VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHMU #0287/01 0702145
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 102145Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY MANAGUA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2223
INFO RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHZA/WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS MANAGUA 000287 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CEN, EB/IFD/OIA AND L/CID 
STATE FOR WHA/EPSC 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USTR 
TREASURY FOR INL AND OWH 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EINV ECON USTR KIDE NU
SUBJECT: NICARAGUA: GON COOPERATION IMPROVES DURING FEBRUARY MEETING 
ON PROPERTY CLAIMS 
 
REF: A) MANAGUA 274, B) MANAGUA 173, C) MANAGUA 0106, 
D) MANAGUA 0002, E) 07 MANAGUA 2581, F) 01 MANAGUA 2313, G) 04 
MANAGUA 2442, H) 04 MANAGUA 2324 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) During the February 28 monthly Working Group meeting on 
property issues, Embassy Property Office and Government of Nicaragua 
(GON) officials reviewed 50 U.S. claims and discussed ways that the 
USG and GON could cooperate to attain their favorable resolution. 
One official from the National Confiscations Review Commission told 
us that the GON would allow some U.S. citizens to defend claims 
dismissed as "no ha lugar" in 2007.  We raised concerns about the 
application of anti-Somoza decrees and pressed GON officials to 
explain the process used to determine a claimant to be "an ally of 
Somoza."  The Head of the Office of Assessment and Indemnification 
said the GON would do more to protect individuals who benefited 
under the "Pinata" laws, a potentially negative development.  The 
Embassy will utilize the GON's newfound, but likely short-lived, 
spirit of cooperation to resolve claims, clarify the application of 
certain laws, and press for more flexibility and transparency to 
provide claimants the opportunity to defend their recently dismissed 
cases. 
 
PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION WITHOUT SUPERINTENDENT PEREZ 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶2. (SBU) During the February 28 monthly Working Group meeting, 
Econoff met with two officials from the National Confiscations 
Review Commission (CNRC) and with the head of the Office of 
Assessment and Indemnification (OCI) to discuss the list of U.S. 
claims Attorney General Hernan Estrada passed to the Ambassador at 
the six-month review of the 2007-08 waiver year on February 26 (Ref 
A), and to review 14 additional cases provided by the Property 
Office.  Property Superintendent Yara Perez did not attend the 
meeting, which allowed for constructive casework and frank 
discussion concerning GON policies.  During previous Working Group 
meetings, Perez dominated discussions with accusations of corruption 
against U.S. claimants and obstructed the sharing of information 
with the Embassy Property Office (Refs B, E, G, and H). 
 
THOROUGH REVIEW OF 50 CLAIMS 
---------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) GON officials and the Property Office staff reviewed 50 
U.S. claims on a case-by-case basis to discuss next steps for 
favorable resolution.  GON officials explained that they would send 
settlement offers to 15 claimants; another 15 claims might be 
resolved favorably if certain documents were provided to OCI.  The 
head of OCI noted that 6 claims were previously resolved in favor of 
the claimant, but the claimants had rejected the settlement offers. 
With regard to the 14 additional claims provided by the Property 
Office, GON officials said they would review each claim and provide 
an update on their status at the March Working Group meeting. 
Econoff asked the GON to provide a list of documents that the 15 
claimants needed to provide to OCI, and added that the Embassy will 
contact the 6 claimants who rejected settlement offers to fully 
understand their concerns and suggest that they continue their 
negotiations. 
 
FLEXIBILITY TO DEFEND DISMISSED "CLAIMS" 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) Econoff pressed GON officials on better cooperation and 
more flexibility to allow U.S. citizens to defend claims dismissed 
as "no ha lugar" in 2007 (Ref B).  One CNRC official clarified that 
some U.S. claimants are allowed to submit documents to show that 
they either owned the property in question and/or that it had been 
confiscated.  She added that the CNRC notified 24 claimants that the 
GON had dismissed their cases, adding that these could no longer be 
pursued via the administrative process.  Econoff asserted that the 
USG will not recognize these dismissals if U.S. claimants are not 
given an opportunity to defend their claims in a fair and 
transparent manner. 
 
CLARITY ON THE APPLICATION OF ANTI-SOMOZA DECREES 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Econoff raised concerns about the GON's recent decision to 
apply Decrees 3 and 38, which mandated the confiscation of property 
of "allies of Somoza," against 21 claims (Ref B).  Econoff 
complained that the application of these decrees appears to be an 
arbitrary and non-transparent process, complicating USG-GON efforts 
to resolve outstanding claims.  He explained that the claims that 
the Ortega administration recently dismissed based on those decrees 
had been previously accepted as legitimate claims by the Chamorro, 
Aleman, and Bolanos administrations.  Econoff noted that some 
claimants also received certificates acknowledging that were not 
"Somocistas," and he asked if the GON had a process to allow 
claimants to clear their names.  CNRC and OCI officials suggested 
that these concerns be raised with Attorney General Estrada [Note: 
The Embassy is preparing a letter to Attorney General Estrada asking 
for clarification regarding the application of Decrees 3 and 38, and 
whether an appeals process is available for affected claimants.  End 
Note]. 
 
PROTECTION FOR THE PINATEROS 
---------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) OCI officials said Estrada has recently decided to enforce 
the provision in Law 278/1998 that states that the Attorney 
General's Office would intervene in court cases to protect and 
defend those individuals who received property under the Pinata 
laws, i.e., Pinateros (Ref E).  Econoff requested an explanation of 
how the GON would apply this statute and its impact on U.S. 
claimants.  OCI officials suggested that the Embassy address these 
questions to Attorney General Estrada [Comment: We are concerned 
that the GON will improperly apply the law to protect illegal 
occupants of confiscated property, using it as a basis for not 
returning property to the uncompensated owners.  End Comment.]. 
 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) The absence of Property Superintendent Yara Perez allowed 
us to communicate more freely with other GON officials and conduct 
in-depth case work to identify the next steps in resolving U.S. 
claims.  The Ambassador's six-month review with Estrada may have 
opened the door to better USG-GON cooperation.  We will capitalize 
on the GON's newfound, but likely short-lived, spirit of cooperation 
to press forward on resolving claims, clarify the application of 
certain laws, and to afford claimants the opportunity to defend 
cases subject to dismissal. 
 
TRIVELLI