A woman walks by a memorial in front of the AMIA Jewish community centre.
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
If the truth is revealed, it will either lead to impeachment or the uncovering of a nefarious plot
Federal Prosecutor Gerardo Pollicita almost completely endorsed the writ filed by his late colleague Alberto Nisman. In his accusation filed on Friday, Pollicita only omitted the request to question President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and other officials, a step that could be taken later if the case remains open.
The complaint issued by a prosecutor critical of the Fernández de Kirchner administration is understandable and healthy for democracy, even if it displeases many Kirchnerites. On January 14, the AMIA special prosecutor Nisman accused the president, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman and others of covering-up the alleged role of five Iranians in the terrorist attack that took place in 1994.
Four days later, Nisman was found dead in his Puerto Madero home, under circumstances that are yet to be clarified. Accordingly, the accusation against the president, based on bold assumptions, no longer has its main advocate to defend it and to find conclusive evidence. In short, to take responsibility for the complaint filed by Nisman that, if found to be true, could lead to an impeachment. On the other hand, if it is shown to be false, it would necessarily lead to an investigation into a political plot against the president. Both alternatives would speak about the health of our democracy.
The impetus given to the case by Pollicita, without sacrificing any of Nisman’s central arguments, brings the case back to square one. The clock is now ticking for federal Judge Daniel Rafecas to assess whether the complaint was based on serious suspicions or if it is nonsense, or simply a small case with minor consequences. Meanwhile Pollicita is obliged to justify the following allegations:
• The complaint is based on the assumption that the death of former President Nestor Kirchner released CFK and Timerman from any veto to negotiate with Iran. Nisman reported a “radical change” in foreign policy following Kirchner’s heart attack. However, the president proposed on September 24, 2010, before the UN General Assembly, to negotiate with Tehran a “neutral” third country to carry out the AMIA trial. CFK’s speech, citing the UK-Libya agreement in Lockerbie case, took place a month before the sudden death of her husband.
• The core of the Nisman — and now Pollicita — allegation is that the government would grant impunity to the five Iranians who had arrest warrants requested by Interpol, in exchange for trade agreements with Tehran. The lifting of the famous “red notices” was not included in the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2013, but the complaint considers it was a step toward impunity. As a matter of fact, that had to be requested by the federal judge who had asked Interpol for the arrest warrants, Rodolfo Canicoba Corral. Beyond speculations and legal interpretations, Foreign Minister Timerman showed documents allegedly proving that he had made clear that the agreement did not provide the cancellation of the “red notices.” There is, however, even more compelling evidence that will force Pollicita to maximize his efforts to prove the hypothesis. Former General Secretary of Interpol from 2000 to 2014, US citizen Ronald Noble, said to Argentine daily Página12: “What prosecutor Nisman says is false. No member of the Argentine government ever tried to lift the red notices against the Iranian officials.”
• The explanation of granting impunity to increase trade (“oil for grain” according to Nisman) also fails on this point. Argentina did not buy Iranian oil nor did it sell more grain than it did in 2008. Those who support Nisman’s arguments say that the increase in commerce did not become a reality because the Memorandum of Understanding was never implemented.
• Nisman’s allegations rely heavily on wiretaps on the mobile phone of the alleged Iranian lobbyist Jorge “Yussuf” Khalil. One of his main partners is the former official and Kirchnerite activist Luis D’Elia. Both promised benefits and spoke about themselves as representatives of the two governments. They said they achieved results, but sometimes, according to the wiretaps, they were exposed as frustrated commentators. In fact, their talks did not come to fruition. Pollicita considered there is “almost unanimous jurisprudence” that the crime of covering-up doesn’t require achieving the goal. The intention to cover up is a crime in and of itself, the prosecutor said. Beyond that point, Pollicita must prove before Rafecas that this rogue diplomacy composed of D’Elia, Khalil, activist Fernando Esteche, former judge Héctor Yrimia and the alleged spy Allan Bogado were true representatives of the government and wielded the influence that they claimed to have.
The above are some of the key points that the complaint should prove if the judicial system works as it should and with relative normality, which cannot be taken for granted in today’s Argentina. If Pollicita manages to overcome the apparent weaknesses of Nisman’s complaint, then he has a case.
@sebalacunza