NEW DHKP-C TERROR TRIAL BEGINS

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRUSSELS 002884 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/14/2017 TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER BE SUBJECT: NEW DHKP-C TERROR TRIAL BEGINS REF: A. BRUSSELS 1408 ¶B. BRUSSELS 1324 Classified By: POLCOUNS TED ANDREWS. REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D). ¶1. (SBU) Proceedings began September 13 in the Antwerp Appellate Court in the re-trial of Fehriye Erdal and other members of the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP-C). In April, Belgium's highest court, the Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court),quashed the November 2006 ruling of the Ghent Appellate Court that imposed stiffer sentences on three convicted members of the DHKP-C, and reaffirmed the sentences handed down by a lower court in Bruges in February 2006 to four other DHKP-C members. The seven were convicted of belonging to a criminal and terrorist organization, arms possession, and the use of forged documents. ¶2. (SBU) In its ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of four of the convicts serving time. (Three of those convicted, including Erdal, the most celebrated defendant, vanished before they could be taken into custody.) In rendering its verdict, the Cour de Cassation argued that the February 2006 appointment of a judge from another jurisdiction to oversee the trial in Bruges was a serious procedural error that prejudiced the lower court's ruling on the case. The court did not rule on arguments made by the defendants' lawyers seeking to strike down Belgium's 2003 antiterrorism legislation. ¶3. (SBU) The original 2006 ruling against the DHKP-C was a milestone for Belgium in that it was the second case in which the stricter 2003 antiterrorism act was used to convict defendants for membership in a terrorist organization. (Members of the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group or GICM were convicted on the same grounds a month earlier.) In both the GICM and DHKP-C cases, the prosecutors argued that mere membership in a terrorist organization was a violation of the law, even if the defendants had not committed a crime on Belgian territory. ¶4. (C) Comment: The relative speed of starting the new trial is encouraging. In April, Embassy sources thought it might take about a year to complete the review of the case files and other preparations before the case could be re-tried. The Belgian Federal Prosecutors Office, which remained committed to a new trial, had been particularly disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling. The Prosecutors Office had eagerly awaited the Court of Appeals decision in November upholding the convictions in order to plan a similar legal strategy against the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and other terrorist groups in Belgium. ¶5. (C) In the meantime, the case has become a bit of a political football in Belgium. While the DHKP-C defendants have their supporters (some thirty sympathizers turned up in Antwerp to especially support DHKP-C spokesperson Bahar Kimyongur),others see the trial as a showcase for Belgium's commitment to fight terrorism. In April, Yves Leterme's Christian Democrats called the Supreme Court's ruling another example of a badly functioning justice system, calling for then Justice Minister Onkelinx to be held "politically accountable." FOX .