This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PORT AU PRINCE 001353 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SOUTHCOM ALSO FOR POLAD 
WHA ALSO FOR USOAS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/05/2014 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL HA
SUBJECT: HAITI: SUPREME COURT ANNULS KEY PART OF RABOTEAU 
TRIAL 
 
 
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, REASONS 1.5(B) AND 
(D). 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  On May 9, the Haitian Supreme Court issued 
an unexpected ruling that effectively annulled one part of 
the 2000 Raboteau trial.  The decision, on procedural 
grounds, annuls the convictions of the 15 people who were 
actually present during the proceedings, but leaves unclear 
whether they can be retried.  The Court did not/not annul the 
convictions of the 37 people who were convicted in absentia, 
including senior officials of the Haitian army and FRAPH 
leaders Louis-Jodel Chamblain (currently in jail here) and 
Emmanuel "Toto" Constant (currently awaiting deportation in 
the U.S.).  The Gonaives prosecutor and the chief judge of 
the Gonaives court have connived in an effort to get 
Chamblain released illegally, but the IGOH has pledged not to 
do so.  Legitimate questions have been raised about the "show 
trial" aspects of the 2000 Raboteau trial and improper 
political interference from the then-Lavalas government in 
the judiciary, and there may indeed be technical merit to the 
Supreme Court's decision.  It has nonetheless reinforced 
perceptions that the judiciary under the current government 
is biased against Lavalas partisans and more focused on 
procedural matters than on justice.  End Summary. 
 
Raboteau: Haiti's Killings Fields 
-------------------------------- 

¶2. (U) From April 18-22 1994, members of the Haitian military 
and of the paramilitary FRAPH organization conducted a series 
of killings, rapes, house-burnings and other acts of violence 
in the seaside shanty neighborhood of Raboteau in Gonaives. 
The violence, targeted at supporters of then-President 
Aristide (in exile at the time), was one of the worst 
atrocities of the 1991-94 coup years, and has gone down in 
Haitian history as the "Raboteau massacre."  Aristide's 
return in 1994 led to the opening of an investigation, and 
ultimately to a trial that ran from September-November 2000. 
The GOH at the time leaned heavily on a team of lawyers and 
investigators from the U.S. and other countries, including 
the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux  (One prominent member 
of the BAI, Brian Concannon, now runs the Institute for 
Justice and Democracy in Haiti - IJDH).  The Raboteau trial 
resulted in the conviction in absentia of 37 military and 
paramilitary members, including Chamblain and Constant, and 
the conviction of 15 others present at the trial (including 
Jean Pierre alias "Jean Tatoune").  The latter 15 appealed 
and, four and half years later, the Supreme Court's decision 
is the result of that appeal. 
 
Sound legal basis, questionable result 
------------------------------- 

¶3. (U)  The Court's ruling, dated May 3 but not released 
until May 9, is a procedural one.  The Raboteau indictment 
bundled several counts together that, according to the 
Supreme Court, should not have been bundled, since some of 
them require a jury trial while others do not.  The Raboteau 
trial was a jury trial, but according to the Supreme Court, 
the prosecutor should have tried the two kinds of counts 
separately.  A Canadian lawyer who works closely with the 
Embassy and has long experience in Haiti told us May 12 that, 
in his judgment and that of several Haitian lawyers he 
consulted, the Supreme Court was correct in its basic 
decision.  However, he said legal experts were puzzled at the 
decision to go further and order the accused set free. Normal 
procedure would have been for the Supreme Court to annul the 
lower court ruling and then either re-try the case(s) itself 
or send them back to the Gonaives court for (proper) retrial. 
 The Supreme Court did neither, instead ordering the 
prisoners freed if there were no other cause.  Pierre 
Esperance of the National Network for the Defense of Human 
Rights (RNDDH, formerly NCHR) told PolCounselor May 12 that 
legally most of the accused would be required to stay in 
prison until their retrial. 
 
Chamblain shenanigans 
--------------------- 
 
¶4. (C) Esperance also confirmed reports from SRSG Valdes that 
the chief prosecutor and chief of the court in Gonaives had 
collaborated to produce a release order for Chamblain. 
(Note:  Chamblain has been in jail since his acquittal last 
August for the Antoine Izmery killing, awaiting a similar 
retrial on charges relating to the Raboteau killings.  He is 
being held at the same National Penitentiary annex as former 
Prime Minister Neptune).  He said the chief prosecutor 
(Commissaire du Gouvernement) for Port-au-Prince would have 
to approve any Chamblain release, and had given assurances 
that he would not do so.  Charge raised this issue with Prime 
Minister Latortue May 11.  Latortue assured us that that 
Chamblain would not be released, saying Minister of Justice 
Gousse agreed with him on this.  He repeated this twice, 
saying Chamblain would not be released as long as he was 
Prime Minister. 
 
Comment 
------- 

¶5.  (C) The Raboteau trial and convictions were viewed by 
many here (and in the U.S.) as a milestone victory for 
justice against the repressive military regime of the early 
1990's.  The process was not, however, free of political 
pressure from the Lavalas government at the time.  That plus 
the involvement of U.S. and other international lawyers led 
others in this polarized society to see the Raboteau process 
as a "show trial" in which the convictions were a foregone 
conclusion.  As in most things there, there is something to 
both sides.  Public reaction has been surprisingly muted. 
Human rights groups, with the exception of the RNDDH, have 
been largely silent, disappointingly so given the importance 
of the case.  Lavalas partisans have complained to us 
privately that this is another demonstration of the 
anti-Lavalas bias of the judicial system. 
 
¶6. (C) What counts now is how the government reacts, and 
whether it moves to retry the accused properly.  Latortue has 
publicly said the government would do so, but is not clear 
that his Justice Minister shares his enthusiasm for doing so. 
 Chamblain's release, particularly if it came while former PM 
Neptune remains incarcerated on far more questionable 
charges, would be a disaster.  The PM's assurances that he 
will not be released are important, but we will need to 
maintain pressure on him and his team to ensure that the 
government sticks to this commitment. 
GRIFFITHS