The Supreme Court has confirmed the eight-year prison sentence that the Barcelona Court imposed on three members of a cell from Badalona (Barcelonès Nord) dedicated to recruiting and indoctrination of a jihadist who even incited a man to fight in Syria, where died in a bombing.
In its ruling, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants' defense, three brothers who resided in Badalona and who were convicted of a crime of integration into a terrorist organization.
The three brothers, born in Morocco and residing in Badalona, were part of a cell belonging to the radical Islamist group Hizb Ut Tahrir al Islami (HUT) -Islamic Liberation Party-, which sought to recruit and indoctrinate people in that and other nearby towns to instruct them and radicalize them in the jihadist ideology.
The convicted, according to the sentence, held regular meetings at their homes and in public places in Badalona, such as the Parc del Sol or the Peius Gener passage, to plan their actions, which led them to recruit a neighbor to travel to Syria, where the man was killed in a bombing attack.
The defense of the convicted alleged that in the trial held at the National Court their right to defense had been violated, because the status of protected witness had been granted to a person who had denounced the facts that gave rise to the investigation into the cell.
The sentence, for which Judge Manuel Marchena has been a rapporteur, maintains that the granting of protection to that witness was justified by the risks to his physical integrity, given the "seriousness" of the sentences imposed and the crime of terrorism that was being prosecuted. .
In the opinion of the court, it is "perfectly understandable the decision to protect a witness who, following the death of M.K. in Syria during a bombardment, made the decision to appear at police stations and give his version about the indoctrination work that the three defendants were developing in Badalona".
The ruling ignores the defense's complaints that the statement of the protected witness could be motivated by his animosity towards the defendants and recalls that the lawyer was able to question him "and even ask him about data that could affect his credibility."
For the room, the defense argument that there could have been "a breach of the principle of equality of arms if the Public Prosecutor was able to meet with the protected witness" is also unfounded.
