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  CARACAS 002404 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
NSC FOR CBARTON 
USCINCSO ALSO FOR POLAD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/25/2014 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL SOCI CS VE
SUBJECT: REACTION TO IACHR VARGAS DECISION 
 
REF: STATE 01544 
 
Classified By: DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION JOHN CREAMER 1.4 (d) 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) 
passed a resolution accepting Venezuela's admission of 
responsibility for all charges in the case of Blanco Romero y 
Otros vs. Venezuela.  The Inter-American Commission on Human 
Rights (the Commission) and representatives for the victims 
(the defense) alleged that the GOV had violated articles of 
the Inter-American Charter on Human Rights (the Charter) 
protecting life, personal integrity and liberty, and had 
failed to provide judicial remedies sufficient to protect 
those rights.  The GOV's written concession June 28 
contradicted allegations regarding due process and state 
responsibility, and was rejected by the defense. However the 
court, after clarifying the nature of the GOV's concession 
via oral testimony, passed a resolution accepting the 
concession.  Venezuelan human rights leaders viewed the 
hearing as a validation of the victims' families quest for 
justice.  Still, the GOV's subsequent attempts to cloud its 
ultimate responsibility in the public's eye cast doubt as to 
whether the GOV was acting in good faith.  The ultimate test 
of GOV intentions will be whether it complies with the 
IACHR's sentence which is expected this fall.  End summary. 
 
----------------------------------- 
Commission Brings Case Before IACHR 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the 
Commission) brought the case of Blanco Romero y Otros vs. 
Venezuela before the IACHR in June 2004.  The Commission's 
allegations in the suit stemmed from the forced 
disappearances of Oscar Blanco Romero, Roberto Hernandez Paz 
and Jose Rivas Fernandez following a natural disaster in the 
Vargas region in 1999, when torrential rains and mudslides 
left approximately 20,000 dead and resulted in widespread 
lawlessness.  According to testimony provided by the victim's 
families to the Inter-American Court, security forces - 
tasked by the GOV with maintaining public order - arrested 
Blanco, Hernandez and Rivas during its round-up of looting 
suspects. None of the victims was seen by their families 
again and, after the GOV's investigations stalled and 
separate Venezuelan courts ruled against motions of habeas 
corpus, the victim's families turned to the Commission to 
obtain justice in the case. 
 
¶3. (U) The Commission charged the GOV with the violation of 
the victims' rights to life, integrity and liberty under the 
Charter.  For its failure to properly investigate and 
prosecute the victims' disappearances, the Commission also 
charged the GOV with violating Article 8 (Judicial 
Guarantees) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the same 
charter.  The Commission requested that the IACHR issue a 
declaration of state responsibility for the charges dealing 
with personal integrity and judicial guarantees contained 
under Articles 5, 8 and 25.  The suit brought by the 
Commission also noted that the GOV had violated several 
articles under the Inter-American Charter on Forced 
Disappearances and the Inter-American Charter on the 
Prevention and Sanctioning of Torture. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
Defense Cites GOV For Lack Of Due Process 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) In October 2004, representatives of the victims and 
the victims' families (the defense) presented several more 
allegations against the GOV before the IACHR.  Most of the 
defense's additional charges centered on the lack of due 
process in the case. The defense charged the GOV with 
"violating the families' and Venezuelan society's right to 
the truth" as to what occurred in Vargas in December 1999 
under articles 1, 8, 13, 25 and of the Charter.  The defense 
also alleged that the GOV had not fulfilled its duty to 
provide Venezuelans with judicial recourse sufficient to 
guarantee those human rights protected by the Charter and to 
abolish practices which violated those rights. 
 
------------------------------------- 
GOV 'Ignorant' As To IACHR Procedures 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) The GOV offered no response to the allegations in its 
contra although, according to IACHR procedures, it should 
have filed a written response to the suit with the court. 
Despite the GOV's lack of response, the Court convened public 
hearings on the case June 27 and 28 to finalize the 
allegations against the GOV and admit witness and expert 
testimony into the court's record. Carlos Ayala, a lawyer for 
the defense, informed poloff July 11 that one week prior to 
the hearings, the GOV offered to sign a friendly agreement to 
forgo the public hearing.  Ayala stated that the GOV's lack 
of response and last minute offer betrayed an overall 
ignorance of how to function in an international context 
governed by set rules and procedures.  The defense rejected 
the GOV's offer and the case proceeded as planned to oral 
hearings held June 27 and 28. 
 
------------------------------ 
GOV Concedes To All Charges... 
------------------------------ 
 
¶6. (C) On June 28, after the court had heard witness and 
expert testimony on the events which occurred in Vargas in 
December 1999, representatives of the GOV elected to read a 
written letter of concession in lieu of presenting oral 
arguments.  Ayala told poloff July 11 that the GOV's 
concession at that point in the proceedings was a surprise. 
The normal process is for a concession to be made at the 
beginning of the hearings and not after testimony. 
 
¶7. (U) The GOV's concession began by stating that it 
"conceded to the allegations made in the suit against the 
State of Venezuela and accepted in good faith its 
international responsibility in this case."  The GOV 
specified that as a consequence of this concession it 
recognized its commitment to reparations including the 
indemnization of the victim's families, a guarantee of no 
repetition, and the obligation to investigate the case and to 
punish those responsible.  The GOV made no mention of 
judicial reform, which the Commission had specifically 
requested. 
 
-------------- 
...Or Does It? 
-------------- 
 
¶8. (C) Ayala told poloff July 11 that the GOV's written 
concession also contradicted several key charges in its 
contra.  The GOV stated that it had begun a serious 
investigation and initiated judicial remedies to find those 
responsible for the disappearances "without losing any time" 
after Vargas tragedy in December 1999.  The GOV also asserted 
that there was no lapse of justice as regards the 
representation's denied motions of habeas corpus, and that 
the Venezuelan courts acted "strictly according to the law 
and constitution" in issuing those decisions.  These two 
points contradicted allegations regarding the lack of due 
process on the case. 
 
¶9. (U) The GOV's written concession also denied state 
responsibility for the violations committed in Vargas.  After 
noting that the GOV had reformed the Venezuelan penal code to 
bring it in line with the Inter-American Charter on Forced 
Disappearances and promising to conclude the investigations 
of the disappearances of those cited in the case, the GOV 
asked the court to declare that the violations in Vargas 
resulted from "the isolated conduct of low ranking officials 
that could in no way be attributed to orders issued down the 
chain of command of the Venezuelan government." 
 
------------------------------------------- 
Defense Asks Court To Reject GOV Concession 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (C) Jose Gregorio Guarenas, one of the lawyers present 
for the defense, told poloff July 12 that the defense 
requested a recess to review the GOV's written concession. 
Upon review, the defense asked the IACHR to reject the GOV's 
written concession because it contradicted important 
 
allegations against the GOV and therefore did not qualify as 
a concession as outlined by article 53.2 of the IACHR's 
regulations. Guarenas stated that instead of passing the case 
to sentencing as requested by the defense, the court decided 
to take the oral testimony of the GOV in order to clarify the 
nature of its written concession. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
GOV Testifies To Full Responsibility Before IACHR... 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶11. (C) In answer to the questions posed by the court, the 
GOV testified that it fully accepted the facts of the case as 
well as the allegations against it.  The court noted the GOV 
"acting on good faith, accepted its international 
responsibility in this case" and had made a full concession. 
Defense attorney Liliana Ortega told Poloff July 12 that the 
GOV's written concession was a media stunt designed to cloud 
the issue in the public's mind, but that in the view of the 
court, the GOV had made a full concession.  Still, she noted 
that the GOV's written concession as well as its oral 
testimony were recorded as part of the IACHR's resolution on 
the case. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
...But GOV Leaders Present Different Picture To Public 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶12. (C) Attorney General Isaias Rodriguez speaking to press 
July 29 stated that the IACHR decision ""did not condemn 
Venezuela, but rather established an important distinction 
between some officers acting individually and the state." 
Rodriguez added the Public Ministry was investigating those 
functionaries who had committed excesses.  The President of 
the Supreme Court Omar Mora Diaz told the press July 29 that 
in admitting that human rights violations had occurred in 
Vargas, Venezuela had demonstrated that it was a responsible 
state.  Furthermore, Mora continued, authorities were asked 
to control the situation with regard for human rights, but 
"this isn't to say that some low-level functionary might not 
have committed some outrage."  Carlos Ayala told Poloff July 
11 that he was concerned by public statements made by GOV 
officials alleging a lack of state responsibility for Vargas 
and that he planned to submit these reports to the IACHR. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶13. (C) The GOV's concession on Vargas appears to be driven 
more by a lack of alternatives than a desire to make amends. 
The GOV conceded to cover a weak case, and then attempted to 
spin its concession to the court and the Venezuelan public as 
an act of good faith.  GOV remarks to the public denying 
state responsibility directly conflict with its concession to 
the court.  IACHR sentencing is due this fall, and the 
defense has requested reparations which extend beyond the 
financial to include guarantees of non-repetition. This would 
imply real judicial reform. Whether or not the GOV makes 
these amends will be a far more telling indication of its 
good faith than its concession to the court. 
Brownfield 
 
 
NNNN 
      2005CARACA02404 - CONFIDENTIAL