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