Supreme Court refuses to review ETA member Etristan’s sentence despite favorable sentencing from Strasbourg

Updates

concluded that his 17-year sentence was based on evidence other than a confession challenged by the European Court of Human Rights

The Civil Guard leads ETA member Javier Etristan for a search in San Sebastique in 2010
The Civil Guard leads ETA member Javier Etristan on a search in San Sebastin in 2010.just garka
  • Courts The prosecutor’s office opposes the cancellation of the sentence of ETA member Etristan for Strasbourg’s conviction
  • influence ‘Etristan Doctrine’ jumps to Islamism: Man convicted of Barcelona attacks seeks acquittal

Despite favorable sentencing in Strasbourg, Xabier Etristen has lived up to his 17-year prison sentence. The Supreme Court has rejected a request by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to review an ETA member’s sentence for belonging to a terrorist organization and for possession of weapons and explosives, which has assumed its right to trial . All conditions were violated. Guaranteed not to induce judicial decision which prevented him from appointing a lawyer of his choice during police interrogation.

The Chamber considers that, while abstaining from the statements affected by this infringement, there is other evidence by which the same sentence could have been reached, for this reason it is not appropriate to review the final judgment in this case.

The Court thus agrees with the position of the prosecutor’s office, opting also to admit the filing of an appeal for review, thereby setting aside the conviction.

The magistrate points out that the appeal for review is extraordinary and the scope of the breach of authority declared by the ECHR must be verified in each case. The Chamber analyzes the European sentence and sees it as particularly relevant, stating that the sentence was “partly based on evidence obtained as a result of statements made in the police station, while they were excluded from communication”. In particular, those statements were necessary for the discovery of explosive material. As a result of his statements, the police received concrete data and evidence that the applicant had committed the offense under consideration. The conviction was mainly due to the explosives and computer equipment found in the possession of the applicant but also other evidence such as objectionable statements of co-defendants, statements of witnesses or plaintiff’s silence on questions of the prosecution”.

Thus, the Chamber concludes that, according to the ECHR, the conviction about the existence of explosives and weapons is based “on sources of evidence other than the confession”, disregarding their statement when the violations were found. The Supreme Court reaches the same conclusion after reading the sentences issued in this case, as well as verifying the summary proceedings and the minutes of the oral examination.

The Chamber said in its order that the ECHR denied the existence of abuse in this case and that “the plaintiff’s declaration of review was free and voluntary without any coercion or coercion”. Finally, it points out that the ECHR refers to “why the court-appointed lawyer was not allowed to communicate with his client, the reason why the court heard the court-appointed lawyer as a witness in the trial.” ” and it has not said “any reason for their opposition.”

In its order, the court recalls that in previous cases it was “certainly prone to execution through review of the sentence of the decisions of the ECHR, whose jurisprudence has observed and followed it.”

It states that the ECHR’s decision in the Etristan case “does not question either the law in force in Spain, or the incommunicado rule of a person detained in terrorist offense cases, provided that it is carried out under the supervision of a judge.” , which is being established. The Court is of the principle that it may be appropriate, in this context, that a court-appointed lawyer assists the detainee, and that in the specific case justifying the reasons, the incommunicado detainee. Some rights may be restricted.

The violation found by the ECHR, the Chamber specifies, “was not a personal resolution by the investigating judge as to why the detainee was not allowed access to a lawyer of his choice, although an appearance at trial was declared.” He was kept secret by the Central Investigation Judge due to the indications of belonging to a terrorist group and possession of explosives.

according to the norms of

trust project

know more


About the Author

The co-owner & marketing chief of "The Business News", Sravya is also good at Writing and communicating. she has good networking skills. she is really passionate about publishing quality news articles. - Thebusinessnews.org - You can reach Her at Facebook:- @sai.sravya.3910

Leave A Response