09:18 AM
Historical. This was the ruling this week by a United States federal court that declared the banana company Chiquita Brands International responsible for financing the paramilitaries. He will have to pay US$38.3 million to the families of eight victims. However, in Colombia the panorama is totally different.
In interview with Colpress Lawyer Sebastián Escobar of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective, who represents several victims in the process being followed in Colombia against several former directors of that multinational, questions the little progress that the Prosecutor’s Office has had in this case and that it is a Court first. foreigner who speaks out on such a key fact for the country.
In context: Chiquita Brands: the details of the sentence against the company that financed the paramilitaries and the guerrillas in Urabá
– Chiquita Brands, formerly United Fruit Company, was declared responsible in the United States for financing paramilitarism in Colombia. For you as victims, what is the meaning of that decision?
It is a historic decision that a Court declares the responsibility of a multinational company for these events, which also constitute a clear violation of Human Rights. Although it occurs outside the country and is part of a civil and not criminal process, it leaves a very powerful message regarding the responsibility of companies with paramilitarism and we hope that it will have effects in the future.
What relationship does it have with the investigations in Colombia against that multinational?
They originate from the same facts, that is, in the financing of the company to paramilitary groups between 1997 and 2004. Unlike what is being investigated in Colombia, where only this financing is investigated, in the United States, the process addresses responsibility. of the company on specific issues to specific victims.
In Colombia, for its part, the justice system has focused solely on the investigation of the financing, under the crime of conspiracy, but has not delved into the attribution of responsibility for the acts committed by paramilitaries within the framework of that financing.
Who is being investigated for this financing?
There is an investigation that is in the trial stage before the specialized judges of Antioquia against 11 executives of both the multinational Chiquita Brands and some of its subsidiaries in Colombia*.
What is the progress of that case? Have you faced many obstacles?
It is a process whose investigation began in 2007, when a complaint was filed against the multinational for these financings. In 2012 there was a preclusion of a Medellín Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office that was later revoked by the Deputy Prosecutor’s Office and since that moment an investigation has been carried out where multiple pieces of evidence have been analyzed.
Today, almost five years after the accusation was finalized, the trial has not concluded, in part because the defense has requested a fairly high number of testimonies, despite the fact that many had already declared themselves in the previous phase. For us, it is a disproportionate situation that such a high number of testimonies are attempted in the trial.
How many are we talking about?
More than 50 witnesses requested by the defense for the trial phase. In this process, 11 people are investigated and we are talking about five defenders, who each made a request for evidence.
See also: Chiquita Brands paid 3 cents per box of bananas exported to the paramilitaries, this was their criminal agreement
Although these events were declared against humanity. Is there any risk that they may prescribe?
Indeed. Although the crime is declared against humanity, which has consequences of imprescriptibility, this is so that the Prosecutor’s Office can carry out an investigation. That is, at any time the Prosecutor’s Office can continue to deepen the investigations of crimes that are declared against humanity.
However, once a person is linked to a process, he or she cannot be held subjudice under a process without terms.
How close is that risk?
We estimate that this phenomenon may occur in September of next year. As of today, about half of the witnesses are missing. Yes, there is a risk of prescription.
For years it has been known that Chiquita Brands is not the only banana multinational that financed paramilitarism. How are the other judicial processes progressing?
In Colombia we evidently have a phenomenon of links between certain business sectors and paramilitary groups or armed actors within the framework of political violence and conflict. The Urabá region accounts for this phenomenon, not only of the multinational, but of many banana farms that were part of the union.
I understand that there are several investigations in Antioquia related to this, but I do not know the phase in which they are. But we hope, in any case, that for this investigation as for the others, this decision by a Court in the United States will serve as a stimulus for investigations at the local level to advance. It is paradoxical and at the same time inconceivable that a judge who is not from the country where the events occurred, who became aware of the events much later than in Colombia, makes a decision first.
*THE DATA
The directors who are at the trial stage are Charles Dennis, manager of CI Banadex from 1990 to 2000; Reinaldo Elías Escobar, member of its board of directors from 1995 to 1998; Víctor Julio Buitrago, head of security at Banadex SA; John Paul Olivo, controller of Banadex from 1996 to 2001; and Fuad Alberto Giacoman.
There are also José Luis Valverde, general manager of CI Banadex between 2000 and 2002; Álvaro Acevedo González, who held that same position, but at Banadex SA; Víctor Manuel Henríquez, executive president of CI Banacol SA; Jorge Alberto Cadavid, financial vice president of CI Banacol SA; and Javier Ochoa Velásquez, production manager of CI Banacol SA.
You may be interested in: This is how Chiquita Brands’ payment to the paramilitaries was created
