The issue of easing detention conditions for former ETA leader Maria Soledad Iparraguirre Guenechea (“Anboto”) has sparked heated debate in Spain. The National Court Prosecutor’s Office has opposed granting her daytime release, arguing that such a decision could set a dangerous precedent for the entire penitentiary system in terrorism cases. According to the agency, premature easing of the regime undermines trust in the principle of serving sentences consistently and may provoke dissatisfaction among victims of terrorist attacks.
As El Pais reports, the prosecutor’s office filed an official objection to the decision of the Basque Country Department of Justice, which in March allowed Anboto to leave prison during the day on weekdays. She is still required to return to her cell at night and on weekends. Prosecutors stress that the convicted woman has not served three-quarters of her sentence, and her experience outside prison walls has been limited to just two days. In their view, this approach does not meet established standards and could be seen as a covert attempt at early transfer to a more lenient regime.
Unlike a similar case involving another former ETA leader, Garikoitz Aspiazu (“Txeroki”), where prosecutors supported easing prison conditions due to his participation in restorative justice programs and admission of guilt, the situation with Amboto has raised serious concerns for the authorities. Prosecutors believe her case lacks sufficient grounds for granting privileges, and that no assessment has been made regarding potential consequences for society and victims.
Prosecutors’ arguments
The prosecution notes that applying Article 100.2 of the penitentiary regulations—which allows partial release for second-level inmates—must be strictly justified. In Amboto’s case, authorities in the Basque Country, according to prosecutors, used this mechanism to bypass standard procedures, without waiting for key requirements to be met. Specifically, they point out that the inmate had not received long-term or repeated furloughs, and the only two-day leave was granted without judicial oversight.
The authorities also stress that cases related to terrorism require a special approach and stronger justification when considering easing prison conditions. The prosecution argues that in Amboto’s case, there was no assessment of the social and psychological impact on victims, nor was there any explanation for why the principle of gradual transition to more lenient conditions was violated.
According to El Pais, there are currently 18 inmates linked to ETA benefiting from similar conditions under Article 100.2. However, prosecutors fear that expanding this practice could lead to a mass reduction of sentences without sufficient grounds.
Reaction of society and victims
The decision to grant daytime release to Amboto sparked sharp criticism from victims’ associations. Covite described it as a ‘hidden amnesty’, while representatives of other groups expressed concern that such measures could undermine trust in the judicial system and provoke discontent among those affected.
In March 2026, there were 119 inmates linked to ETA remaining in Spanish and French prisons, with 114 held in institutions in the Basque Country. According to russpain.com, such decisions may prompt renewed debates on penitentiary reform and the criteria for easing sentences in terrorism-related cases.
In the context of debates over the legitimacy of government decisions, it’s worth recalling that the recent arrest of a former deputy in Madrid also triggered a strong reaction and controversy over police actions. For more on how such incidents shape public opinion and influence attitudes toward justice, see the article on the response to the arrest of the ex-deputy in the capital.
Context and similar cases
In recent years, Spain has faced controversial decisions regarding the easing of conditions for those convicted of terrorism. In 2025, a similar dispute arose over transferring several former ETA members to a more lenient regime, sparking protests from victims and politicians. At the time, authorities also cited the inmates’ participation in rehabilitation programs and cooperation with justice as reasons, but the public reaction remained highly divided. Such situations highlight the challenge of balancing the humanization of the system with the need to consider the interests of victims and society.
