relations of strength between political positions were changing, and in the area of conflict resolution the issue of prisoners was politically and emotionally key: it was at the forefront of the political agenda in those years. In this context, Herrira was born on 5 February 2012. In a short period of time, it was solidly consolidated at the national level and in different localities (more than 250 population centres in towns and neighbourhoods). On this ascending road, Herrira presented on 14 September 2013 the ambitious initiative “Tantaz tan tan, itsasoa gara”. Two weeks later, the eighteen members of the movement were arrested and the activity of the association was banned, considerably weakening the muscular street in favor of prisoners and exiles.

They were crucial times on the street, no less in prisons. The EPPK was discussing politically important and sensitive decisions. The networks against members of the Mediation Group and their lawyers further hampered the internal debate that is always difficult in prison. He cut off the channels of communication with the political and social agents of the Basque Country, precisely at the time when they wanted to strengthen themselves.

The repressive strategy of the State partly achieved its objectives. The popular movement for prisoners and fleeing entered the hunt. The prisoners were more isolated from and among Basque society. The case of the prisoners became one of the greatest hotbeds of tension between the Basque leftist parties that carried out different analyses of the political situation. Amnesty and Askatasuna, the dissident voice of the Abertzale left, were born in those years.

But the State has not achieved everything it wanted. The movement for prisoners and the initiatives that are taking place are continuing. Although the mobilizing force is more limited, the consensus around the basic demands has been expanding. EPPK was able to conclude its debate.

In 1936, in 1977, in 2013 or in 2019, jails are the opaque space for impunity and punishment, which does not support witnesses. The State wishes to condemn the citizens who testified to the injustices and assisted the prisoners of the Spanish State. It wants to punish those who worked to close the long cycle of the armed conflict in terms of minimum justice, in the name of the “all is ETA” reason of the past. Eight years after the announcement by ETA of the cessation of its armed activity, the State wants to fill prisons with prisoners and ex-prison sentences.

Iker Urbina, lawyer

"The main fear of the Spanish State was that the
political agenda would make prisoners a central issue"

Gasteiztarra Iker Urbina Fernandez is one of the defense attorneys in the macrotrial (11-13) against Miguel Ángel Álvarez. The summary consists of five chapters and deals with the part of Herrira in which he is held. In 2000 he began to bring the cases of Basque political prisoners to prison before the National Court. She has also known Madrid since Congress, where she was a member of the 2011-2015 legislature representing the EH Bildu coalition. In view of the trial that will begin in September, Fernández Díaz has stated that hope and fear are mixed up.

The trial for these events will be held from 16 September. What are the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s initial arguments, accusations and defenses?

The main starting point is the same as other procedures. In the ETA prison system there are several agents who, on this occasion, work in the area of prisoners. For the first time, in addition to the agents, several professionals of the company have also been charged. As for the defence, it is based on the fact that these agents and people were not part of ETA, the prison apparatus or any other apparatus, but that their work was absolutely public, on the rights of prisoners. It is the common base of the defenses, as there are different pieces and agents, each with its peculiarities and with its own lines of defense.

In this judgment there is an important particularity. The charges against them date back to 2012, when he was arrested. In other words, following the publication by ETA of the final termination agreement. This is new, it has not been the case in the previous macrosummaries. It is politically important. But also from the legal point of view it allows us to question certain characteristics of the crime of belonging [of ETA].

Can this uniqueness affect the Spanish National Audience?

You may have it. In order to be charged with a crime of belonging, there must be an active armed organization. The disappearance of activity may call into question one of the essential elements of the crime.

There's another important thing. The defendants stated that, in addition to respect for the rights of prisoners, a new political scenario was also being promoted. And that scenario has been materializing. Among other things, ETA has disappeared. That cannot be denied by the court, it is not a possible situation, it is objective. But it's the National Audience, and we know that other forces and other influences come into play there.

The Spanish state and victim associations can argue that armed activity, but that the terrorist did not end in 2012, did. ETA was dissolved in 2018.

Of course you can try. But our thesis is that in order to punish her for belonging, besides the fact that there is an armed group, there has to be a will to act. And in 2012, it was public that that wasn't going to happen.

However, even though these more specific and technical issues and others are the subject of debate, our main line of defence is ahead: these people, organisations and professionals were not part of ETA. They were working for the rights of prisoners and for a new scenario, including political demands.

At the time of the armed struggle and the illegalization policies, the State did not oppose ETXERAT or the lawyers. However, after the end of the armed struggle, the French Army has already exceeded those limits.

It has a lot to do with the political moment in which he lived. It was widespread among Basque society and, to some extent, the issue of prisoners had to be resolved in order to bring the political conflict to a solution. My impression is that the State initiative was very oriented towards the deactivation or blurring of a broad common claim that could be created around prisoners. Only in that key can the matter be understood. It was not a momentary operation, the arrests took place two years after 2013, to a very large extent.

The issue of prisoners on the Abertzale Left is very sensitive. The state that tried to provoke internal tensions when it hit there?

Sure. The State is aware of the importance of the issue of prisoners within the Abertzale Left. But I believe that at that time the main fear of the Spanish State was that the issue of prisoners should be consolidated in the general political agenda, as an element to be resolved. I wanted to make sure that this would be a partial problem for the Abertzale Left.

He has spent a lot of time in Madrid, both for many years as a lawyer in the courts of emergency, and for four years as a EH Bildu Member in the Spanish Congress. Have you noticed any changes?

I am convinced that in some areas of the Spanish Government this judgment is not experienced as the macro-judgments of a few years ago. Does that mean it's totally changed? No. But the State's pressure on judges to criminalize such activities is not ten years now. It can be casual, but not general. There is an important difference here, because it allows the facts to be examined with another flexibility by the judges.

Having said that, the National Hearing remains an exceptional judicial body fulfilling its role. The orders are there, very hard. And I am convinced that, if the trial is held, both the prosecutor and the individual accusations will keep those petitions.

The latest macro-judgments that emerged from the thesis “Everything is ETA” were closed with agreements that prevented incarceration, or even when the sentence was made was innocent. Is there any reason to think that this is repeated?

Today we have a judgment, and we are preparing ourselves thoroughly. There are no other elements. This does not prevent us, as we have done in other judgments, from also looking at the possibility of the agreement, we are trying. Among other things, because the petitions that exist are very large and because we are very aware that the arguments that we have legally are forceful, that we are in the National Hearing and then comes the Supreme. But at the moment there is no choice, the only reality is that of trial, and we believe there is a great risk that many people will come out with serious sentences.

Can external variables condition judgment? For example, the attacks of the Spanish right or the situations of Catalonia.

Personally, I'm on the no. As has been said, this is a special situation. There are people who are charged with a crime of belonging when ETA left business and after a few years it was dissolved. It is also special for judges, what they have to do is what can legally mark the line.

I am convinced that the trial will revolve around two keys: one, whether the defendants were ETA militants or not; and two, if the judges considered the coalition “proven”, how the political context in Euskal Herria can influence the legal level.