The judge accuses the former heads of ETA 'Kantauri', 'Mikel Antza' and 'Anboto' for the death of Miguel Ángel Blanco

The judge of the National High Court, Manuel García Castellón, has agreed to have three of the four former ETA chiefs identified by the Civil Guard as responsible for the kidnapping and death of the Ermua PP councilor Miguel Ángel Blanco to testify now. 25 years.

In a car, the magistrate directs the procedure, initiated as a result of a complaint from the Dignity and Justice Association, against José Javier Arizcuren Ruiz,

;

Miguel Albisu Iriarte,

, and María Soledad Iparraguire,

, for crimes of terrorist kidnapping and terrorist murder.

The judge also considers Ignacio de Gracia Arregui,

, responsible for the events, although in his case the crimes are considered prescribed.

Regarding

, the judge agrees, as proposed by the prosecutor in the case, Vicente González Mota, to reclaim France's authorization to try him for these events, which was denied a few months ago.

Having been handed over by France, the causes for which he can be tried in Spain must first be authorized by the French Justice.

The head of the Sixth Central Court of Instruction has agreed to the accusations after receiving the report from the Civil Guard that points to these members of the Zuba for the kidnapping.

According to said report, García Castellón points out, those investigated, despite not being the material executors, had "participation in commission by omission, taking into account the position of dominance held by the executive body of the terrorist organization. During the more than 48 hours in which the kidnapping lasted they had it in their power to stop it, "being able to deduce from the refusal to do so a manifest intention in the production of the result".

The judge, who since he was the instructor of the case 25 years ago, relates how after the fall of the leadership of ETA in Bidart, in 1992, the terrorist organization designed a new political-military strategy aimed at ensuring that all forms of struggle caused a constant confrontation with the Government of Spain at all levels, in such a way that it destabilized it with greater intensity than it had endured up to that moment.

"New Strategy"

Between 1993 and 1994, the new

planned and launched the so-called "destabilization strategy", which included the designation of political officials of the PP and the PSOE as targets of ETA, as well as the commission of other attacks or terrorist actions of great destabilizing power such as the kidnapping, for 532 days, of the prison official José Antonio Ortega Lara or the attempted attack against a member of the Royal Family.

The three responsible for the terrorist group now under investigation were part of this new

, the letter points out.

In 1997 and within the framework of this "destabilization strategy", the "

" of ETA, its "

", says the judge, decided to commit terrorist actions against members of the Popular Party, then in government, "using a new procedure: the kidnapping of a militant of said formation under the threat of assassination if the Government did not accede to the demands that were made".

That year, says the order, "the kidnapping of a Popular Party councilor was an absolute priority for the leadership of ETA, an action that had to be carried out precisely in the summer and 'as soon as possible'. This is stated in the documents issued by leaders of the terrorist organization, in this case handwritten organic communications by the person in charge of the "

" ETA commandos José Javier Arizkuren Ruiz,

, addressed to one of his commandos, the so-called

".

"The victim of this action, Miguel Ángel Blanco, in his capacity as a member of the aforementioned political party, had become a preferred target of ETA, not only of

, but of the entire terrorist organization, through its

. , which in the summer of 1997 urgently sought to kidnap and assassinate an elected official of the aforementioned political formation".

"Unlikely"

For the magistrate, the

was the body "where terrorist actions were decided, planned, directed and authorized" and it is "unlikely" that such a terrorist action would be carried out by a command "without prior decision and planning. , as well as some concrete and specific orders, emanating from the main directive structure of ETA".

In this sense, states the order, from the analysis of the documents about the apprehended gang and the study of its structure and internal functioning, it can be concluded "that the members of

of ETA at the moment in which the kidnapping of the councilor of the PP could have prevented his assassination."

According to the judge, the aforementioned members of

"had sufficient leadership and decision-making capacity over the organization's terrorist activity to have been able to make the decision not to kidnap the victim, as well as to avoid the ultimate outcome of the kidnapping by having been able to give the

the express and specific order to release him".

But despite the multiple appeals that, after the kidnapping of the victim, were made by the vast majority of Spanish civil society and the ruling political class at that time, the instructor continued the members of the "

" of ETA "They did not carry out any act to end the kidnapping (action committed by the members of

following their guidelines) or the death of the victim, evidencing an unequivocal will in the production of the result", highlights the instructor.

"At no time did they attempt to avoid or impede the assassination, although they were able to do so. The terrorist action that the

carried out could not materialize on its own initiative, but rather it was carried out following the orders and with the express authorization of their superiors, the members of the

of ETA", adds the judge.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more