The lawyer of Carles Puigdemont and Quim Torra, Gonzalo Boye, will have to pay the compensation imposed by the National Court for helping ETA in the kidnapping of businessman Emiliano Revilla in 1988 at the hands of the command led by José Luis Urrusolo Sistiaga. The lawyer was sentenced for illegal detention to 14 years and eight months in prison and to indemnify Revilla with 200 million pesetas (1.2 million euros) jointly with the other two convicted in the same oral hearing, in addition to paying the costs of the trial.
The decision has been adopted by the First Section of the National Court in a car in which it denies that it has prescribed the possibility of claiming payment, contrary to what Boye and the Prosecutor’s Office alleged. The court orders “to make effective” the foreclosures agreed in the past and “to deepen in the patrimonial investigation” of the lawyer. In particular, he has agreed to seize the current accounts he owns, the income he receives from the law firm he shares with his wife and those from Antena3 Noticias and the Madrid Bar Association.
Following the conviction issued in 1996, Boye declared himself insolvent and did not face the payments. He served six years of effective prison that he took the opportunity to study law. Upon leaving prison, he offered Justice to pay 2,500 pesetas per month (15 euros), which he later raised to 5,000. When he returned to public light it was in 2004, already as an prosecutor on behalf of victims of 11-M. At that time the lawyer of the Association of Victims of Terrorism Manuela Rubio, who agreed with the lawyer in the trial, perceived that it was no longer any insolvent. In 2008 he requested to activate the seizure of his assets. The National Court rejected it because only the victim was entitled to file that petition. And the Revilla family didn’t want to know anything about it. Despite this, the prosecutor asked the police to review his economic situation. The result was that it was still insolvent.
But things changed in 2018. Then a lawyer appeared at the National Court on behalf of the businessman and requested “the embargo on the current account balances and bank savings” of his kidnappers. It was agreed then “to proceed to the patrimonial investigation of the convicted and to decree the pertinent embargo in order to face the civil responsibility”. Before, Revilla was asked “if he had received any amount as compensation, to which he responded negatively,” recalls the First Section car, of which Judge Francisco Javier Vieira has been a speaker.
The key to agree now the embargo has been that failed attempt of 2008, which according to the magistrates supposed that the prescription period of 15 years from the sentence was dictated. “A new prescriptive term of 15 years began again,” said four magistrates of the Section chaired by Judge Concepción Espejel. The Court indicates that the doctrine is divided – provincial hearings disagree – between whether it can prescribe the execution of the clutch or if that is not even possible. The judges emphasize that although the most favorable thesis to Boye was accepted, that prescription would not have occurred yet.
The Prosecutor’s Office does not share the criterion, and neither does one of the magistrates of the court, Ramón Sáez, who has issued a discrepancy claiming that the Chamber departs from the criteria followed so far in these cases.
The patrimonial action against Boye extends to the other two courts next to him, also of Chilean origin and members or supporters of the MIR, the Revolutionary Left Movement: Alexis Alberto Corvalán and René Miguel Valenzuela Both were declared insolvent. The compensation was imposed jointly and severally, which means that any of the three can be claimed in full. Then it would be your business to claim the part corresponding to the other two.
All three were sentenced to the same sentence of 14 years, eight months and one day. In the case of Gonzalo Boye Tusset, born in Viña del Mar (Chile) in 1965, the proven facts indicate that he “participated fully” in the surveillance tasks of Revilla. For example, lending several times his Chrysler model 150 German license plate ranch “to be used” in these tasks. In addition, he visited at least twice the address where the zulo had been enabled. He also participated in the collection or laundering of the funds that ETA paid to the group of Chileans for their help in the kidnapping. The ruling mentions two meetings at the Café Comercial de Madrid in which Boye would have received part of those funds.
Among the incriminating material that supports the sentence is the confession of Boye himself that he had lent the car for surveillance. Initially his version was that he had left it for a furniture transport. Gonzalo Boye, a supporter of the MIR, for whom he had performed surveillance and information […] services, has a German passport […] number, Chilean passport number […] in his statements, which fully ratifies the judicial presence , recognizing its previous signatures, does not deny having lent its car brand Chrysler 150 ranchera, of German registration, […] to carry out surveillance, although in principle it says it was requested for a transport of furniture. ” Nacional was appealed in cassation, but was ratified by the Supreme Court.
In 2004, the Court again held a trial for the kidnapping, this time against two material autrores: José Luis Urrusolo Sistiaga and Antonio Gabiola Goyogana. The ruling recalls that ETA and MIR contacted Paris in 1987 and agreed to work together in kidnappings to finance both organizations. In execution of that plan, Corvalán moved to Madrid, “where with Gonzalo Boye Tusset and other people he was monitoring the businessman until his habits and trajectories were known. The information obtained was transferred to Paris in Valenzuela, which was sent to ETA address “. With that information, on February 23, 1988, ETA kidnapped Revilla, who spent 249 days in a zulo he only left after paying a ransom.