Under intense police pressure in Spain and France, the terrorist organization ETA was desperate for solutions. Much of the militants were detained or at large. It had lost operational capacity and, with it, political and ‘military’ initiative.
The only way to reverse the state of things was to “put the dead on the table” – a sinister motto that guided the group’s strategic thinking -, where it was urgent to find an alternative territory where ETA could reorganize itself, in particular manufacturing explosive devices and, eventually, training operatives.
This is how, in February 2010, in the town of Casal de Avarela, in Óbidos, a village was found hiding a ton and a half of explosives. Portugal was the recourse solution for the organization to live and continue killing.
At the time, the ‘military apparatus’ – the structure responsible for producing bombs, attacks and summary executions – was led by Garikoitz Aspiazu. Known for nom de guerre ‘Txeroki’was one of ETA’s most bloodthirsty leaders in the group’s six decades of existence.
Sentenced to 400 years in prison, of which he had to serve 25, Cherokee He was released on parole last week. In practice, 17 years in prison. Exceptional by definition, this freedom regime defined in article 100.2 of the Penitentiary Regulation applies to ETA members who meet three conditions: disassociate themselves from the organization; apologize to the victims; and pay compensation determined by the courts.
No, Cherokee does not fulfill any. He remains linked to an organization that no longer exists, which clearly testifies to his level of extremism; he did not ask for forgiveness, even showing pride in the crimes he committed and instructed; and there is no news of any payment of the repairs due. More seriously, it remains intransigent in its refusal to collaborate with the courts in identifying those responsible for more than 300 homicides still to be clarified.
In short, he benefits from an exceptional penitentiary measure in an even more exceptional context. He is not the first refractory politician to enjoy such leniency. Nor will it be the last.
It is true that the granting of the semi-freedom regime followed normal procedures, although at an unusual supersonic pace. The problem is not in the decision, but in the way you decided. This, in a Rule of Law, is never secondary.
Article 100.2 is not an administrative shortcut for cases where public sensitivity and the nature of the crimes require maximum scrutiny. Its application to Cherokee – convicted of attacks, attempted and attempted murders and even management of organized crime – is legally risky and politically reckless. When the State makes baseless exceptions, it undermines the rights, freedoms and guarantees that support democracy.
How is this explained? With political needs. Pedro Sánchez’s parliamentary minority has always been very dependent on Basque and Catalan separatists, a dependence that has increased greatly with the countless cases of corruption, influence peddling, embezzlement and abuse of power that tarnish the Executive, the party and even the family of the president of government.
EH Bildu, a Basque nationalist far-left coalition, takes advantage of Sánchez’s weakness to intensify demands, in particular the release of “political prisoners” who, in reality, are individuals convicted of terrorism and multiple homicides.
None of this is past. ETA only ended in 2018. It killed 850 people, 95% of which were during a democratic period, which is enough to demonstrate that, contrary to what is sometimes heard, it was never anti-Franco, but anti-Spain and anti-democracy.
The social wound is open. And it bleeds profusely because EH Bildu insists on presenting itself as the proud heir of the ETA legacy, a position that, although it attacks fundamental principles of liberal democracy, has the tacit support of the socialists and the government.
Therefore, dear reader, when you hear about the growth of the radical right in Spain, or when you wonder why Felipe González is a fierce critic of the PSOE, to the point of announcing that he will no longer vote for the Socialist Party, know that part of the explanation goes here.
Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement
Leave a Reply