Former Guatemala
President Alfonso Portillo, now in U.S. custody, has been
charged with massive
money laundering and embezzlement while in office.
Can the conditions of his
imprisonment in New York be considered 'torture'?
U.S. is 'Torturing' Our Former President! (El Periodico,
Guatemala)
"Excessive cold can be, without doubt, a form of torture -
whether intentional, negligent or unintentionally imposed. ... I have learned
that a senior United Nations official was there to visit him - and good on them!
The official said much in his favor. He found the president living under
deplorable conditions, limited to only one hour of sunlight a day, and severe
torture ... he possesses just four books at a time to satisfy his intellectual
thirst! This is insufficient. Has he been convicted already?"
Happier days: Former Presidents George W. Bush and Alfonso Portillo at the White House in 2003. Portillo now awaits trial in a New York penetentiary on money laundering and embezzlement charges connected to his years in office from 2000-2004.
It
was with the deepest regret that I received news that the former president of
the constitutional republic, Alfonso Portillo, would be subjected to an
artificial environment that is extremely cold, a result of "acclimatizing"
air conditioning used by his jailers. It seems that this is technically
inevitable given the tiny room - or cell - to which he is confined, and which
is persistently cold despite his protestations.
[Editor's
Note: On August 26, 2011, the Guatemala Constitutional Court ruled that Portillo
must be extradited to the United States on embezzlement and money laundering
charges allegedly committed while he was president from 2000-2004. The first
former Guatemalan president to stand trial in the United States, he was
extradited on May 24, 2013. Among other
things, he is accused of laundering $70 million through U.S. banks and
embezzling $3.9 million from the Guatemalan Ministry of Defense in 2001.]
Excessive
cold can be, without doubt, a form of torture - whether intentional, negligent
or unintentionally imposed - and well worth the attention of the human rights
ombudsman, as ordered by the Constitutional Court. The ombudsman is supposed to
turn up, confirm the facts and prevent his human rights - a Guatemalan citizen
to who, in his time, we chose as president - from being continuously violated.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
I
recognize that this is easy for me to say, because the truth of the matter is, it
would be very difficult for the human rights ombudsman to meet the mandate of
the court in New York. Regardless of how important the Constitutional Court is,
it lacks jurisdiction in New York, as does the ombudsman.
I
have learned that a senior United Nations official was there to visit him - and
good on them! The official said much in his favor. He found the president
living under deplorable conditions, limited to only one hour of sunlight a day,
and severe torture ... he possesses just four books at a time to satisfy his
intellectual thirst! This is insufficient. Has he been convicted already?
Is
the former Guatemalan president serving a sentence in New York? Well, if not,
if his trial has not even been held, why is he being treated as if he were already
convicted? And in regard to the cold, which for him is real torture, this would
be improper even if he had been convicted.
U.S.
authorities said that the extradition of our former president was granted
subject to a number of guarantees that apparently have not been met, nor will
they be. What a pity!
I'm
no soothsayer, but I warned of this and time is proving me right.
Hopefully
we can demonstrate the opposite to Guatemalans: that orders from our court are
respected in New York, and that therefore, the Guatemalan human rights
ombudsman will be allowed to ensure that the detainee is treated with respect
and kept from any kind of torture, such as excessive cold. Furthermore, that
this judicial system, which operates outside his "diplomatic"
interests and political passions, treat our former leader with the dignity he
deserves, without unnecessary imprisonment (preventive detention should not be
used as punishment), and allow a trial, in due course, with complete
impartiality, consistent with the law.
