You have made a very negative assessment ADI! Of the Association: “Today we have not won, today we continue to lose.” Why?

Because we believe that the problem has not been solved. The De Miguel case has been presented as an isolated case. Although 26 people were charged, many of them held positions of power in the institutions of the province of Álava. It is not an isolated case, we have to go further. It is not a rotten apple, the PNV has a full basket throughout the Basque Country: Margüello, Osakidetza, Epsilon, Hiriko, Purines... It responds to a way of understanding the public. The PNV governs all the institutions, and believes that it has the power to do and to dissolve at will with the money of all. The ruling has not been passed on. There is no talk of measures to end corruption, of commitments and of control measures to be taken by the institutions and institutions. We're still the same. Corruption will continue, political management will continue along the same lines. That's why we say we continue to lose.

The judgment has more than a thousand pages, only a few hours have passed since it was made known. Have you had time to analyse it and make a legal assessment?

We have read the things that have been published in the media, but we need time to analyse and discuss them in depth. In any case, the quantitative aspect is not the most important. We will not assess whether the sanctions are sufficient or whether they should be higher. The key is qualitative. All this has happened because there is no control, there are client networks that act with total impunity. The political parties that manage the institutions, and in particular the PNV, have a great deal to say. We do not believe that it is by chance the media treatment given to the case, or that the defendants have the best state law firms for their defence.

You have said that the case has not been used to transform the economic and political factors that make corruption possible.

Hypocrisy attitudes are useless, such as the party code of ethics or the Transparency Portal of the PNV. The management of public money should be done for the benefit of society. Full transparency is essential. It seems that the means of transparency are accepted, but when we ask for information they systematically reject it. The Court of Auditors has repeatedly warned the PNV that it has not made public donations from companies, for example. These means have no value because they are not put into practice. It is not in the interest of the PNV, but it is not in the interest of the other parties. The criticisms are very soft and there is nothing to contribute. There are some means but they do not develop. Others may have emerged, but there is no interest in it.

The lehendakari, Iñigo Urkullu, and the president of the PNV, Andoni Ortuzar, have been the first to value the judgment. Both have apologised, but at the same time they have denied any responsibility on the part of their party, which they have accused of opposing.

It is a common tactic, not only of the PNV, but also of the PP doing the same when its cases of corruption came to light: exculting the party and saying that they are isolated cases. I repeat, there is a long list of cases, modus operandi are repeated and there are always people involved in the public authorities. It is not a coincidence, but the result of a certain way of understanding and practicing power, which puts private and partisan benefits before society.

Since the judgment was heard, numerous public reactions and demonstrations of all kinds have taken place. Would I highlight something?

Political parties in general stay on their feet. They challenge the PNV, each in its own way, but they do not go to the causes. On the other hand, in the concentration we have carried out today we have seen at least that more citizenship has been involved in denouncing the political parties involved in corruption and in defending the rights of all and all.

Ten years have passed since this process began. The PNV has reiterated on several occasions that it has collaborated with the investigation at all times.

The Prosecutor ' s Office, for its part, has not had sufficient means to investigate the case. The Ertzaintza has also questioned the credibility of the sacrosanct in spreading that it has manipulated the tests. The main witness, Ainhoa Alberdi, has been pressured and coerced by the Municipal Police of Pamplona. It is a reflection of their impunity when it comes to managing power.

The complaint by Ainhoa Alberdi for the De Miguel case has taken over the investigation. You say that you have spoken against him.

The defenceless of the people who denounce corruption is total. It has now been the case of De Miguel and Ainhoa Alberdi. The people who reported fraud in Osakidetza have suffered personal and professional threats and pressures. Another case in the Diputación de Álava is that of a forest guard who has denounced clandestine hunting, which is the Diputación itself which opposes it. They are all political means of repression. We do not understand: on the one hand, we are told that democracy and participation are the founding milestones of our society; on the other hand, they do the opposite.

We did a rally in favour of Ainoha Alberdi. We do not know what his personal situation is, but we can consider what he expressed in the trial as a summary of his experiences: that after what he lived from the denunciation, today he would think long before doing the same.

Defendants have the possibility to appeal to the Spanish State High Court of Justice (TSJPV). If you do, do you think the sentence can change?

As we have said, the quantitative aspect is not what matters most to us. But the resources that the party can activate to protect pensioners can lead to a substantial reduction in penalties.