New twist in the Atristain case. After the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) agreed with this prisoner, sentenced in 2013 to 17 years in prison for belonging to ETA, and will be released provisionally, the Supreme Court has refused to review the sentence, considering that there is other evidence beyond the confessions made during the period of incommunicado detention.
The decision of the Supreme Court has caused surprise, since it was expected to decide between repeating the trial (as in the Bateragune case after the ECHR ruling), although without being able to use what was declared during the period of incommunicado detention, or, otherwise, leave suspend the sentence and keep Atristain free. In fact, the AVT had warned that the ECHR sentence could lead to "a massive release of ETA prisoners", understanding that it would establish jurisprudence and could lead to questioning all the judicial processes in which the statements made during the five days of solitary confinement would have played a key role.
Other sources, however, indicated that, unlike in the case of the Parot doctrine, the ruling would not have an automatic effect on judicial proceedings in which solitary confinement may have played an important role. Yes, it could have it in the cases in which Strasbourg is used.
The ECHR, not in vain, considered that applying the incommunicado period violated the "right to a fair and equitable trial" of the convicted person, as well as his "right to defend himself". In this way, Spain would have violated article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the rights to a fair trial and legal assistance chosen by the detainee. Consequently, the State must pay Atristain 12,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and another 8,000 for costs.
From there, the unknown was how the Spanish justice would react once Europe had indicated that the statements made during his police detention were a "significant basis for the conviction" of the accused, in such a way that "his right to the defense".
Well, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court considers that, even disregarding the statements affected by the violation assessed by the ECHR, there is other evidence unrelated to the same by which the same convicting conclusion could have been reached about the facts. that substantiate his conviction, so the review of the final judgment in this case is not appropriate.
The court explains that an appeal for review is extraordinary and that it is necessary to verify in each case whether the violation of the European Convention on Human Rights declared in the judgment affects, and to what extent, the essential content of the violated right, as well as whether the effects of the violation persist and cannot be remedied other than by review.
The Supreme indicates that the statements after his arrest "were essential for the discovery of the explosive material." “As a consequence of his statements, the police found data and solid evidence that the applicant had committed the crimes in question. The conviction was based mainly on the explosives and computer equipment found in the possession of the plaintiff, but also other evidence such as the incriminating statements of the co-defendants, the statements of the witnesses or the silence of the plaintiff to the questions of the prosecution, "he adds.
Thus, the Chamber concludes that, even disregarding his statement given the violation found, the conviction about the existence of explosives and weapons is based on other sources of evidence other than the confession.
Atristain was released in February, after 12 years in prison, once the ECHR handed down a sentence. The State Attorney's Office appealed the Strasbourg ruling, although the ECHR dismissed the appeal and the sentence became final. Her defense will announce in the next few hours how she will respond to the Supreme Court's decision.
On the other hand, it remains to be seen how this decision affects other cases in which solitary confinement may have played a relevant role. Obviously, the Supreme Court's decision will not modify the Strasbourg criteria regarding solitary confinement, although it could have a dissuasive effect when other prisoners appeal.
