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."