The National Court has sentenced ETA member Mikel Kabiko Carrera Sarobe, alias “Ata”, to 30 years in prison for the murder of the president of the PP of Aragon Manuel Giménez Abad, on May 6, 2001, when he was addressing a party. soccer match in Romareda (Zaragoza) with one of his children, while he has acquitted the other accused of this attack, Miren Itxaso Zaldúa.

In a ruling, the First Section of the Criminal Chamber, with a dissenting vote in favor of the acquittal of both defendants by Judge José Ricardo de Prada, condemns Carrera Sarobe for the crime of terrorist murder and imposes the payment of 250,000 euros to the woman. and the children of the deceased.

The resolution considers that there is “absolutely convincing” evidence to convict Carrera Sarobe, such as the statement of the son of the deceased Borja, the autopsy report, the expert reports on the pods and ballistics, the claim of the attack by ETA and the statements of the protected witnesses and the son of the murdered politician.

Along with the above, the Chamber also takes into account other secondary evidence consisting of several testimonies from people who did not witness the events nor can identify their authors, but who were nearby and whose stories are fully compatible with the information provided by the mainstream media.

The Court, once the evidence has been analyzed, understands that despite the accused’s exculpatory statements, “sufficient evidence has been produced to prove the participation of Mikel Carera Sarobe in the events judged to be the material author of the murder of Mr. Giménez Abad.”

The ruling assesses the statements of the protected witnesses and their identifications from their very personal circumstances and from the places close to the point where the president of the PP of Aragon was murdered, where each of them was located.

Regarding the other accused, Miren Itxaso Zaldúa Iriberri, for whom the Prosecutor’s Office requested a sentence of 30 years in prison, the Court considers that the evidence for the prosecution is not sufficient to prove her participation in the events tried, as stated revealed the evidentiary elements, including the intelligence reports, the photographic recognition of the accused and her own exculpatory statement.

The conclusion after examining the evidence, say the magistrates, is that the intelligence reports examined do not allow the conclusion that on May 6, 2001 the accused was in Zaragoza in order to attack Giménez Abad.

Furthermore, he adds, it is not even possible to affirm that the accused was part of the Bajasun commando nor that the attack was the work of this group. Secondly, the Chamber points out, the circumstances in which the photographic identification of the accused by one of the protected witnesses occurs “raise very serious doubts about the reliability of that identification.”

The sentence includes the dissenting vote of Judge José Ricardo de Prada in favor of the acquittal of Mikel Carrera, considering that sufficient evidence has not been collected to support the conviction.

The opinion indicates that, without failing to take into account that there are indicative elements and evidence against the accused, “they are not of sufficient importance nor do they have sufficient consistency to conclude, beyond all reasonable doubt, using this as the applicable evidentiary standard, that “It was about the people who materially committed the act of killing Mr. Manuel Giménez Abad by shooting him with a firearm.”