Ambassador Press Conferences
Transcript / English Translation
Press Conference with Ambassador William Brownfield on the Extradition of 14 AUC Ex-paramilitary Leaders
U.S. Embassy Bogota, Bogota, Colombia
May 13, 2008
Ambassador William Brownfield: Ladies and gentleman of the Colombian media, good afternoon. Thank you for sharing some of your time with us today. I want to tell you that our intention was to have offered some comments in the morning but when we learned that the distinguished President of the Nation had his own presentation at noon, I remembered my mother’s lesson number one: you should never compete with your host in a presentation or conversation.
I wish to offer a brief statement. After that, I will answer your questions.
As you already are aware, today at 6:45 AM, fourteen members of the AUC were extradited from Colombia to the United States. They flew aboard an airplane that stopped first at the Navy base in Guantanamo, and from there, they were divvied up to five federal districts, where they will face charges against them, pressed by the U.S. Federal Government. Those districts, in no particular order, are:
- The Southern District of Texas, City of Houston
- The Southern District of Florida, City of Miami
- The Middle District of Florida, City of Tampa
- The District of Columbia, City of Washington
- The Southern District of New York, City of New York.
Each one of the 14 (plus Mister alias “Macaco,” who was extradited last week, which equals 15) each one will face three charges by the U.S. Federal Government:
- Illicit drugs and drug trafficking
- Money laundering and related offenses
- Material support of terrorism
And each one of the 14 (or 15) will face charges related to those three categories.
I want to take advantage of the moment and express our gratitude and our thanks in particular to every one of the authorities of the Colombian Government who participated in that event, but especially to the men and women of the Colombian National Police, who in some cases carried out heroic actions in order to move those men to the U.S. for their final destiny, to several representatives of the Ministry of Interior and Justice, specifically of the Colombian Prison System, and finally to several prosecutors of the Office of the Prosecutor General, who participated in this operation all night last night.
I want to make it clear and clarify two more points:
- This extradition followed the same legal rules, the same documents and documentation, in other words, the same process all extraditions in the past have followed--each one of the 101 this year and the more than 600 over the past six years. It may be that the hours have changed, but the process was exactly the same as in the past.
- I want to eliminate confusion regarding the legal situation in the U.S. for victims and legal representatives of victims of those men, or of any other person extradited to the U.S.
We have consulted in deep detail with the Colombian authorities over the past days, and we have come to the conclusion that in five areas, the victims, their representatives and the prosecutors of Colombia will continue to have access in the U.S. to the legal system, to the extradited individuals, and to their assets.
- In accordance with international treaties that allow cooperation on legal matters between governments.
- In cooperation from court-to-court, according to letters rogatory that have often been used in the past between the legal systems of Colombia and the U.S.
- A system of civil justice, where any citizen in the world has the right and the access to the U.S. legal system to file a civil law suit.
- There is a commitment by the U.S. Department of Justice to share with Colombian authorities and prosecutors evidence or information that arises from these cases being handled in the U.S.
- There is a commitment by the U.S. Government to try to facilitate direct access of Colombian prosecutors who are enforcing the Law of Justice and Peace in the cases of the men extradited to the U.S. Of course, the legal system in the U.S. cannot give Colombian prosecutors more access to those 14 or 15 men than they would have in Colombia. Those men will have their defense attorneys in the U.S. and their own legal rights in the U.S. But our commitment is to facilitate access to the extradited men.
As I said last week when I spoke about the case of the man known as “Macaco,” in legal terms, in terms of access, nothing has changed with this extradition other than the physical location of these 14 men. Yesterday, they were in a jail in Colombia. Today, they are in a jail in the U.S. I think, and I reiterate--and I am going to continue to reiterate--that with this extradition, Colombia is a better country, and the U.S. is also a better country.
Now, I am happy to answer your questions.
Juan Carlos Ossa (RCN TV): Mr. Ambassador, the next question is regarding the victims and reparation. What is the mechanism that the governments of Colombia and the United States will use to make this (reparations) effective and applicable in this case?
Ambassador Brownfield: And that, of course is one of the fundamental questions in this and it is what I was referring to with the five points: the way in which we, the United States government, the Justice Department and the courts of the United States are going to try to offer access and the legal right (of the victims) to follow their logical, legitimate and authentic desire for reparation in the future.
First: The Colombian government has the right to access the legal system of the United States, in accordance with various international agreements of the U.N. and the O.A.S.
Second: Any court in Colombia has access to request direct action on the part of any court in the United States throughout the examination process – court to court.
Three: Any victim, or the legal representative of any victim, has the right to a legal process – a civil trial in a court in the United States aimed specifically at any one of the fourteen or fifteen individuals who were extradited in the past week.
Four: The prosecutors in the Justice Department will share their evidence and information with the prosecutors of the Republic of Colombia, allowing them the opportunity to examine, analyze, and decide on how they wish to proceed in accordance with the Justice and Peace Law.
Finally, we are going to try to facilitate direct access. If a Colombian prosecutor requires direct access to one of the extradited individuals, the Justice Department will try to facilitate that process.
That being said, what we cannot do, of course, is change the free will and the attitude of these fourteen or fifteen persons who have been extradited. The have the same rights in the United States that they would have here in Colombia. They have their defense attorneys. They have rights, such as the right to access to the evidence against them, the right to respond to the accusations against them, the right to respond, or not respond, to questions and the right to allow, or not allow access to them.
At the end of the day, they have the same rights in the United States, the legal rights that they have here. Our commitment is that we will try to facilitate all access, all of the information, and all of the opportunities to the victims, the victims’ representatives and to the prosecutors responsible for the application of the Justice and Peace Law.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not my place, as a diplomat, to decide whether or not these fourteen people cooperated or not with the process of the Justice and Peace Law. That is an internal, sovereign decision to be made by the citizens of Colombia and their institutions. They – you—are the ones who must decide if these people were toying with the system or not—if they cooperated with the process or not, if they were behaving seriously or not; if they had, in fact, demobilized – or if they left their field operations to their second tier commanders. These are not questions for me, or for my government to answer. These are questions for you to answer. What I can guarantee to you is the maximum cooperation possible to ensure that the victims will receive justice in the future.
El Espectador, Juan Camilo Maldonado: Ambassador, everything that you’ve spoken to us about just now has to do with the victims’ right to truth, in so far as material reparation. (President Uribe) this morning spoke about a pact with the government in which all of the goods that would be handed over by these 14 ex-paramilitaries would be given to the victims. However, there is an agreement between the GOC and the USG regarding the goods that might be handed over by narcotraffickers. Will this change with the 14 paramilitaries? How will the new material reparations fund for victims work? What is going to be done with all of these goods?
Ambassador Brownfield: Good question and thanks for letting me clarify a little bit.
There is already an agreement between the two governments regarding treatment of goods and physical property recuperated in the United States, but as it relates to Colombian narcotraffickers. And you are right, we have an understanding, a formal agreement, that permits the transfer, if not of property and goods, but at least of resources and funds produced by these goods in Colombia. This will not change.
But, of course, as you well know, Colombia, its institutions, the State, the legal system still have jurisdiction and responsibility for whatever property is found in Colombia. The United States, its legal system, do not have the right to touch, control or even request these goods and property. This, of course, will still stay in the hands of the Colombian legal system and its institutions.
Look, at the end of the day, much depends, of course, on the goodwill of the distinguished men already extradited to the United States. If they want to collaborate with the authorities, I imagine that we are going to see property, funds and goods available for the victims of these past crimes.
What I would suggest is that, perhaps, the probability that their goodwill was a little bit higher today, after 6:45 this morning. I hope that this is true, because I want to reiterate something that I suggested about a week or two ago in the case of Mr. alias “Macaco”. And this is that there are two governments, two peoples, two countries and we have exactly the same objectives. We want: 1) justice for our peoples that have suffered from crimes of various people; 2) we want the maximum sanction possible against the condemned people and sentences according to the legal systems of Colombia and the United States for their past crimes; 3) we want the maximum compensation, the maximum reparation that is possible for their victims. These are our three objectives. They are the objectives of the government of the United States. They are the objectives of the government of the Republic of Colombia and, I imagine, they are the objective of all of the victims and the family members (of the victims) of those who perpetrated these crimes in the past. The truth is that, ladies and gentlemen, the only people, perhaps, who don’t share these objectives are the criminals themselves. And for them, of course, I don’t have much sympathy.
New York Times, Jennie Carolina Gonzalez: Good afternoon Ambassador. The victims are very skeptical regarding what they can achieve from the US. I have two questions specifically. The first one, is there any possibility the victims, through Colombian courts , once their sentences in the US are complete, could come and respond before Colombian courts? And secondly, is there a specific agreement so that these men do not enter the witness protection program and as such remain beyond the reaches of the international court of justice, which is one the hopes of the victims in their search for truth, justice and retribution?
Ambassador Brownfield: Good questions. First question and I want to be very specific about this, and that is that legal system in Colombia has not lost absolutely any possibility of continuing with a penal process with these 14/15 extradited men. In other words, once they have completed their process in the US, the trial, the sentencing, the sanction and if it is so, the imprisonment, in that moment they will be available to the Colombian legal system, according to the laws, rules and norms of the Colombian constitution. The one does not exclude the other. In this situation we are speaking of a legal process in the US, but parallel to this, or consecutively, the legal system of Colombia can also apply its laws, its sentences and its sanctions.
Secondly, if we are speaking of the 14 or 15 extradited in the last two weeks, I can assure you that there is no possibility whatsoever of putting them into the witness protection program. Why? Because they are not witnesses, they are accused asked for and demanded by the legal system of the US. The US Federal government’s witness protection program is to protect witnesses in legal cases and in a court process in the US. That I know of, we have never offered this program to the accused themselves. The reason for having asked for them in extradition, ladies and gentlemen, is not to give them perhaps a visit to a country club or a five star hotel, it is to try them in a legal process in the US and if we are successful, according to our laws, norms and US constitutional rights to maximum possible sanction against them. And hopefully it will become very clear, because with regards to this I admit, accept and regret that there is much confusion amongst some of the victims and some of their legal representatives here in Colombia.
And in this moment I wish to direct myself directly to them, and I want to say that I have the same goal as you, we want the maximum justice possible, the maximum sanctions against those guilty and the maximum reparation possible for you, ladies and gentlemen, victims of the activities of some people in the past years. We want to work with you, this must be a cooperative process, and not a process in which one wins and the other looses. If we do it correctly, everyone wins, with the exception of those who are guilty.
Semana Magazine, Catalina Loboguerrero: Mr. Ambassador, one thing is to have access and that the U.S. wants to collaborate so that the processes of justice and peace continue, but who is going to assume the costs, for example, I’m thinking about the trips of some prosecutors or judges, the victims, how are they going to access just representation in a country that has different costs, if you could please discuss this?
Ambassador Brownfield: Of course I will have to speak in more or less general terms because in this moment we are not speaking of a case or something concrete or specific. I think there are three areas that we have to calculate up to a certain point, this question of costs, if it’s a question of a process or a communication or a collaboration government-to-government, of course the two governments share the cost depending on the situation, if it is a letter rogatory of a Colombian court to a U.S. court, each court would assume its own costs; if it’s a question of collaboration, for example, executive-to-executive, or Colombian Prosecutor General’s Office (Fiscalia) to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in the end I imagine that the Fiscalia could ask that DOJ agrees, that DOJ assumes costs and vice versa. If it’s a question of an individual right, in other words, Mr. John Doe or Mrs. John Doe, victim of Person X, who would like to take advantage, directly and personally, of the U.S. legal system to process a civil complaint, in that case, in accordance with the norms of the U.S. legal system, this person or his representatives or supporters assume the costs until there is a final decision from a U.S. court, in this moment, of course, in agreement with this decision and whatever material property or goods or funds produced by this decision, of course these would be distributed in accordance with the court’s decision. In other words, I think that the question of costs is a question between entities, is a question between courts, between governments and in some hypothetical cases, but which are totally possible, a case in the legal and civil system of the United States, and I admit that the costs change in terms of the responsibility in a way that depends on the way in which they seek access to the U.S. legal system.
But I reiterate, repeat and ratify that the objective is the maximum reparation possible for the victims of these criminals, those who are guilty of past crimes, this is our objective and I think that it’s the objective of the Colombian government and I don’t have any doubts that this is also the objective of the victims and their families.
Mr. Ivan Cepedo (well known analyst and blogger): Ambassador, good afternoon, I thank you for this opportunity. Yesterday you said in an interview with El Espectador that there exists agreements in the US, and you mentioned a specific situation in which a person hands –over information about a superior in his criminal enterprise. In this case, will those agreements be made? What reach do they possess? And do they limit in anyway the rights of the victim? And my second one, a little detail, when you spoke of the fifth mechanism which will be used, you spoke of facilitating the access of Peace and Justice Unit prosecutors, my question is, will you also allow access to assistant judges and prosecutors who work for the Supreme Court of Justice investigating the so called para-political scandal?
Ambassador Brownfield: On the first point, what I was referring to, and I admit I am not the best expert in the world to speak about the details of the legal system of the US, I am not a lawyer, neither American or Colombian, although I am a graduate of the best law faculty in the US, I refer of course to the University of Texas, but that was almost 30 years ago. WE have in the US, in our legal system a mechanism that allows the prosecutor, under the supervision of the judge responsible before the court, to negotiate or at least talk to an accused with the intention to receive evidence that eventually will produce a trial, culpability and sentencing against other people who are of higher rank within the criminal organization. It is a process that was introduced some 60 years ago, and thanks to that procedure we dismantled many of the US’ largest criminal organizations, the famous mafias of the 50s and 60s in the US, and the concept is one that has much less interest in sentencing and sanctioning an organization’s soldier if the soldier can offer information which would allow the sentencing of the commander general of the organization. So your question and your suggestion or perhaps the question’s hypothesis is, will such a system or mechanism apply to the 14 or 15 extradited men? And my answer is that it wouldn’t be very logical because the evidence I have, which comes primarily from the mass media, and I always take into consideration what the media says, but the media suggests that the 14 were the leaders of their organization and the concept is not about talking with the leader to perhaps produce sentencing for his soldiers, that would be absolutely inverted. And if truly, as some of the media suggest, if these are the leaders of their organizations, there is no logic for having this type of dialogue, this type of negotiation, if we want to use such a word. But the logic is that the only thing they can offer is information or evidence related to those of lower rank than they, and as such the interest of the prosecutors and the federal judge overseeing the case would be rather limited.
The second question, or the second point refers to my fifth point in which I said the government of the US is committed to trying to facilitate direct access to the prosecutors of the Republic of Colombia to the 14 or 15 extradited men, of course within the rights they posses, the 15, their legal rights, their constitutional rights in the US. And the question is whether that applies to more than just the prosecutors, perhaps the judges and magistrates. The truth is I had not thought of that. The magistrate, the judge always has the right of access through letters rogatory, in other words, a Colombian judge always has absolute and total rights, according to what was understood, to ask an American court to conduct and investigations, as far as I understand, to ask an American court to conduct and iperation and to ask specific questions, etc. This is matter dealt with court to court. The judge would have, perhaps, the same right of access in agreement with US norms, in other words, that of the extradited person that has his defender, that has the right to listen to the counsel of his defender, that has the right to decide whether or not he’ll give access, exactly as he has the same right to speak or not speak with a US prosecutor. It is not an obligation to speak in the U.S. with a prosecutor. I imagine that we could talk about a rule in this sense, it would be complicated, of course, because normally in this case it’s a government that speaks for another government. If we are going to introduce another branch of the constitutional government we would have to decide exactly how to do it, in other words, how this request for access would arrive within the U.S. legal system. Is it direct? Through the Supreme Court? Is it via executive power of the national government, via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? These are the questions that we would have to consider. But I repeat, the objective is the maximum justice, the maximum sanction and the maximum reparation possible We have two governments full of intelligent people and if it’s necessary, if it’s important, to give this type of access it should be possible for such intelligent people to find a formula that permits this type of access. I have to confess that I have not thought about the details. I don’t know whether this would be without precedent or no, the truth is I don’t know, but yes I am absolutely and totally convinced that since we already have the same objective and the same desire, if it’s important to produce the maximum reparation or it helps the victims, it should be possible.
El Tiempo, Juan Francisco Valbuena: Mr. Ambassador, good afternoon, I would like to ask you, you have talked about how all of the information that the U.S. justice system gathers is going to be shared at least with the Colombian justice system, but what would happen in the case, what decision would the GOC take in the case that the extradited ex-paramillitary leaders today might offer to give this information, but in exchange for big reductions in their sentences?
Ambassador Brownfield: Look, first to clarify, I did not say just information, because a lot of information and evidence of course has to do with the specific charges of drug trafficking, money laundering and material support for terrorist acts and in that case, given that it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the application of the Justice and Peace Law, logically neither the GOC nor its prosecutors would have any interest in this.
The deal is that whatever evidence we encounter during the penal processes in the United States, related to the cases of interest -- for Colombia’s victims, prosecutors, for the government -- would be shared to the maximum extent possible. Your question is a good one. I would suggest that the question is equal and – to a certain point – doesn’t matter if the accused is in the United States or in Colombia. It’s the same question and the answer is equally complicated: the prosecutor, the court, the judge or magistrate and the legal system have to decide between the value of what is offered by Mr. John Doe, what information is offered, and the many material benefits, property, funds for the victims, a lot of evidence and has to balance all of this, establish a balance between the value and the desire of the community, the people, the nation, to have the maximum justice in this case. And these questions are not easy. Up to a certain point I suppose, and I don’t want to appear cynical, but it is because of this that we have courts, it’s because of this that we have developed our legal systems over the course of more or less 100 years, to establish this balance, this equilibrium between the desire to offer the maximum compensation and reparation possible to the victims with the equally important desire to assure the maximum sanctions possible against those that have committed crimes and have violated the rights of other members of the community. I can tell you that the answer to your hypothetical question if this would have occurred in the United States, I imagine that there would have been a consultation between U.S. and Colombian authorities to basically decide where the maximum interest is and to seek the most justice possible in the negative sense – sanctions -- and in the positive sense – reparations. And at the end of the day in this process we are looking for the best solution, we are never going to satisfy everyone 100%. The 16th president of the United States (…) whose name was Abraham Lincoln said in 1864: “You can satisfy everybody some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can never satisfy everybody all the time.” I supposed that to a certain extent we now have the same problem that Lincoln had in 1864. Our challenge is to make sure that we have offered the maximum justice in the sense of negative sanctions and positive reparations.
Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I imagine that we are going to have many more conversations between us regarding this subject during the months to come. Thank you very much.