The Executive takes over two months to respond with "evasive, incomplete and so avoiding side the request for documents made "a part of the package of initiatives recorded by Gaspar Llamazares to clarify collaboration with the U.S. prosecutor on the murder of José Couso exposed by the U.S. ambassador to the cables sent to his country.
The government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has now responded, and two months later, part of the package of initiatives reported by the parliamentary speaker of IU, Gaspar Llamazares, to clarify the illegalities and irregularities Wikileaks uncovered by allegedly committed by members of the prosecution, including chief the Attorney General. These were reflected in the cables that the then U.S. ambassador Eduardo Aguirre referred to his Government regarding the killing of cameraman José Couso in Iraq by members of the U.S. Army
The answer to some of the questions and document requests made by Llamazares in December could not be more satisfactory. In two briefs filed in the Congressional Record on Feb. 8, the Executive avoids giving any information or documentation, and avoids answering evasively or does it just on the part of the documents referred to the dark actions of the Prosecutor in this case.
Gaspar Llamazares made Dec. 3 request for records and reports through two separate initiatives, relying on the Rules of the House. In one called "Copy of the documents or / and reports delivered by members of the Government and / or the Office of the U.S. Embassy in Madrid on 'Couso case', especially the copies of pages in judicial procedure."
The second called "Documents and / or resolutions submitted by the prosecution to the U.S. Embassy or U.S. authorities in relation to legal proceedings in the case of English cameraman Jose Couso, killed by U.S. tank fire in Baghdad. " Rep. extended its application in this case that of "the CIA flights with stopovers in English, and torture at Guantanamo."
addition, based on the cables that U.S. Ambassador Aguirre sent to his bosses in the U.S. and revealed Wikileaks, Llamazares requests all existing data on "number, participants, dates and locations of meetings held between Prosecutors of the National Court and representatives of the United States and issues addressed in them. "
Well, all these issues the Government merely to point in one of his writings that "in response to the request made by the Honourable under art. 7 of the Rules of Congress, the Ministry of Justice reports that it has not any document or report delivered to the United States Embassy in Madrid. "
The terse response from the Government avoids any mention of any possible documentation submitted to the same embassy for "members of the prosecution" as specified consciously recorded in the two initiatives. Also, avoid responding to the section referring to data on "number, participants, dates and locations of meetings held between Prosecutors of the National Court and U.S. representatives, and issues addressed in the same", to which is not engaged or a line.
This reply of the Government itself Llamazares concludes with information that nobody claimed him. Thus, in another paragraph that contains the answer, says that "in accordance with the provisions of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Spain (...), the Ministry of Justice has sent all the letters rogatory issued by the competent courts of the authority established for this purpose, namely the Department of Justice of the United States. " In an accompanying annex them.
Moreover, a third parliamentary initiative Llamazares also registered by December 3 and responded to now, the MP made the following UI issues with the Government based on the "excellent relations of cooperation between Attorney General and the Office of the United States, and frequent meetings to exchange information "
What has involved collaboration between the two prosecutors' offices to facilitate the performance of the English courts in 'Couso case'?
What has been so far the results of this collaboration?
Could both prosecutors intensify their cooperation to bring before the Audiencia Nacional in the three U.S. military claimed by the judge Pedraz as suspects in the murder of English cameraman José Couso by shots fired from a U.S. tank in Baghdad?
reasons why these three military has not yet appeared before the High Court?
The Government once again to devote two paragraphs in response to rid of the issue. The first says that "it is reported that the matter forms part of a judicial process not yet completed when the prosecutor exercises the functions entrusted to it by law, the autonomy and independence that would give the Constitution and have strengthened by Organic Law 24/2007, of October 9, reform of the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor. "
The second paragraph is almost a copy included in the joint response to the other two initiatives and merely states that "in accordance with the allocation of powers derived from the principle of separation of powers, Ministry of Justice has worked continuously since the first time with the Administration of Justice and, thus, from April 2004 until today, has handled three letters rogatory to the U.S., most recently on November 29 this year. " His own evidence content from when the answer was written before the end of 2010 - and the time that had held the Government to register in Congress on Feb. 8.
But that time has not been for the Executive Rodríguez Zapatero. January helped him to find allies in Congress, in this case the invaluable assistance of CiU, to reject that may appear before the House as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trinidad Jimenez, as the attorney general, Candido Conde Pumpido, to explain Wikileaks revelations concerning them.
the PSOE, also in conjunction with the conservative Catalan nationalists, who vetoed the House could vote on the constitution of a commission of inquiry into the data provided by Wikileaks in relation to the U.S. pressures on the government and the English Justice cases affecting their interests as' Couso case. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment