FBIS3-41140 "jptdd006__l94007"
JPRS-TDD-94-006-L Document Type:JPRS Document Title:Narcotics 7 February 1994
LATIN AMERICA COLOMBIA

Meeting With Cali Cartel Attorneys Described

94WD0178A Santa Fe de Bogota EL TIEMPO in Spanish 16 Jan 94 p 17A 94WD0178A Santa Fe de Bogota EL TIEMPO Language: Spanish Article Type:CSO [Article: "Cali Surrender Stalled"] [Text] On Tuesday afternoon, after several high-level meetings, President Cesar Gaviria telephoned the DAS [Administrative Department of Security] director, Fernando Brito, to request his presence at the meeting with the attorneys of two presumed traffickers from Valle. It was due to be held the following day at the office of the prosecutor general of the nation, Gustavo de Greiff. What the president wanted was to establish his position on the policy of surrender, after rumors citing previous talks in which the presumed drug traffickers requested house arrest during certain phases of the surrender process. However, what most concerned Gaviria was the fact that the matter of confession apparently had not yet been clearly explained during the previous talks with the attorneys of Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela and Julio Fabio Urdinola. For those reasons, the president decided to send Justice Minister Andres Gonzalez and the DAS director to the meeting at the prosecutor general's office. The fact is that, until that Wednesday, 12 January, the talks had been conducted through the prosecutor general and the attorney general of the nation, Carlos Gustavo Arrieta, who, in turn, were reporting to the government. Nevertheless, in December the president decided to take part in the matter and, at several meetings between De Greiff and the justice minister, agreement had already been reached on the government's presence at the meeting planned for early January. By that time, a tentative date had been set, but the exact day and time had not been decided. On 11 January, Gonzalez, with the prosecutor general and attorney general, confirmed the date and time of the meeting: Wednesday, 12 January, at 1500. When Brito and Gonzalez arrived, the prosecutor general and attorney general were already conferring with the drug traffickers' attorneys. Some tension was felt there, due mainly to the presence of the DAS director, because only the minister was expected. Moreover, the fact of not knowing in advance who was going to attend apparently annoyed the prosecutor general, according to one source. Then, with the attorneys, the determination was made that this was an informal meeting, and it was agreed that, when the surrender processes actually began, each government department would play its part. In other words, they would be judicial proceedings that no one from the government would have any reason to attend.
The Meeting Began
Finally, at 1510, the meeting began. First, one of the lawyers took the floor, stating that it was Rodriguez's and Urdinola's desire to surrender based on the expedient of house arrest, in the course of a process that should culminate in one result, either: dismissal of all charges or sentencing to a prison term. The next to speak was Minister Gonzalez. The official explained to the attorneys the design of the surrender policy, indicating that anyone who surrenders must have a real willingness to submit to a process, to collaborate effectively with the authorities, and to confess his criminal activities. Nevertheless, the traffickers' lawyers used the argument that it was very important to their clients not to make a mandatory confession. They noted that it was the intention of the two presumed traffickers to submit to a trial without meeting that requirement. The justice minister, for his part, claimed that a surrender and repentance did not suffice. The other attorney intervened, also declaring that what the two presumed drug traffickers wanted was to have the information supplied by them to break up the Medellin Cartel taken into account in their case. However, according to sources queried by EL TIEMPO, that decision is incumbent solely on Prosecutor General De Greiff, who must assess the veracity of those reports, which could become a part of the government's policy on collaboration. After the remarks, the DAS director spoke, claiming that the government did not consider house arrest part of the surrender policy. He added that anything other than the terms of that program was not associated with the state's position. The two lawyers, somewhat shocked, commented that such blunt, clear talk was quite positive, making it possible to obtain information on the government's thinking. Furthermore, they said that, from this standpoint, the process could not continue until they first consulted with their clients. Prosecutor General De Greiff then remarked that the decision on house arrest was a judicial determination, but the DAS director reaffirmed the negative position on house arrest. Specifically, the official declared that the government did not interpret the policy of surrender in that way, and that the issue being treated had to be viewed clearly. Gonzalez, for his part, claimed that they were not dealing with any criminal organization or common crimes, and that, for the persons under discussion and the crimes with which they were charged, it was impossible to seek house arrest. Finally, Brito asserted that the government would not, under any circumstances, permit house arrest, among other reasons, because its implementation would have no acceptance on the international level. After 1700, when the two government officials concluded their remarks, De Greiff declared the informal meeting adjourned, and remained in a hearing with the attorneys. According to the government, the essence of the matter is that various conditions must be met for the process to continue: imposition and effective serving of adequate sentences in regular jails, and real, effective collaboration with the administration of justice. In other words, the state must be allowed to solve crimes and to sentence those judicially culpable. Hence, in the government's opinion, the surrender of the Cali Cartel members is muddled, for the present; because it is assumed that they will not fully accept the surrender policy. However, a second meeting has already been arranged; and, as one government official aptly observed: "All is not lost."