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
.