NEW SENTENCE FOR GRENADA 13 LEAVES GRENADIAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRIDGETOWN 000930

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR WHA/CAR, DS/IP/WHA, AND DS/DSS/ITA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/29/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL ASEC GJ
SUBJECT: NEW SENTENCE FOR GRENADA 13 LEAVES GRENADIAN
POPULATION DIVIDED

Classified By: DCM Mary Ellen T. Gilroy for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (C) SUMMARY AND COMMENT: New sentences for the "Grenada
13" were handed down on June 27, 2007, by Justice Francis
Belle, who presided over the June 18-26 hearing. Three of
the defendants convicted in 1986 of the 1983 killing of Prime
Minister Bishop, members of his cabinet, and a number of
civilians, received 30 year sentences, which led to their
immediate release, while the remaining ten were sentenced to
40 years, leaving them in prison for an additional 3 years.
Lead defense attorney, British Queen's Counsel Edward
Fitzgerald announced after the sentences were read that he
plans to ask that Grenada's Governor General request a new
trial for the defendants to prove their innocence. The
Government of Grenada expressed disappointment with the
sentences, but issued a statement calling on all Grenadians
to accept the decision. The judge, whose impartiality was
challenged during the hearing, apparently slipped out of the
country immediately after delivering his verdict. Families
and friends of the victims are variously furious or resigned.
The sentences have only exacerbated the divisions among
Grenadians rather than providing the healing/closure most had
hoped for. At the moment, the country remains calm.


2. (C) COMMENT: Grenadians' expectations for the hearing
were very high and were perhaps inevitably dashed. The
prisoners never apologized, asked for forgiveness, or did
anything that indicated that they felt remorse. Their
demeanor was cocky and self assured for the cameras, as if
(as one woman commented) they knew the result before the
hearing started. The fact that the lead lawyer plans to try
to get the trial reopened means that this case will continue
to fester. Disgust, resignation, and anger appear to be the
main reactions among those who lost loved ones to the
revolution. The younger generation does not know what the
fuss is about since this tremultuous period in the 1980's is
not taught in schools or talked about openly outside trusted
associates. Three defense lawyers willing to talk publicly
on June 28 were unanimous in calling for the families to get
over their emotional reaction and accepted that justice was
done. With the re-sentencing final and three of the thirteen
prisoners free and the rest expecting to be out in a few
years, attention will most likely turn once again to locating
the bodies. The defense adamantly maintained that the United
States knows where the bodies of Bishop and his cohort are
located. Pressure may be ratcheted up on the USG to provide
a better and more detailed accounting than it has to date of
what happened and what the U.S. soldiers did with the remains
they examined. Prime Minister is begging for help on this.
END SUMMARY AND COMMENT

THE HEARING


3. (C) The "Grenada 13" are the remaining defendants from
the original group of 17 convicted in 1986 of the October 19,
1983 assassination of then Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and
members of his cabinet, as well as other civilians at Fort
Rupert. The assassinations triggered the October 25, 1983
U.S.-Caribbean intervention to restore order. The Privy
Council in London ruled on February 7, 2007, that the life
sentence of the Grenada 17 was invalid, as it was based on an
unconstitutional sentence of death, and returned the case to
the Grenadian Supreme Court. The Privy Council confirmed the
validity of the conviction and directed that the defendants
be re-sentenced. The hearing was set for the earliest
available date on the court's calendar which was the week of
June 18. The proceedings concluded on June 26, with the
sentences handed down on June 27. Twelve defense attorneys
represented the thirteen defendants, with the British QC
Edward Fitzgerald acting as a lead for the group. Several of
the defense attorneys attempted to use the hearing to retry
the case to prove the innocence of their clients and had to
be reminded that the 1986 multiple homicide conviction was
not vacated by the Privy Council. They also repeated several
times the allegation that the United States took the bodies
of Bishop and the cabinet members and therefore, the United
States, not they know where the bodies are now. The lawyers
called for the United States to tell where the bodies are.
(NOTE: One of the defense attorneys told Meaningful
Television (MTV) on January 28 that the prisoners had always
taken responsibility for the killing and initial disposal of
the bodies - not actually a factual statement - but that the
U.S. military had dug them up and therefore knows where they
are now. END NOTE.)


4. (SBU) Under Grenadian law, the Crown does not normally

speak at sentencing. However, because the time between
conviction and sentencing was so great, accommodation was
made for Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Christopher
Nelson to present the facts of the original trial. Nelson
reminded the court that the assassination of then-Prime
Minister Maurice Bishop and others was mass murder on a scale
unknown in all of Grenada's history. Trinidadian lawyer
Lawrence Ramesh Maharaj assisted Nelson in the presentations.
Families of the victims were allowed to make statements on
June 25. In his summation for the Crown, Nelson asked that
life sentences be imposed given the heinous nature of the
crimes committed.


5. (SBU) The defense's rebuttal was surprisingly only a few
hours long. The judge announced on June 26 that he would
hand down the sentences on June 27. He promised the written
judgement in two week's time.

JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY IMPUGNED


6. (SBU) Justice Kenneth Benjamin, who was next in the
regular rotation to preside over this case was considered by
the court to be too close to the defendants and was asked to
step aside. Benjamin is a good friend of Bernard Coard, the
leader of the faction within the Revolutionary Government
that opposed and then assassinated Bishop and members of his
Cabinet. Benjamin regularly visits Coard in prison. Justice
Francis Belle, a Barbadian currently resident in St. Kitts,
was brought in to preside on the assumption that his
impartiality was unassailable. On June 20, rumors began
flying that there was a problem in the court. By midday,
word leaked out that the court had received a letter from a
Barbados attorney Robert Clarke asserting that Belle, born
and raised in Barbados, as a young man was a member of a
political movement there with very close ties to Grenada's
New Jewel Movement (NJM),Bishop and Coard's party.
According to Clarke, Belle was close to the Coard faction of
NJM. Grenadian businessman Nelson Louison provided an
affidavit attesting to the facts in Clarke's letter. DPP
Nelson announced he had no choice but to request an
adjournment to investigate. On June 21, Nelson requested an
audience with the judge and the lead defense lawyer and the
court was cleared. Afterwards, Nelson held a press
conference to explain that he had discussed the accusations
with Belle and was satisfied that the judge could be
impartial. The hearing resumed the following morning.


7. (C) Belle was reportedly furious that his impartiality
had been questioned. Clarke maintained that he had sent his
letter to the court registrar before the hearing began and
accused the court of negligence in letting the hearing begin
without reviewing Belle's background and connections to the
defendants. Opposition National Democratic (NDC) members
accused the Government of Grenada (GOG) of meddling in court
proceedings. They pointed to Attorney General Elvin Nimrod's
June 17 statement at a political rally that the government
would not allow the 13 to walk free. The GOG denied it all.
The damage was done to the judge's reputation and questions
remain about how impartial he actually was. (COMMENT:
Embassy Grenada had USG visitors from Embassy Bridgetown, who
happened to be staying at the same hotel as the defense
lawyers. They overheard the group in the hotel bar in the
early evening of June 26, laughing and joking about how they
had won. Whether it was bravado for the public or reflected
actual knowledge, we do not know. However, several of our
Grenadian interlocutors who attended the trial were stunned
at how little the defense said in rebuttal and at how quickly
Belle made his decision. Already, there is talk that Belle
had not been impartial. Adding fuel to the speculation was
Belle's rapid departure from Grenada and announcement that he
would send his written report back in two week's time. One
local journalist alleged that Belle said he had better get
out of the country fast. END COMMENT.)

THE FALLOUT


8. (SBU) Grenada is still absorbing the new status quo and
it is not clear yet how it will react. Public reaction
appears to be mixed, with many disappointed but not surprised
by the leniency shown to the defendants. Some say "get over
it", especially young Grenadians who are impatient with their
elders' apparent obsession with the "guys on the hill". The
revolutionary period is spoken of only in corners, in
whispers, and is not taught in school, so anyone born after
1983 who does not have a family member killed, imprisoned, or
disappeared during the 1979-1983 period, has very little idea

of what actually happened. The other common reaction is that
everyone should move on, forgive and forget, but a lot of
Grenadians have not been able to do that, especially those
for whom having a body to bury or grave site at which to
mourn is very important.


9. (SBU) Grenada tried and failed to field a reconciliation
commission for a number of reasons, the first being that the
terms and authority under which it operated hampered its
ablility to compel testimony. Many people who were involved
in the revolution simply refused to talk to the commission,
including a fair number now in government, both in the ruling
NNP and the opposition NDC. In addition, the three
commission members did not give up their normal jobs and so
were often absent from Grenada for extended periods. When
the report finally came out in 2006, two years late, no one
paid much attention. As one family member told a Grenada
Broadcast Network (GBN) talk show host on January 28, "no one
changed their position. It's either all black or all white,
but no one is trying to deal with the large gray area in
between."


10. (C) Since the sentences have been announced and the GOG
has called on Grenadians to accept the result of the hearing
(while still saying it was "a sad day for Grenada" that the
men did not get life sentences),attention may turn with
renewed vigor to the whereabouts of the bodies. Prime
Minister Mitchell called Charge on June 28 to say that he was
concerned about the sentences, but reiterated that the GOG
would abide by the ruling. He was planning to address the
nation soon. Mitchell added that he was getting a lot of
pressure from "people, including my own family", who say he
is not pushing the United States hard enough to tell where
"they" put the bodies. He said he had "asked the Under
Secretary (sic) for help in locating them." (NOTE: Charge

SIPDIS
is aware that Mitchell did not actually raise the issue in
his meeting with Assistant Secretary Shannon, but announced
that he had in the subsequent press conference. The PM is
continuing to maintain this fiction. END NOTE.)
OURISMAN