It is not in one, nor in two, not even in three the writings of the national audience where the false repentance of ETA prisoners is denounced in their letters sent to the Ministry of the Interior and that serve opener to penitentiary improvements. The demand for forgiveness is uniform in the doctrine of the criminal room of the national audience and the letters do not conform to their criteria.
Thus, there is a 869/2020, November 26, of the first section, in which they question these movements: "When the Court agreed to require the Penitentiary Center for Emission of Report on the Evolution of the Internal (...) Defense presented a letter ... [The Questioned Type Charter]. Consider the Court that the Temporary Conjuncture in which the brief was presented, which makes the recognition of the pain caused, tending to respond to the allegations From the Prosecutor, regarding the need to explain the assumption of criminal responsibility, an element that was reputed essential for the provenance of permission. It is inferred that the author continued to qualify the terrorist organization of political movement. The letter does not show a break with the postulates Terrorists, but the continuation of its justification for political reasons, in the line of discipline of the band ".
In the aforementioned auto, written written of "generic assumption of responsibilities presented by various sentences of ETA, limited to the recognition of the facts or even alluding to the damage caused by the activity deployed in the field of belonging to ETA, resigned To violence as a means to achieve political objectives. "
The magistrates understand that the letters have a single purpose, "obtaining prison consequences", and that the texts "are not comparable to the express and individualized petition of forgiveness to concrete victims, with the repair of damage, collaboration in clarification Of other unresolved crimes, nor with rejection of terrorist postulates, which are still qualified as political objectives. "
Likewise, at Auto 758/2020, of October 29, the judges affect: "We have pointed out that the generic assumption of responsibilities, limited to the recognition of the facts or even allusion to the damage caused to the victims by the activity deployed in the Scope of belonging to ETA, it is not comparable to the express and individualized request of forgiveness to concrete victims. "
AUTO 944/2020, of December 30, indicates on its part: "We conclude again that the Resource of the Fiscal Ministry, due to the absence of forgiveness request to the concrete victims, repair of damage and recognition of the damage ( Not merely formal and finalist knotted the request for penitentiary benefits) ".
Specifically, relative to penitentiary permits, the car of room 757/2020, of October 29, points out: "is to remember that regarding writings of generic assumption of responsibilities presented by various condemnates of ETA, limited to the recognition of The facts or even allusion to the damage caused to the victims for the activity deployed in the field of belonging to ETA, renouncing violence as a means to achieve political objectives [...], is not comparable to the express request and individualized forgiveness to concrete victims ... ".
In the same sense, the auto 338/2021, of April 30, affirms the following: "This court has also pointed out that (...) can not be ignored that it is difficult to socially understand the granting of permits to convicted for serious crimes like those of terrorism at long-term penalties, with a very lower compliance limit, when the date of extinction of the accumulated penalty is still far away and does not consist a profound change of attitudes, already by the existing criminological circumstances, and to believe that The change of attitude is due to the influence of external factors to the internal. We have also reiterated that the lack of current sanctions, the correct behavior in prison, the age of the facts, the family support and the allegation that, given the dissolution announced By the Terrorist Band ETA, it is not possible for the recidivism or breaking of conviction, do not involve the disappearance of the purpose of the penalties to which the judge alludes. "
"On the other hand, this room has been pronounced with respect to writings of generic assumption of responsibilities [...], noting that they are not comparable to the express and individualized request of forgiveness to concrete victims, nor with the effective repair of the damage ( In non-merely symbolic amounts nor irisorary and whose fertilizer is of recent initiation), neither with the categorical rejection of terrorist postulates ".
In the same line, the AUTO 387/2021, of May 17: "We share the criterion of the Fiscal Prosecutor who highlights that this content is in the line of other writings that frame violence in what they call a political conflict [. ..]. In this particular case, as in the other prisoners of the organization, some of which close to the dome, is reached to affirm that the way of ensuring that violence is not repeated is to cope with the causes and reasons That they generated it, in addition to making the situations of suffering disappear that today persist ... among them also that of the prisoners and their families. 'That our rights are guaranteed and that the penitentiary legislation is applied.' This does not evidence a rupture With the terrorist postulates, but an attempt of his justification for political reasons, and points to the instrumentalization of forgiveness utilitarian ".
Date Of Update: 20 October 2021, 20:53
