The National Court (AN) has sentenced four members of ETA to 74 years and four months in prison who participated in placing a bomb, which did not explode, at the door of the house in San Sebastián where a married couple lived. journalists and their one and a half year old son, events that occurred on November 10, 2000.
The sentence of the Fourth Section of the Criminal Chamber condemns the three material authors of the placement of the device, Imanol Miner Villanueva, Asier Garcia Justo, Jon Zubiaurre Aguirre and the instigator of the terrorist action, Patxi Xabier Macazaga Azurmendi, to 19 years and 10 months in prison. prison for three crimes of attempted murder and another 14 years and 10 months for attempted terrorist attacks. During the oral hearing, the four acknowledged their participation in the events.
“In addition to the prison sentences, the magistrates prohibit the accused, for a period of five years once the custodial sentence has been served, from approaching the victims of the attack, journalists from The Country Aurora Intxausti and Antena 3 Juan Palomo and, to their home, place of work and places frequented by both. They are also prohibited from communicating with them by any means of communication, computer or telematic means, written, verbal or visual contact, as well as going to the place where the victims reside,” states a press release released by the AN.
Regarding compensation, the Court sentences the accused to pay Aurora Intxausti 28,815.25 euros, in addition to another 123,548.59 euros, and to Juan Palomo with the amount of 75,000 euros.
“Unquestionable” moral damage
The Chamber considers that in the present case “the moral damage experienced by both victims is unquestionable since they were seriously attacked in their own home, in an unexpected way and with a high probability of having lost their lives, both their own and that of others.” his son who at that time was only eighteen months old.” He adds that, as a result of these events, they experienced a well-founded and explainable fear of being attacked again, which is why they were forced to abandon what had been their place of residence and leave the way of life they had maintained until then. After the attack, he emphasizes, they had to change cities, their place of work and thereby distance themselves from their family environment and their social relationships to the point that every time they had to return to the Basque Country they had to have police protection.
The ruling relates in its proven facts that in 2000 the defendants, as members of ETA’s Gaua legal command, carried out preliminary information work to find out the address where the couple of journalists resided and study the feasibility of placing an explosive device in the landing of their door, with the clear purpose of attacking their lives and causing damage to the property.
On November 10, 2000, around 8 in the morning, when Juan Palomo opened the door of his house to go to his workplace, he heard an explosion similar to that of a firecracker, observing a pot with a plant on the doormat. ; He told his wife and son, who were preparing to leave the home with him, to return inside the house and stand in the place furthest from the door.
The explosive device, made up of two and a half kilos of dynamite and two and a half kilos of screws, like shrapnel, was prepared to be activated when the door of the home was opened, but it did not explode because the connection between the detonator and the device failed. explosive.
The placement of the device was intended to cause death
The sentence includes the testimony given at the trial by the two victims, who explained how their lives changed since the attack and that of many of their companions who continued in the Basque Country.
For the Court, it is proven without a doubt that the placement of the device at the door of the house where the two journalists lived with their 18-month-old son “had the sole purpose of causing their death, or at least this was “the result that could be represented as possible in the event that that device were to detonate.”
The Court explains that treachery exists to the extent that the device ensured the intended fatal outcome without the possibility of any defense on the part of the victims.
The sentence explains that the penalty must be imposed for the two attempted crimes “to the extent that, fortunately, the device did not explode, even if it were for reasons beyond the control of the defendants who, for their part, used the means, resources and knowledge necessary to activate it and achieve the intended result.”
In relation to the participation of the accused, the Court indicates that it has not only been accredited by their self-incriminating statements, but also by the expert intelligence evidence included in the expert report.
#ETA #members #kill #couple #journalists #baby #bomb #sentenced #years #prison
