

Currently released so far... 5746 / 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
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
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 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
AF
AJ
AU
AG
AE
ASEC
AS
AM
AR
AMGT
AORC
AFIN
APER
ABUD
ATRN
AL
AEMR
ACOA
AO
AX
AMED
ADCO
AODE
AFFAIRS
AC
ASIG
ABLD
AA
AFU
ASUP
AROC
ATFN
AVERY
APCS
AER
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AEC
APECO
ASEAN
AID
AGMT
CH
CA
CD
CV
CVIS
CMGT
CO
CI
CU
CASC
CBW
CLINTON
CE
CS
CJAN
CIA
CG
CF
CN
CAN
COUNTER
CDG
CIS
CM
CONDOLEEZZA
COE
CR
CY
CTM
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CPAS
CWC
CT
CKGR
CB
CACS
COM
CJUS
CARSON
CL
CODEL
COUNTERTERRORISM
CACM
CDB
EAGR
ETRD
ECON
EFIN
ELAB
EU
ENRG
EPET
EG
EAID
ETTC
EINV
EIND
EUN
EAIR
ER
ECIN
ECPS
EFIS
EI
EINT
EZ
EMIN
ET
EC
ETC
ECONEFIN
ENVR
ES
ECA
ELN
EN
EFTA
EWWT
ENIV
ELTN
EXTERNAL
EINVETC
EINN
ENGR
EUR
ESA
ENERG
EK
ENGY
ETRO
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ESENV
ENVI
ECONCS
ETRDECONWTOCS
ENNP
ELECTIONS
ECUN
EINVEFIN
ECIP
EINDETRD
EUC
EREL
IR
IS
IZ
INTERPOL
IPR
IN
IT
INRB
IAEA
IRAJ
INRA
INRO
IO
IC
ID
IIP
ILC
ITPHUM
IV
IWC
IQ
ICTY
ISRAELI
IRAQI
ICRC
ICAO
IMO
IF
IEFIN
INTELSAT
IL
IA
IBRD
IMF
INR
IRC
ITRA
ITALY
ITALIAN
KCOR
KN
KS
KDEM
KNNP
KSPR
KPAL
KJUS
KFRD
KCRM
KTIP
KZ
KPAO
KTFN
KIPR
KPKO
KSCA
KISL
KNUC
KMDR
KGHG
KPLS
KE
KOLY
KWBG
KUNR
KDRG
KAWK
KIRF
KIRC
KU
KBIO
KHLS
KG
KACT
KGIC
KRAD
KCOM
KMCA
KV
KHDP
KSUM
KVPR
KDEV
KWMN
KMPI
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KOMC
KTLA
KCFC
KTIA
KHIV
KPRP
KAWC
KCIP
KCFE
KOCI
KTDB
KMRS
KLIG
KBCT
KICC
KGIT
KSTC
KPAK
KNEI
KSEP
KPOA
KFLU
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KO
KTER
KHUM
KRFD
KBTR
KDDG
KWWMN
KFLO
KSAF
KBTS
KPRV
KNPP
KNAR
KWMM
KERG
KFIN
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KTBT
KCRS
KRVC
KSTH
KREL
KNSD
KTEX
KPAI
KHSA
KOMS
KWAC
KR
KPWR
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KGCC
KPIN
MARR
MO
MOPS
MASS
MNUC
ML
MR
MZ
MCAP
MPOS
MOPPS
MTCRE
MX
MTCR
MAPP
MU
MY
MA
MG
MASC
MCC
MEPP
MK
MTRE
MP
MIL
MDC
MAR
MEPI
MRCRE
MI
MT
MQADHAFI
MD
MAPS
MUCN
MASSMNUC
MERCOSUR
MC
MV
ODIP
OIIP
OREP
OVIP
OEXC
OPRC
OFDP
OPDC
OECD
OTRA
OSCE
OAS
OPIC
OPCW
OSCI
OIE
OIC
OTR
OVP
OFFICIALS
OSAC
PREL
PGOV
PTER
PINR
PSOE
PHUM
PBTS
PARM
PK
PREF
PINS
PL
PHSA
PE
PKFK
PO
PGOF
PROP
PA
PARMS
PUNE
PORG
PM
PMIL
PTERE
POL
PF
PALESTINIAN
PY
PGGV
PNR
POV
PAK
PAO
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PRGOV
PNAT
PROV
PEL
PINF
PGOVE
POLINT
PRL
PRAM
PMAR
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PHUS
PHUMPREL
PG
PGOC
POLITICS
PEPR
PSI
PINT
PU
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PBIO
PECON
POGOV
PINL
SP
SOCI
SENV
SNAR
SL
SW
SY
SG
SU
SA
SMIG
SCUL
SO
SF
SR
SZ
SN
SHUM
SYR
ST
SANC
SC
SAN
SIPRS
SK
SH
SI
SNARCS
STEINBERG
TU
TS
TBIO
TH
TX
TRGY
TSPA
TC
TI
TIP
TR
TT
TW
TERRORISM
TO
TFIN
TD
TSPL
TZ
TPHY
TK
TNGD
TINT
TRSY
TP
UV
US
UK
UP
UN
UNSC
UNGA
USEU
UG
USUN
UY
UZ
UNO
UNMIK
UNESCO
UNHRC
UE
UAE
UNEP
USTR
UNHCR
UNDP
USAID
UNCHS
UNAUS
UNCHC
UNDC
UNDESCO
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