|
|
::
Torture: Amnesty International report on impunity
Amnesty International regularly reports the persistence of Torture in the Spanish State. In its annual report covering the year 2006 this organization makes specific reference to the five days incommunicado, extendible up to thirteen, observed by the Spanish Justice as for the detainees. The international agency reports that “persons arrested on charges of alleged connection with ETA claimed to have suffered torture during the period of incommunicado detention”. Indeed the Spanish State has ratified the Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture, but “continued to resort to practices, especially incommunicado detention, condemned by the special rapporteur of the United Nations on the grounds that they increased the risk of torture and mistreatment.” AI reports that, “in many cases”, acts of torture and mistreatments “remain unpunished and do not even instigate systematic and independent investigations on their perpetrators.” This impunity appears particularly clear in the report ‘Salt in the Wound’ published in November 2007. Referring exclusively to the Spanish State, Amnesty International records in this report the absence of judicial inquiries, lack of disciplinary measures or yet the pardon granted by the government to the responsible of acts of torture. In concrete terms AI states two cases vividly exposed by Behatokia. The first case related to Joxe Arregi, died under torture in February 13th 1981, where 73 policemen where involved, but only 5 of them were initially arrested and due to the strong pressure exerted by their superiors only two were tried and eventually convicted. The international agency referred to one of them, Gil Rubiales, promoted to a high post, while the other occupied and still occupy high posts. Another convicted, Julián Marín, for example, is police superintendent and also now attaché of the Interior at the Ecuadorian Embassy in Quito. The other three policemen initially arrested were rapidly promoted as well. The second case mentioned in the report
of AI is related to Kepa Urra, where two of the policemen convicted
were pardoned after being received by José María
Aznar at Moncloa in 1999. Yet they occupied posts of strategic
importance at that time: Manuel Sánchez Corbi was promoted
to the rank of captain during the trial on Torture, and once the
trial over he was appointed commander and responsible of the coordination
with France in anti-terrorist struggle. José Maria de las
Cuevas was assigned to the Special Services Unit of the Guardia
Civil. And in his quality of representative of the judicial police
he received the members of the CPT of the council of Europe while
in visit in Spain in 2001. The Spanish authorities chose precisely
a torturer, convicted and pardoned, to receive the members of
a prestigious organization of prevention against Torture. The
Spanish State had shown already that utter contempt in not applying
the resolution of UN committee on Torture regarding Kepa’s
case. This committee urged the Spanish State “to ensure
the carrying-out of penalties on the torturers in proportion to
their acts and ensure full reparation to the victim.” None
of the committee’s requirements were applied. He was kept five days under custody in incommunicado detention in the armed structure, and seven days once admitted to prison forward to the implementation of the Reform of 2003, by which incommunicado detention was extended despite the international recommendations. The young man made a terrifying report on the treatment undergone, stating that he was beaten right since the beginning, “especially in the testicles”. Transferred in Madrid he has been object of the “plastic bag” torture more then fifty times a day. He reported to have been forced to do “thousand of bending”, he suffered twice “bathtub torture” and has been violated with a stick as well. He reported that: “a Guardia Civil tied my testicles and penis with a rope and started to pull out. He also pulled out with the hand. On one occasion my penis started to bleed.” The whole testimony can be found at www.behatokia.info. The alleged prevention measures of torture which were able, in other cases, to have some deterrent capacity, have shown their absolute inefficiency in this case, precisely because they are voluntary, random and anecdotal. These are the virtues of the recently-reformed incommunicado regime in order to make it more extendible and thus more effective. Neither has been effective the public denunciation observed in the face of silent political parties, opinion makers or the important media. Torture remains systematic and testimonies remain hidden by the complicit silence on the matter. up López de Luzuriaga, in prison since 18 years now, was diagnosed earlier this year with breast cancer. She was operated in the hospital of Jaen in June 1st 2007, after which she had to follow a treatment of radiotherapy, however, since the beginning, the situation in carrying out the treatment was constantly difficult, namely inhumane conditions of transfer, delays and/or absenteeism at the scheduled rendezvous etc… Should be added to this situation the fact that lopez de luzuriaga is placed in a prison 700 kms away from her home and thus unable to see doctors of her choice. Even the direction of the prison of Jaen, after confirmation of the diagnosis, applied for the release of López de Luzuriaga for health reasons. The Central Court monitoring penalties of the Audiencia Nacional, however, issued a decision, dated November 16th 2007, in which the judge Juez José Castro did acknowledge the seriousness of the disease but refused to discharge the woman on the grounds that prison is not detrimental to her, unlike the opinion of her doctors. Indeed, two diagnoses were sent to the Central Court stating that Gatzone López de Luzuriaga should be released in order to be adequately treated for her breast cancer diagnosed in June. The first diagosis was sent by the woman doctor of her choice Mati Iturralde. The second was sent by Jaen prison doctor. The Central Court justified its rejection
by the “impossibility to ensure that the prisoner will not
commit another crime with a minimal and even unlikely prognostic
of her dangerousness.” In addition to this, the judge states
that “the prisoner has shown neither remorse nor will to
beg pardon to the victims.” These two arguments are, however,
absolutely unrelated to the procedure established by Article 92
which deals exclusively with medical issues. The judged added
arguing that: “prison doesn’t have any negative effect
on the evolution of her disease.” In addition to presenting entire paragraphs of police reports, the sentence is fraught with apriorisms, prejudices, twisted and interested interpretations to justify the conclusion, close to Garzon’s, that “everything is ETA”. “Kas, Ekin, Xaki do not constitute an armed organization, they have no weapons since they do not need them in their work as it is the case of the armed wing of ETA. These structures, however, are fully involved in the structural and organizational unit of the terrorist organization ETA. The highest penalties have fallen on the defendants in relation with the companies in the group Orain (Publishers of Egin). The Court tries to justify its decision linking the activities to edit a newspaper with the ones intending to circumvent the economic suffocation to which it was being subjected, with a purported dependence to ETA. The rapporteur of the sentence, Angela Murillo, says that she does not need evidence to support this allegation: “one has only to know to read”. International observers have already made public
that this ruling “means the normalization of a judicial
culture of exception or emergency which establishes diffuse and
collective criminal liability, absolutely incompatible with the
democratic system”. So for them the sentence “is situated
in a more global, long-term strategy of criminalization of the
exercise of the right of opinion, assembly and demonstration,
inter-alias of an important sector of Basque society. Some days later were arrested Ohiana Agirre, member of Askatasuna and Joseba Alvarez, responsible of Batasuna International relations. Newspapers close to the government had already announced this new strategy. For example “El País” reported in its edition dated September 9th that “the government will respond relentlessly to ETA challenge”, quoting an expression of President José Luis Zapatero, “it will not only attack the military apparatus of ETA but its related organizations as well as the political leadership which took part in talk process”, reported official officers. On September 30th, referring to this repressive policy against independent organizations, “Público” reported that the government expected a great deal of the leaders of these organizations should be in prison before elections were held. In this media-created situation and echoing the will of the Executive, some twenty leaders of the left wing movement were arrested on October 4th by the Spanish police forces which took by storm Segura, a small village in Gipuzkoa, where a meeting was being held. Later on other members were detained in incommunicado but correctly treated. Again the legal coverage of this operation was in charge of Baltazar Garzón who stated on October 7th that “the terrorist, network run by ETA, phagocytes all the organizations and movements known under the name of ‘Nationalist left’, a political space without any doubt gained and used by Batasuna”. He concluded his argument adding that “the expansive trend of Batasuna under the leadership of ETA can affect other colonisable organizations. Action can be taken against these organizations when sufficient proofs are gathered for that purpose, but nothing before that”. Consequently all the Nationalist left is potentially ETA and against which action must be taken in the future. The Minister of the Interior, in collusion with Garzon, stated that “Batasuna is reorganizing its structures purely and simply in view to support ETA”. He added that “the State will not grant such business”. This operation, motivated exclusively and only by the political and social activities of Batasuna Nationalist left, was qualified by international media as “revenge
operation”. To say that regardless of trampled judicial
rules, legality or illegality of these police operations, regardless
of ‘alleged legal grounds’ used for them, what remains
to record is a policy of harassment and persecution for ideas.
But though police forces together with judicial system are still
used as a safety valve to resolve political conjunctures, the
repressive face of this policy remains clear to the eyes of international
observers and organizations and organisms of human right defence. The defence of the Spanish State justified the outlawing claiming that the plaintiffs “were a threat to human right, democracy and pluralism”, making thus use of the thesis promoted by the judge Baltazar Garzon that “everything is ETA.”, explaining that “the creation of Batasuna and Herri Batasuna responds to the strategy of ETA by splitting its activity axis.” For the safeguard of human rights in these most conflicting positions, the Court concludes that: “in the light of all the arguments of the parties these allegations raise serious issues of fact and law that can not be resolved at this stage but a need a thorough review.” The defences of the plaintiffs show a “cautious satisfaction” with regard to the valuation of this first resolution, while in the State they consider that there is nothing to worry about since they have “right reasons”. In any case, considering the statistics, the Court of Strasbourg accepts for processing only 1.5% of the recourses to finally approve 80% of them. A new phase is now opening in the case,
in which, firstly, both sides may, if they deem it relevant, present
new allegations. A process which will certainly be quite as much
extensive, but at least will have the potentiality to restore
the most basic political rights in the Basque country. |