____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
| In the courtroom A large number of the more than five hundred people arrested during the Euro Summit were released fairly quickly, without summonses. A number of them, non-Swedes, were extradited to their country of origin. This happened to people from Norway, Denmark, Germany, Britain and the Netherlands, among others. Eventually over sixty people were convicted for their supposed part in the riots. Their court cases were not exactly paragons of objective justice. Here are some examples. Atmosphere The Swedish prosecutors tried to create a certain atmosphere in the courtroom. For instance before each court case a compilation video was shown of all the riots that took place during the summit. This also happened when the suspect couldn’t possibly have been involved in any of these, for example because he or she had already been arrested before any riots broke out. Besides this, pavement bricks were put in front of the judges every time, posing as ‘evidence’, even if the suspect wasn’t accused of throwing bricks. Very severe sentences The sentences that have been handed out so far in relation to the Euro Summit have been excessively severe according to Swedish norms, on average ten times longer than the sentences given for similar offences before June of 2001. For the specific offence of ‘valsamt upplopp’ this was even seventeen times longer. ‘Valsamt upplopp’ means a ‘violent riot’. The only criterion in order to be convicted of this is to simply have been in the neighbourhood of a riot or unrest. Participation in this is not a prerequisite. Until now it was the case one would have to have committed a considerable amount of violence to be convicted of that. But even then the sentences were no higher than a few weeks in prison. People who were accused of ‘valsamt upplopp’ during the Euro Summit, including the very young and so called ‘first offenders’, were faced with several years in prison. There was also a noticeable difference between the sentences for so called ‘political’ suspects and ‘non-political’ suspects. The latter received sentences of around nine months in prison on average. For people who were known to be politically active this average was twenty-one months. This had nothing to do with a difference in the severity of the offence. For example: Two people are both suspected of participating in a riot. The first has thrown bricks, which hit a police officer and a horse. He has also passed on bricks to others and shouted ‘kill the damn swine’. He was not politically active and was sentenced to nine months. The second, an active union member, threw a branch and some rubbish. A witness claims he threw a brick. According to the verdict he was an ‘anti-capitalist’ and he was sentenced to twenty-four months in prison. Forging and ‘disappearing’ of evidence In many cases there is at least the suspicion that the police and the justice system have messed with the evidence, made evidence disappear or simply refused to release evidence. In a number of cases there is very clear evidence of this. The most poignant is the case of Hannes Westberg. Hannes Westberg was shot in the stomach by a police officer during one of the demonstrations. When his case was tried the police showed video images which were supposed to prove the shooting of Hannes Westberg by the police officer was justified. When the cameraman who shot the images the police showed in the courtroom happened to see them in Belgium, it came to light that they had been tampered with. The police had edited images of masked people taken at a different time in a different place into the film, removed images of police brutality from the film and also used slogans from a different demonstration. The un-manipulated images of the situation then showed that Westberg did clumsily throw a brick, but contrary to what the police was claiming there was absolutely no aggressive mob attacking the police. Not that this made much of a difference for Hannes Westberg, he was eventually sentenced to eight months in prison. Another example is that of a twenty-year-old young man who was arrested based on the statements of an undercover police officer. According to the officer the young man had incited others at a meeting preceding the summit. He ‘aggressively incited others to go fight’ and ‘stated there would be problems if the ‘bastard coppers’ would try to stop them’, according to the officer. However the meeting (including the undercover police officer) was filmed. The images show that the suspect did not speak about fighting, never used terms like ‘bastard coppers’ and only spoke about plans of the so-called ‘white overalls’ to symbolically and non-violently storm the summit. The officer will probably be convicted of perjury. Another example. A young man is convicted of leading a riot. He supposedly conducted and incited others using arm gestures. His lawyer asks for images of the event. Although the police claim to have around three hundred hours of video images at their disposal, they claim not to have any images of this event. After the young man is convicted in a different case, however, video images surface from the police collection which cover exactly the time and place concerned. Group Sentencing In a number of cases groups of people have been sentenced while it’s not clear if any of them have individually committed punishable offences. For instance an undercover police officer follows a group of seven Danes who, after riots erupted, go into a café. The officer calls for an arrest unit, who then arrest eight people. The officer cannot indicate who did what, but states they have all thrown bricks. The owner and a regular of the café however declare that the Danes did not enter as one group, but in different little groups. Despite this the seven are collectively convicted. Another example of group sentencing is that of the so-called ‘command centre’. From an apartment a group is supposed to have been controlling the riots by sending text messages to people in the streets. A fairly absurd accusation, the most radical and inciting text message literally said: ‘People are preparing to defend Hvidfeldska. There are too few police. Everyone go there to help their comrades! Pass it on!’ The police raid the apartment and arrest eight people. And although it is not clear who did what (if they have even done anything at all) the eight (after first spending three months in isolation on remand) are given sentences varying from sixteen to twenty-eight months. Better not lodge a complaint… At a certain moment the Swedish Solidarity Group advised people not to lodge complaints against the police, or to bear witness. The risk of subsequently being accused themselves in revenge would be too great. This happened to several people; Maarten’s case does not stand alone. A Norwegian was severely abused by a special police unit. When, after hesitating for a long time, he finally lodged a complaint, he was immediately served with a criminal charge. The High Court Eventually three cases reached the High Court. This court critically evaluated the lower courts and decided to significantly decrease the imposed sentences. This way someone was sentenced for his part in the riots to four months, instead of the twenty months that were imposed earlier. The eight people who supposedly ran the ‘command centre’ also had their sentences almost halved. Besides this the High Court was of the opinion that the riots did not constitute an attack on the EU, but were much more a reaction to the police brutality and specifically the police actions at both of the schools. The court in Goteborg for that matter did not find this reason to reopen all the other cases in which people had already been convicted. |