CONTROVERSIAL TRIAL OF THREE IRISHMEN BEGINS IN COLOMBIA

Monday October 21, 2002 07:37

by ANNCOL

The trial of the three Irishmen arrested in Colombia in August 2001 and charged with the use of false documents and training left-wing FARC rebels will begin on October 4th. Lawyers say that the three men - Jim Monaghan, Niall Connolly and Martin McCauley - will not receive a fair trial.

03.10.2002 (By Maria Engqvist, ANNCOL Stockholm) The Irish "Bring Them Home" campaign has been amongst the harshest critics of the controversial trial and has called for the three men to be released and brought home to their families.

“From the moment of their arrest, in the full glare of the world’s media, the case has been dogged by misinformation and political interference both inside Colombia and in Ireland and Britain," Caitríona Ruane, spokesperson for the campaign, told reporters earlier this week in Ireland before departing for the trial.

The lawyers for the three men are very concerned that they will not receive a fair trial and that their case has already been prejudiced by public comments made by senior political and judicial figures in Colombia. The Irishmen will be tried in a one judge, no jury court and the country is under a state of emergency.

“Among those who have voiced similar concerns are the United Nations, the Irish government, political figures around the world and international human rights organisations. A number of political and human rights organisations will be sending observers to monitor the trial and will be providing regular updates," Ruane said.

In recent months key elements of the prosecution case have been withdrawn and discredited including controversial forensic reports and paid informers. During the trial the mens lawyers will be producing both forensic experts and a range of other witnesses.

See also: US MEDDLING IN COLOMBIA

More information at: www.truthmonitor.org and NarcoNews

Furthermore, ANNCOL has received the following break-down of the legal case against the three Irishmen provided by the wife of one of the detained, Mrs.Cristín McCauley:

THE LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE COLOMBIA 3.

The legal case against the three Irishmen in Bogota is deeply flawed.

Contrary to claims by the Prosecutor's office in Colombia, there is insufficient evidence to justify the charge that three men were involved in training members of the FARC guerilla movement in the use of explosives. The case against the three men is based on three central planks.

1. Forensics

The first is the result from a test carried out by an official of the US embassy in Bogota who claimed that there were residues of explosives on
pieces of clothing found in the bags which were seized from the men on their arrest at El Dorado airport in Bogota on August 11 last year.

There was no supporting documentation to explain the scientific basis of the test or the circumstances in which it was taken. A video of the test procedure has been denied to the defence team by the Prosecutor.

The results of this test were contained in a photocopy of a handwritten document containing a summary of the results of an atomic absorption
analysis carried out by the US embassy official, Anthony M Hall.

A second test was carried out by the scientific section of the Colombian Administrative Department of Security, DAS, within hours of the men's arrest, which found no traces of explosives on their clothing or baggage.

All the material in relation to the forensic tests were examined by an independent forensic expert from Britain, Dr Keith Borer, whose firm, Keith Borer and Associates is licensed to carry out prosecution and defence cases. Dr Borer has concluded that there is no forensic evidence against the men and has claimed that the test carried out by the US embassy official is inaccurate.

"The US work was done with an ion track instrument. This is a portable machine which is extremely sensitive but is not very discriminating," Dr Borer said.

According to defence lawyers, no competent judicial authority took part in the proceedings when the men were searched and had their clothes examined, and no public defender was present, as required.

The Colombian prosecutor has displayed a serious bias against the accused by her decision to accept the validity of the flawed US test, and to ignore the contradictory and negative tests carried out by Dr Borer and the DAS authorities.

She has also ruled out the possibility, which is raised in statements made by the men on their arrest, that any contamination by explosives or other substances on their clothing could only be the result of environmental contamination.

The men's bags were carried from the demilitarised zone in south-east Colombia on an aircraft owned and used by the military. They were then transported in a military vehicle to a military compound in Bogota and were placed on a table where military equipment and explosives had been stored.

Further, the manner in which the US embassy test was carried out was illegal, according to the men's legal team. The test was carried out after
the men were illegally arrested and detained without warrant by members of the Colombian army's 13th brigade. It was carried out in a military compound without the presence, as required under Colombian law, of members of the
Colombian police force.

2 a. Informers

The second major plank of evidence against the men is the testimony of two informers who claimed to have witnessed the men, at various times, in the FARC controlled zone.

The first, Marcos Enrique Trujillo Celada, is a police inspector who was based in San Vincente del Caguan, in the former FARC controlled zone. He claims to have seen the photographs of the men in the Colombian daily newspaper, El Tiempo, following their arrest. He said that he recognised one of them because he had seen him in August 1998 with a FARC Commander named `Julian' at a place known as Donde Robert. He had heard at the time that the man and others with him were military trainers.

He claimed that the man he recognised in the newspaper photographs was the shortest of the three Irishmen, which defence lawyers conclude is a reference to Martin McCauley. He claimed to have been told by Commander Julian that the guerillas were receiving training from foreign experts and were exchanging tactics with rebel movements from other countries.

Martin McCauley was never in Colombia in 1998, as alleged by Celada. He has witnesses in Ireland who can vouch for the fact that he remained in his country for all of that year. His employers, professional colleagues, family members and others can provide evidence to prove conclusively that he was in Ireland during August 1998 and indeed for every other month of that year.

Likewise Jim Monaghan and Niall Connolly, despite claims by the Colombian military, never visited Colombia before 2001.

The three men have cast iron alibis who can authoritatively refute the claim by the Colombian authorities that they visited the country on a number of occasions between 1996 and 2001.

The defence lawyers, who have cross examined the informer witnesses, have described Celada's testimony as totally tainted by contradictions,
inaccuracies and lies.

The second informer witness claims to have been a driver for another FARC commander and to have seen the men last year in the demilitarised zone. His evidence has been discredited by the defence lawyers during their interviews with the witness. Despite his claim to have driven his former Commander to peace talks in recent years he was unable to name key participants in the
negotiations including the internationally known Peace Commissioner.

These witnesses have been claimed as credible by the Prosecutor while the circumstantial claims of British embassy officials and members of the RUC have also been accepted as further evidence against the three men.

Evidence from Colombian army officers, who claim that they arrested the men as a result of an anonymous phone call to Bogota from an unnamed and unidentified source in the FARC controlled zone, has also been used by the prosecuting authorities.

This has also been criticised by defence lawyers as irregular and illegal.

A claim by an official of the British embassy, Russell Thompson, within hours of their arrest that the men were members of the engineering
department of the Irish Republican Army, was also used as a reason by the Colombian military to hold the men. Yet the British official had no specific proof to justify this claim and no court in Ireland or Britain has upheld any such accusation against any of the three.

2 b. Defence Witnesses

While faulty and inaccurate allegations have been accepted by the Prosecutor, witnesses prepared by the defence team have not been taken into account. These include statements from people who knew of the plans by the men to travel to Colombia. They also include important character references and statements by professional people and politicians in Ireland that verify the fact that the men could not have been in Colombia at times alleged by the informer witnesses.

These defence witnesses include members, from different political parties, of the Irish parliament, solicitors representing public bodies in Ireland, the men's employers and work colleagues.

The three men have said that they travelled to Colombia on their own initiative in order to study the conflict there and, in particular, to meet with people living in the demilitarised zone. Their visit was one of many by
international observers of the Colombian peace process.

The FARC commander, Raul Reyes, has confirmed that the men met him for discussions during their visit yet the defence lawyers were prevented from
travelling to the zone to take more detailed witness statements from people, including FARC members, that met the men during their visit.

The closure of the zone has now made it impossible for the men and their legal team to meet witnesses who can verify their claim that they visited the area for peaceful reasons.

3. False Documentation

The three men have admitted that they travelled to Colombia using false documents. Two of the men are former Irish republican prisoners and have
argued that they would not have been able to leave Ireland and travel to Latin America, without attracting the attention and obstruction of various security agencies if they had not used false identities.

Jim Monaghan was convicted of IRA membership more than 15 years ago. He has stated that he is a supporter of the peace process in Ireland and in recent years has worked with an organisation involved in the education of former prisoners.

Martin McCauley was never convicted on IRA membership charges and is a victim of a British army and RUC shoot to kill policy which resulted in his suffering serious and permanent injury after he was shot at the age of 17 years in 1982. Another teenager with him, Michael Tighe, was killed in the shooting after which two antique weapons were found. His case is currently
before the Criminal Cases Review Board in the North of Ireland and he is seeking financial compensation and the overturning of a minor conviction which followed the shooting incident.

Niall Connolly has no criminal convictions of any kind. To claim, as a British senior embassy official has said in a letter to the Colombian army on August 11 2001, that Connolly might be a member of the IRA because he was travelling in the company of the other two men is a subjective comment which would not be accepted as evidence in any normal judicial process.

The men have described in a detailed public statement the reasons for their visit. They said they went to study and discuss the peace process with people in the FARC controlled zone. The prosecutor alleges that their explanation for their presence in the zone, made to the authorities soon after their arrest, lacks credibility.

However, he has not taken into account the fact that the men were advised by a state appointed lawyer before their interrogation took place not to admit that they had met with members of FARC during their three week stay in the zone. Arrested by the heavily armed and aggressive Colombian military engaged in a war against the FARC, and with an appalling human rights
record, the men decided on legal advice, not to reveal the identities of those they met during their visit to the zone.

It should also be noted that there is no evidence of any crime being committed by the men during their visit to the demilitarised zone. There is
much speculation in the statements made by witnesses, including the military officers that arrested the men illegally, their superior officers and in media reports that the men were involved in illegal activity, but no evidence.

The men were illegally confined to a military barracks on their arrest. They were humiliated and mistreated and then lodged in a jail where they became targets of attack from other prisoners. They were detained in conditions
which are in clear breach of international human rights conventions for several weeks. They remain in danger in the highly volatile Colombian prison
system.

They have admitted to using false travel documents.

No evidence has been presented to indicate that they have committed any other offence in Colombia.

The men are in danger. They cannot obtain a fair trial.