VZCZCXYZ0004
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLP #0758/01 1472218
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 272218Z MAY 09
FM AMEMBASSY LA PAZ
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0837
INFO RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION 9035
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 6417
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0391
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 7601
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 4647
RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN 0509
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 4982
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 6303
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 7265
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 2029
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 1791
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/HQ USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC

C O N F I D E N T I A L LA PAZ 000758 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/19/2019 
TAGS: PGOV PREL KDEM PHUM PINR ENVR ASEC BL
SUBJECT: GOB TO SEIZE "TERRORIST" ASSETS WITHOUT TRIAL 
 
REF: A. LA PAZ 715 
     ¶B. LA PAZ 635 
     ¶C. 08 LA PAZ 2464 
 
Classified By: A/EcoPol Chief Joe Relk for reasons 1.4 (b, d) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary:  President Morales issued a supreme decree on 
May 20 authorizing government prosecutors to seize, without 
trial, assets related to alleged terrorist acts, including 
personal goods, business assets, bank accounts, and 
communications media.  The decree is to be applied 
retroactively.  Opposition members, human rights groups, and 
legal experts uniformly criticized the decree as illegal and 
a violation of the constitution.  With the resignation May 26 
of the last member of the Constitutional Tribunal, there is 
no way to challenge the decree's constitutionality or other 
constitutionally-questionable actions by the Morales 
administration.  Members of the political opposition believe 
the decree will be used to silence dissent.  End summary. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
An Ounce of Prevention 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶2.  (U) Calling it a "preventative measure" necessary to 
safeguard the country, President Evo Morales on May 20 issued 
Supreme Decree 138 allowing the seizure of assets from 
persons and businesses suspected of committing or abetting 
acts related to terrorism, sedition, or armed revolt. 
Similar to the U.S. search warrant process, a government 
prosecutor would bring evidence of suspicion to a judge, who 
would approve the seizure before a trial.  The decree permits 
the government to hold assets prior to conviction of any 
crime and regardless of whether the assets are connected to 
the suspected offense.  According to the Morales 
administration, the decree will be applied retroactively to 
address the alleged April 16 terrorism events in Santa Cruz 
(reftel B). 
 
¶3. (U) Discussing the decree on May 20, President Morales 
specified that he would also seize private media assets if 
they were suspected of supporting actions deemed 
"separatist."  Bernado Calas, president of the Federation of 
Communication Media, said "It's apparent they are imitating 
some of the policies taken in Venezuela.  It is worrisome how 
they have started a systematic pressuring of the media and 
businesses, which is indicative of a totalitarian government." 
 
¶4. (U) Responding to criticisms that the supreme decree 
circumvents judicial review, President Morales justified the 
decree by saying: "The judicial branch ('poder judicial') 
instead of implementing justice has become a force for harm 
('poder perjudicial').  It is impossible that some judges 
would pardon people who wanted to divide Bolivia.  If we find 
any person, businessman financing these separatist acts, they 
should be punished, and with your support they really will be 
punished by seizing their assets." 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Decree Violates Host of Laws 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶5. (U) Legal experts and human rights advocates roundly 
criticized the decree on several grounds.  Edwin Rojas, 
president of the Bolivian Lawyers Guild, said the decree 
violates at least four articles of the new constitution 
promulgated under Morales' watch (viz. Articles 114, 116, 
118, 120).  Constitutional expert Willman Duran noted the 
government was "usurping" the role of the legislature, which 
according to the constitution is the sole body that "may 
create norms related to criminal sanctions."  According to 
Article 109 of the constitution, "rights and guarantees may 
only be regulated by law."  Article 116 establishes a 
presumption of innocence and that legal sanctions should be 
founded in laws established before the offending act (i.e. 
laws should not be retroactive). 
 
¶6. (U) Human rights experts noted that the decree violates 
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
regarding arbitrary deprivation of property.  Supreme Court 
Justice Rosario Canedo and constitutional expert Carlos 
Alarcon each said the retroactive nature of the decree could 
lead to its appeal in the Inter-American Court of Human 
Rights. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Courts Defunct, No Legal Recourse 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶7. (U) While Morales' decree could normally be appealed to 
the country's Constitutional Tribunal or possibly the Supreme 
Court, both are essentially defunct.  The sole remaining 
member of the normally ten-member Constitutional Tribunal, 
Silvia Salame, announced her resignation May 26.  Upon 
resigning, Salame said, &rule of law does not exist in this 
country.8  Similarly, with a government-sponsored lawsuit 
pending against Supreme Court President Eddy Fernandez, it 
has only seven out of twelve possible members, with eight 
being required for a quorum. 
 
¶8. (C) President Morales and his ruling Movement Toward 
Socialism party (MAS) have consistently targeted the 
Constitutional Tribunal, which is Bolivia's highest court on 
constitutional matters, since the party came to power in 
January 2006.  The MAS used a campaign of intimidation, 
salary cuts, and similar impeachment proceedings to 
effectively deactivate the Tribunal (reftel A, C), which now 
has a backlog of over 4,000 cases (or approximately four 
years of work).  Morales and the government are now taking a 
similar tack against the Supreme Court, with cases pending 
against five members. 
 
¶9. (U) In related news, Morales announced May 26 after 
delivering over 1200 acres of land to supporters that he 
would continue with land seizures and redistribution.  The 
government has accelerated its assessments of which lands 
lack "social function," and is now seizing land to be awarded 
to its "rightful owners."  Opposition members have complained 
that with the lack of a functioning judiciary there can be no 
appeal of the government's actions. 
 
- - - - 
Comment 
- - - - 
 
¶10. (C)  President Morales seems to be pushing the envelope 
of what can be accomplished via supreme decree and ignoring 
Congressional and judicial authority.  Given the decree's 
broad scope and the likely ease with which government 
prosecutors can establish a degree of "suspicion," Cruceno 
opposition members are bracing for crippling seizures of 
their personal and business assets.  Opposition contacts are 
fearful the legal procedure for defining "suspicion of a 
terrorist act" will be politicized and conducted by 
pro-government prosecutors and judges.  Given dubious arrests 
over the past year, we find these concerns valid.  End 
comment. 
URS