VZCZCXYZ0013
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHWN #0930/01 2011946
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 201946Z JUL 07
FM AMEMBASSY BRIDGETOWN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5114
INFO RUCNCOM/EC CARICOM COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS PRIORITY 1770
RUMIAAA/HQ USSOUTHCOM J2 MIAMI FL PRIORITY
RUMIAAA/HQ USSOUTHCOM J5 MIAMI FL PRIORITY
RUEHCV/USDAO CARACAS VE PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRIDGETOWN 000930 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAR, DS/IP/WHA, AND DS/DSS/ITA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/29/2017 
TAGS: PGOV PREL ASEC GJ
SUBJECT: NEW SENTENCE FOR GRENADA 13 LEAVES GRENADIAN 
POPULATION DIVIDED 
 
Classified By: DCM Mary Ellen T. Gilroy for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY AND COMMENT:  New sentences for the "Grenada 
13" were handed down on June 27, 2007, by Justice Francis 
Belle, who presided over the June 18-26 hearing.  Three of 
the defendants convicted in 1986 of the 1983 killing of Prime 
Minister Bishop, members of his cabinet, and a number of 
civilians, received 30 year sentences, which led to their 
immediate release, while the remaining ten were sentenced to 
40 years, leaving them in prison for an additional 3 years. 
Lead defense attorney, British Queen's Counsel Edward 
Fitzgerald announced after the sentences were read that he 
plans to ask that Grenada's Governor General request a new 
trial for the defendants to prove their innocence.  The 
Government of Grenada expressed disappointment with the 
sentences, but issued a statement calling on all Grenadians 
to accept the decision.  The judge, whose impartiality was 
challenged during the hearing, apparently slipped out of the 
country immediately after delivering his verdict.  Families 
and friends of the victims are variously furious or resigned. 
 The sentences have only exacerbated the divisions among 
Grenadians rather than providing the healing/closure most had 
hoped for.  At the moment, the country remains calm. 
 
¶2.  (C) COMMENT:  Grenadians' expectations for the hearing 
were very high and were perhaps inevitably dashed.  The 
prisoners never apologized, asked for forgiveness, or did 
anything that indicated that they felt remorse.  Their 
demeanor was cocky and self assured for the cameras, as if 
(as one woman commented) they knew the result before the 
hearing started.  The fact that the lead lawyer plans to try 
to get the trial reopened means that this case will continue 
to fester.  Disgust, resignation, and anger appear to be the 
main reactions among those who lost loved ones to the 
revolution.  The younger generation does not know what the 
fuss is about since this tremultuous period in the 1980's is 
not taught in schools or talked about openly outside trusted 
associates.  Three defense lawyers willing to talk publicly 
on June 28 were unanimous in calling for the families to get 
over their emotional reaction and accepted that justice was 
done.  With the re-sentencing final and three of the thirteen 
prisoners free and the rest expecting to be out in a few 
years, attention will most likely turn once again to locating 
the bodies.  The defense adamantly maintained that the United 
States knows where the bodies of Bishop and his cohort are 
located.  Pressure may be ratcheted up on the USG to provide 
a better and more detailed accounting than it has to date of 
what happened and what the U.S. soldiers did with the remains 
they examined.  Prime Minister is begging for help on this. 
END SUMMARY AND COMMENT 
 
THE HEARING 
 
¶3.  (C) The "Grenada 13" are the remaining defendants from 
the original group of 17 convicted in 1986 of the October 19, 
1983 assassination of then Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and 
members of his cabinet, as well as other civilians at Fort 
Rupert.  The assassinations triggered the October 25, 1983 
U.S.-Caribbean intervention to restore order.  The Privy 
Council in London ruled on February 7, 2007, that the life 
sentence of the Grenada 17 was invalid, as it was based on an 
unconstitutional sentence of death, and returned the case to 
the Grenadian Supreme Court.  The Privy Council confirmed the 
validity of the conviction and directed that the defendants 
be re-sentenced.  The hearing was set for the earliest 
available date on the court's calendar which was the week of 
June 18.  The proceedings concluded on June 26, with the 
sentences handed down on June 27.  Twelve defense attorneys 
represented the thirteen defendants, with the British QC 
Edward Fitzgerald acting as a lead for the group.  Several of 
the defense attorneys attempted to use the hearing to retry 
the case to prove the innocence of their clients and had to 
be reminded that the 1986 multiple homicide conviction was 
not vacated by the Privy Council.  They also repeated several 
times the allegation that the United States took the bodies 
of Bishop and the cabinet members and therefore, the United 
States, not they know where the bodies are now.  The lawyers 
called for the United States to tell where the bodies are. 
(NOTE:  One of the defense attorneys told Meaningful 
Television (MTV) on January 28 that the prisoners had always 
taken responsibility for the killing and initial disposal of 
the bodies - not actually a factual statement - but that the 
U.S. military had dug them up and therefore knows where they 
are now.  END NOTE.) 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Under Grenadian law, the Crown does not normally 
 
speak at sentencing.  However, because the time between 
conviction and sentencing was so great, accommodation was 
made for Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Christopher 
Nelson to present the facts of the original trial.  Nelson 
reminded the court that the assassination of then-Prime 
Minister Maurice Bishop and others was mass murder on a scale 
unknown in all of Grenada's history.  Trinidadian lawyer 
Lawrence Ramesh Maharaj assisted Nelson in the presentations. 
 Families of the victims were allowed to make statements on 
June 25.  In his summation for the Crown, Nelson asked that 
life sentences be imposed given the heinous nature of the 
crimes committed. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The defense's rebuttal was surprisingly only a few 
hours long.  The judge announced on June 26 that he would 
hand down the sentences on June 27.  He promised the written 
judgement in two week's time. 
 
JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY IMPUGNED 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Justice Kenneth Benjamin, who was next in the 
regular rotation to preside over this case was considered by 
the court to be too close to the defendants and was asked to 
step aside.  Benjamin is a good friend of Bernard Coard, the 
leader of the faction within the Revolutionary Government 
that opposed and then assassinated Bishop and members of his 
Cabinet.  Benjamin regularly visits Coard in prison.  Justice 
Francis Belle, a Barbadian currently resident in St. Kitts, 
was brought in to preside on the assumption that his 
impartiality was unassailable.  On June 20, rumors began 
flying that there was a problem in the court.  By midday, 
word leaked out that the court had received a letter from a 
Barbados attorney Robert Clarke asserting that Belle, born 
and raised in Barbados, as a young man was a member of a 
political movement there with very close ties to Grenada's 
New Jewel Movement (NJM), Bishop and Coard's party. 
According to Clarke, Belle was close to the Coard faction of 
NJM.  Grenadian businessman Nelson Louison provided an 
affidavit attesting to the facts in Clarke's letter.  DPP 
Nelson announced he had no choice but to request an 
adjournment to investigate.  On June 21, Nelson requested an 
audience with the judge and the lead defense lawyer and the 
court was cleared.  Afterwards, Nelson held a press 
conference to explain that he had discussed the accusations 
with Belle and was satisfied that the judge could be 
impartial.  The hearing resumed the following morning. 
 
¶7.  (C) Belle was reportedly furious that his impartiality 
had been questioned.  Clarke maintained that he had sent his 
letter to the court registrar before the hearing began and 
accused the court of negligence in letting the hearing begin 
without reviewing Belle's background and connections to the 
defendants.  Opposition National Democratic (NDC) members 
accused the Government of Grenada (GOG) of meddling in court 
proceedings.  They pointed to Attorney General Elvin Nimrod's 
June 17 statement at a political rally that the government 
would not allow the 13 to walk free.  The GOG denied it all. 
The damage was done to the judge's reputation and questions 
remain about how impartial he actually was.  (COMMENT: 
Embassy Grenada had USG visitors from Embassy Bridgetown, who 
happened to be staying at the same hotel as the defense 
lawyers.  They overheard the group in the hotel bar in the 
early evening of June 26, laughing and joking about how they 
had won.  Whether it was bravado for the public or reflected 
actual knowledge, we do not know.  However, several of our 
Grenadian interlocutors who attended the trial were stunned 
at how little the defense said in rebuttal and at how quickly 
Belle made his decision.  Already, there is talk that Belle 
had not been impartial.  Adding fuel to the speculation was 
Belle's rapid departure from Grenada and announcement that he 
would send his written report back in two week's time.  One 
local journalist alleged that Belle said he had better get 
out of the country fast.  END COMMENT.) 
 
THE FALLOUT 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Grenada is still absorbing the new status quo and 
it is not clear yet how it will react.  Public reaction 
appears to be mixed, with many disappointed but not surprised 
by the leniency shown to the defendants.  Some say "get over 
it", especially young Grenadians who are impatient with their 
elders' apparent obsession with the "guys on the hill".  The 
revolutionary period is spoken of only in corners, in 
whispers, and is not taught in school, so anyone born after 
1983 who does not have a family member killed, imprisoned, or 
disappeared during the 1979-1983 period, has very little idea 
 
of what actually happened.  The other common reaction is that 
everyone should move on, forgive and forget, but a lot of 
Grenadians have not been able to do that, especially those 
for whom having a body to bury or grave site at which to 
mourn is very important. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Grenada tried and failed to field a reconciliation 
commission for a number of reasons, the first being that the 
terms and authority under which it operated hampered its 
ablility to compel testimony.  Many people who were involved 
in the revolution simply refused to talk to the commission, 
including a fair number now in government, both in the ruling 
NNP and the opposition NDC.  In addition, the three 
commission members did not give up their normal jobs and so 
were often absent from Grenada for extended periods.  When 
the report finally came out in 2006, two years late, no one 
paid much attention.  As one family member told a Grenada 
Broadcast Network (GBN) talk show host on January 28, "no one 
changed their position.  It's either all black or all white, 
but no one is trying to deal with the large gray area in 
between." 
 
¶10.  (C) Since the sentences have been announced and the GOG 
has called on Grenadians to accept the result of the hearing 
(while still saying it was "a sad day for Grenada" that the 
men did not get life sentences), attention may turn with 
renewed vigor to the whereabouts of the bodies.  Prime 
Minister Mitchell called Charge on June 28 to say that he was 
concerned about the sentences, but reiterated that the GOG 
would abide by the ruling.  He was planning to address the 
nation soon.  Mitchell added that he was getting a lot of 
pressure from "people, including my own family", who say he 
is not pushing the United States hard enough to tell where 
"they" put the bodies.  He said he had "asked the Under 
Secretary (sic) for help in locating them."  (NOTE:  Charge 
 
SIPDIS 
is aware that Mitchell did not actually raise the issue in 
his meeting with Assistant Secretary Shannon, but announced 
that he had in the subsequent press conference. The PM is 
continuing to maintain this fiction.  END NOTE.) 
OURISMAN