[Ppnews] Government interfered to impose agreement on Vicky Peláez

[Political Prisoner News]

U.S. government interfered to impose agreement on Vicky Peláez

Posted: 11 Jul 2010 03:57 PM PDT

“The agreement was imposed on Vicky Peláez,” says 
her attorney - 
<http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2010/07/10/el-acuerdo-le-fue-impuesto-a-vicky-pelaez-afirma-su-abogado/>español
http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2010/07/10/el-acuerdo-le-fue-impuesto-a-vicky-pelaez-afirma-su-abogado/

BBC Mundo

Translation: Machetera

Carlos Moreno, lawyer for the Peruvian journalist 
Vicky Peláez, said that the accord by which his 
client confessed to being a spy for Russia was 
“imposed” by Washington and Moscow and “has 
nothing to do with the evidence” available to the prosecution.

Shortly after the end of the court hearing 
against the ten people accused of making up a 
network of Russian spies, in which the group’s 
expulsion was decided, Moreno told BBC Mundo that 
his client had no other option but to accept.

Moreno guesses that the expulsion to Russian will 
be hardest for Peláez, since she’s the only one 
in the group who is not a Russian citizen and she 
must leave her journalistic career behind, 
something that according to the attorney created 
“an environment of political persecution” against his client.

Is the defense satisfied with the resolution of the case?

The resolution of this case has nothing to do 
with the evidence, but with an agreement imposed 
on the prosecutor, the defense attorneys, and 
even the Southern District Court by the United 
States.  It is an agreement between the U.S. 
government and the Russian Federation.

You say that the executive branch interfered with the judicial process?

That’s my interpretation, because when there’s a 
negotiation process between the prosecution and 
the defense attorneys, the process involves just 
those two parties; there’s no third or fourth 
participant.  In this case, there was a third 
participant: the U.S. government, not represented 
by the prosecution but rather, by the executive 
branch.  And there were also representatives from the Russian Federation.

That’s why it would be erroneous to conclude that 
the declaration of guilty by these people 
corresponds to the weight or the quality or the 
strength of the evidence presented against them, 
because it’s not like that.  I’m not saying that 
there’d been no infraction of the law by the 
accused, including Vicky Peláez.  But I believe 
that it is an imposed agreement that did not take 
into consideration the differences between the accused, for example.

If that’s the case, why didn’t [the defense team] 
insist on Vicky Peláez’s innocence as you’d been maintaining?

Our work as attorneys for Vicky Peláez is to 
ensure her rights are respected and in this 
sense, try to achieve the least complicated 
resolution for her.  We considered that among the 
possibilities, the chances of her emerging 
innocent were minimal, because in the political 
mental state that exists in the U.S., even 
without resounding proof against Vicky Peláez or 
Juan Lázaro, I believe they would have been found guilty.

But couldn’t you prove innocence?

Definitely not.  In the United States we have a 
jury system.  The guilt or innocence of Vicky 
Peláez would be determined by a jury.  The 
problem is that the current environment in the 
U.S. is of such a magnitude that if you were to 
accuse the Pope of being an agent of a foreign 
government, the Pope would be found guilty, 
independent of whether there was any evidence 
whatsoever.  When we spoke with Vicky Peláez, we 
analyzed these factors and the joint conclusion, 
by her and the other two attorneys who worked 
with me on the defense, was that under such a 
situation, an accusation of this nature would be 
very difficult, if not impossible to overcome.

So this would be the best solution for Peláez?

Unfortunately, yes.  But understand that of all 
the accused she was the one who had the most to 
lose.  All of the accused, except for Vicky 
Peláez, are Russians who are returning to their 
country.  But Peláez has a journalistic career 
spanning more than 20 years.  All that ended 
today.  She will now have to start from zero 
wherever she ends up living, whether in Peru or any other country.

How difficult was it then to get her to accept the agreement?

The conclusion that we reached with her is that 
even if the attorney were not to present any 
evidence at all, Peláez would have been found 
guilty.  Because this is basically a kind of 
political persecution, but not in the sense that 
there’s a government acting to persecute 
one.  There’s a political persecution that 
happens by osmosis because the jury, made up of 
ordinary people, is under hypnosis.  If the 
government says that a car is a television, then 
a car is a television. (
) In cases with 
political nuances, such as that of Vicky Peláez, 
the operative assumption is that of guilt, 
contrary to what the Constitution says.

These political nuances would arise because of 
her columns for El Diario-La Prensa that were critical of the government?

I don’t have the least doubt.  With her political 
position and with the criticism she directed 
toward U.S. foreign policy in many cases.

But she’s not the only journalist who questions 
the U.S. government.  There are journalists with 
larger audiences who are very hard on the 
government and have not had to go through legal 
proceedings for that, like the documentary 
filmmaker Michael Moore, or the filmmaker Oliver Stone.

One thing that separates these people from Vicky 
Peláez is that they are all native U.S. 
citizens.  The other is that none of them 
question the government in the way she 
does.  Moore’s and Stone’s criticisms are not as 
profound as those made by Vicky Peláez.

Vicky Peláez has U.S. citizenship and would have 
the same rights as any other citizen.

Of course, but in terms of perception, if you are 
accused of a crime, as a Latino, even with U.S. 
citizenship, that carries weight.

What will happen with Vicky Peláez’s U.S. citizenship now?

Her citizenship is revoked.  She leaves as a deportee, as someone expelled.

And her family, will they leave New York for Russia with her?

That is a decision that they will have to 
make.  It’s still not clear whether her children 
are going to remain in the U.S. or if they will go with her.

The agreement that was reached is 
unappealable?  Could Peláez return to the U.S.?

There’s a paragraph in the agreement that says 
that she may not return to the U.S. unless she 
has the authorization of the Attorney 
General.  There is no open and complete prohibition.

Did you accept this agreement while presenting any kind of protest?

We understood that it was the best alternative, 
so there was no possibility to protest.  You 
can’t say: “I declare myself guilty, but under 
protest.”  Under the U.S. system such a possibility does not exist.

Machetera is a member of 
<http://www.tlaxcala.es/>Tlaxcala, the 
international network of translators for 
linguistic diversity. This translation may be 
reprinted as long as the content remains 
unaltered, and the source and translator are cited.



Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100712/b3381a31/attachment.html>