The judgment recognized that Askatasuna "was the successor" of Herri Batasuna, Euskal Herritarrok and Batasuna, and therefore "had to be aware of their contribution to the succession of the outlawed parties"; but "has not been established that the accused, consciously and deliberately acted in support of the terrorist organization ETA" but exercised "political participation rights of those who are the owners and the exercise of which have not been suspended or disqualified.
The judgment recognized that Askatasuna was the inheritor of Herri Batasuna, Euskal Herritarrok, and Batasuna, and therefore should be aware of their role in the succession of banned parties; however, it did not establish whether the accused intentionally supported ETA but still exercised political rights not revoked or disqualified.