Following a report from the Civil Guard on contacts between the Ministry of the Interior and the ETA environment that represents the prisoners, the Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, has received a new Varapalo to his penitentiary management with the prisoners
From its old house, the national audience.

For the second time, this Court has lying a third grade granted by the General Secretariat of Penitentiary Institutions, directed by Ángel Luis Ortiz, one of the high internal positions that the Civil Guard Report puts in La Picota by contacts with the surroundings
Etarra
But, in addition, this Court has to solve three other progressions at an open regime granted by Marlaska to three ETARRAS and that have also been appealed by the Prosecutor’s Office.

The audience has revoked the granting of this penitentiary benefit that directly awarded the Ministry of the Interior.
In both cases, the audience questions the repentance expressed by the terrorists and its resources presented by Prosecutor Carlos Bautista.

Specifically, according to the resolution of the Penitentiary Surveillance Judge to which the world has had access, the Etarra Jon Crespo Ortega, condemned more than 25 years, will have to return to prison again.
The granting of the third grade to Crespo was announced on September 29, 2021. The interior was approached from the Basauri’s prison, and agreed to pass him to third grade, which he supposed he could
Leave the jail.

Crespo Ortega was on the third grade street for four months.
Now, after the decision of the court, he must return to prison.
The national audience is still aware of resolving other three resources presented by the Prosecutor’s Office against so many third degrees to ETARRAS with the same doubts about its repentance.

In the resolution letter of the penitentiary surveillance judge of the national audience, the arguments were guaranteed by Prosecutor Carlos Bautista.

Understand that judge that the risk of recidivism is “means under” “however, it does not consist of express forgiveness to the victims of ETA terrorism, with which the requirements required by the first section of the Criminal Delight Chamber are not met.
Regarding, which forces to estimate the recourse of the Fiscal Ministry, “says the car to which the world has had.

Details the judge the type text used by the inmate and referred to the Treatment Board in which “recognizes the pain caused”.
As in the cases that the audience has confirmed, again, there is no repentance or express request of forgiveness to the victims.
Despite this, from the inside, it was chosen to grant him the third degree.

On October 4, the Criminal Room of the National Hearing also revoked third grade to another terrorist, Unai Fano, for similar arguments.
He considered “premature and improper” the progression to the third degree granted by penitentiary institutions to Unai Fan by doubting that the repentance of him does not have a “utilitarian purpose” to achieve benefits and given his “trend” to minimize crimes.

He did it because the prosecutor’s prosecutor saw “incompatible” progression to third degree with the “necessary realization of the remuneration purposes and of general and special prevention of the penalty” and because he considered that “the mere manifestation of a commitment to the legal roads”
Made by Fano was “insufficient” for a convicted by crimes of terrorism.

A FAN, which fulfilled a sentence of 20 years in the prison of Bilbao for crimes as belonging to terrorist organization, was granted the third degree in January of this year.
This decision was appealed by the Prosecutor’s Office, both the Court of Penitentiary Surveillance and the Criminal Chamber of the Hearing.

The Tribunal discusses the scope that prison institutions has given in the writing that Fano presented before the court after having been granted the third degree and in which he does not see differences with those of other prisoners of ETA, which have a “generic and superficial” character.
, they link “the Commission of Terrorist Crimes in the field of what is called a political struggle” and in which “a utilitarian purpose should not be ruled out for obtaining permits or penitentiary benefits.”

Moreover, the room observes in its writing “a tendency to the minimization” of its crimes, pointing to be committed in France and that there were no victims, a circumstance that, it underlines the court, “does not exclude” its severity, and remember that it was
The police action that prevented the explosives and weapons that were seized in France could be used for terrorist purposes.

The court does not see “express repentance” and points out that it is simply limited to “as part” and frame violence in political struggle.