The defense of Dris Okabeer (46 years in prison) claimed to have quashed the investigation because of the conditions of his incommunicado detention after his arrest.
It is quite possible that every captive who has spent time in communication ends up claiming the application Etristan’s Doctrine From Strasbourg Court. this monday he dris aucabiroJustice was carried out in relation to the Barcelona and Cambrils attacks and sentenced to 46 years in prison for possession of explosives, causing havoc and injuries, belonging to a terrorist organization.
Okbeer’s lawyer, luis alvarezhas submitted a brief to the National High Court, requesting the acquittal of his client, observing that the application of the principle to the conditions of solitary confinement means that the necessary evidence against him should be treated as void.
“The incommunicado regime, to which the Dris was under Okabir, was, like Etristane, deprived of the total services for his legal aid—the preparation, organizing and discussion of his defense—that Europe sought to provide him”, of the letter. confirms, asking to declare invalid all subsequent proceedings after communicative detention, from which he shall be acquitted and released.
The request has been addressed to the Appeals Chamber of the National High Court, which is reviewing the convictions of Okabir and two others in the same trial. The defense wants this new argument to be included in the appeal filed. What this Chamber resolves can be appealed against in the Supreme Court.
Etristan’s Doctrine At this time, it has led to the release of Xabier Etristan, to which the European Court of Human Rights agreed, while the Supreme Court waited to resolve the review appeal against the 17-year prison sentence. The National High Court has also applied the principle to two other acquittal sentences referring to Gaddafi, ETA members Gorca Palacios and Juan Carlos Iglesias Chauzas.
The doctrine does not rule out all that is derived from a statement made by a detainee, but rather questions cases in which the remedy has not been sufficiently motivated and that deficit has not been subsequently repaired. Is. This means that its application is not automatic in all cases, but it must be checked one by one.
according to the norms of