JUDGES UNDER FIRE: INTIMIDATION IN VENEZUELA'S

C O N F I D E N T I A L CARACAS 000577

SIPDIS


NSC FOR CBARTON
USCINCSO ALSO FOR POLAD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/25/2014
TAGS: PHUM PGOV KJUS VE
SUBJECT: JUDGES UNDER FIRE: INTIMIDATION IN VENEZUELA'S
PENAL COURTS

Classified By: A/DCM ABELARDO A. ARIAS FOR REASONS 1.4 (d)

--------------
Summary
--------------


1. (C) Venezuela's "judicial revolution", heralded by
Supreme Court (TSJ) President Omar Mora, has already begun,
according to reports from judges. The lawyer of a Chavista
leader told one judge she would be fired for refusing to
attend a political meeting. Another has resigned just before
being fired, after a three year old case was suddenly
reactivated and reversed by an appeals court. A Supreme Court
justice, who supports President Hugo Chavez, accused the
Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of acting in an
unacceptable manner in the recent suspension of two appeals
court judges, and said he is worried about the direction the
justice system is going. Two other appeals court judges
reported that judges are extremely tense, waiting for word of
who will be fired, and there are numerous reports of private
meetings to decide who to purge. End Summary.

--------------
You're either with us, or against us.
--------------


2. (C) Caracas criminal trial Judge Beatriz_ Perez told
poloff February 14 that lawyer Jesus Jimenez_ had called her
three days before to tell her that she would be fired because
of her friendship with Monica Fernandez. Jimenez_ represents
radical Chavista street activist Lina Ron, who Perez found
innocent of assault charges in December 2003. Perez said she
protested that she was a qualified and professional judge,
who had never attacked the Chavistas, and had not signed the
Presidential recall petition. She said Jimenez_ answered, "We
don't care about that. Either you are with us, or against
us." According to Perez, Jimenez_ then told her he had invited
her to a political meeting several weeks earlier as a favor
and was insulted that she had refused.


3. (C) On February 14, judicial inspectors came to Perez'
office to open an investigation against her for a complaint
lodged several months earlier. Perez told poloff she was
convinced this would be the excuse to fire her. She said
that Jimenez_ had told her she shouldn't complain, given her
financial situation. Perez said she was shocked to hear the
personal details of her life that Jimenez_ had. She felt that
she had been evaluated based on her susceptibility to
pressure, and that she would be fired for being too well off.
Perez told poloff she was considering to what extent she
should acquiesce to the pressure against her to protect her
job and family. She said, "I feel like I am joining a drug
gang, and if I do I may not be able to get out again."

--------------
Inexcusable error, three years late
--------------


4. (C) Caracas criminal trial judge Monica Fernandez told
poloff February 18 that she had resigned two days earlier,
after being accused of an "inexcusable error", which would
lead to her firing. On April 12, 2002 Fernandez ordered then
Interior Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin confined to his
home, on charges based on the allegation that he was no
longer a minister following President Chavez' alleged
resignation. She ordered Rodriguez freed the next day, when
it appeared that Chavez had not resigned, and closed the
case. In November 2004, prosecutors opened a criminal
investigation against Fernandez, Chacao mayor Leopoldo Lopez,
and Baruta mayor Henrique Capriles for this case. On February
15, the 4th Appeals Court of Caracas ruled that Fernandez'
action constituted an "inexcusable error", and overturned her
actions in the case. According to Fernandez, this is
juridically absurd, since the case was closed in Rodriguez's
favor, and the period for any appeal had long since lapsed.
Fernandez told poloff she believes members of the GOV ordered
the court to make the ruling to create an excuse to fire her,
and to help the criminal case against her and the two
opposition mayors.

--------------
I am very worried about the situation.
--------------


5. (C) Alejandro Angulo Fontiveros, Supreme Court Justice


in the Penal Chamber, told poloff February 18 that he was
"very worried" about the direction the "judicial revolution"
proposed by TSJ President Mora may take. Angulo nonetheless
strongly defended President Chavez, and said he understood
that the GOV had suffered innumerable illegitimate attacks,
including from within the justice system. As an example
Angulo specifically mentioned the August 2002 ruling by the
Supreme Court that the April 11 events were not a coup.
However, Angulo said, this did not justify the wholesale
politicization of the justice system. He said he was worried
that the penal system would be negatively effected by the
selection of judges on political grounds, and the purging of
judges. Angulo said he had brought these concerns up with TSJ
President Mora, and said he was considering whether to remain
on the court.


6. (C) Poloff asked Angulo about the recent suspension of
two judges from the 10th Criminal Appeals Court of Caracas
following their decision to annul a lower court order
prohibiting those accused in the Carmona Decree case to leave
the country. According to Angulo, the Judicial Committee of
the Supreme Court, led by former Movimiento Quinto Republic
Deputy Luis Velasquez Alvaray, had immediately suspended the
judges and ordered the control judge to reissue the original
ruling. This was juridically null and void, according to
Angulo, because the Judicial Committee is an administrative
body, with no legal right to review decisions or give orders
to lower criminal courts. The reconstituted 10th Appeals
Court then reversed the original judges, without the case
having ever been properly appealed. Fernandez asserts that
this is completely anti-juridical, and has never happened in
Venezuelan judicial history.

--------------
The situation is extremely tense.
--------------


7. (C) Judge Leonardo Parra, of the 8th Criminal Appeals
Court of Caracas, and Judge Elsa Gomez, of the 4th Criminal
Appeals Court of Caracas, told poloff February 16 that the
situation in the courts is "extremely tense." The two judges
nervously spoke about the latest rumors on who was going to
be fired, speculating on the possible firing of Chavista
judges involved in corruption. Gomez reported that she had
recommended someone for a job as judicial inspector, and that
she had been told during the interview, "you must be ready to
take orders, and fire whoever you are told, even one of
ours." Parra said he believed the ultimate aim of the
"judicial revolution" is to create a judicial system entirely
subservient to the GOV. Gomez told poloff that the decision
in the Fernandez case was regrettable but necessary, because
you cannot jail ministers just because someone shows you a
piece of paper and says the president resigned.

--------------
Drunk with Power?
--------------


8. (C) Edgar Lopez, judicial correspondent for the Caracas
daily El Nacional, told poloff February 17 that Velasquez had
arrived at a meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme
Court on February 18 with a list already prepared with judges
he wanted to fire. These included temporary and provisional
judges. (Note: The Judicial Committee has the authority to
fire temporary judges, but in theory provisional judges have
extensive protections against summary firing. Fernandez
asserted that many have been fired, or forced to retire, but
usually with some administrative fig leaf, while Perez says
Velasquez had eliminated these rights for provisional
judges.) According to Lopez, the other judges on the Judicial
Committee balked at Velasquez' proposal to fire provisional
judges on a mass scale without any due process. Lopez
described Velasquez as "drunk with power," and suggested that
he, and not TSJ President Mora, is the real power on the
Court. This opinion was shared by Parra and Fernandez.

--------------
Comment
--------------


10. (C) All indications are that the new TSJ leadership
will not be subtle. The message judges are reporting is that
absolute loyalty to Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" is the
sine qua non of the "judicial revolution." How sitting judges
react ranges from Perez' quiet desperation as she considers


selling her soul for a job she loves, to Fernandez' defiant
resignation. Meanwhile, Parra and Gomez sit nervously and
gossip, wondering what is in store for them. Not even Gomez'
loyal service to the revolution seems to grant her any
special privileges. The new leadership on the Court is
changing the old clientelistic ties among judges. Those
Chavista judges who are tied to recently retired TSJ
President Ivan Rincon and Alejandro Angulo are no more sure
of their positions than other judges. What seems clear is
that those judges who survive, and the new judges who join
them, will have to be loyal to the revolution.
McFarland


NNNN
2005CARACA00577 - CONFIDENTIAL