ARGENTINA: AMBASSADOR DISCUSSES SAIEGH CASE WITH

C O N F I D E N T I A L BUENOS AIRES 002291 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR GREGG RICKMAN, SPECIAL ENVOY DRL/SEAS STATE FOR STEVEN HILL, L NSC FOR KOSAK AND ABRAMS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/03/2016 TAGS: PGOV PREL ECON PHUM AR SUBJECT: ARGENTINA: AMBASSADOR DISCUSSES SAIEGH CASE WITH HR SECRETARY DUHALDE REF: A. BUENOS AIRES 1943 ¶B. BUENOS AIRES 2142 Classified By: AMBASSADOR E. ANTHONY WAYNE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D) ¶1. (C) Summary. On November 29, the Ambassador met with Secretary for Human Rights Eduardo Luis Duhalde to raise the SIPDIS case of Argentine citizen Eduardo Saeigh, a Jewish Argentine citizen who in 1980 was kidnapped, tortured and dispossessed of a bank he owned during Argentina's 1976-83 military dictatorship (see ref A for background). Duhalde told the Ambassador that he issued in 2004 a non-binding opinion that supported Saiegh's claims. He expressed an interest in seeing the Saiegh case resolved, and suggested that Embassy interest in the matter could help move the case forward. After post briefed Saiegh on the meeting, he argued that while Duhalde's response was "positive," the interpretation is wrong. Saiegh insisted that Duhalde's opinion is an administrative determination with legal weight. In a separate conversation with the Ambassador, Aldo Donzis (protect),President of the Delegation of Argentine-Israeli Associations (DAIA),confided that he understood that Kirchner and his staff had indeed reviewed the case, but had decided not to act on the matter for fear of setting a precedent for many other cases under the military dictatorship. End Summary. -------------- Background -------------- ¶2. (C) Eduardo Saeigh is a Jewish Argentine citizen who in 1980 was kidnapped, tortured and dispossessed of his bank (Banco Latinoamericano) during Argentina's 1976-83 military dictatorship (see ref A for background). Previously, Saiegh had informed us that that the Secretariat of Human Rights had ruled in October 2004 that he had been a victim of state terrorism and discrimination for being Jewish. He indicated that the Human Rights Secretariat letter, together with a January 2005 letter from the Attorney General of the Treasury requesting the Ministry of Economy to submit his case and settlement offer to the President for a decision, is binding. However, upon close reading of the letter itself, post subsequently learned that the letter did not explicitly state that Saiegh is a victim of state terrorism and anti-Semitism. 
 Rather, the letter states that Saiegh's allegations are "consistent with the methodology and behavior of the military dictatorship, including discrimination for being Jewish." While Argentine Commercial Courts are currently adjudicating the liquidation of Banco Latinoamericano, Saiegh appears to have never pursued a civil or criminal case over his seized property or treatment under the military dictatorship. GoA officials have argued to Emboffs that the lack of a "judicial sentence" in this case justifies the government's lack of interest in negotiating a settlement with Saiegh (since the GoA is under no legal obligation to do so). Saiegh has argued that the GoA could indefinitely delay a judicial court case, and he would never achieve any form of justice if he pursued that route. -------------- Duhalde: Opinion Supports Saiegh's claims, but is Non-binding -------------- ¶3. (C) On November 29, the Ambassador met with Secretary for Human Rights Eduardo Luis Duhalde to raise the human rights case of Argentine citizen Eduardo Saeigh. The Ambassador began by noting the USG's interest in Saiegh's case due to the 2004 Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which requires the State Department to monitor global anti-Semitism and report to the Congress annually. Duhalde noted that he knew the case very well, and that he had issued in 2004 a non-binding opinion that Saiegh was a victim of state terrorism and anti-Semitism. When it was pointed out that the original letter did not explicitly state that Saiegh was a victim of state terrorism, Duhalde explained that the Secretariat is not a court and can not make an explicit SIPDIS determination on Saiegh's case. He maintained, however, that the language used in the letter is the strongest language the Secretariat can use to support Saiegh's allegations. SIPDIS ¶4. (C) When the Ambassador asked what options Saiegh had to resolve the matter, Duhalde stated that the decision currently lies with the Ministry of Economy. He indicated that there had not been much progress in the case, but suggested that Embassy interest in the matter could help move the case forward. He expressed an interest in seeing the Saiegh case resolved, and noted that he had raised the issue with former Economy Minister Felisa Miceli and intended to do so with incoming Economy Minister Lousteau. When the Ambassador asked whether there had been similar cases, Duhalde mentioned that there had been several involving Argentine companies, and that most had been resolved amicably out of court. He did not offer any additional details. (Ambassador flagged the Saiegh case for incoming Economic Minister Lousteau on December 3.) -------------- Saiegh Maintains Opinion has Legal Weight -------------- ¶5. (C) On November 30, Poloff briefed Saiegh on the outcome of the Ambassador's meeting with Duhalde. Saiegh described Duhalde's response as "positive", but was disappointed that the Human Rights Secretary did not offer to raise the issue with the President. Despite Duhalde's explanation to the contrary, Saiegh maintained that the opinion is an administrative determination with legal weight. He insisted that Duhalde's opinion, plus the January 2005 Attorney General of the Treasury's request that the Ministry of Economy submit his case and settlement offer to the President for a decision, is binding. Saiegh expressed frustration with the government's delay in deciding his case and reiterated his concern that the GOA is giving the Embassy "the runaround." ¶6. (C) When asked whether he had considered raising the case with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, he stated that he tried to do so years ago when Foreign Minister Taiana worked at the OAS, but was told that he had to exhaust all national judicial and administrative remedies before he could do so. Saiegh then indicated that the commercial judge presiding over the still-ongoing liquidationof Saiegh's bank had sent a letter to the Ministry of Economy on November 28 asking the Ministry when they will submit Saiegh's settlement offer to the President. According to Saiegh, Economy has 10-15 days to answer (although in practice the Ministry often takes much longer to answer such letters). Poloff assured Saeigh that the Embassy continues to raise his case with the appropriate officials at every opportunity, and that the Ambassador would raise his case with incoming Minister of Economy Lousteau on November 30 (readout reported septel). -------------- - DAIA: K Has Reviewed Case, but Fears Precedent -------------- - ¶7. (C) In a separate conversation with the Ambassador on December 1, Aldo Donzis (protect),President of the Delegation of Argentine-Israeli Associations (DAIA),confided that it was his understanding that Economy Minister Felisa Miceli had indeed forwarded Saiegh's case to President Kirchner for a decision. Donzis stated that DAIA had spoken to Oscar Parilli, Secretary General of the Presidency, who reportedly indicated that Kirchner/Casa Rosada staff would not decide on the matter for fear of setting a precedent. (Note: The military dictatorship appropriated a number of companies during its regime, although Saiegh claims his is the only case that involves human rights violations.) Donzis said he was not sure what other avenues or approaches might bear fruit. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶8. (C) Government decisions and legal opinions are frequently written in a manner that allows for a variety of interpretations. This explains why Argentine government agencies can interpret a legal document one way, while Saiegh and his lawyers can interpret the same document in another way. Although Saiegh's frustration with Argentina's notoriously slow judicial process is understandable, he appears to be receiving due process since at least certain aspects of his case are being heard through the courts and at the administrative level. Post will continue to raise his case with appropriate GOA official, but would appreciate Department guidance as requested in Ref B. WAYNE