|
Judicial Persecutions
 |
March 25, 2006
Violent exposure protest (escrache) against Martínez de Hoz
Crónica Newspaper
March 25, 2006
Criminal report filed against Quebracho
Crónica Newspaper
March 25, 2006
Far-left militants of Quebracho group attacked the Kavanagh building- home of Martínez de Hoz
Crónica Newspaper
May 21, 2010
Martinez de Hoz – A trophy for the Bicentennial, and afterwards ...his death??
Clarín Newspaper
He is guilty of everything
May 4, 2010
Martínez de Hoz, detained and taken to a clinic
May 4, 2010
Martínez de Hoz, detained and taken to a clinic
July 15, 1988
Freedom for "Joe"
Crónica Newspaper
September 1984
Now Joe
La Voz Newspaper
November 18, 1984
Martínez de Hoz was released from prison
La Nación Newspaper
November 11, 2000
Foreign Debt Lawsuit forwarded to Congress
La Nación Newspaper
May 18, 1988
Austral Case
La Nación Newspaper
June 12, 1980
Martínez de Hoz is guilty of everything
Journal: Revista Gente
February 25, 1983
Punishment or scapegoat?
Journal: Revista Somos
September 21, 1990
Italo case: Acquittal and dismissal with prejudice
La Prensa Newspaper
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz was, undoubtedly, the most investigated person in Argentine history. No other citizen –whether public official, businessman, military or otherwise- was scrutinized as he was in relation to his assets, performance in office and private life, to an extent such that more than 12 criminal cases were initiated against him after he finished his term as Minister of Economy in 1981. However, in none of those cases was Martinez de Hoz accused of dishonesty or personal enrichment. In reality judicial courts were used to channel–by way of criminal actions- what actually amounted to objections to the economic policy or government decisions or to what he represented in political terms.
Between 1982 and 1986, a profuse investigation was conducted over an alleged “mismanagement” of YPF (the state oil company), in a proceeding where anything that “smelled of oil” –in the words of the prosecutor- was included. In December 1982 the federal judge hearing the case issued -for publicity-seeking purposes- an order of indictment against Martinez de Hoz;, forty-eight hours later the judge presented his resignation and travelled abroad. Mr. Martínez de Hoz was also investigated in relation to the external debt. In the Austral Líneas Aéreas case, an objection was raised against the former Minister in relation to the airline’s nationalization –which had been ordered to avoid its imminent bankruptcy and to guarantee the continuity of its services with a view to its future privatization. In all these cases Martínez de Hoz was acquitted by judges designated during democratic times.
Simultaneously, the case of Compañía Ítalo Argentina de Electricidad (which “Argentinization” had been announced by President Isabel Martínez de Perón in 1975 and the transfer to the State completed during the military administration) acquired special notoriety due to the publicized intervention of the Investigation Committee of the House of Representatives (1984/85) before which Martínez de Hoz testified twice for 12 hours. Though upon taking office Minister Martínez de Hoz excused himself from participating in the negotiations related to the transfer of “Italo” to the State (excusation that was accepted and was complied with), and of having evidenced his innocence –before the referred Investigation Committee- he was incarcerated for a short period in relation to this case and a criminal action was brought against him; . Martínez de Hoz was also acquitted in this case several years later.
Additionally, the expert opinions evidenced that the price paid by the State had been reasonable.
The political propaganda, but particularly the one launched by the Kirchners’ Administration, could not stand the fact that Martínez de Hoz had proved innocent as to all charges, whilst complaints were being filed against such Administration’s own officers. Thus, amidst pressures exerted on the judiciary, Martinez de Hoz’s long-standing political enemies (particularly those who in the 70s –acting through ERP and Montoneros terrorist organizations- had attempted to kill him on several occasions) now in Government and others, who joined them for ideological sympathy, brought a series of accusations that constitute a collection of legal atrocities.
Moreover, after 2006 some cases which had already been closed after Martínez de Hoz was exonerated, were re-opened, in violation of the most basic constitutional guarantees.
Many judicial aberrations were committed in the name of an alleged defense of human rights, just for the sake of violating Martinez de Hoz’s human rights. Paradoxically, the new wave of persecutions was conducted by judges who had proclaimed an absolute respect for the rule of law, but that, in order to please the government, trampled over all what they had previously written, thus violating the laws and the Constitution.
As explained, during the 80’s Martínez de Hoz has been subject to more than a dozen criminal investigations. He never left Argentina or refused to provide explanations. All those criminal proceedings against Martinez de Hoz were dismissed with prejudice or acquitted after long years of extensive investigation. Since no single indicia of dishonesty could be found in Martínez de Hoz, the Kirchners’ Administration sought to involve him in “crimes against humanity”, in spite of the fact that the former Minister of Economy had no relation whatsoever with the –lawful or unlawful- counter-insurrection measures adopted from 1976 to 1983. Accusing Martínez de Hoz of crimes against humanity was a means to avoid the fact that the new accusations were time barred, and to imprison him. Accordingly, old court files, that were long ago closed, were dusted off and used, without a shred of new evidence, to accuse Martínez de Hoz in cases which had been adjudicated 25 years ago by courts existing at the time of democracy and that had decided that Martínez de Hoz was completely unrelated to the events investigated in such cases.
The absurdity went as far as accusing Martínez de Hoz of crimes against humanity for events occurred prior to his term in office. An example of this is the Acindar case in which Martínez de Hoz was charged of having conspired in 1975 with the government of Isabel Martínez de Perón to imprison union activists in Villa Constitución (this is the location of the plant of Acindar, a company of which Martínez de Hoz was president before taking office as Ministry of Economy in 1976). This, in spite of the obvious fact that Martínez de Hoz never had, at any time, authority over police, military or security forces, and moreover held no public office whatsoever at that time (1975), nor had any kind of relationship with the former government.
Additionally, a short chronology evidences that the cases against Martínez de Hoz were activated each time the Kirchners’ administrations were facing special political situations, either in times of euphoria or in times of adversity. Some of the cases that were taken as an excuse to persecute the former Minister, were:
Gutheim, Casariego de Bel and Saiegh.
Top
|
|
A gross violation of the human rights (of Martínez de Hoz) in the name of human rights:
In 1988, in times of democracy, a Federal Appellate Court concluded that Martínez de Hoz was unrelated to the events investigated in the case. Nearly 22 years later, in May 2010, without a shred of new evidence or element of any kind, except for the express pressure of the Kirchners,
Judge Oyarbide issued a preventive detention order against Martínez de Hoz, re-interpreting exactly the same facts and evidence
that more than two decades ago had led the Federal Appellate Court to exonerate the former minister. Thus, among other guarantees, the prohibition against double jeopardy was violated.
The accusation and the first stage (1985-1988)
In 1985, Martínez de Hoz was accused of having participated in the detention of Federico and Miguel Gutheim, textile businessmen who had been arrested and placed at the disposal of the Federal Executive Branch in November 1976 and released five months later.
The accusation alleged that the detention was made to force the Gutheims to relinquish certain cotton exports quotas in favor of a company, Dreyfus, under the pretext that they had defaulted on a cotton export contract to Hong Kong.
The first instance of the case was heard between 1985 and 1988. In May 1988, Federal Judge Irurzun issued a preventive arrest order and incarcerated Martínez de Hoz during 90-days, until the
Federal Appellate Court
reversed such preventive detention order and concluded that Martinez de Hoz was unrelated to the events.
The Appellate Court held at that time:
“In sum, up to date, there is no sufficient circumstantial evidence showing that Martínez de Hoz would have ordered, requested or suggested the detention of the Gutheims. The scarce presumptions appear as mere conjectures and they are challenged by other presumptions that unrelate him to such measures.
Moreover there is no circumstantial evidence showing that Martinez de Hoz would have participated in any manner of the purpose of making them [the Gutheims]pay, deliver any monetary amounts or cause them to sign any document involving monetary amounts against their will during their detention. The mere presence of a representative of the Ministry of Economy at the interviews does not allow supporting such fact, since it cannot be denied that such ministry is unrelated to issues involving the deprivation of liberty, and that given that doubts exist, it can be accepted that upon the consummated fact, Martínez de Hoz simply sent a representative for the sole purposes he explains in his interrogatory.
Federico Gutheim himself stated that he required that such a representative be present at the meeting and that the notarial minutes corroborate the limited role played by such representative.
Such attitude is far from being, and particularly is essentially different from being, the attitude of those who ordered the detentions, who kept them after the foreigners arrived to Argentina and decided upon the transfers for the agreements in such conditions.” (See page 35 of Your Honor’s decision dated July 14, 1988) (Emphasis added).
The judgment of the Federal Appellate Court of July 1988 concluded that:
- Martínez de Hoz neither signed the presidential executive order that ordered the Gutheims’ arrest nor participated in such decision.
- The accusation that the detention of the Gutheims was related to the transfer of cotton export quotas to Dreyfus was false: Dreyfus had discontinued selling cotton long before 1976. Additionally the accusation was baseless because the Minister of Economy himself had lifted the bans on cotton exports at that time.
- There was no evidence showing that Martínez de Hoz participated in the decision of detaining the Gutheims. Although Martínez de Hoz became aware, during a trip to China of the fact that the Gutheims’ default had caused problems in Hong Kong, evidence confirms that such information was transmitted to the government through the Argentine consul in Hong Kong through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Appellate Court held:
Certainly the Argentine consulate in Hong Kong had an active participation in the events, which is obviously subject to the control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cult (see testimony of Di Fiori – page 568- and the declaration of Pazos – page557-).
The Hong Kong firms would have acted through the Argentine Consulate.” (Emphasis added).
- As to the accusation that during their detention the Gutheims were forced to negotiate with the Hong Kong delegation who travelled to Buenos Aires, it was evidenced that the presence of the Secretary of Foreign Trade´s officers was requested by the Gutheims; that such officers abstained from intervening and that they simply guaranteed that no pressures were exerted on the Gutheims; that the Gutheims chose the venue for the meeting (their offices); and that they were accompanied by their lawyer and a notary public who testified in the case narrating what had actually happened at the meeting and confirmed the lack of pressures. Actually, the Gutheims failed to reach an agreement with the Hong Kong delegation who visited Buenos Aires. The Federal Appellate Court concluded that:
“It is also noticed that all the meetings held by the Gutheims with the members of the delegation were attended also by “senior officials of the Ministry of Economy”, namely: Pazos (Under-secretary) and Vega (Pazo’s representative). On this matter we find it useful to refer again to the actual roles and practices of the Secretariat of Commerce as to its participation and intervention in this type of transactions for the referred purpose; and particularly bearing in mind the significance and the repercussions that the case would have for international trade (in this case in relation to Far East and Continental China). Additionally, if we take into account that in this case, due to the fact that the Gutheims were imprisoned, the Ministry of Economy’s participation became necessary in order to allow for the negotiations to be conducted,
the intervention of such officers does not come as a surprise, bearing in mind that their only role was to urge the parties to reach an agreement and “call the meeting to order” without participating in the negotiations proper, and leaving the meeting thereafter.
Only Vega remained -as reflected in Minutes No. 4- at Gutheim’s request
(See Minutes No. 4) “On this matter we highlight the declaration rendered by Fraguío on page 207 –who later expressed his concerns that the
Gutheims would not suffer any kind of pressure at the negotiations they would hold, he said he had told Pazos to keep an eye and watch that “the Gutheims were not pressed in any manner, and that they would feel free to negotiate”. On page 697 Federico Gutheim testified that at the meetings a public officer was present, in response to the witness’s own request, as well as his lawyer, a notary public of his choice and a translator.
According to minutes No. 3 and the declarations of the Notary Public Oks (page21/22), the participation of the officers was restricted to making the meeting possible and to invite the parties to a reconciliation “without bringing any lawsuit”. This is consistent with Pazos’s words in his depositions (page 557). According to minutes Nos. 1, 2 and 3 the officers left the meeting once upon commencement of the negotiations.
The gratitude expressed and recorded in the minutes No. 3 by Gutheim to the Government for allowing the negotiations to be carried out, should be taken in special account, given its significance”(Emphasis added)
The second stage (1988-1989)
With the Federal Appellate Court’s categorical judgment, the acting judge should have immediately acquitted Martínez de Hoz and closed the case with prejudice (sobreseimiento). However, the judge prolonged the investigation with negative results: no new fact or evidence appeared that would modify the conclusions of the
Federal Appellate Court.
In 1989, the Alfonsín Administration’s term ended and a new Administration, President Menem, took office. In 1990, Menem decided to grant a presidential pardon to the military leaders accused of human rights violations, as well as the members of terrorist groups, ERP and Montoneros. Given that former President Videla and former Home Minister, Harguindeguy, were also accused in the Gutheim case, and that their detention had not been reversed by the Federal Appellate Court, in July 1988 President Menem issued a Presidential Pardon that covered all the accused, including Martínez de Hoz. Martínez de Hoz wrote a note and a letter to the newspapers complaining about such presidential pardon, stating that he did not need such pardon because the Federal Appellate Court’s judgment had been categorical in that he had been declared “unrelated” to the events. However, a presidential pardon cannot be refused and therefore the case was closed.
The third stage (2006 onwards)
On March 24, 2006, in a speech delivered in Congress on occasion of the 30th anniversary of the March 24, 1976 coup d’etat, President Nestor Kirchner called for Martínez de Hoz’s imprisonment. Some hours later, demonstrators attacked Martinez de Hoz’s home with the police doing nothing to prevent it. A few days later, Judge Oyarbide re-opened the case, and shortly thereafter annulled the presidential pardon. To avoid the fact that the criminal action was barred by the statute of limitations, given that 30 years had elapsed since the occurrence of the events and 18 since the exonerating judgment of the Federal Appellate Court of 1988, Judge
Oyarbide characterized the case as a crime against humanity
, not subject to the limitations period. This, in spite of the fact that the Gutheims had neither disappeared nor were tortured or subjected to ill-treatment. Additionally, although the reasonability of their arrest was a questionable, a “detention at the disposal of the Executive Branch” was a mechanism contemplated by the Argentine Constitution, even before the military government, that was used even by democratic governments, such as the Alfonsín Administration.
The Federal Appellate Court (with different members) and the Supreme Court confirmed the annulment of the presidential pardon that had been granted to Martínez de Hoz.
In any case, the proper course of action would have been to rewind the judicial case to the procedural steps taken at the stage immediately prior to the granting of the presidential pardon.
Given that the 1988 Federal Appellate Court’s judgment,
was final and non-appellable, what should have been done, at the most, was to conduct a further investigation to determine whether new facts evidencing Martinez de Hoz’s culpability had appeared. Instead of this, only five days after the receipt of the case file forwarded from the Supreme Court (after upholding the presidential pardon’s annulment), on May 4, 2010,
Judge Oyarbide lacking any new element or evidence, and simply on the basis of re-interpreting the same facts
and evidence already existing in the court file that had previously led to conclude that Martínez de Hoz was “unrelated” to the events, ordered his effective preventive detention by arbitrarily re-characterizing the case as a crime against humanity.
Martínez de Hoz, at that time aged 84, was plucked from his home that same day on a stretcher and in an ambulance, in spite of the fact that he was seriously ill, in the context of an orchestrated media operation. Given his condition, he was hospitalized in a clinic. But less than twenty days later, on May 20, 2010, Judge Oyarbide ordered that Martinez de Hoz be transferred from the clinic where he was hospitalized to a prison unit in Ezeiza, disregarding the law that entitles people above 70 years to the benefit for home detention, and acting against the express indications of the medical doctors in the eve of a surgery,, for the sole purposes of exhibiting Martinez de Hoz’s incarceration as a “trophy” for the Bicentennial Anniversary (May 25, 2010). An habeas corpus remedy was filed, and in view of the seriousness of his health condition, the habeas corpus judge ordered, on May 21, 2010, the immediate restitution of Martinez de Hoz to the clinic. Some days earlier, Oyarbide had refused to visit Martínez de Hoz at the clinic to check his delicate health condition.
In July 2010, Martínez de Hoz was released from the clinic and transferred to his home, where he remained under arrest until his death on March 15, 2013.
In the meantime, in spite of having been detained for more than the 2 years statutory period, and of the fact that he was no flight risk, (given his age, health condition and track record)his release was denied.
An accumulation of so many arbitrarities and cruelty is unheard, aggravated by the public comments of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Minister of Justice Alak complaining that Martinez de Hoz’s was arrested at his home.
Complaint filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
As a consequence of the above situation, on December 19, 2012 a complaint was filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights identified under No. P 2319-12. This complaint reported the gross violation of fundamental rights embodied in the American Convention on Human Rights due to the fact that Martinez de Hoz’s preventive detention ordered in May 2010:
- Violated the guarantee against double jeopardy and double criminal prosecution (Article 8.4)
- Violated due defense rights since the same events have been re-categorized retroactively as crimes against humanity in a forced manner, for the sole purpose of avoiding the statute of limitations (Article 8.2 (b) and (c))
- Prolongation of the detention for a period in excess of a reasonable one, within an exorbitantly lengthy legal process –more than 28 years- (Article 8.1)
- Malice and cruelty (Article 5.2).
|
|
Another fable against Martínez de Hoz:
In 2008, the Secretary of Human Rights Luis Eduardo Duhalde accused Martínez de Hoz of the disappearance of Juan Casariego de Bel, an official of the Ministry of Economy who was kidnapped in November 1976. The motive alleged in the accusation was that Casariego de Bel would have objected to the transfer of the company Italo Argentino de Electricidad to the State
See Italo Case
However, it has been proved that:
- The Ministry of Economy did not participate in the negotiations related to the transfer of such company to the State because, upon taking office, Martínez de Hoz had expressly excused himself from participating in such matter.
- At the time of Casariego de Bel’s kidnapping, no specific proposal existed as regards such transfer; therefore there was nothing to issue an opinion on.
- Martínez de Hoz neither knew nor had relation of any kind with Casariego de Bel.
- Martínez de Hoz was acquitted and the “Italo” case was dismissed with prejudice (sobreseído definitivamente).
- The proceedings in another judicial case showed that Casariego de Bel was apprehended by members of the Intelligence Batallion 601 because a member of the terrorist group ERP-PRT reported that Casariego de Bel was an informant of such terrorist group. (Case 8786/00)
In fact, one of the members of such Batallion, Héctor P. Vergez, was found guilty for the kidnapping of Casariego Bel on February 13, 2013.
Thus, there is no relation whatsoever between the kidnapping of Juan Casariego de Bel and the “Italo” case or Martínez de Hoz.
|
|
The use of human rights to back economic claims against the State:
By twisting the events, Eduardo Saiegh seeks to victimize himself to collect a millionaire claim against the State with the aid of the former Secretary of Human Rights, Luis Eduardo Duhalde.
In February 2009, Eduardo Ezra Saiegh, filed a complaint against Martínez de Hoz and Alejandro Reynal, former Vice-President of the Argentine Central Bank during Martínez de Hoz’s term in office. Prior to the commencement of the criminal complaint, Eduardo Saiegh had lost his case seeking to recover an amount of US$ 50 million from the Federal State by attaching liability upon the Central Bank for the liquidation of Banco Latinoamericano in 1980. Resolution No. 477 of the Ministry of Economy of October 8, 2008 (later ratified by Decree No. 757/10 signed by President Fernández de Kirchner) denied his claim.
Mr. Saiegh tries a new tactic: he now contends, 30 years later, that in November 1980 he was kidnapped and tortured by para-police forces for being “a Jew and a Peronist” and that Martínez de Hoz and Reynal were the instigators. Amazingly, the Secretary of Human Rights, Luis Eduardo Duhalde, legally supported this adventure seeking to collect a compensation against the State, in spite of the decisions issued in 2008 and 2010 by the Ministry of Economy itself and the President, respectively denying Saiegh’s claims.
To open the new case and avoid the fact that the criminal action was time barred, the trick was, again, to characterize the case as a crime against humanity.
However, the evidence contained in the long-existing case unveils Saiegh´s sham:
- Saiegh was not detained by para-police forces, but by the Federal Police Banking Division upon the order of a judge in the context of a criminal fraud action (case 9530/81).
- He did not disappear, but was arrested by the Federal Police Department Banking Division at the offices of Banco de la Nación Argentina (case 9530/81).
- Saiegh was not tortured, as it stems from the declarations in the court file and from the fact that he appeared in person before the Secretary of the acting Court, Osvaldo Gerome (cases 8984/81 y 9530/81).
- His release from custody was ordered by the acting judge as reflected in the referred cases, currently archived in the Federal Court No. 2, Clerkship No. 3, Archive No. 13.291/81.
- As Saiegh acknowledges in his court declaration upon ratifying the filing of charges, against Martínez de Hoz, this was the first time in 30 years (since 1983, when Argentina returned to democracy) that he reported these allegations of illegal detention and torture.
- Incredibly enough, upon being asked by the judge about the evidence that Saigeh had of the plan purportedly devised by Martínez de Hoz and Reynal to deprive Saigeh of his freedom, Saigeh stated that such evidence arose from the friendship of Martínez de Hoz with Gral. Harguindeguy since they hunted together, and that allegedly a friend of . Harguindeguy had benefited from Saigeh´s detention, because as a result a commercial transaction that Saiegh wished to make before his detention, had been frustrated. No specific evidence was mentioned.
- Saiegh also alleges that he was detained in order to allow for the nationalization of Austral Líneas Aéreas (see Austral case) since, he alleges, the shares of Austral were deposited in guarantee at Banco Latinoamericano.
However, the accusation is completely baseless because:
- The nationalization of Austral took place in September 1980, that is to say, more than one month and a half before Saiegh’s detention.
- Banco Latinoamericano was not a shareholder in Austral; and
- Even assuming the existence of such share deposit in guarantee, the physical location of the shares of Austral did not prevent, in any manner, the transfer of Austral to the State, as agreed by the shareholders.
This case was heard by Federal Judge Rafecas, but was removed from this court in 2011 and the case was forwarded to Judge Oyarbide. The case was recently moved to another federal judge (Servini de Cubria)
|
|
Gutheim
