The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), based in Strasbourg, has not admitted for processing the complaint filed by the defense of the young people from Alsasua convicted by the Spanish justice system for assaulting Civil Guard agents in a bar in the town of Navarre in October 2015. With this resolution, the judicial process of the case that led to jail for eight people sentenced to sentences of up to 9 and a half years, who are now in the third degree or with their sentence served, ends.
Those convicted in the ‘Alsasua case’ consider the cycle of mobilizations closed but insist that “injustice remains”
It was Iñaki Abad, one of those convicted, who reported this Wednesday through the social network Twitter that the ECHR rejected the appeal filed by the defenses. “Faced with the helplessness of all judicial institutions, there remains a society that has understood it perfectly, despite losing at the ECHR, we will always continue to denounce it,” he said.
It was in November 2020 when the relatives of those convicted of the so-called ‘Alsasua case’, included in the Altsasu Gurasoak platform, announced that they would file an appeal with the ECHR. In this case, several young people were tried and sentenced for assaulting two civil guards and their partners in the town of Alsasua. After resorting to the ruling of the National High Court, the Supreme Court finally ruled sentences of between one and a half years and nine and a half years in prison for the eight defendants. After exhausting the judicial channels in Spain, they chose to resort to the ECHR.
In presenting the appeal, they indicated that “no body of the Spanish judicial system with powers to do so has shown a willingness to stop this set-up, demonstrating serious democratic shortcomings and violating the most basic fundamental rights.”
In October 2019, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court significantly lowered the sentences imposed by the National High Court on the eight young people from Alsasua (Navarra) involved in the attack on two civil guards and their girlfriends in the early hours of October 15 2016. The sentences were reduced to between 9 and a half years in prison, the highest, and up to a year and a half in prison, the lowest.
The ruling of the National High Court had issued in this case sentences of between 13 and 2 years in prison for crimes of attacking law enforcement officers, injuries, public disorder and threats, although they were not punished for crimes of terrorism that did appear in the indictments of the Prosecutor both at first instance and on appeal.
The reduction of sentences, which was argued in a broad resolution that extended over 449 pages, is due to the non-application of the aggravating circumstance of discrimination or abuse of superiority in the case of the crime of attack on authority, as well as the suppression of two of those accused of some of the crimes of injury due to lack of evidence for which they had been initially convicted.
However, the sentence was still guilty because the Supreme Court indicated that there was sufficient and valid evidence of the physical and psychological aggressions and injuries caused to the victims to convict the crimes of attacking law enforcement officers, injuries, public disorder, and threats. The resolution was not unanimous and two magistrates signed a dissenting vote in favor of having maintained the aggravating circumstance of discrimination.