The outcome of the trial on 10 November has already reached a Tubacex striker who was not in his favour. In fact, Judge Beatriz Ledo Languilla has sentenced the worker to six months in prison because she considers that the Ertzaintza 22166 agent was attacked on 23 February 2021. You will not need to go to prison because you have no background, but the striker will have to face a fine of EUR 180 and compensation of EUR 165.

The worker fully disagrees with the judgment and informs Aiaraldea Komunikabideak that he will appeal. The lawyer reiterates to the media that he is already working on the appeal.

Only proof against the worker; ertzaina words

The defendant brought to trial a video of two witnesses of the events and of the clashes and battles of that day, but the judge has decided that the statement of agent 22166 is enough to punish the laborer, which the other Ertzaines assured they had not seen the attack.

Moreover, Judge Beatriz Ledo Languilla has introduced in her conclusions the statements that the ertzaina did not say in the trial. For example, he has gathered that "a kick on the knee and a blow on the inside of the elbow caused injuries, something the ertzaina did not say in his statement. In particular, agent 22166 mentioned that he did not remember how the worker hurt him. It was only clear that he attacked him.

The judge has also assured that there was an attack before the Ertzaintza aggression, if the police had not communicated it. In fact, police 22166 commented that the attack occurred in the midst of an aggression, the first of the morning.

Evidence and manifestations of the accused to punish him

Compared to the generous treatment of statements 22166, Judge Ledo Languilla has maintained a very different attitude to statements and defence evidence.

First, it uses the statements of both the defendant and the witnesses to place the defendant in the midst of the facts and plead guilty. Witnesses indicated that the defendant had a striking clothing - white shoes - which allowed him to differentiate and ensure that he had not attacked. However, the judge has used these statements to strengthen the ertzaina statement and identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the attack.

In addition, the judge acknowledges that in the Ertzaintza offensive he is accused to one side and departs from the riots, but this has not been enough and Beatriz Ledo Languila believes that the attack occurred at another time, namely the one that is not recorded.

The alleged attack is not recorded, but exists and is not an attack

22166 if he did not say so and there is no evidence to conclude it, according to the judge, the aggression of the Tubacex worker occurred before the first offensive in the morning and Ledo Languila has used the defendant’s statements to do so.

In fact, the defendant admitted to having clashed with the police. In the opinion of Beatriz Ledo Languila, aggression and injuries occurred at the time when it is not recorded. The problem is that this fact was demonstrated by the defendant himself in the video presented at the trial. Specifically, it is observed at 00:09-00:14 seconds how an ertzaina, probably agent 22166, removes the worker by pushing the road.

On the contrary, the judge argues that this moment is not recorded, which is not true, and that throughout the morning there were more clashes - which is not correct, since the worker was arrested after the first police aggression, that is, he did not participate in the successive incidents that took place and the injuries, necessarily and on the basis of the agent's statements, were in the first offensive.

Thus, turning to the defense contributions, Beatriz Ledo Languila concludes: "There is no evidence to undermine, nor to question that the defendant attacked agent 22166 that day and caused injury to his elbow and knee."

The main judicial contradiction

Tubacex’s worker’s lawyer predicted a huge contradiction in the punishment of his individual.

In fact, if the trial was suspended on 11 October, another striker, who had more serious accusations, namely two Ertzaines and more serious injuries, reached an agreement and accepted a four-month sentence.

Therefore, as defence lawyer Leo Barañano said, how is it possible that a slightly accused striker should have more prison sentence?

Moreover, if the judge accepted all the words of ertzaina 22166, why did he not consider it proven that the defendant damaged his watch and would therefore pay him EUR 300?