After several delays, the last trial related to the Tubacex strike took place this week. Three young people face the penalties of four years and seven months. One was acquitted because it became apparent that the person charged by the police was another. Another admitted two six-month sentences for throwing an empty can of soda into the police, although he did not beat anyone. The third waited for the sentence, but it has finally been acquitted.

The case of the latter is particularly striking, as Judge Beatriz Eva Roman Governed has written a very significant sentence. In it he has been discovering one by one the lies and contradictions of the police.

Three were the most important:

• That the Ertzaines were not able to determine anything at the head of the defendant. They did not explain anything about their physical characteristics (although they have a great physical complexion), their clothes, or what they threw at the police and when.
• The main test used by the Ertzaintza was part of the assembly. In other words, some Ertzainas explained that they had recorded defendants after the incidents, but another clarified that these rodaxes had been carried out before the conflict. Therefore, the account of the agents, who were recorded after the hostilities, fell with the weight of lies. In addition, when it came to resolving this, the judge carefully considered what the ertzaina recorded as he did: "Joan dela, naiz grabatu." Justice itself, Beatriz Eva Roman Ruled, has stressed that this calls into question its objectivity and impartiality.
• The Ertzaintza did not clarify how she identified the young people. That is, with the kiss on that recording and the normal clothes, how was it possible to carry out the identification? The process described by the agents themselves was neither coherent nor clear, and the judge had to question the whole procedure. Finally, when explaining identification, the argument young people themselves make is much more credible. In particular, the last defendant had a problem with an officer prior to the incidents and considers that the Municipal Police of Amurrio facilitated the possible identification of the Ertzainas.

To conclude the sentence, Beatriz Eva Roman Governed recalled that police statements are very important, but they do not have the value of proof at all, and therefore, in view of the contradictions, they do not question the right to innocence of any citizen.

Bold and not so bold judges

Beatriz Eva Roman Governor's attitude has certainly been courageous and also consistent with that of a year ago with Aintzane Mendia. In fact, the same judge acquitted the Tubacex worker by deciding that the Ertzainas' statements were not credible, but with the video in trial.

This attitude has influenced some citizens who have been tempted to trust justice. But it is no coincidence that the same judge decides on both absolutions. In fact, judges Maria Antonia Blanco Briosca and Beatriz Ledo Languilla, for their part, have punished two Tubacex workers, even though the tests and arguments against them are scarce or insignificant.

In fact, the first prisoner, who has recently resigned to bring his case to the Supreme Court, received six months in prison for demonstrating resistance in detention. In the appeal he presented, they confessed that the Ertzaines failed and that they had not asked for identification before being arrested, so suddenly and violently they were thrown on themselves. Moreover, the Ertzainas did not show any attack to justify the arrest. I mean, the arrest was wrong.

However, despite the fact that the laborer suffered injuries while he was dragging, Judge Maria Antonia Blanco Briosca accepted the statement of agents and condemned the laborer.

In the trial of 10 November against another worker, Judge Beatriz Ledo Languilla took as evidence the words of the only ertzaina to punish a Tubacex worker. The other agents clarified that they had seen nothing and the ertzaina who made the statement was not able to determine when the worker attacked and how he did it (with a punch, with a kick, with an object...). However, the accused employee submitted a long video recording all details of his arrest (the defendant is an employee wearing black and white shoes).

However, the judge again supported the police and sentenced him to six months in prison.

Both judgments show that Beatriz Eva Roman Governed is truly a brave judge and has had no problem in questioning the word of the police. The other two judges, however, did what was customary in the courts: to impose a minimum prison and to justify the agents, even if the evidence is only from the words of the police (and even if they said the opposite of what was seen in the videos).

Langa with two years of prison punishment, double weapon

At this point, it should be noted that judges use very perversely the barrier of two years ' imprisonment. We know that if the accused is not sentenced to two years ' imprisonment for the same crime and has no record, he does not have to be imprisoned.

In principle, this criterion seems perfectly reasonable, because it makes no sense to deprive citizens of liberty by one mistake. However, judges use this margin not to do their work rigorously.

In other words, if they had to send a person to prison for six months, would they decide so quickly against several citizens, taking as evidence only the word of an agent? In particular, if the risk of imprisoning these two Tubacex workers were to be corrected, would it be the attitude of the judges to impose minimum penalties or, on the contrary, to take into account all the evidence and its weight and credibility?

Surely, anyone who gives the citizens peace of mind when going to court must overcome the barrier of two years' imprisonment to enter prison. At the same time, however, it gives judges ample diplomatic and political leeway, preferring not to contradict the police, because the police are a very important instrument in judicial action.

Free and no consequences for creators

Although they have reason to be happy, neither Aintzane Mendia nor recently acquitted youth have made this path in a simple way. The case of three young people who were not Tubacex workers was particularly serious. At first there was a four-year, seven-month prison suit and the Ertzaintza accused them of being an organized incident group.

However, the trial resulted in a spontaneous drop in the thesis held for two years, since everything was false and inventive. It was therefore intended to point out that most of the violence during the strike (generated by Ertzaintza itself) was caused by third parties (creative incidents outside the Tubacex labour dispute).

After two years in danger, two young people have been acquitted and a third prefer to take care that they threw an empty can and, moreover, they did not give it to anyone. So where is that organized and dark group? Where is that band that threatens social peace? And if it doesn't exist, why have inventors of this threat not had to take any responsibility for society and judges, when it's become clear that they were lying?