SUPREME COURT DENIES MARTIN SOMBRA'S EXTRADITION

C O N F I D E N T I A L BOGOTA 001982 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/18/2019 TAGS: KJUS PGOV PREL PTER SNAR CO SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT DENIES MARTIN SOMBRA'S EXTRADITION REF: BOGOTA 01208 Classified By: Political Counselor John Creamer Reasons 1.4 (b and d) SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (C) The Supreme Court denied our request for the extradition of FARC member Eli Mejia Mendoza ("Martin Sombra"),who was involved in the hostage-taking of the three American contractors rescued last July. The Court concluded that our request failed to meet the necessary "extraterritorial" requirement, noting that all of his criminal actions occurred within Colombia. We provided the Court with our arguments in the case in great detail on multiple occasions. Still, the denial is consistent with the Court's reasoning in the Alexander Farfan Suarez ("Enrique Gafas") and Gerardo Antonio Aguilar-Ramirez ("Cesar") cases earlier this year. Despite this latest denial, the Court has approved over 100 extraditions, primarily in narcotrafficking cases, so far this year and is on pace to surpass last year's record of 208 extraditions. End Summary. ANOTHER UNFAVORABLE RULING -------------- ¶2. (U) On June 17, the Supreme Court denied the extradition of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) member Eli Mejia Mendoza ("Martin Sombra"). Sombra was solicited for extradition based on seven different charges related to hostage-taking and terrorism. The ruling issued by Judge Alfredo Gomez Quintero cites Article 35 of the Constitution and Law 906 of the Criminal Code and concludes that Sombra could not be extradited, because "all of the acts involved in the seven charges occurred in Colombian territory." Sombra is serving a 24-year sentence for his role in a FARC attack on a military base in 1999, and is also awaiting sentencing for his role in the hostage-taking of the three Americans. ¶3. (C) The Court's ruling continues its trend of applying a strict interpretation of what meets the "extraterritorial" requirement. In the past, the Court held that the "extraterritorial" standard could be met by showing that the criminal acts occurred outside of Colombia and/or that the acts had effects outside of Colombia (Reftel). The Court continues to cite both the acts and/or effects standards for determining extraterritoriality, but in practice it appears to no longer consider an extraterritorial effect alone to be sufficient to justify extradition. We provided the Court with our arguments in the case in great detail on multiple occasions informally. However, the current and former Court presidents stressed to us repeatedly that a formal note making those arguments would be counterproductive and provoke the magistrates' ire. Minister of Justice and Interior Fabio Valencia Cossio made the same point to the Ambassador. SOMBRA RULING PART OF A LARGER TREND -------------- ¶4. (SBU) The Sombra ruling is the ninth denial of an extradition request since late 2008, including the Alexander Farfan Suarez ("Enrique Gafas") and Gerardo Antonio Aguilar-Ramirez ("Cesar") cases. In seven of the denials, the Court cited extraterritorial concerns while in two others they cited double jeopardy. In addition to the Court's shift in legal analysis, our program has also been affected by the tensions between President Uribe and the Court, Colombia's growing emphasis on victims' rights, and a general nationalist backlash against our rapidly increasing number of extradition requests (Reftel). Still, the Court continues to approve most narcotrafficking extradition requests, and has authorized the extradition of over 100 Colombians to the United States so far this year, and will likely pass last year's record 208 extraditions. ¶5. (C) On June 16, we submitted an extradition request for hostage-taking for Roque Luis Orovio-Lobon (AKA "Mello" or "Tachuela"),a criminal associate of the FARC responsible for kidnapping U.S. businessman Cecilio Juan Padron in Panama and holding him hostage on the Colombia-Panama border. This case has clear criminal acts that occur outside of Colombia, and will provide further clarification on the Court's interpretation of the "extraterritorial" standard. Brownfield