How do you remember the first years of university militancy? So what were the dynamics of the student movement?

Olast Arrizibita: It was another time. The nationalist students came from the struggles against the Bologna process, which had boomed greatly. In our time, the student movement was in decline. The dynamics were not clear strategic sense; they were more dynamic to respond daily. We work on these kinds of dynamics.

Ander Mazkiaran: However, in the context of the demonstration, more strategic debates were initiated, the student movement grew considerably and this growth brought with it perspectives and new people. The protests against the EU 2015 stand out, which were quite strong. Then, in a more constructive sense, the Public Universities began to take hold at that time.

What about April 26, 2016? What happened on the Leioa campus?

A: We made a mobilization, which had already begun before, because the UPV had many repressive issues against the student movement. Then, a dynamic of several weeks was carried out to meet with the rectorate of the UPV/EHU and seek a solution. The date was set for the rectorship to accept it, but since it could not be otherwise, we finally decided to demonstrate, with the aim of finally approving this negotiating table and giving a solution. In this mobilization, the university security agents rebelled against the students and the rectorate asked the Ertzaintza to access the university. The students were beaten, fifteen were injured and there we joined the five of Leioa.

In particular, what are you denouncing at that demonstration?

M: We had five pending: the opening of disciplinary files to the five students who were dispatched at the Public University of San Mamés; the abolition of sanctions against the students of Vitoria; the denunciation and file to another student from the campus of Leioa; the adoption of definitive measures of non-incorporation of the Ertzaintza to the UPV; and the departure of the security agents from all the campuses.

How did the arrests happen? What was the behavior of Ertzaintza?

A: We were in mobilization, and all of a sudden the Ertzaintza entered impulsively without waiting. They beat the people with the tassels and received five of the protesters, quite arbitrarily. We say this arbitrarily, but they did not arrest an accused UPV/EHU professor. After all, those of us who were there were activists, we were fighting, we were in a demonstration, the demonstration had a certain political character, and that was what they suppressed.

It could happen to anyone in the demonstration.

M: Yes, yes. We were many militants, and we all had a feeling, a mindset to be there and to have active militancy. It could be either of them.

A: We were all five, but it could be any other militant. It was therefore not entirely arbitrary, but a concrete profile.

The situation did not calm down after you stopped it. In the following years there were more arrests, we have seen on several occasions access to the Police, Vitoria, Leioa and Ibaeta campuses, follow-ups and requests for collaboration…

A: The presence of Ertzaintza in the UPV seems to have become a naturalized or normalized image. A few decades ago, when the workers' movement was strong, the churches and universities were considered a space of freedom to hold meetings and organize things, because the police could not enter it. But the police are increasingly normalizing in many areas of society, even at the university itself, without more. What he's doing is seeing the Ertzaintza there, being identifying the students, following and all that. The democratic mask sold by the UPV/EHU outward is crumbling and shows its true nature.

When did you know the convictions and the date of the trial?

M: Last year we met him in detail, about a year and three months ago. When we got to know the requests for sanctions, we started moving the issue in a more serious way. We held a press conference at the rectorado and started with the dynamics of getting money.

How do you live seven years waiting for such a trial?

A: (Buf) Most years with uncertainty. Many years have passed and we almost forget about ourselves. Until last year the summons and all the criminal demands came, it was there, we remembered times, but it was quite forgotten. Now that we have the trial nearby, that criminal petitions are high… we are more nervous and concerned. However, despite many years, we still maintain a good relationship between the five of Leioa, which helps to bring the case better. I also have committed militants, personally, among friends and in the environment, and that helps not feel lonely.

What sanctions are required by the UPV/EHU and the security company? What prosecutors?

M: As for security officers, they require a total of 39 and a half years of prison sentences, two seventeen years for two, two years against two and one and a half years for the last. The public prosecutor's office is a little smaller: nine and a half years' imprisonment, two years versus two years and one and a half years to the last. In the economic sanction there are no major differences between the prosecution and the security officers, both of which require about EUR 45,000. That would add to what the UPV is asking for, but we still do not know how much it is.

A: The UPV/EHU requires direct liability for “material damage”, even if the amount has not yet been expressed. It seems that it is the one that asks the least, but it is the one that has the most responsibility in itself. After all, he hired the security company, she gave the order to enter the Ertzainas, and he created this context in a repressive way. So, although only material damage is charged, we see the direct responsibility of the UPV/EHU, which must be denounced.

You say that major criminal demands are within a strategy. What is it about?

M: On the one hand, informing the students and, in general, every militant who moves, that facing the State means both an economic sanction and a prison sentence. It is a strategy to reduce our political freedoms, to remember that if you go through certain limits you will suffer repression.

A: On the other hand, the game they are doing legally is greatly exaggerating criminal petitions, as in many other cases. It works mostly as blackmail and then accepts penalties that seem more “modest” or “intermediate”. People are also quieter, thinking that “it hasn’t been so much” or “it’s a proportional punishment.”

But you say that you would not accept “proportional penalties” either: not a penny in fines, not a day in prison.

M: Yes, because we would be legitimising the judicial process itself. Barbarism is what we are asked for, but the judicial process itself is that way. Moreover, it is true that we did nothing extra and that our life is in danger.

A: Even if the penalties were lower, we see a political nature here. We do not accept any sanction, be it large or small. We believe that the legitimacy of political militancy must be defended, without any condition. “You can be military, but if in an uprising demonstration the penalty of two years is good, but not four years,” some may enter that number game. But we believe that the whole legal system is geared towards repression and we shall regard it as any unfair punishment.

You have already made several statements in the media, and you have also organised a solidarity fund within the free dynamic 5 of Leioa. How did people respond?

M: Of all. There have been people who have shown us their solidarity in this regard, and we are grateful for that. Everyone works together with what they can and we must thank all the expressions of solidarity. Whether big or small, the action is there and it's positive. The quantities may be larger or smaller, but people have seen a problem, have moved and have had that gesture.

You have already started with mobilizations and there will be more until the day of judgment.

A: We believe that mobilizing is important. On the one hand, to show that there is a very broad force and social opinion, which it considers to be an unfair judgment. And on the other hand, beyond our case, in general, in any case of repression, it seems important to go in, organizing solidarity and reacting collectively to any coup. So instead of isolating our issue and understanding that it is only our account, we collect it with the motto of stopping political repression, so that they may be mobilizations to denounce both our case and others.

M: We want to make a face-to-face call. The next mobilisation will be on 21 September at the Leioa campus. Two days later, on the 23rd, we will be mobilizing in the regions concerned: Pamplona, Baiona, Estella, Alsasua and Portugalete. Finally, on the 27th day of the trial, we will concentrate on the courts in Bilbao.

They have denounced that both the criminal petition and these judicial processes have “a political objective of generating fear”, specifically aimed at those who today militate in the student movement. Have they achieved that effect? How do you see the current student movement?

M: I think not, they have not succeeded. He continues organizing students, performing activities and demonstrations, posing many dynamics in terms that the State does not like. You see a compass, a desire to continue along that path. They have not succeeded, and I would say that at the moment they are not close to achieving it.

If the message you want to convey to the new generations of students who have made them sit on the dock of the defendants is frightening, what messages would you like to send?

A: We would like to send you the message of the struggle. It is true that repression is there and we have to talk about it. We must look at reality in the face and be aware of the existence of risk. However, I believe that this cannot lead us to immobility, to remain silent. Not militating or not having a strong political movement towards the state leaves us in a much worse situation. We are in a context of crisis and we are moving towards poverty, with a very important generational factor. So students and young people must think especially about taking the path to struggle, because those rights we have today have been achieved with struggle and struggle is the only way to achieve them. Or, if not, we must remain in submission and not organize, let the state and the oligarchy follow their path to condemn us to poverty, to the destruction of the planet and to other thousand situations of misery.

They've been doing college studies for years. What is the general state of political freedoms?

M: On the one hand, there is a new flourishing in the use of political freedoms, because there are increasingly more entrenched movements, with clear political ideas. I think we live in interesting times.

A: And then, as regards the abolition of political freedoms, at university level the situation remains serious. The closest case is that of the 34 students who were arrested by pickets in Vitoria, at risk of opening files and being prosecuted. But all of this must be placed in a broad context that goes beyond the university: the authoritarian tendency that states are adopting. For example, recently some ecologist movements have been described as “terrorists”, the police infiltrations in social movements, the indictment by the Spanish National Audience of several people for the welcome, the violations of fines and political freedoms we suffer in the militancy on a daily basis, the rise of fascism… We have to face, we have to create a strong movement that also works in the repression to collectively address all these problems. In this sense, the concept of any political or strategic amnesty is very topical, not only with the question of political prisoners, but also as a concept that responds comprehensively to repression.