Movimiento 2D / Democracia y Libertad • Caracas, mayo 17, 2009
Preguntas al Canciller de la República Federativa de Brasil
¿Puede ingresar a Mercosur un Gobierno que elimina la propiedad privada y estatiza la economía? Si Mercosur es el mejor ejemplo del reconocimiento de los sectores privados y de las organizaciones de trabajadores y de la plena libertad sindical, ¿garantizaría el ingreso de Venezuela que en nuestro país regirán esos mismos principios?
En los países de Mercosur se respeta la libertad de expresión. En Venezuela se persigue y se condena a muerte a los medios de comunicación. Nadie puede ser indiferente ante esta dramática situación.
Con respeto y consideración, porque reconocemos en él a uno de los cancilleres más influyentes del hemisferio, factor relevante en la consolidación de la democracia pluralista y del gran desarrollo económico de Brasil, hemos juzgado pertinente elevar hasta el canciller Celso Amorim, algunas consideraciones vinculadas con el ingreso de Venezuela al Mercado Común del Sur.
Dado que el canciller ha abogado por la ratificación por parte del Senado de Brasil de la adhesión de Venezuela, estas reflexiones tienen plena justificación y pertinencia..
Conviene dejar claramente asentado, como expresión de principios, que nada nos complacería tanto como pertenecer a un organismo integrado por países democráticos como Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay y Uruguay, y que procura el desarrollo económico y la equidad social. No obstante, vemos con gran preocupación, cómo las políticas del Gobierno venezolano se alejan del espíritu y de la letra del Tratado de Asunción de 1991.
Otra cuestión debemos puntualizar: no nos mueve la pretensión de estorbar el proceso de adhesión venezolana. Sin embargo, juzgamos necesario que las condiciones económicas y políticas de nuestro país sean compatibles con los principios del Tratado y de sus protocolos, y que los negociadores no pasen por alto la realidad que vive Venezuela.
Veamos. El 4 de julio del año 2006, la República Bolivariana de Venezuela suscribió su adhesión al Tratado de Asunción y a sus protocolos. La ratificación de los órganos legislativos fue aprobada por los Congresos de Argentina y Uruguay. Tres años después están pendientes las de Paraguay y Brasil. Durante este periodo, los cambios políticos y económicos en Venezuela han estado signados por el radicalismo.Esto no puede pasar inadvertido. El Estado ha monopolizado la economía, y sus tendencias se acentúan con los días, hasta el extremo de que el sector privado está sentenciado a la desaparición. Baste anotar que el otorgamiento de divisas es potestad exclusiva y personal del jefe del Estado, y que la propiedad de los medios de producción tiende a desaparecer.
Una lectura del Tratado de Asunción permite pensar que el tipo de sociedad que allí se consagra no es la que se ha establecido en Venezuela. Como está consagrado, el Mercado Común implica “la coordinación de políticas macroeconómicas y sectoriales entre los Estados Partes: de comercio exterior, agrícola, industrial, fiscal, monetaria, cambiaria y de capitales, de servicios, aduanera, de transportes y comunicaciones y otras que se acuerden, a fin de asegurar condiciones adecuadas de competencia entre los Estados Partes.
El compromiso de los Estados Partes de armonizar sus legislaciones en las áreas pertinentes, para lograr el fortalecimiento del proceso de integración”.
¿Cómo pueden ser compatibles estos objetivos de desarrollo con una economía rígidamente estatizada? ¿Cómo puede haber integración sin producción?
¿Cómo puede haber desarrollo en un país sometido a las regulaciones más arbitrarias, donde innumerables industrias han sido obligadas a mudarse a otros países porque les fue imposible operar en Venezuela?
¿Cómo puede hablarse de “la libre circulación de bienes, servicios y factores productivos entre los países”, tal se asienta en el Tratado de Asunción, si todo depende del Presidente de la República?
Es necesario que el canciller Amorim se detenga en la confrontación de un documento sustancial como la Declaración Laboral de Mercosur con lo que sucede en Venezuela con las organizaciones sindicales.
Es una declaración que testimonia el avance de las democracias de los Estados Parte. Allí se reconocen y se exaltan los derechos de los trabajadores y los instrumentos internacionales que los han ido consolidando, desde la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos y las declaraciones de la OIT hasta la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos sobre Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales. Allí se garantiza la más absoluta libertad sindical, sin discriminaciones de ningún género.
Todo lo que en Venezuela se vulnera. Consideramos de urgencia que los trabajadores de Mercosur conozcan la realidad venezolana. Si de alguno de los instrumentos de Mercosur está alejada Venezuela es de esta Declaración Laboral. No hay libertad sindical en Venezuela. Las organizaciones de los trabajadores están sometidas a la persecución y al asedio gubernamental. 445 líderes sindicales han sido asesinados en los últimos diez años. Los informes de la OIT deben ser consultados.
Estas consideraciones pueden juzgarse preliminares para abordar el Protocolo de Ushuaia o Protocolo democrático de Mercosur. El artículo 1º del instrumento reza de esta manera: “La plena vigencia de las instituciones democráticas es condición esencial para el desarrollo de los procesos de integración entre los Estados Partes del presente Protocolo”.
Pregunta final: ¿Tienen plena vigencia las instituciones democráticas en Venezuela? ¿Son independientes los poderes del Estado en Venezuela? ¿Puede ser democrático un Gobierno que persigue a los medios de comunicación y coarta sistemáticamente la libertad de expresión?
Si el ingreso de Venezuela a Mercosur significa el retorno de Venezuela al Estado de Derecho, a la vigencia de la Constitución, a la compatibilidad con el Tratado de Asunción y con sus protocolos, incluida la Declaración Laboral, respaldaremos las gestiones del canciller Celso Amorím ante el Senado de la República Federativa de Brasil.
Preguntas al Canciller de la República Federativa de Brasil:
¿Puede ingresar a Mercosur un Gobierno que elimina la propiedad privada y estatiza la economía?
Si Mercosur es el mejor ejemplo del reconocimiento de los sectores privados y de las organizaciones de trabajadores y de la plena libertad sindical, ¿garantizaría el ingreso de Venezuela que en nuestro país regirán esos mismos principios?
En los países de Mercosur se respeta la libertad de expresión. En Venezuela se persigue y se condena a muerte a los medios de comunicación. Nadie puede ser indiferente ante esta dramática situación.
¡Mercosur sólo fue posible porque cayeron las dictaduras militares de Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay y Paraguay!
Miguel Henrique Otero, Elías Pino Iturrieta, José Rafael Revenga, Elsa Cardozo, Perkins Rocha, Simón Alberto Consalvi, Parsifal D’ Sola, Antonio Ecarri Angola, , Antonio Sánchez García, Pedro León Zapata, Ana Julia Jatar, Rafael Arraiz Lucca, Rocío San Miguel, Guiseppe Giannetto, Francisco Usón, Froilán Barrios, Jorge Pabón, Pablo Medina, Heinz Sonntag, Gustavo Sosa Izaguirre, Germán Carrera Damas, Angela Zago, Cristina Carbonell
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Crime and punishment and crime without punishment
Crime and punishment and crime without punishment
By Diego Arria
www.poder360.com
History shows instances of criminals who repent and receive their punishment, and others that never do. The best known example of the first group is probably the young Raskolnikov, the character of Fedor Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. A student, who derived from a very humble family in imperial Russia and believed that he belonged to a privileged group of supermen that could be compared only to people like Napoleon. Affected by his megalomania, Raskolnikov murdered and robed a miserly old woman who was considered inconvenient for the higher society. He believed that the morality of the “ordinary” people did not relate to him because of his exceptionality.
But soon after committing the crime, he turned himself in to the justice department and came to realize that he was not such a morally superior man as he believed to be. He just belonged to the same sort of people like the old woman and he became tormented by his repentance. Dostoyevsky describes heartbreakingly how a guilty conscience of a criminal can become one of the most intense tortures that a soul of a human being can put up with.
The other group of criminals represents an extraordinary danger for the society in general, and consists of those who commit crimes but feel no guilt or worry in their conscience. Like the young Russians in the novel, who believed and acted as if they were supermen transcending moral and legal constraints.
Far from the Russian steppes, in Venezuela, a head of State, conducted a coup, while his regime created military gangs as its main instrument of terror. Let's see why. In February 1992, Chavez attempted a coup in the country that caused the deaths of more than one hundred people and he almost killed Carlos Andrés Pérez, who was the President at the time, and also his wife and daughters. Their residence was attacked with mortars. These were orders from Chavez, although for now he still remains at large.
On April 11, 2002 the same person, now the President, frightened by a demonstration of unprecedented peaceful men, women and children, ordered to use tanks to repress them. The members of the High Command Military knew the criminal implications and the responsibility of the use of tanks against unarmed civilians, who relinquished any violence. But that day 19 people died at the hands of snipers and armed gangs linked to the top official.
The Venezuelan regime, with absolute control over the Judiciary did not punish the offenders, but turned these criminals into victims and those who tried to prevent the deaths into criminals. It was a perverse historical fraud and an attempt to create a false belief that the demonstrations were a coup, which never existed.
When the Venezuelans recover justice, a public denunciation of the February 1992 coup will take place through the words of Chavez’s fellow, Commander Francisco Arias Cardenas, and this will be heard in domestic and international courts: "We are facing a murderer, Hugo Chávez, author and intellectual leader of this band of criminals who ordered the snipers to fire on protesting crowds.The President, who is a murderer, spotted with the blood of the Venezuelans" as he said on April 11, 2002.
Raskolnikov gave himself up to justice without a need to be reported. Unlike Hugo Chávez, also a megalomaniac, convinced that the dead and the damned belong to the group of ordinary people not like him, who believes to be a superman comparable only with Simon Bolivar, without legal or moral obligations to surrender to justice. It’s obvious he is not afraid. It is his pleasure, but sooner than later justice will take care of him.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
By Diego Arria
www.poder360.com
History shows instances of criminals who repent and receive their punishment, and others that never do. The best known example of the first group is probably the young Raskolnikov, the character of Fedor Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. A student, who derived from a very humble family in imperial Russia and believed that he belonged to a privileged group of supermen that could be compared only to people like Napoleon. Affected by his megalomania, Raskolnikov murdered and robed a miserly old woman who was considered inconvenient for the higher society. He believed that the morality of the “ordinary” people did not relate to him because of his exceptionality.
But soon after committing the crime, he turned himself in to the justice department and came to realize that he was not such a morally superior man as he believed to be. He just belonged to the same sort of people like the old woman and he became tormented by his repentance. Dostoyevsky describes heartbreakingly how a guilty conscience of a criminal can become one of the most intense tortures that a soul of a human being can put up with.
The other group of criminals represents an extraordinary danger for the society in general, and consists of those who commit crimes but feel no guilt or worry in their conscience. Like the young Russians in the novel, who believed and acted as if they were supermen transcending moral and legal constraints.
Far from the Russian steppes, in Venezuela, a head of State, conducted a coup, while his regime created military gangs as its main instrument of terror. Let's see why. In February 1992, Chavez attempted a coup in the country that caused the deaths of more than one hundred people and he almost killed Carlos Andrés Pérez, who was the President at the time, and also his wife and daughters. Their residence was attacked with mortars. These were orders from Chavez, although for now he still remains at large.
On April 11, 2002 the same person, now the President, frightened by a demonstration of unprecedented peaceful men, women and children, ordered to use tanks to repress them. The members of the High Command Military knew the criminal implications and the responsibility of the use of tanks against unarmed civilians, who relinquished any violence. But that day 19 people died at the hands of snipers and armed gangs linked to the top official.
The Venezuelan regime, with absolute control over the Judiciary did not punish the offenders, but turned these criminals into victims and those who tried to prevent the deaths into criminals. It was a perverse historical fraud and an attempt to create a false belief that the demonstrations were a coup, which never existed.
When the Venezuelans recover justice, a public denunciation of the February 1992 coup will take place through the words of Chavez’s fellow, Commander Francisco Arias Cardenas, and this will be heard in domestic and international courts: "We are facing a murderer, Hugo Chávez, author and intellectual leader of this band of criminals who ordered the snipers to fire on protesting crowds.The President, who is a murderer, spotted with the blood of the Venezuelans" as he said on April 11, 2002.
Raskolnikov gave himself up to justice without a need to be reported. Unlike Hugo Chávez, also a megalomaniac, convinced that the dead and the damned belong to the group of ordinary people not like him, who believes to be a superman comparable only with Simon Bolivar, without legal or moral obligations to surrender to justice. It’s obvious he is not afraid. It is his pleasure, but sooner than later justice will take care of him.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Friday, May 1, 2009
Columna de Diego E.Arria en la Revista PODER de mayo' "Crimen y Castigo y crimen sin castigo"
The following article written by Ambassador Diego Arria is published on the magazine Poder 360 May 2009:
www.poder360.com
Crimen y castigo y crimen sin castigo
Muy lejos de las estepas rusas, en Venezuela, un jefe de Estado, golpista reconocido,
que ha convertido a su régimen en una pandilla militarizada es su principal exponente. Veamos por qué. En febrero de 1992 intentó un golpe de Estado que le causó la muerte a más de cien personas y casi también la del entonces presidente Carlos Andrés Pérez, la de su esposa e
hijas, cuya residencia fue atacada con morteros por órdenes suyas. Por ahora, sigue en libertad.
El 11 de abril del 2002 el mismo Presidente, atemorizado por una manifestación pacífica sin precedentes, de hombres, mujeres y niños, ordenó utilizar tanques para reprimirla. Los integrantes del Alto Mando Militar, conociendo las implicaciones penales y la corresponsabilidad que tendría el uso de tanques contra civiles desarmados, le solicitaron la renuncia, “la cual aceptó”.
Ese día murieron 19 personas a manos de bandas armadas y francotiradores vinculados
al oficialisimo. El régimen venezolano, con control absoluto del Poder Judicial, no castigó a
los culpables, sino que convirtió a esos criminales en víctimas, y a los que intentaron
evitar las muertes, en criminales. Un intento perverso de fraude histórico para crear la
falsa creencia de que todo ocurrió por un golpe de Estado que nunca existió.
Cuando los venezolanos recuperemos la justicia, la denuncia pública de su compañero golpista en febrero de 1992, el comandante Francisco Arias Cárdenas, retumbará en los tribunales nacionales e internacionales: “Estamos frente a un asesino, Hugo Chávez, autor intelectual y jefe
de esa banda de delincuentes que ordenó el apostamiento de los francotiradores. Un Presidente asesino manchado con la sangre de los venezolanos”, dijo el 11 de abril de 2002.
Raskólnikov se entregó a la justicia sin necesidad de ser denunciado, a diferencia de Hugo Chávez, igualmente megalómano, convencido de que los muertos y los condenados
pertenecen al grupo de los ordinarios, no como él, quien se asume como un superhombre sólo comparable con Simón Bolívar, sin obligaciones morales o legales como para entregarse a la justicia. Claro, no le teme. Es su amo, pero más temprano que tarde la justicia se hará cargo de él.
1La Declaración completa De Arias Cárdenas puede ser vista en:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNqnxs6oT54
&feature=related
Dostoievski describe desgarradoramente cómo el sentimiento de culpa de un criminal puede llegar a convertirse en una de las torturas más intensas que puede soportar el alma de un ser humano.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
www.poder360.com
Crimen y castigo y crimen sin castigo
Muy lejos de las estepas rusas, en Venezuela, un jefe de Estado, golpista reconocido,
que ha convertido a su régimen en una pandilla militarizada es su principal exponente. Veamos por qué. En febrero de 1992 intentó un golpe de Estado que le causó la muerte a más de cien personas y casi también la del entonces presidente Carlos Andrés Pérez, la de su esposa e
hijas, cuya residencia fue atacada con morteros por órdenes suyas. Por ahora, sigue en libertad.
El 11 de abril del 2002 el mismo Presidente, atemorizado por una manifestación pacífica sin precedentes, de hombres, mujeres y niños, ordenó utilizar tanques para reprimirla. Los integrantes del Alto Mando Militar, conociendo las implicaciones penales y la corresponsabilidad que tendría el uso de tanques contra civiles desarmados, le solicitaron la renuncia, “la cual aceptó”.
Ese día murieron 19 personas a manos de bandas armadas y francotiradores vinculados
al oficialisimo. El régimen venezolano, con control absoluto del Poder Judicial, no castigó a
los culpables, sino que convirtió a esos criminales en víctimas, y a los que intentaron
evitar las muertes, en criminales. Un intento perverso de fraude histórico para crear la
falsa creencia de que todo ocurrió por un golpe de Estado que nunca existió.
Cuando los venezolanos recuperemos la justicia, la denuncia pública de su compañero golpista en febrero de 1992, el comandante Francisco Arias Cárdenas, retumbará en los tribunales nacionales e internacionales: “Estamos frente a un asesino, Hugo Chávez, autor intelectual y jefe
de esa banda de delincuentes que ordenó el apostamiento de los francotiradores. Un Presidente asesino manchado con la sangre de los venezolanos”, dijo el 11 de abril de 2002.
Raskólnikov se entregó a la justicia sin necesidad de ser denunciado, a diferencia de Hugo Chávez, igualmente megalómano, convencido de que los muertos y los condenados
pertenecen al grupo de los ordinarios, no como él, quien se asume como un superhombre sólo comparable con Simón Bolívar, sin obligaciones morales o legales como para entregarse a la justicia. Claro, no le teme. Es su amo, pero más temprano que tarde la justicia se hará cargo de él.
1La Declaración completa De Arias Cárdenas puede ser vista en:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNqnxs6oT54
&feature=related
Dostoievski describe desgarradoramente cómo el sentimiento de culpa de un criminal puede llegar a convertirse en una de las torturas más intensas que puede soportar el alma de un ser humano.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Saturday, April 25, 2009
An abominable sentence
An abominable sentence
Contrary to all legal logic, contrary to all justice, and in undisguised infringement of the National Constitution and of the penal legislation in force, three police commissioners and eight officers of the Metropolitan Police were accused, imprisoned, prosecuted, and condemned by a tribunal in a trial whose only purpose consisted in carrying out a political persecution operation aimed at endorsing an official fraud, ignoring the material and actual truth of what really happened in Caracas, on April 11, 2002.
On April 11, 2002, over a million Venezuelans marched peacefully headed towards the Miraflores Palace, headquarters of the presidency of the Republic, to protest against the arbitrary dismissal of Board of Directors of PDVSA and the threat to dismiss over 20,000 of its employees and workers, ordered by President Hugo Chavez. The march was not able to reach the presidential palace. Barricades, organized by the government with civilians from the “Bolivarian circles”, and squads of the National Guard, made it impossible for the marchers to advance, and were object of a sanguinary ambush. Nineteen citizens lost their lives, and over one hundred were injured, and impacted by the shots fired by the officially organized armed bands and the national guards. The photographs and videos published and broadcasted by the media eloquently document what happened that day, showing individuals located on top of a bridge near the Miraflores palace, shooting against the crowd. They also show national guards and members of the Bolivarian circles shooting against the defenseless marchers.
To the innocent victims who fell in that massacre, now, seven years later, eleven more victims are by the manipulative judicial system prevailing in Venezuela. Three commissioners of the Metropolitan Police and eight officers of that institution whose participation during the march consisted in protecting the marchers, and acting as a barrier in order to prevent the protest from being object of provocations by pro-government individuals, have been convicted after an abominable trial overfilled with irregularities and violations of the most elemental principles of penal justice such as the right to a due process, and the right to be freely judged.
Throughout five years, during which time they remained locked in the headquarters of the political police, in narrow prison cells lacking natural light, the accused were subject to an iniquitous psychological torture. The trial, having the embarrassing record of being the longest penal process ever held in this country, was located in the city of Maracay, 100 kilometers from Caracas, which required the accused to be transported by land for each hearing. Once transferred to Maracay, the hearings were frequently suspended without prior notice, most of the time because of vain motives. In total, the trial included 230 hearings, during which 265 experts reports, 5,700 pictures, and 20 videos were submitted, and the depositions of 198 witnesses and 48 experts were collected. During the proceeding, the Public Ministry was unable to demonstrate that these Police Commissioners fired the weapons used to kill the victims. Much less, the culpability of the accused could not be demonstrated without a reasonable doubt.
An investigation undertaken by the Due Process of Law Foundation, prestigious institution with headquarters in Washington, detected the following irregularities surrounding this trial: [Aportes FDPL – Number 9, Year 3, March 2009 (http://www.dplf.org/uploads/1238449054.pdf) - (http://www.dplf.org/index.php?c_ID=336): (Free non- official translation from the original Spanish text).
“Specifically, in the case of Ivan Simonovis, the investigation revealed that the judge who ordered his detention lacked the necessary impartiality and independence since he previously represented one of the persons against who Simonovis supposedly ordered to shoot. In like manner, it was determined that the Judge Presiding the Mixed Court that examined the case, is married to a well-known member of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The political acquaintance of the judge’s husband with the party to which President Chavez belongs is evidently an element that may affect her independence and impartiality in this specific case, whereas the victims are deemed persons loyal to the government who were victims of the violence exercised to overthrow President Chavez. On the other hand, the accused are deemed as part of the rebel forces under the orders of the Mayor, Alfredo Peña, well-known Government oppositionist. Observation of the trial made it possible to accumulate enough evidence to affirm that the right to defense of the accused was violated, whereas the Public Ministry refused to submit copies of the evidence for the prosecution existing against him during the investigation stage, and refused to undertake certain proceedings timely requested by the defense. In light of the right to a due process of law, one particularly critical dimension is the excessive, unjustified delay in solving the case. The facts because of which they are being subject to trial took place on April 11, 2002, and there is no final sentence to date[1]. Said violation is more evident considering the fact that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela decided to implement an accusatory, criminal justice system, with oral and public trials, wherein it is expressly established that the hearings of oral trials are to be performed in a consecutive manner, and until all evidence has been presented. In this case, the oral trial began in June 20, 2006, and has not concluded to date”.
The following has to be added to the foregoing: 1) the selection of the lay judges was corrupted whereas the requirements of the law were not fully complied with, and two of them were officers of a government social missions, which means that they were politically engaged with the regime; 2) there was a condescending attitude towards the delays of the public prosecutors and plaintiffs in terms of complying with the timeline established to perform the hearings; 3) the claims filed by the defense were disregarded because of lack of respect for “reasonable time”; 4) all petitions for freedom were rejected, even after the conclusion of the term of two years provided for in the Criminal Code; 5) there was a clear, serious and evident affectation of the independence and impartiality of the court in respect of police commissioner Simonovis, whereas the Judge who issued the order of apprehension against Simonovis had previously represented one of the individuals who fired against the marchers on April 11 from Puente Llaguno, and the challenge interposed by the defense was disregarded by the court.
As a result of a sentence without precedents in the records of Venezuelan judicial history, last Friday, April 4th, Police commissioners Ivan Simonovis, Lazaro Forero and Henry Vivas, were sentenced to 30 years of prison, the maximum penalty contemplated by the Venezuelan criminal law, without having been able to prove their participation in the facts they were being accused of. By adopting a legal subterfuge, the Judge, Marjori Calderon, found them guilty of “necessary complicity in the commission of consummated, attempted, voluntary manslaughter, causing serious injuries, less serious injuries, and minor injuries”. In addition, the judge included in the sentence the express indication that the injuries constitute “serious violations of human rights” with which, in accordance with the provisions of article 29 of the National Constitution, the accused have been excluded from the procedural benefits, such as pardon or the amnesty.
This abominable sentence constitutes a brutal violation of justice and the rule of Law, and shows how the regime uses the organs of justice with political purposes as it pleases.
[1] This document was originally published in March 2009 and the sentence was pronounced in April
http://www.urru.org/g-400/20090415_SentenciaComisariosPMs.htm
Contrary to all legal logic, contrary to all justice, and in undisguised infringement of the National Constitution and of the penal legislation in force, three police commissioners and eight officers of the Metropolitan Police were accused, imprisoned, prosecuted, and condemned by a tribunal in a trial whose only purpose consisted in carrying out a political persecution operation aimed at endorsing an official fraud, ignoring the material and actual truth of what really happened in Caracas, on April 11, 2002.
On April 11, 2002, over a million Venezuelans marched peacefully headed towards the Miraflores Palace, headquarters of the presidency of the Republic, to protest against the arbitrary dismissal of Board of Directors of PDVSA and the threat to dismiss over 20,000 of its employees and workers, ordered by President Hugo Chavez. The march was not able to reach the presidential palace. Barricades, organized by the government with civilians from the “Bolivarian circles”, and squads of the National Guard, made it impossible for the marchers to advance, and were object of a sanguinary ambush. Nineteen citizens lost their lives, and over one hundred were injured, and impacted by the shots fired by the officially organized armed bands and the national guards. The photographs and videos published and broadcasted by the media eloquently document what happened that day, showing individuals located on top of a bridge near the Miraflores palace, shooting against the crowd. They also show national guards and members of the Bolivarian circles shooting against the defenseless marchers.
To the innocent victims who fell in that massacre, now, seven years later, eleven more victims are by the manipulative judicial system prevailing in Venezuela. Three commissioners of the Metropolitan Police and eight officers of that institution whose participation during the march consisted in protecting the marchers, and acting as a barrier in order to prevent the protest from being object of provocations by pro-government individuals, have been convicted after an abominable trial overfilled with irregularities and violations of the most elemental principles of penal justice such as the right to a due process, and the right to be freely judged.
Throughout five years, during which time they remained locked in the headquarters of the political police, in narrow prison cells lacking natural light, the accused were subject to an iniquitous psychological torture. The trial, having the embarrassing record of being the longest penal process ever held in this country, was located in the city of Maracay, 100 kilometers from Caracas, which required the accused to be transported by land for each hearing. Once transferred to Maracay, the hearings were frequently suspended without prior notice, most of the time because of vain motives. In total, the trial included 230 hearings, during which 265 experts reports, 5,700 pictures, and 20 videos were submitted, and the depositions of 198 witnesses and 48 experts were collected. During the proceeding, the Public Ministry was unable to demonstrate that these Police Commissioners fired the weapons used to kill the victims. Much less, the culpability of the accused could not be demonstrated without a reasonable doubt.
An investigation undertaken by the Due Process of Law Foundation, prestigious institution with headquarters in Washington, detected the following irregularities surrounding this trial: [Aportes FDPL – Number 9, Year 3, March 2009 (http://www.dplf.org/uploads/1238449054.pdf) - (http://www.dplf.org/index.php?c_ID=336): (Free non- official translation from the original Spanish text).
“Specifically, in the case of Ivan Simonovis, the investigation revealed that the judge who ordered his detention lacked the necessary impartiality and independence since he previously represented one of the persons against who Simonovis supposedly ordered to shoot. In like manner, it was determined that the Judge Presiding the Mixed Court that examined the case, is married to a well-known member of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The political acquaintance of the judge’s husband with the party to which President Chavez belongs is evidently an element that may affect her independence and impartiality in this specific case, whereas the victims are deemed persons loyal to the government who were victims of the violence exercised to overthrow President Chavez. On the other hand, the accused are deemed as part of the rebel forces under the orders of the Mayor, Alfredo Peña, well-known Government oppositionist. Observation of the trial made it possible to accumulate enough evidence to affirm that the right to defense of the accused was violated, whereas the Public Ministry refused to submit copies of the evidence for the prosecution existing against him during the investigation stage, and refused to undertake certain proceedings timely requested by the defense. In light of the right to a due process of law, one particularly critical dimension is the excessive, unjustified delay in solving the case. The facts because of which they are being subject to trial took place on April 11, 2002, and there is no final sentence to date[1]. Said violation is more evident considering the fact that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela decided to implement an accusatory, criminal justice system, with oral and public trials, wherein it is expressly established that the hearings of oral trials are to be performed in a consecutive manner, and until all evidence has been presented. In this case, the oral trial began in June 20, 2006, and has not concluded to date”.
The following has to be added to the foregoing: 1) the selection of the lay judges was corrupted whereas the requirements of the law were not fully complied with, and two of them were officers of a government social missions, which means that they were politically engaged with the regime; 2) there was a condescending attitude towards the delays of the public prosecutors and plaintiffs in terms of complying with the timeline established to perform the hearings; 3) the claims filed by the defense were disregarded because of lack of respect for “reasonable time”; 4) all petitions for freedom were rejected, even after the conclusion of the term of two years provided for in the Criminal Code; 5) there was a clear, serious and evident affectation of the independence and impartiality of the court in respect of police commissioner Simonovis, whereas the Judge who issued the order of apprehension against Simonovis had previously represented one of the individuals who fired against the marchers on April 11 from Puente Llaguno, and the challenge interposed by the defense was disregarded by the court.
As a result of a sentence without precedents in the records of Venezuelan judicial history, last Friday, April 4th, Police commissioners Ivan Simonovis, Lazaro Forero and Henry Vivas, were sentenced to 30 years of prison, the maximum penalty contemplated by the Venezuelan criminal law, without having been able to prove their participation in the facts they were being accused of. By adopting a legal subterfuge, the Judge, Marjori Calderon, found them guilty of “necessary complicity in the commission of consummated, attempted, voluntary manslaughter, causing serious injuries, less serious injuries, and minor injuries”. In addition, the judge included in the sentence the express indication that the injuries constitute “serious violations of human rights” with which, in accordance with the provisions of article 29 of the National Constitution, the accused have been excluded from the procedural benefits, such as pardon or the amnesty.
This abominable sentence constitutes a brutal violation of justice and the rule of Law, and shows how the regime uses the organs of justice with political purposes as it pleases.
[1] This document was originally published in March 2009 and the sentence was pronounced in April
http://www.urru.org/g-400/20090415_SentenciaComisariosPMs.htm
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Comments from Pedro Mario Burelli
The following are comments made by Internationalist Pedro Mario Burelli:
www.pmbcomments.com
PMBComment: Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, Special US Envoy for the Summit of the Americas. has had to enter into full spin cycle to pull President Obama out of the pickle he got himself into by following a terribly naive and rapidly criticized strategy of trying to disarm Hugo Chavez but failing miserably to do so without beaming and giving the thug from Caracas a "whats up brother" kind of handshake. The media has had a field day (from Matt Drudge all the way to the NYTimes, and all others in between) - as have millions of mesmerized readers and viewers. This should have been expected, and carefully planned for by a White House that is so big into images and body language. We are now in the hard-backpedal phase, which is commendable - as fallbacks go - but could have been easily avoided.
What is going on in Venezuela at this precise moment does not allow for many, or rather any, niceties, and pretending that you are dealing with a democratic leader is a policy path that simply empowers a brutish autocrat and squanders even more political capital for a US President intent on gratuitous, and at times completely unnecessary, self-flagellation on the international arena.
Given the predictability of Mr. Chavez's antics, it would have been smart to equip the novice President with a bound copy of the OAS Democratic Charter "just in case" Chavez decided to steal the show (as we alerted he would). Imagine such exchange of gifts! As sensible as the interview below is, it would have been so much more significant if Mr. Obama had been ready with a good principled sound bite, or that bound copy, when Chavez presented him a Spanish paperback version of a book that Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Alberto Montaner and Alvaro Vargas Llosa aptly called "The Idiot's Bible" in their bestseller "The Guide To The Complete Latin American Idiot". The fact that Mr. Obama, until a few days ago was an "ignorant man" in the opinion of the Oracle from Caracas, does not speak or read Spanish, might have coexisted nicely with the fact that Mr. Chavez does not follow a single precept of the democratic charter that was, pre-Insulza, meant to be a defining document for the hemisphere.
Read the interview below and it is easy to conclude that it is not just you and I that were disappointed (in my case also dismayed) by the images from the Port of Spain. PMB
OBAMA SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS ADVISER INTERVIEW
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2009 5:20 PM by Chuck Todd
Here’s the full transcript of an interview with Jeffrey Davidow, the Obama administration's chief adviser for this Summit of the Americas.
TODD: Hugo Chavez has been a constant presence it seems anytime the cameras have come on here at the summit in the last 24 hours. Is the administration concerned that that's the pictures America is seeing. Pres. Obama with Hugo Chavez, more so than with any other leaders down here?
DAVIDOW: Hugo Chavez has a real capacity to get his picture in the newspaper or on TV. A case in point, last night the president was at a reception. He shook hands with 33 other presidents, smiled with 33 other presidents; one picture gets in the newspaper. I think the press is focused on Hugo Chavez. I don't think Barack Obama is focused on Hugo Chavez.
TODD: This is an organization of 34 democratically elected leaders.
DAVIDOW: Right
TODD: Do you guys view that Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader of Venezuela?
DAVIDOW: We have real concerns about erosion of democratic principles in Venezuela and we've made that clear publicly in many ways. He was elected. He's been elected several times. We do worry about issues like freedom of speech, freedom of organization, lack of checks an balances in Venezuela. I'd say that you know the fact that president was photographed shaking hands with him, a smile and a handshake does not mean a new relationship. We have a very strained relationship with Venezuela. We'd like to see it get better.
TODD: How does it get better? Is the ball in the proverbial court of Venezuela?
DAVIDOW: Yeah, I think so. For instance, they kicked out our ambassador and I think step they could take is by saying, Gee we'd like to have an American ambassador back here so we can start talking about the issues that we should be talking about with Venezuela: narcotics, energy, other questions relating to public safety, climate change, like we're trying to talk to -- and we are very successfully talking with the rest of the hemisphere.
TODD: Two weeks ago I was in Europe, G20, NATO, the only thing missing were rose petals at the feet of Pres. Obama. That's not the case here. Why does it seem as if a lot of these leaders are intent on hitting the United States?
DAVIDOW: There's a different historical experience between Latin America and the United States than between Lat- than Europe and the United States, but I don't really quite agree with you. I think Obama has been very well received here. There's a palpable sense among all the leaders, including those who are often critical of the United States that Obama is initiating a new beginning in our relationship and the meetings that he's having, the conversations that he's having are all in that direction and I think that's appreciated.
TODD: The instant takeaway from this summit is Cuba, Hugo Chavez. What is going to be the 9 month, 1 year marker of whether you guys see this summit as a success?
DAVIDOW: Look, I think it's unfortunate that the instant takeaway is Cuba and Chavez and that says more about press coverage than the substance of the summit -- not criticizing --. Look, what this summit is talking about is poverty in this hemisphere. It's talking about climate change in this hemisphere, particularly in an island like this, or with Caribbean nations here. They're really worried about rising sea levels. We're talking about other issues of how we can cooperate in education, how we can make the economic crisis that we're all confronting weigh less heavily on the poorest of the poor how we can use the international financial institutions like the IMF to help. I think the takeaway in 9 months is how much progress we've been able to make working cooperatively on those issues rather than the particular headlines of today.
TODD: Quick question, I know you're former ambassador to Mexico. It seems as if Mexico was happy with the visit yet they got nothing as far as their- nothing concrete from the president yet, whether it was on immigration, a lot of promises, is...
DAVIDOW: I disagree. The president has over the last two weeks made it quite clear that the help that he has promised under the Merida initiative, which is to give Mexico the tools, both the hardware and intelligence sharing that they need to fight the drug war, that that's on it's way. Stuff is already being delivered. There were really good conversations about cooperation...
TODD: Mexico is gonna have patience on the trucking issue, on the immigration issue and then...
DAVIDOW: Look these are issues that are not easily resolvable and they're not easily resolvable because they relate to domestic politics and domestic concerns in the United States on immigration, the president has made it clear and has made it clear here in Trinidad as well. That's gonna continue. We're also a nation of laws and we have to find the balance so we can be true to our tradition while having a system that works for everyone.
www.pmbcomments.com
PMBComment: Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, Special US Envoy for the Summit of the Americas. has had to enter into full spin cycle to pull President Obama out of the pickle he got himself into by following a terribly naive and rapidly criticized strategy of trying to disarm Hugo Chavez but failing miserably to do so without beaming and giving the thug from Caracas a "whats up brother" kind of handshake. The media has had a field day (from Matt Drudge all the way to the NYTimes, and all others in between) - as have millions of mesmerized readers and viewers. This should have been expected, and carefully planned for by a White House that is so big into images and body language. We are now in the hard-backpedal phase, which is commendable - as fallbacks go - but could have been easily avoided.
What is going on in Venezuela at this precise moment does not allow for many, or rather any, niceties, and pretending that you are dealing with a democratic leader is a policy path that simply empowers a brutish autocrat and squanders even more political capital for a US President intent on gratuitous, and at times completely unnecessary, self-flagellation on the international arena.
Given the predictability of Mr. Chavez's antics, it would have been smart to equip the novice President with a bound copy of the OAS Democratic Charter "just in case" Chavez decided to steal the show (as we alerted he would). Imagine such exchange of gifts! As sensible as the interview below is, it would have been so much more significant if Mr. Obama had been ready with a good principled sound bite, or that bound copy, when Chavez presented him a Spanish paperback version of a book that Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Alberto Montaner and Alvaro Vargas Llosa aptly called "The Idiot's Bible" in their bestseller "The Guide To The Complete Latin American Idiot". The fact that Mr. Obama, until a few days ago was an "ignorant man" in the opinion of the Oracle from Caracas, does not speak or read Spanish, might have coexisted nicely with the fact that Mr. Chavez does not follow a single precept of the democratic charter that was, pre-Insulza, meant to be a defining document for the hemisphere.
Read the interview below and it is easy to conclude that it is not just you and I that were disappointed (in my case also dismayed) by the images from the Port of Spain. PMB
OBAMA SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS ADVISER INTERVIEW
Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2009 5:20 PM by Chuck Todd
Here’s the full transcript of an interview with Jeffrey Davidow, the Obama administration's chief adviser for this Summit of the Americas.
TODD: Hugo Chavez has been a constant presence it seems anytime the cameras have come on here at the summit in the last 24 hours. Is the administration concerned that that's the pictures America is seeing. Pres. Obama with Hugo Chavez, more so than with any other leaders down here?
DAVIDOW: Hugo Chavez has a real capacity to get his picture in the newspaper or on TV. A case in point, last night the president was at a reception. He shook hands with 33 other presidents, smiled with 33 other presidents; one picture gets in the newspaper. I think the press is focused on Hugo Chavez. I don't think Barack Obama is focused on Hugo Chavez.
TODD: This is an organization of 34 democratically elected leaders.
DAVIDOW: Right
TODD: Do you guys view that Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader of Venezuela?
DAVIDOW: We have real concerns about erosion of democratic principles in Venezuela and we've made that clear publicly in many ways. He was elected. He's been elected several times. We do worry about issues like freedom of speech, freedom of organization, lack of checks an balances in Venezuela. I'd say that you know the fact that president was photographed shaking hands with him, a smile and a handshake does not mean a new relationship. We have a very strained relationship with Venezuela. We'd like to see it get better.
TODD: How does it get better? Is the ball in the proverbial court of Venezuela?
DAVIDOW: Yeah, I think so. For instance, they kicked out our ambassador and I think step they could take is by saying, Gee we'd like to have an American ambassador back here so we can start talking about the issues that we should be talking about with Venezuela: narcotics, energy, other questions relating to public safety, climate change, like we're trying to talk to -- and we are very successfully talking with the rest of the hemisphere.
TODD: Two weeks ago I was in Europe, G20, NATO, the only thing missing were rose petals at the feet of Pres. Obama. That's not the case here. Why does it seem as if a lot of these leaders are intent on hitting the United States?
DAVIDOW: There's a different historical experience between Latin America and the United States than between Lat- than Europe and the United States, but I don't really quite agree with you. I think Obama has been very well received here. There's a palpable sense among all the leaders, including those who are often critical of the United States that Obama is initiating a new beginning in our relationship and the meetings that he's having, the conversations that he's having are all in that direction and I think that's appreciated.
TODD: The instant takeaway from this summit is Cuba, Hugo Chavez. What is going to be the 9 month, 1 year marker of whether you guys see this summit as a success?
DAVIDOW: Look, I think it's unfortunate that the instant takeaway is Cuba and Chavez and that says more about press coverage than the substance of the summit -- not criticizing --. Look, what this summit is talking about is poverty in this hemisphere. It's talking about climate change in this hemisphere, particularly in an island like this, or with Caribbean nations here. They're really worried about rising sea levels. We're talking about other issues of how we can cooperate in education, how we can make the economic crisis that we're all confronting weigh less heavily on the poorest of the poor how we can use the international financial institutions like the IMF to help. I think the takeaway in 9 months is how much progress we've been able to make working cooperatively on those issues rather than the particular headlines of today.
TODD: Quick question, I know you're former ambassador to Mexico. It seems as if Mexico was happy with the visit yet they got nothing as far as their- nothing concrete from the president yet, whether it was on immigration, a lot of promises, is...
DAVIDOW: I disagree. The president has over the last two weeks made it quite clear that the help that he has promised under the Merida initiative, which is to give Mexico the tools, both the hardware and intelligence sharing that they need to fight the drug war, that that's on it's way. Stuff is already being delivered. There were really good conversations about cooperation...
TODD: Mexico is gonna have patience on the trucking issue, on the immigration issue and then...
DAVIDOW: Look these are issues that are not easily resolvable and they're not easily resolvable because they relate to domestic politics and domestic concerns in the United States on immigration, the president has made it clear and has made it clear here in Trinidad as well. That's gonna continue. We're also a nation of laws and we have to find the balance so we can be true to our tradition while having a system that works for everyone.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Otro periplo dispendioso e inútil por Adolfo R. Taylhardat
Opinión - Miércoles 01 de abril, 2009
Otro periplo dispendioso e inútil
Adolfo R. Taylhardat
El teniente coronel presidente ha emprendido su enésimo (ya hemos perdido la cuenta) viaje por el mundo. Esta vez se ausenta por una semana. En esta gira visitará Qatar, Irán y Japón. Por supuesto, al regreso incluirá la obligada escala en Cuba para ir a pedirle la bendición a papá Fidel y rendirle cuenta de su viaje.
Según explicó, el objeto de la gira es "fortalecer los intereses y la posición de Venezuela en el mundo". Muchos venezolanos nos preguntamos, empleando una frase que se hizo famosa: ¿con qué se come eso? Creo que ha llegado el momento de hacer un inventario de los centenares de acuerdos y convenios suscritos durante las correrías del comandante por el mundo para establecer cuáles son los beneficios que han reportado hasta ahora al país y a los venezolanos.
El viaje a Japón lo justifica diciendo que "Japón es un país que consume mucha energía, necesita fuentes de petróleo. Además tiene mucha tecnología" -qué descubrimiento- y por primera vez Venezuela firma un convenio energético con ese país. Cabe preguntar: ¿es necesario que el teniente coronel presidente se traslade al otro extremo del globo simplemente para firmar un convenio energético? ¿Por qué no lo firmó el ministro de Energía y presidente de Pdvsa quien precisamente la semana pasada anduvo por esa región del mundo?
A Irán va "a continuar fortaleciendo la relación con ese país y porque estamos instalando el banco iraní-venezolano". Teherán, como La Habana, se ha convertido en una escala obligatoria de los viajes presidenciales. Sin importarle inmiscuirse en los asuntos internos de Irán seguramente aprovechará la ocasión para anunciar su apoyo a Ahmadineyad en las elecciones presidenciales que tendrán lugar próximamente en ese país.
En Qatar asistirá a la cumbre de presidentes de Sudamérica con los reyes, emires y jefes de gobiernos de los países árabes del golfo Pérsico. Supuestamente se trata de cumplir un compromiso político porque ese encuentro de países sudamericanos y árabes "forma parte de las distintas instancias que han comenzado a nacer para promover un mundo pluripolar".
Pero esto no es todo, porque apenas regrese deberá viajar de nuevo para asistir a otra cumbre: la de las Américas y el Caribe, que se reunirá en Puerto España a mediados de abril.
Al parecer el teniente coronel presidente se olvidó de aquel reproche que solía hacer a este tipo de reuniones, cuando decía que los presidentes y jefes de Estado andan de cumbre en cumbre mientras los pueblos se hunden en el sima de la miseria.
Casualmente, esta nueva gira del andarín que nos gobierna tiene lugar en uno de los momentos más críticos que vivimos en Venezuela como consecuencia de la caída del precio del petróleo y justo cuando proliferan las protestas de los gremios y los sindicatos exigiendo justas reivindicaciones salariales y la revisión de los miserables sueldos y salarios que perciben.
El ex diputado Carlos Eduardo Berrizbeitia, quien lleva a punta de lápiz la cuenta de los gastos residenciales, nos recordó en estos días que en sus 10 años de mandato el teniente coronel presidente ha estado ausente del país 453 días, es decir, un año y tres meses y que esas ausencias han representado un gasto de más de 50 millones de dólares. Berrizbeitia agrega que para este año la partida presupuestaria presidencial de viáticos y pasajes fuera del país asciende a más de 6 millones de dólares. Todo esto sin contar lo que cuesta el traslado y alojamiento en el exterior de las 200 o más personas que integran sus comitivas cuando sale de viaje.
"El ejemplo hay que darlo por casa. Hay que meter el ojo porque a veces funcionan mecanismos inerciales sin control" dijo cuando promulgó el "Instructivo presidencial para la eliminación del gasto suntuario o superfluo en el sector público nacional" el cual precisamente contempla, entre otras cosas, la eliminación de viajes innecesarios al exterior.
Al parecer ese instructivo presidencial se aplica a todos menos al presidente y que el ejemplo hay que darlo en todas las casas menos en Miraflores. Los venezolanos merecemos un trato menos cínico, menos hipócrita, de parte de quien dirige los destinos del país.
www.adolfotaylhardat.net
Otro periplo dispendioso e inútil
Adolfo R. Taylhardat
El teniente coronel presidente ha emprendido su enésimo (ya hemos perdido la cuenta) viaje por el mundo. Esta vez se ausenta por una semana. En esta gira visitará Qatar, Irán y Japón. Por supuesto, al regreso incluirá la obligada escala en Cuba para ir a pedirle la bendición a papá Fidel y rendirle cuenta de su viaje.
Según explicó, el objeto de la gira es "fortalecer los intereses y la posición de Venezuela en el mundo". Muchos venezolanos nos preguntamos, empleando una frase que se hizo famosa: ¿con qué se come eso? Creo que ha llegado el momento de hacer un inventario de los centenares de acuerdos y convenios suscritos durante las correrías del comandante por el mundo para establecer cuáles son los beneficios que han reportado hasta ahora al país y a los venezolanos.
El viaje a Japón lo justifica diciendo que "Japón es un país que consume mucha energía, necesita fuentes de petróleo. Además tiene mucha tecnología" -qué descubrimiento- y por primera vez Venezuela firma un convenio energético con ese país. Cabe preguntar: ¿es necesario que el teniente coronel presidente se traslade al otro extremo del globo simplemente para firmar un convenio energético? ¿Por qué no lo firmó el ministro de Energía y presidente de Pdvsa quien precisamente la semana pasada anduvo por esa región del mundo?
A Irán va "a continuar fortaleciendo la relación con ese país y porque estamos instalando el banco iraní-venezolano". Teherán, como La Habana, se ha convertido en una escala obligatoria de los viajes presidenciales. Sin importarle inmiscuirse en los asuntos internos de Irán seguramente aprovechará la ocasión para anunciar su apoyo a Ahmadineyad en las elecciones presidenciales que tendrán lugar próximamente en ese país.
En Qatar asistirá a la cumbre de presidentes de Sudamérica con los reyes, emires y jefes de gobiernos de los países árabes del golfo Pérsico. Supuestamente se trata de cumplir un compromiso político porque ese encuentro de países sudamericanos y árabes "forma parte de las distintas instancias que han comenzado a nacer para promover un mundo pluripolar".
Pero esto no es todo, porque apenas regrese deberá viajar de nuevo para asistir a otra cumbre: la de las Américas y el Caribe, que se reunirá en Puerto España a mediados de abril.
Al parecer el teniente coronel presidente se olvidó de aquel reproche que solía hacer a este tipo de reuniones, cuando decía que los presidentes y jefes de Estado andan de cumbre en cumbre mientras los pueblos se hunden en el sima de la miseria.
Casualmente, esta nueva gira del andarín que nos gobierna tiene lugar en uno de los momentos más críticos que vivimos en Venezuela como consecuencia de la caída del precio del petróleo y justo cuando proliferan las protestas de los gremios y los sindicatos exigiendo justas reivindicaciones salariales y la revisión de los miserables sueldos y salarios que perciben.
El ex diputado Carlos Eduardo Berrizbeitia, quien lleva a punta de lápiz la cuenta de los gastos residenciales, nos recordó en estos días que en sus 10 años de mandato el teniente coronel presidente ha estado ausente del país 453 días, es decir, un año y tres meses y que esas ausencias han representado un gasto de más de 50 millones de dólares. Berrizbeitia agrega que para este año la partida presupuestaria presidencial de viáticos y pasajes fuera del país asciende a más de 6 millones de dólares. Todo esto sin contar lo que cuesta el traslado y alojamiento en el exterior de las 200 o más personas que integran sus comitivas cuando sale de viaje.
"El ejemplo hay que darlo por casa. Hay que meter el ojo porque a veces funcionan mecanismos inerciales sin control" dijo cuando promulgó el "Instructivo presidencial para la eliminación del gasto suntuario o superfluo en el sector público nacional" el cual precisamente contempla, entre otras cosas, la eliminación de viajes innecesarios al exterior.
Al parecer ese instructivo presidencial se aplica a todos menos al presidente y que el ejemplo hay que darlo en todas las casas menos en Miraflores. Los venezolanos merecemos un trato menos cínico, menos hipócrita, de parte de quien dirige los destinos del país.
www.adolfotaylhardat.net
A person in mourning - Caracas
The following is a letter written to the editors in Venezuela from a witness of the murders that took place in Caracas April 11, 2002 when Venezuelans went out peacefully protesting the firing of thousands of the oil company PDVSA's employees, and where Chavez's thugs allegedly killed several unarmed protestors.
Yo estuve allí, en el centro de la matanza del 11 de abril. Casi al lado mío vi morir a un hombre con un tiro en la frente. Aunque se supone que nadie muere la víspera, estaré eternamente agradecida al funcionario de la Policía Metropolitana que me tomó del brazo y me dijo “corra señora” y me indicó el camino a tomar. Por eso, a los VERDUGOS, que condenaron a los Comisarios y a los Policías Metropolitanos les digo una sola cosa: allá arriba hay un Dios y la justicia divina es inapelable.
Hoy estoy de luto por mi maltratado país, por Uds., pobres seres, que reemplazan la justicia con la venganza, por el odio sembrado entre hermanos, por los que amamos nuestra patria y no encontramos el camino correcto para liberarnos de los delincuentes que la tienen secuestrada, y por tantas otras cosas que nos avergüenzan como ciudadanos de esta patria linda.
Comisarios, Policías, no pierdan la fé, su condena, con la ayuda de Dios, será mucho más corta de lo que se imaginan. Tenemos 10 años viviendo en un infierno que no nos merecemos, pero Venezuela renacerá y recuperará la dignidad y el respeto que han sido pisoteados sin clemencia por las ansias de poder de un solo hombre.
María Luisa Rivero de Niño
C.I. N° 2.931.742
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangaritablog2.blogspot.com/
Resources:
http://www.11abril.com/index.asp
http://www.urru.org/11A/asesinatos.htm
http://www.urru.org/11A/asesinatos2.htm
Estoy de LutoYo estuve allí, en el centro de la matanza del 11 de abril. Casi al lado mío vi morir a un hombre con un tiro en la frente. Aunque se supone que nadie muere la víspera, estaré eternamente agradecida al funcionario de la Policía Metropolitana que me tomó del brazo y me dijo “corra señora” y me indicó el camino a tomar. Por eso, a los VERDUGOS, que condenaron a los Comisarios y a los Policías Metropolitanos les digo una sola cosa: allá arriba hay un Dios y la justicia divina es inapelable.
Hoy estoy de luto por mi maltratado país, por Uds., pobres seres, que reemplazan la justicia con la venganza, por el odio sembrado entre hermanos, por los que amamos nuestra patria y no encontramos el camino correcto para liberarnos de los delincuentes que la tienen secuestrada, y por tantas otras cosas que nos avergüenzan como ciudadanos de esta patria linda.
Comisarios, Policías, no pierdan la fé, su condena, con la ayuda de Dios, será mucho más corta de lo que se imaginan. Tenemos 10 años viviendo en un infierno que no nos merecemos, pero Venezuela renacerá y recuperará la dignidad y el respeto que han sido pisoteados sin clemencia por las ansias de poder de un solo hombre.
María Luisa Rivero de Niño
C.I. N° 2.931.742
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangaritablog2.blogspot.com/
Resources:
http://www.11abril.com/index.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)