The PP denounces transfers “by finger”, among them those of Henri Parot and ‘Txapote’, which it relates to the “votes in exchange for Bildu”
MADRID, 17 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The General Secretariat of Penitentiary Institutions, dependent on the Ministry of the Interior, has resolved 23.2% of the proposals on the fate of ETA prisoners in a different sense from the decision originally agreed by the Treatment Board. As far as grade classification is concerned, the divergence is 11.9%.
This is stated in a written parliamentary response, consulted by Europa Press, in which the PP was interested in the recent approaches to prisons in the Basque Country by Henri Parot and Francisco Javier García Gaztelu, alias ‘Txapote’, two of the terrorists with a bloodiest history.
Regarding these two prisoners, the Government recalls that in the case of Henri Parot, the León Treatment Board “proposed his transfer to the appropriate prison”, and the General Secretariat of Prisons decided that he be transferred to a prison in the Basque Country, an autonomous community to which powers were transferred last year.
In the case of ‘Txapote’, for its part, the Treatment Board of the Madrid VII-Estremera penitentiary limited itself to “proposing the initial classification of the inmate in the second degree”, that is, in the ordinary regime. It was then the General Secretariat who “agreed as the fulfillment center the one designated by the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country”.
As on other occasions, the Government begins its response in writing by separating the transfers from “penitentiary benefits”. It then reports that between January 1, 2018 –Pedro Sánchez assumed the Presidency in the middle of that year– and September 8, 2022, the General Administration has issued 1,385 resolutions on classification and destination that affect ETA inmates.
These resolutions include grade reviews that by regulation are applied ex officio to all prisoners within a maximum period of six months, either in response to a proposal from the Treatment Board, or in the event of an appeal by the inmate in accordance with article 105.2 of the regulation.
In each resolution, therefore, both the grade classification and the destination prison are addressed. According to the Executive, 11.9% of the resolutions “do not coincide” with the proposal of the Treatment Boards in what refers to the classification of degree, a figure that rises to 23.2% in what refers specifically to “destination penitentiary matter”.
In this sense, it specifies that in 322 cases “they deviated from the destination proposed by the Treatment Board”, a collegiate body made up of those responsible for the management team of each prison.
The parliamentary response does not specify to what degree the divergence is favorable to the interests of the ETA prisoner or not, since there may be cases in which the initial proposal was not accepted, for example, due to organizational issues; or that directly, even if there was a transfer, Penitentiary Institutions would opt for a prison different from the one proposed by the Treatment Board.
The PP spokeswoman for the Interior, Ana Vázquez, has criticized these decisions “by finger” that she attributes to the Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska. “322 transfers of ETA terrorists are fingered by Marlaska, against the prison treatment boards,” she said on her Twitter account.
Vázquez, who has criticized once again the transfers to the Basque Country of Henri Parot and ‘Txapote’, has denounced that the Interior consents to “approaches and benefits to terrorists in exchange for Bildu’s votes”.
In the written reply, the Government states that in the case of Henri Parot, the León Treatment Board “proposed his transfer to the appropriate prison”. “After the proposal of the Treatment Board of the Leonese prison, his transfer to the penitentiary center designated by the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country was resolved,” he says.
In the case of García Gaztelu, the Treatment Board of the Madrid VII-Estremera prison “proposed the initial classification of the inmate in the second degree.” “After the proposal of the Treatment Board of the Madrid prison, its initial classification was resolved in second degree” and then, without a proposal from the Treatment Board, it was the General Secretariat who “agreed as the compliance center the one designated the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country”.
