In the “macro-trial” the following lawyers will be present:

The prosecutors that will be present:

Two state lawyers will also intervene.

PROSECUTORS

The chief prosecutor of the Spanish National Court, Javier Zaragoza, believes “reasonably” that the tribunal in charge of the March 11th trial have accepted that three members of ETA testify and that “a new test” of explosives is conducted “in order to confirm the evidence” provided during the preliminary investigation.

“That doesn’t not infer a possible connection between ETA and March 11th”, stressed Zaragoza in order to explain that these two pieces of evidence – the explosives and the testimonies of the three members of ETA (Henri Parot and two others detained eleven days before the bombings with a van full of explosives in Cañaveras, Cuenca) – were proposed by the defense counsel of the two principal men accused: Jamal Zougam and Basel Ghalyoun.

“To deny it would limit the rights of the defense counsel”, added the chief prosecutor who has joined the assigned prosecutor for this case, Olga Sánchez, and will intervene in the first trial sessions and even in the interrogation of some of the 29 accused.

In his judgement, this resolution shows that the tribunal has acted with “a wide criteria” when allowing the evidence and avoiding the “defenselessness” of those two accused.  “I won’t talk about the rest.  Let’s be serious,” he said in reference to the diverse theories that have emerged over the author of the attacks and the various interpretations that have been made over this decision.

He also said that the Prosecution had asked the director of the preliminary investigation, judge Juan del Olmo, for a new test of the explosive debris found at the scene of March 11th to confirm the evidence and was rejected.

In respect to whether the truth about March 11th will ever be discovered in the trial, for Zaragoza, “is the best way to find out the criminal reality of such severe acts.”  “The judicial investigation is the best guarantee of finding out the truth behind these acts,” he insisted.

“The most interested (in knowing the truth) are those of us that make up the Administration of Justice,” he stressed.

In respect to the organizational aspects of the Prosecution of the Spanish National Court regarding the trial, Zaragoza explained that two prosecutors, Olga Sánchez and Carlos Bautista, have been assigned this trial and that he and the deputy prosecutor, Jesús Santos, will also provide support.

This way there will always be two representatives of the public prosecutor’s office on the platform during the whole trial, that will be held from Monday to Thursday starting Thursday February 15th.

Zaragoza will intervene in some interrogations and in the Prosecution’s final report, but as “leader (of the Prosecution of the Spanish National Court) there are more cases than just March 11th, although it is the most important there is and has been” he couldn’t “ dedicate himself exclusively to the trial” and that’s why, when he can’t attend, Santos will substitute him.

Furthermore it is predicted that this month a new prosecutor will be named in order to reinforce the Prosecution, along with the re-incorporation of prosecutor Enrique Molina when he finished the macro-trial surrounding ETA that has been held since November 21st, 2005 and to which he has attended nonstop.

The Prosecution has asked for sentences for the 29 accused that add up to more than 270,000 years total in prison as authors of the 191 deaths carried out and the 1,824 attempted (the total number of victims on the trains), although they will not serve more than 40 years.

THE COURT-APPOINTED COUNSELORS FOR THE ACCUSED

Those accused of the March 11th bombings “have had a lawyer from a formal point of view but, from a material point of view, they have been without a real defense for the last two and a half years,” court-appointed counselors designated for the majority of them maintain, who believe that the situation is “something out of the Medieval Era.”

In an interview with the press agency Efe, the lawyers Eduardo García Peña and Francisco Andujar talk about a “disastrous” control on behalf of the judge and a “random” accusation “lacking in severity” by the Prosecution.  These lawyers dump tough criticism on the behavior of the Attorney-General, General Management of Penitentiary Institutions and Madrid Bar in this case.

Both lawyers, like many of their colleagues, have asked in their written provisional conclusions to annul the acts because of the violation of fundamental right.,  They seem convinced of “at some judicial instant it will have to be said that it is absolutely scandalous.”

March 11th “has been a process in which the all guarantees of the suspects, defendants and accused have been broken constantly and the entire procedure has been corrupted,” they assure.

One of the allegedly violated rights, according to the lawyers, is precisely the defense’s right to have kept the preliminary investigation secret during proceedings of this magnitude and –they assure – that they have been put in unequal conditions in front of the prosecution.

They also said that after the bombings 122 people were arrested, half of them were put in jail, but after two years of preliminary examinations – during which they insist they have not had access to the proceedings – only 29 have been processed.

Another motive to annul the case, they claim, are the conditions in which the first police interrogations were carried out and “to what degree have they determine the later proceedings” since, they say, “there was pressure, threats and manipulations.”

The lack of interpreters until last October, so that the court-appointed counsel could talk with their defendants, is another complaint from the lawyers, who claim that this circumstance “has meant a complete breach in the rights of the defense,” of which they blame the Attorney-General.

They also claim that the preliminaries weren’t scheduled until last October, which is why they haven’t had enough time to prepare the trial.

“Formally they have ended up completing everything required by the legal order, but not on time,” explained García Peña and Andujar, who explain that in a procedure of this importance, completing the formal requirements at the wrong time implies violation of rights.

“What makes the rule of law” possible “isn’t having a lawyer from merely a formal point of view,” but having an operative one, the lawyers emphasize.

That’s why they say that they would need at least one more year “to be able to confront the trial in condition.”

Other criticisms displayed by both include the dispersion policy of these prisoners, that was completed by the General Management of Penitentiary Institutions, and the settlement of the lawyers’ retribution that was signed “behind their backs” by the Attorney-General and the Madrid Bar.

They also direct their criticism towards judge Juan del Olmo’s court order – “the control has been disastrous and the court order in the proceedings is incomprehensible and unintelligible” – and towards Olga Sánchez, whose indictment affirms that “there is a lack of a minimal required rigorousness.”

Nevertheless, they conclude that they “really” believe in the impartiality of the tribunal that is going to judge their clients: “It will be objective and will pass a sentence in all conscience.”