

Currently released so far... 6239 / 251,287
Articles
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Amsterdam
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lagos
Mission USNATO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Browse by tag
ASEC
AU
AORC
AF
AM
AFIN
AEMR
AR
ASIG
AMGT
AG
APER
AL
ABLD
ASUP
AA
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AE
AMED
AS
AGMT
APECO
AO
AFFAIRS
AJ
ACOA
AX
AROC
ATFN
ASEAN
AFGHANISTAN
ADCO
AFU
AER
ALOW
AODE
ABUD
ATRN
AID
AC
AVERY
APCS
CASC
CJAN
CVIS
CS
COUNTER
CD
CU
CI
CO
CG
CE
CA
CMGT
CH
CWC
CBW
CKGR
CR
CN
CPAS
CONS
CDG
CLINTON
CT
CJUS
CY
CV
COUNTERTERRORISM
CIA
CACM
CDB
CAN
COE
CM
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CACS
CF
CONDOLEEZZA
CARSON
CL
CIS
CODEL
CTM
CB
COM
ECON
EFIN
ETRD
EAIR
EAID
ET
EFIS
ENRG
EPET
ETTC
ER
EG
EINV
EAGR
ELAB
EUN
EWWT
ENGR
EMIN
ECIN
ENIV
ES
EC
ECPS
EIND
EI
EU
ENVI
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ELTN
EZ
EINT
ELN
EUR
EUNCH
EN
EINVECONSENVCSJA
ELECTIONS
EINVEFIN
ENNP
ECUN
EXTERNAL
EK
EFINECONCS
ECINECONCS
ECIP
EINDETRD
EUC
EREL
ENVR
ECA
ENERG
ENGY
ETRO
EFTA
ECONCS
ECONOMICS
ECONEFIN
EINVETC
EINN
ESA
ETC
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ESENV
ETRDECONWTOCS
IR
IZ
IWC
IC
ILC
IO
IAEA
IN
IS
IT
ICRC
INTELSAT
ILO
IBRD
IMF
ICAO
IMO
ITALY
ITALIAN
IRAQI
ITRA
ISRAELI
ICJ
IACI
INTERPOL
ID
IV
ICTY
IQ
IPR
INRB
ITPHUM
IIP
IL
IA
INR
ITPGOV
IZPREL
IRC
INRA
INRO
IRAJ
IEFIN
IF
KE
KCRM
KDRG
KIPR
KCOR
KSCA
KBIO
KDEM
KMCA
KMPI
KNNP
KJUS
KOMC
KGHG
KSUM
KSTC
KIRF
KTIP
KWMN
KZ
KG
KTFN
KHLS
KPAO
KFRD
KTIA
KOLY
KCFE
KISL
KFLU
KPKO
KWBG
KTBT
KTDB
KOCI
KUNR
KAWK
KICC
KPAL
KSTH
KN
KS
KGIC
KNPP
KWAC
KMDR
KAWC
KBCT
KIDE
KFLO
KWMNCS
KSEP
KU
KNEI
KVPR
KACT
KRAD
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCIP
KSAF
KV
KSPR
KPRP
KFSC
KCRS
KR
KRFD
KX
KO
KPWR
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KFIN
KGCC
KPIN
KHIV
KPLS
KIRC
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KGIT
KBTS
KPRV
KBTR
KERG
KWMM
KRVC
KNSD
KVIR
KNUP
KTER
KDDG
KHSA
KMRS
KHDP
KTLA
KPAK
KNAR
KREL
KPAI
KTEX
KCOM
KNNPMNUC
KPOA
KLIG
KHUM
KDEV
KNUC
KCFC
KREC
KOMS
KWWMN
MASS
MP
MARR
MOPS
MNUC
MX
MO
MCAP
MY
ML
MU
MIL
MC
MTRE
MA
MD
MTCRE
MEPI
MAR
MRCRE
MR
MV
MPOS
MZ
MEPP
MOPPS
MAPP
MASC
MT
MERCOSUR
MK
MDC
MI
MAPS
MCC
MASSMNUC
MQADHAFI
MUCN
MTCR
MG
OVIP
OREP
OTRA
OSCE
OECD
OIIP
OEXC
OPCW
OPIC
OPDC
OPRC
ODIP
OVP
OSCI
OAS
OFDP
OTR
OSAC
OIC
OFFICIALS
OIE
PREL
PGOV
PHUM
PTER
PE
PINR
PINS
PARMS
PARM
PHSA
PA
PK
PBTS
PO
PREF
POL
PLN
POLITICS
PROP
PL
PM
PAO
PSI
PG
PEPR
POV
PALESTINIAN
PINT
PSOE
PU
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PBIO
PECON
PAK
POGOV
PINL
PKFK
PMIL
PY
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PRAM
PMAR
PGOVLO
PUNE
PORG
PHUMPREL
PF
POLINT
PHUS
PGOC
PNR
PGGV
PNAT
PGOVE
PRGOV
PRL
PROV
PTERE
PGOF
PHUMBA
PINF
PEL
SNAR
SO
SENV
SU
SCUL
SOCI
SP
SC
SA
SMIG
SAN
SZ
SW
SN
SY
SR
SL
SEVN
SF
SYR
SI
SG
STEINBERG
SIPRS
SH
SNARCS
SOFA
SANC
SHUM
SK
ST
TERRORISM
TRGY
TZ
TX
TBIO
TSPA
TS
TSPL
TW
TU
TD
TIP
TURKEY
TP
TI
TC
TPHY
TH
TO
TK
TNGD
TINT
TRSY
TR
TFIN
TT
UG
UK
UP
UNGA
UNHRC
UZ
UN
UNAUS
USTR
UNSC
US
UNEP
UY
UNESCO
USUN
UNHCR
UAE
UNMIK
USEU
UV
UNO
UNDP
UNCHS
UNVIE
UNCHC
UE
UNDESCO
USAID
UNDC
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 05CARACAS2404, REACTION TO IACHR VARGAS DECISION
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05CARACAS2404.
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