VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHZP #0542/01 1851943
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 031943Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY PANAMA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2237
INFO RUEHZA/WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 1173
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 0093
RHMFISS/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RHEFHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC
RUCNFB/FBI WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/CDR USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC

C O N F I D E N T I A L PANAMA 000542 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/03/2018 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PM PTER KCRM VE CU
SUBJECT: PANAMA: LUIS POSADA'S PARDON REVOKED BY SUPREME 
COURT 
 
Classified By: Classified by POLCOUNS Brian R. Naranjo 
Reason 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  (U) The Panamanian Supreme Court unanimously revoked the 
2004 pardon of Luis Posada Carriles (accused of plotting to 
assassinate ex-Cuban leader Fidel Castro during the 2000 
Ibero-American summit in Panama), three of Posada's 
accomplices, and 179 other individuals on June 30.  This 
retroactive decision now requires that all 183 cases - 
including Posada's - return to their "original state."  The 
Court also revoked the pardon of some 80 journalists, some of 
whom had faced criminal charges for libel. General consensus 
is that this decision was neither political nor directed at 
Posada.  Former President Mireya Moscoso, in the final days 
of her administration, had granted these 183 pardons.  The 
Supreme Court has been reviewing a challenge to these 
pardons, brought by state prosecutors, since 2004. 
 
----------------------- 
THE WORD FROM THE COURT 
----------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) The text of the ruling was not yet available publicly 
as of the transmission of this message, although the decision 
was reported on July 1.  In a press statement, the Supreme 
Court stated that the decision was unanimous, retroactive and 
returning all of the cases to their "original state."  The 
Court's statement said that the decision is "retroactive in 
effect and leaves without legal support all procedural or 
judicial steps taken as a result of those decisions, which is 
today that the cases must return to their original state." 
 
¶3.  (C) Supreme Court Magistrate Adan Arjona confirmed that 
the general consensus among the magistrates was that 
ex-President Moscoso had exceeded her powers, during his July 
2 conversation with A/DCM.  The only exception, Arjona said, 
was Magistrate Alberto Cigarruista, who, Arjona claimed has 
been lobbied by the Cuban Embassy.  Allegedly, according to 
Arjona, Cigarruista promised the Cubans that he would do what 
he could to "get Posada."  Arjona did not participate in the 
ruling - it was a unanimous ruling amongst the 8 judges in 
attendance - because he disagreed with its sweeping nature. 
Though he agreed that Moscoso had exceeded her authority, 
Arjona felt that the Court should have further clarified the 
terms in the Constitution.  The Panamanian Constitution 
states in Article 184, which lists powers granted the 
Executive, in paragraph 12 that the Executive may: "decree 
pardons for political offenses, reduce penalties, and grant 
paroles to those guilty of common crimes."  As for the timing 
of the ruling, Arjona claimed that this case - which had been 
on the Court's books since 2004 - was simply ready for 
decision, having been delayed due to the fact that the 
Justice in charge of it had changed several times over the 
years.  Finally, Arjona expected the Attorney General to take 
steps to implement the decision. 
 
¶4.  (U) Other Members of the Court echo Arjona's words. 
Court President Mitchell told the media that the Court acted 
because the law was "distorted" and that the unanimous ruling 
was not partisan.  Supreme Court Justice Esmeralda de 
Troitino, who wrote the opinion, asserted that the Court did 
not consider the individual crimes of the group of 183 
pardoned, which varied from political crimes to common 
crimes, but rather reversed the pardon because it exceeded 
ex-President Moscoso's authority under the law. 
 
--------- 
REACTIONS 
--------- 
 
¶5. (C) Most official and mainstream commentary  consider this 
ruling to be a welcome breath of fresh air.  Paper of record 
La Prensa's editorial declared that the Court's ruling 
"recaptures the lost common sense."  Panama-America asserted 
on July 1 on its editorial page, "The history of presidential 
abuses is pretty long, but seems to be getting to an end." 
 
Privately, Moscoso Administration Minister of Public Works 
and current Panama Canal Authority Board Member Eduardo 
Quiros told Post that ex-President Moscoso "truly believe 
that the ruling was fully related to Posada Carriles and the 
other 3 Cubans and nothing else." Posada's attorney, Rogelio 
Cruz, said that the planned reversal was an "open secret" and 
promised to appeal the decision, while astutely avoiding any 
talk of extradition. 
 
------------- 
GOING FORWARD 
------------- 
 
¶6.  (U) Attorney General Ana Matilde Gomez characterized the 
decision as a "constitutional vindication" and asserted that 
the pardons were granted in violation of the Constitution. 
Gomez noted that the Constitution permitted the president to 
only grant pardons to individuals sentenced for political 
crimes.  She also emphasized that the decision was 
retroactive, and said she would examine each of the cases and 
implement the relevant procedural and legal mechanisms. 
First VP and FM Samuel Lewis exercised caution and stated 
that the GOP would follow the guidelines outlined in the 
Constitution and re-open the matter if instructed by the 
Court. Lewis noted that he was surprised by the decision and 
would move forward after a thorough examination of the 
matter. 
 
------------- 
PRESS FREEDOM 
------------- 
 
¶7.  (U) Some 80 journalists, media directors, cartoonists and 
commentators were pardoned by Moscoso and thus subject to 
this recent ruling.  According to Gilberto Arias, Vice 
President of the Inter American Press Association and Vice 
President of daily periodical Panama America, the decision 
sets a "disastrous precedent on human rights in Panama since 
the military regime." 
 
¶8.  (C) Jean Marcel Chery, President of the National 
Journalist's Association and himself listed in the pardon 
list, claimed that the Association would seek to invoke 
Article 192 of the new Penal Code, that eliminated criminal 
sentences for libel.  Chery saw the decision as both 
political, aimed at Posada as a favor to the Cuban 
government, and an effort to intimidate the press.  Other 
journalists were looking into the possibility of taking legal 
actions against former President Moscoso, as well as 
considering the inconsistency of the pardons given by 
Presidents Perez Balladares and Moscoso, since the pardons 
given by Perez Balladares were considered constitutionally 
legal, but not those given by Moscoso. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Post has not yet seen the ruling as it is not 
publicly available.  All comments made by Panamanian 
commentators, as well, are based on speculation about the 
facts of the actual ruling.  Thus, it is not yet clear what 
actions the GOP will take to effect the reverse of these 
pardons and return them to their "original state."  Of 
immediate concern is whether the GOP will seek extradition of 
Posada and the others so they can resume their Panamanian 
prison sentences.  Based on initial reactions and knowledge 
on the ground, Post anticipates that eventually the Attorney 
General will request that the Foreign Ministry seek 
extradition of Posada and possibly the other Cubans.  It is 
difficult to say at this time if Cuban or Venezuelan 
interests made any attempts to influence this ruling. 
Venezuela has sought extradition of Posada in order to try 
him for a 1976 Cuban airline bombing, but extradition was 
denied by a U.S. immigration judge. END COMMENT. 
EATON