The National Court has ruled in favor of Gregorio Vicario Setién, a convicted ETA member, restoring his semi-freedom after a months-long legal battle. Three judges from the Second Section of the Criminal Chamber reversed an earlier order that barred Setién from leaving prison on weekdays to do volunteer work with a religious NGO. The ruling comes amid a wider dispute over the Basque Government’s penitentiary policy, which has faced repeated judicial challenges.
Setién, known as Santi, had been granted semi-freedom under Article 100.2 of Spain’s Prison Regulations by the Basque executive led by Imanol Pradales. The provision allows an individualized adjustment to a prisoner’s ordinary regime for treatment and reintegration, including work or social activities outside prison. It is distinct from third-degree classification, although either measure can involve large time outside prison. In April, Judge María Reyes Jimeno revoked Setién’s measure, citing gaps in the documentation of his activities outside prison and the lack of a written statement of remorse or apology to victims. She also cited a medium-high risk of reoffending and the absence of prior temporary-release permits.
The National Court’s latest resolution, which agrees with the public prosecutor’s position in Setién’s case, finds that initial gaps in his file were later addressed and should not permanently bar semi-freedom. The judges said judicial review of Article 100.2 should examine the substance of the reintegration program, not just the paperwork. They found evidence of a structured program tailored to Setién, with defined activities and supervision mechanisms.
The court also rejected concerns that the Basque Justice Department had disregarded recommendations from the prison’s Treatment Board. Although the process could have been handled better, the judges said professional disagreement alone did not justify revoking the measure. They also found that Setién’s reintegration plan was not too generic, citing its specific structure and schedule, as well as ongoing supervision by prison authorities and the judiciary.
The court clarified that having no previous temporary-release permits should not automatically rule out the application of Article 100.2. The judges reasoned that treating such permits as an absolute requirement would create a circular barrier for people serving long sentences, blocking gradual progress toward reintegration. The court acknowledged the gravity of Setién’s crimes, including his conviction for the 1995 kidnapping of Cosme Delclaux and several murders, but stressed that the seriousness of an offence cannot indefinitely exclude a prisoner from reintegration measures.
Setién remains in second-degree, or ordinary, prison status. His semi-freedom arrangement allows limited, scheduled outings under supervision for specific activities. The court also noted positive factors in his record. He has had no major disciplinary incidents and has steadily participated in prison activities. The judges also cited family support and the absence of substance-abuse issues, alongside his ongoing payment of civil liabilities. These factors did not remove every concern, but the court found them sufficient to justify a gradual, reversible approach.
The dispute reflects the division of responsibilities established when prison management and penitentiary policy in the Basque Country were transferred to the Basque Government in October 2021. Since then, the Basque Department of Justice has made classification decisions based on proposals from prison treatment boards. The National Court’s Basic Prison Supervision Court and the Public Prosecutor’s Office retain judicial oversight in cases involving terrorism offenders.
Figures supplied by the Basque Department of Justice and reported by EFE put the wider debate in context. The Basque Government had granted 129 third-degree classifications to ETA prisoners, 36 of which the National Court’s prosecutors challenged. The same figures record 54 applications of Article 100.2, with four later revoked by judicial decisions. These are separate measures: Article 100.2 allows a flexible adjustment to the ordinary regime and does not, by itself, formally change a prisoner’s grade. Earlier figures reported by El Correo recorded 35 applications of Article 100.2 between October 2021 and May 2025, including 30 involving ETA prisoners.
By October 2026, roughly 110 people convicted of terrorism-related offences remained in prison, compared with about 700 ETA prisoners in 2011. EFE reported, citing Etxerat, that 68 of 94 prisoners associated with the EPPK collective were in some form of semi-freedom: 43 in third degree and 25 under Article 100.2. Those figures refer to the collective, not to everyone convicted of terrorism-related offences.
Criticism of the Basque Government’s approach has focused on whether prisoners granted semi-freedom have shown genuine remorse and rejected ETA’s violence, including whether they have broken with the political and social environment that supported the organisation’s crimes. José Antonio Ordóñez, identified in a report as a Guardia Civil information official, criticized the granting of third degree and semi-freedom to prisoners who, in his view, had shown neither genuine remorse nor an unequivocal break with that environment. The criticism echoes concerns raised when Setién’s measure was first revoked. The National Court’s ruling, but, focuses on the adequacy of his individualized reintegration plan and how it is supervised.
The National Court is also considering similar appeals involving other former ETA members, including Soledad Iparaguirre (Anboto) and Juan Ramón Carasatorre Aldaz (Zapata), whose semi-freedom measures were revoked. Prosecutorial challenges remain part of the post-transfer system. In October 2026, prosecutors appealed a third-degree decision for Juan Antonio Olarra Guridi, describing the progression as premature after an earlier classification had been revoked on 29 May. Olarra Guridi’s case concerns third degree rather than Article 100.2, but shows how administrative decisions continue to face prosecutorial objections and judicial review. The wider legal debate over Article 100.2 reflects tensions between regional prison policy and national judicial oversight. Public and legal reactions to controversial decisions involving high-profile figures have previously stirred impressive debate in Spain, as when a public punishment in Valle Salvaje triggered widespread discussion about justice and authority.
Official data sets Spain’s maximum effective prison term at 30 years, regardless of the total sentence imposed. Setién’s original sentence exceeded 265 years, but his release date was recalculated after time served abroad was credited. The transfer of penitentiary authority to the Basque Country has made regional administrative decisions more consequential, while judicial oversight continues to shape their application. The outcome of Setién’s case may so affect the practical boundaries of the Basque Government’s policy and the treatment of other prisoners.
