CAPRILES BACK IN COURT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CARACAS 000763

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

HQSOUTHCOM ALSO FOR POLAD
DEPT PASS TO AID/OTI RPORTER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/17/2017
TAGS: KDEM PGOV PREL PHUM VE
SUBJECT: CAPRILES BACK IN COURT

REF: 06 CARACAS 03646

CARACAS 00000763 001.2 OF 002


Classified By: Political Counselor, Robert Downes,
for Reason 1.4(b).


1. (C) SUMMARY. Opposition mayor of Baruta municipality
Henrique Capriles Radonski appeared in appeals court April
16, following the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's (BRV)
decision to appeal a lower court's ruling to acquit him
December 15. The prosecution argued Capriles failed to
impede the actions of opposition protesters at the Cuban
Embassy during the events of April 12, 2002. The prosecution
seemed unprepared and apparently based its appeal on a flawed
theory. The three-judge panel will reconvene the court May

2. END SUMMARY

--------------
The Appeal
--------------


2. (SBU) The case against Baruta Mayor Henrique Capriles
Radonski continued April 16, this time in appeals court.
A three judge panel officiated the hearing. (NOTE: A total
of 33 judges have presided over Capriles' case in the five
years since the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (BRV)
originally presented charges. END NOTE). Due to the large
number of attendees, the hearing was delayed 45 minutes while
the judges decided whether the session would be held in a
larger room. In the end, the hearing took place in the
original room, with only eighteen observers (including
Poloff, supporters of Capriles, and reporters) allowed in the
courtroom. No other diplomatic missions sought to attend.


3. (SBU) Capriles was acquitted December 15 of charges that
he fomented violence outside the Cuban Embassy during the
events of April 12, 2002. The BRV dropped its charges of
illegal entry after videos and witness testimony presented
overwhelming evidence that Capriles' entry into the compound
was facilitated by Cuban Embassy personnel.

--------------
Prosecution Unprepared
--------------


4. (SBU) The prosecution's lack of familiarity with the
appeals process did not bode well for them. In their opening
statements, the prosecution presented a motion to delay the
hearing, arguing it was necessary for the judges to view a
videotape of the events in question. The defense maintained
that according to laws regulating appeals cases, the
prosecution was not allowed to introduce new evidence. The
judges took a five-minute recess to discuss the motion, then
ruled in favor of the defense.


5. (SBU) The prosecution based its argument on two
principles. First, they argued that the previous judge,
Auristela Salazar Maldonado, only conducted a partial and
biased review of the evidence presented. Second, the
prosecution stated that Capriles' failure to act that day
"facilitated" the illegal actions of others, making him an
accomplice.


6. (SBU) The defense challenged the prosecution's two
arguments. Capriles' legal team argued that the BRV's
questioning of Salazar's ruling was politically motivated.
The defense also maintained that under Venezuelan law an
individual cannot be accused of being an accomplice for his
refusal and/or inability to impede the actions of others.
Capriles then addressed the court, and asked the appellate
judges for justice. He recounted his long legal
tribulations, including four months in jail and time away
from his mayoral duties. Following his statements, the
judges said they will reconvene the court May 2. A crowd of
approximately 75 supporters, including staff members and
constituents, joined the opposition mayor in a post-hearing
press conference.


7. (C) COMMENT: The prosecution's lack of familiarity with
the appeals procedure reflected poorly on them and bolstered
the defense's belief that the court would rule in their
favor. That said, the appellate judges' decision to
reconvene the court in ten working days caught Capriles'
legal team off guard. Nevertheless, the prosecution's claim
that Capriles' inactions make him an accomplice, a charge
that apparently has no legal basis under Venezuelan law,
seems to indicate that the BRV is grasping for straws. END

CARACAS 00000763 002.2 OF 002


COMMENT.

BROWNFIELD