Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05SANTODOMINGO1570
2005-03-19 18:13:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Santo Domingo
Cable title:  

DOMINICAN CONGRESS AND SUPREME COURT PUNISH

Tags:  KCRM KJUS KCOR PGOV SNAR DR 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 SANTO DOMINGO 001570 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

STATE FOR WHA/CAR-MCISAAC, WHA/PPC-PUCCETTI, G/TIP-OWEN
USSOUTHCOM ALSO FOR POLAD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCRM KJUS KCOR PGOV SNAR DR
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN CONGRESS AND SUPREME COURT PUNISH
CORRUPT OFFICIALS

REF: STATE 1293 (NOTAL)

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 SANTO DOMINGO 001570

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

STATE FOR WHA/CAR-MCISAAC, WHA/PPC-PUCCETTI, G/TIP-OWEN
USSOUTHCOM ALSO FOR POLAD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCRM KJUS KCOR PGOV SNAR DR
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN CONGRESS AND SUPREME COURT PUNISH
CORRUPT OFFICIALS

REF: STATE 1293 (NOTAL)


1. (SBU) SUMMARY. The ongoing battle against corruption in
the Dominican Republic saw two important victories as
Congress stripped the Constitutional immunity of convicted
alien smuggler Guillermo Radhames Ramos Garcia and the
Supreme Court rid the judiciary of two discredited judges,
one of whom is known to have been involved with
narco-traffickers. These cases are evidence of a more
serious approach to corruption in the Dominican Republic,
with all three branches of government playing a role. The
certainty that Ramos Garcia will serve his jail term sends an
especially powerful message that corrupt officials will be
prosecuted and punished. END SUMMARY.

--------------
RAMOS GARCIA STRIPPED OF IMMUNITY
--------------


2. (U) On March 16, the Dominican House of Representatives
(Chamber of Deputies) voted to strip the immunity of
convicted alien smuggler Guillermo Radhames Ramos Garcia, a
Congressman since August 2002. Following Ramos Garcia,s
conviction (reftel),Attorney General Francisco Domnguez
Brito ordered him taken straight to jail to serve his 18
month sentence, despite a Constitutional provision that
prohibits the imprisonment of a sitting member of Congress
without the permission of the house to which the member
belongs. This order prompted a quick challenge from Ramos
Garcia,s lawyers.


3. (U) The vote to strip Ramos Garcia of immunity was
overwhelming, supported by 100 of 102 members present.
Following a delay of nearly two weeks due to an unrelated
disagreement by the two major parties, the House action came
just in the nick of time. While Congress was stripping Ramos
Garcia's immunity, the Supreme Court was ordering his
release, finding that only the House of Representatives had
power to authorize his imprisonment. No sooner had the
Supreme Court ordered the release than Dominguez Brito --
based on the Congressional vote -- announced that Ramos
Garcia would be returned to prison.


4. (U) Although there was never any real doubt that Ramos
Garcia's immunity would be taken away, some members of his

political party (PRD) accused the Attorney General of having
taken liberties with the Constitution in jailing him, and
expressed concern about the administration,s handling of
other corruption investigations. Domnguez Brito for his
part seized the opportunity to reiterate his commitment to
fighting corruption, despite "serious obstacles."


5. (U) The revocation of Congressional immunity, combined
with the guilty verdict from the Supreme Court, appears to
leave Ramos Garcia with no further grounds for appeal. He
will continue to receive his salary as a sitting legislator
-- firing him would require an infeasible legislative
impeachment process -- but he will be unable to participate
in Congressional debates or votes or to run for re-election
in 2006. An editorial in the national newspaper "El Caribe"
spoke favorably about the decision to revoke immunity,
acknowledging "it took longer than it should have," but
commenting that it serves as a lesson that "nobody is beyond
the reach of the law."

--------------
SUPREME COURT FIRES TWO JUDGES
--------------

6. (U) On the same day that Congress rid itself of one
corrupt member, the judiciary did it one better by getting
rid of two. The Supreme Court fired Judge Aniksa Serra de la
Mota for abandoning her duties and Judge Juan Evangelista
Rodriguez for a "grave deficiency in the exercise of his
functions." It is not clear whether Rodriguez -- of the
border province of Pedernales -- was dismissed because of
corruption or sheer incompetence, but the Supreme Court found
that he had "committed inexcusable errors."


7. (SBU) Serra was nominally fired for dereliction of duty;
however, she was well known to be corrupt, and Embassy has
multiple-source reports that she accepted bribes from
narco-traffickers. Embassy expressed its concerns about
Serra to Dominican authorities when she repeatedly mishandled
the Bancredito and Banco Mercantil bank fraud cases,
resulting in long delays. In response to Embassy concerns
and evidence of misconduct, in July 2004 she was transfered
from Santo Domingo to Elias Pina (on the border with Haiti),
the Dominican equivalent of Siberia. Serra never went to her
new post and was fired for failing to accept her reassignment.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


8. (U) In the Ramos Garcia case, all three branches of
government did their parts to advance the cause of justice.
The executive branch prosecuted the case, the Supreme Court
found Ramos Garcia guilty, and the House of Representatives
stripped him of immunity. The Supreme Court order to release
Ramos Garcia on Constitutional grounds was correct; a reading
of the Constitution supports Ramos Garcia's claim that his
imprisonment had exceeded the Attorney General's authority.
But the certainty that he will serve his jail term sends a
powerful message that corrupt officials will be prosecuted
and punished. The firing of the two judges is additional
evidence that the Supreme Court, along with the rest of the
government, is moving in the right direction in the fight
against corruption.
HERTELL