viernes, 20 de enero de 2012

Juico a Garzón por la "memoria histórica"

Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, Lawyers for Lawyers, the International Commission of Jurists and Judges for Judges
Les invitan cordialmente a participar en la mesa redonda sobre el
Juicio a Garzón por la “memoria histórica”: Los déficits de la justicia.
La opinión de observadores internacionales

Lunes 23 de enero de 2012 a las 19 horas
Sala de Conferencias, Ateneo de Madrid
Calle Prado 21, Madrid
En relación con el juicio contra el Juez Garzón por abrir la investigación de los crímenes del franquismo, los siguientes expertos juristas, de organizaciones nacionales e internacionales, pondrán de relieve la amenaza que este proceso supone para los derechos de las víctimas y para la aplicación del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos:
Presenta: Ma Angeles Siemens, Presidenta de la Sección de Derechos Civiles del Ateneo de Madrid
Pedro Nikken: Presidente de la Comisión Internacional de Juristas
Reed Brody: Consejero Jurídico de Human Rights Watch
Jimena Reyes: Responsable de la Oficina de las Américas de la Federación Internacional de Derechos Humanos
Hugo Relva: Consejero Jurídico de Amnistía Internacional Secretariado Internacional Alicia Moreno: Abogado y miembro del Comité Coordinador de Rights International Spain
Modera: Manuel Ollé, Vicepresidente de la Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España Con la participación de 




Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, Lawyers for Lawyers, the International Commission of Jurists and Judges for Judges
Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, Lawyers for Lawyers, the International Commission of Jurists and Judges for Judges
FIDH
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL


Microsoft Word - Garzon_final_statement_ES_fecha.doc

                 Sobre 
el
 Juicio 
contra 
el
 Juez 
Baltasar
 Garzón:


La
 aplicación
 del 
derecho 
internacional 
a 
los
 crímenes 
de 
la 
Guerra 
Civil
 española 
y 
el
Franquismo 
no 
constituye 
prevaricación



En 
Mayo 
de
 2010,
España 
llamaba 
la 
atención 
del 
mundo 
cuando  
el
 Tribunal 
Supremo
suspendía de

sus 
funciones
 como
 consecuencia
 de
 la
 investigación
 abierta 
por
 prevaricación 
al
 Juez
 Baltasar

Garzón,
el
 único
 Juez
 que 
ha 
desafiado 
la 
falta
 de 
responsabilidad 
en 
relación 
con 
los
 crímenes

cometidos
 durante 
la
Guerra 
Civil
 española
 y
 el 
régimen
 franquista.



La
prevaricación,
de
la
que
es
acusado
el
Juez
Garzón,
es
un
delito
contra
el
buen
funcionamiento
de

la
administración
de
justicia,
que
castiga
a
los
jueces
por
emitir
resoluciones
judiciales
injustas.
En

Octubre
de
2008
el
Juez
Baltasar
Garzón
estableció
su
competencia
para
conocer
del
asunto
en

aplicación
de
los
principios
de
imprescriptibilidad
y
no
amnistibialidad
de
los
crímenes
contra
la

humanidad,
autorizadno
la
investigación
de
supuestas
desapariciones,
torturas
y
ejecuciones
de

114,266
personas
identificadas
como
víctimas
ocurridas
entre
el
17
de
julio
de
1936
y
diciembre
de

1951.



Desde
el
inicio
de
la
investigación
por
prevaricación
contra
el
juez
Garzón
por
este
asunto,
el
Tribunal

Supremo
ha
intentado
mantener
el
proceso
al
margen
del
escrutinio
internacional
denegando
la

declaración
de
testigos
expertos
en
derecho
internacional
durante
el
juicio.



El
juicio
oral
en
el
denominado
caso
de
“memoria
histórica”
contra
el
Juez
Garzón
se
inicia
el
próximo

24
de
enero
de
2012.

Este
juicio,
si
termina
en
condena
contra
el
Juez
Garzón,
puede
constituir
la

piedra
que
selle
la
impunidad
de
los
crímenes
cometidos
durante
la
Guerra
Civil
y
el
franquismo
en

España
o
bien
puede
abrir
finalmente,
la
posibilidad
de
que
en
este
país
se
inicie
una
nueva
fase
de

justicia
para
las
víctimas
de
los
crímenes
del
pasado
nunca
antes
investigados
penalmente
por
la

justicia
española.

Las
resoluciones
del
Tribunal
Supremo
han
sostenido
hasta
el
momento
la
supremacía
de
las
normas

nacionales
–incluida
una
ley
de
amnistía
de
1977‐
sobre
los
principios
de
derecho
internacional,
y

han
afirmado
que
la
acción
judicial
debe
mantenerse
al
margen
de
la
acción
legislativa
y
los
acuerdos

políticos
que
según
este
Tribunal
legitiman
la
ley
de
amnistía
de
1977,
y
que
la
hace
distinta
a
otras


que
han
sido
derogadas
en
otras
partes
del
mundo.
El
Tribunal
Supremo
no
reconoce
así
el
rol
de
los

jueces
a
la
hora
de
tomar
medidas
para
corregir
lo
que
en
el
derecho
interno
contradice
los

principios
y
normas
del
derecho
internacional.
En
este
sentido,
el
Tribunal
Supremo
ha
avalado
la

investigación
y
el
enjuiciamiento
de
crímenes
contra
la
humanidad
cometidos
en
terceros
países
si

bien
ha
seguido
una
posición
contradictoria
respecto
de
crímenes
similares
supuestamente

cometidos
en
España.

Por
ello,
las
organizaciones
internacionales
de
derechos
humanos
nacionales
e
internacionales
nos

hemos
pronunciado
contra
el
atentado
a
la
independencia
judicial
en
España
que
entraña
este
juicio.


Hemos
advertido
también
sobre
el
nefasto
precedente
que
esta
visión
prevalente
en
el
Tribunal

Supremo
supone
para
el
acceso
a
la
justicia
de
las
víctimas
de
la
Guerra
Civil
y
el
Franquismo
y
en

general,
para
el
comportamiento
de
los
tribunales
nacionales
a
nivel
mundial,
los
cuales
deben
ser

garantes
de
los
derechos
a
la
verdad,
la
justicia
y
la
reparación
de
las
víctimas.
El
procesamiento
del

juez
Garzón
por
el
delito
de
prevaricación,
es
por
lo
tanto
un
asunto
que
tiene
implicaciones
que

transcienden
a
España.



El
panel
de
jueces
del
Tribunal
Supremo
que
oirá
los
argumentos
del
Juez
Garzón
durante
el
juicio,

tiene
la
oportunidad
de
corregir
el
peligroso
camino
iniciado
por
los
jueces
durante
la
fase
de

instrucción
de
la
causa,
al
haber
autorizado
inapropiadamente
la
investigación
por
prevaricación.


Todo
delito
como
la
prevaricación
judicial
ha
de
ser
aplicada
con
cautela

para
no
socavar
la

independencia
judicial
ni
castigar
a
jueces
que
siguen
interpretaciones
aceptadas
por
el
derecho

internacional.


El
Tribunal
Supremo
tiene
la
posibilidad
de
cumplir
con
la
Constitución
española
que
establecen
que

la
normativa
internacional
forma
parte
también
del
derecho
español
(Art.
10.2
y
96)

y
no
insistir
en

el
error
de
castigar
la
función
judicial
por
aplicar
los
estándares
de
derecho
internacional
–
como
los

principios
de
imprescriptibilidad
y
no
amnistiabilidad
de
los
crímenes
contra
la
humanidad.

En
otras

palabras,
el
Tribunal
Supremo
tiene
la
posibilidad
de
convertirse
en
garante
de
los
derechos

humanos,
al
igual
que
lo
han
hecho
jueces
en
otras
partes
del
mundo,
o
de
resquebrajar
los
avances

de
los
estándares
de
derecho
internacional
y
así
lapidar
la
posibilidad
de
acceso
a
la
justicia
para
las

víctimas
de
graves
violaciones
a
los
derechos
humanos
como
las
ocurridas
durante
Guerra
Civil

española
y
el
régimen
franquista.


El
Estado
español
en
cuanto
tal,
tiene
obligaciones
internacionales
de
conformidad
con
los
tratados

internacionales
suscritos.

El
Estado
tiene
la
obligación,
clara
e
indubitada,
de
investigar
las

ejecuciones
extrajudiciales,
torturas,
desapariciones
forzadas
y
otros
crímenes
de
derecho

internacional
cometidos
durante
la
Guerra
Civil
y
el
régimen
franquista.

Las
Directrices
del
Consejo
de
Europa
para
erradicar
la
impunidad
por
graves
violaciones
a
los

derechos
humanos
establecen
una
garantía
especialmente
importante
en
este
contexto.
Así,
afirman

que
deben
tomarse
las
salvaguardas
necesarias
para
asegurar
que
los
abogados,
fiscales
y
jueces
que

traten
de
investigar
este
tipo
de
hechos
no
se
vean
amenazados
o
perseguidos
por
ejercer
sus

funciones.


Las
organizaciones
firmantes,
instamos
a
que
el
Tribunal
Supremo
actúe
con
el
sentido
del
deber
de

garantía
de
los
derechos
constitucionales
e
internacionales
que
le
imprime
su
función
jurisdiccional,

con
respeto
a
las
obligaciones
internacionales
contraídas
por
el
estado
español,
con
sentido
de

justicia
que
merece
el
juzgamiento
de
un
Juez
de
la
magistratura
española,
y
con
respeto
a
la

independencia
judicial
sobre
todo
a
los
derechos
de
las
víctimas
de
crímenes
de
derecho

internacional.

             



viernes, 13 de enero de 2012

Proceso contra Garzón

España: Proceso contra Garzón supone una amenaza para los derechos humanosEl juez español impugnó las amnistías concedidas en España y otros países del mundo
(Madrid, 13 de enero de 2012) – El juicio que se iniciará próximamente contra el juez español Baltasar Garzón por haber investigado crímenes cometidos durante la Guerra Civil y el franquismo atenta contra el concepto mismo de justicia tanto dentro como fuera de España, señaló hoy Human Rights Watch.
La imputación de Garzón en una segunda causa que investiga la decisión del juez de intervenir las comunicaciones entre diversos abogados y sus clientes en el marco de un resonado caso de corrupción hace sospechar que se trata de represalia contra Garzón por su actuación en varios casos controvertidos.

“Resulta paradójico que Garzón esté siendo juzgado por intentar aplicar en su país los mismos principios que logró promover con éxito en el ámbito internacional”, manifestó 
Reed Brody, consejero jurídico de Human Rights Watch. “Al cabo de 36 años desde la muerte de Franco, España finalmente va a juzgar a alguien en relación con los crímenes cometidos durante su dictadura, y esta persona no es nada menos que el juez que intentó investigar tales delitos”.

El juicio de Garzón en el caso de “memoria histórica” está programado para el 24 de enero de 2012. Se le acusa del presunto delito de prevaricación –dictar a sabiendas resoluciones injustas- por intentar llevar a cabo una investigación efectiva de crímenes de detención ilegal y desaparición forzada ocurridos durante la Guerra Civil española y la dictadura del general Franco, a pesar de que en 1977 España aprobó una ley de amnistía para “actos de intencionalidad política”.

La decisión de Garzón de no aplicar la ley española de amnistía encuentra sustento en el derecho internacional, que establece la obligación de los estados de investigar los delitos internacionales más graves y considera las desapariciones como un delito de carácter permanente mientras no se de razón del paradero de las víctimas. De hecho, la reacción en cadena provocada por el histórico pronunciamiento que Garzón dictó en 1998 contra el Gral. Augusto Pinochet de Chile por el asesinato y la tortura de miles de personas dio lugar a la derogación de las leyes de amnistía en numerosos países en todo el mundo.

El el caso de las “escuchas Gürtel”, cuya vista se ha señalado para el 17 de enero, Garzón ha sido acusado de prevaricación y violación de garantías constitucionales. Esta causa se relaciona con la intervención de las comunicaciones efectuadas por personas detenidas en el contexto de un escándalo sobre una extensa trama de corrupción relacionada con el Partido Popular, actualmente en el gobierno”.

Garzón ordenó una serie de escuchas telefónicas de conversaciones que mantuvieron los presuntos cabecillas de esta red con sus abogados mientras estaban en prisión, ante la sospecha de que los abogados pudieran estar involucrados en las actividades ilícitas .  Al menos, uno de los abogados está imputado en la causa por blanqueó de dinero. No obstante, las grabaciones afectaron conversaciones con otros abogados que no estaban involucrados en el blanqueo de los fondos.

En los dos procesos contra Garzón, la fiscalía ha pedido que se archivara la causa penal ya que, según señaló, los hechos no serían constitutivos de delito. No obstante, las causas han prosperado como acciones particulares y fueron sustanciados por el Tribunal Supremo, que tiene facultades para juzgar a jueces en ejercicio. En la causa sobre la investigación de los crímenes del franquismo, los querellantes son dos organizaciones de significado carácter franquista. En la causa “Gürtel”, los querellantes son los abogados y los detenidos cuyas conversaciones fueron intervenidas, incluso imputados en el caso de corrupción.

Garzón fue suspendido de sus funciones hasta el pronunciamiento definitivo en 2010 tras la apertura de juicio oral en el caso de los crímenes del franquismo.

La querella contra Garzón por el caso “Gürtel” fue admitida a trámite por el Tribunal Supremo en febrero de 2010, nueve meses después de la admisión de la causa de la “memoria histórica”, en mayo de 2009. Además de otros actores consultados, un ex miembro del Tribunal Supremo recién jubilado señaló a Human Rights Watch que creía que los enemigos de Garzón en el poder judicial habían adelantado la causa “Gürtel” para que el proceso contra el juez por la investigación de los crímenes del franquismo, claramente más controvertido, tuviera menor difusión pública y permaneciera a la sombra de esta otra causa. El País señaló que la causa sobre el período franquista quedó 
“curiosamente paralizada” en el tiempo, en alusión a las demoras en el señalamiento del juicio.

Human Rights Watch no ha adoptado una posición respecto de la legalidad de las grabaciones o de si estas pueden considerarse procedentes. Sin embargo, acudir a la interposición de una querella penal, cuando existen otras vías posibles, constituye una medida a primera vista injustificada. El enjuiciamiento de jueces por el delito de prevaricación es un hecho prácticamente sin precedentes en España, manifestó Human Rights Watch.

Los Relatores Especiales de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Independencia de los Magistrados y Abogados han señalado que los jueces no deberían ser juzgados por sus pronunciamientos a menos que se configuren circunstancias absolutamente excepcionales, y que “con el fin de proteger a los jueces de acciones judiciales injustificadas... [es] esencial que también se [les] conceda… cierto grado de inmunidad penal”. Estos expertos de la ONUhan concluido que “la comisión de errores judiciales, la revocación en apelación o la revisión por una instancia judicial superior de una decisión adoptada por un juez no debe ser motivo para su separación del cargo”.

“A menos que existan circunstancias claras y suficientemente convincentes, procesar a un juez por su actuación judicial atenta contra la independencia judicial”, señaló Brody. “Son muchos los gobernantes antidemocráticos que no dejarían pasar la oportunidad de aplicar sanciones penales para silenciar a jueces cuya labor se opone a intereses creados”.

Además del caso de Pinochet, Garzón se ha declarado competente en casos de abusos cometidos en numerosos países. El ex oficial de la Armada argentina Adolfo Scilingo, imputado por Garzón por el asesinato de presos políticos durante la dictadura militar de ese país, cumple actualmente una condena de 30 años de prisión en España. El pedido presentado por Garzón a México permitió la extradición de Ricardo Miguel Cavallo, otro ex militar argentino. Cavallo fue extraditado a España en 2003 y posteriormente fue enviado a Argentina para ser juzgado por la justicia de ese país.

Más recientemente, en abril de 2009, Garzón admitió a trámite una demanda interpuesta por particulares e inició una investigación penal sobre presuntos abusos sufridos por cuatro detenidos en Guantánamo que tenían vínculos con España. Varios cables diplomáticos divulgados por Wikileaks revelan que en varias oportunidades funcionarios estadounidenses habrían intentado de manera privada presionar a fiscales y funcionarios públicos españoles para evitar que prosperaran las investigaciones y lograr que la causa no fuera asignada a Garzón, considerado por el embajador estadounidense en España, Eduardo Aguirre (h), como “antiamericano”.

Para leer el artículo de Reed Brody “The dismal assault on Baltasar Garzón”, visite:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/13/baltasar-garzon-spanish-judge-prosecution

Concesión Premios Derechos Humanos 2011

Origen previsto de fondos APDHE
Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España


Concesión de los Premios Derechos Humanos 2011
Reunido el Jurado convocado por la Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España, acordó otorgar los siguientes Premios Derechos Humanos 2011:
PREMIO NACIONAL: Marcos Ana
Por su trayectoria vital de compromiso permanente en la promoción, defensa y divulgación de los Derechos Humanos, así como de denuncia permanente respecto a sus vulneraciones. Por su labor en defensa de la libertad y los derechos fundamentales de los presos políticos, de los inmigrantes y a favor de aquellas personas y colectivos más desfavorecidos, alentando la solidaridad y cooperación internacional, así como la justicia social.
PREMIO INTERNACIONAL: Luz Estela Castro
Más conocida como Lucha Castro, destaca desde hace muchos años en su labor como abogada y activista en la defensa de los Derechos Humanos y los ideales democráticos, principalmente por las mujeres de Ciudad Juárez. Personifica la lucha de las mujeres y de las organizaciones que las apoyan para que prevalezca su derecho a una vida digna y libre de violencia.
PREMIO DE PERIODISMO: Antonio Gala
El escritor español, desde hace décadas, escribe diariamente una columna en el periódico El Mundo, “La Tronera”, en muchas de las cuales trata con excelente criterio cuestiones de Derechos Humanos. Destaca en su defensa de los derechos de los emigrantes, su condena al racismo, la reivindicación del mestizaje como promotor de la humanización y el progreso cultural.
El acto de entrega de los premios tendrá lugar durante una cena-homenaje el próximo viernes 27 de enero.
Madrid, 2 de enero de 2012
Miembro Afiliado
Federación Internacional de Derechos Humanos

Calle Santísima Trinidad no 30, 2o 2 28010 Madrid Tel: (+34) 91 402 23 12 Fax: (+34) 91 402 84 99
info@apdhe.org www.apdhe.org - http://apdhe.blogspot.com 


Si quieres acompañarnos en la entrega de Premios Derechos Humanos 2011, la misma tendrá lugar el próximo viernes, 27 de Enero, durante una Cena-Homenaje a las 21.00 horas en el Hotel Tryp Santo Domingo (Cuesta de Santo Domingo, 5-7, 28013 Madrid)

El acceso al acto y cena requiere la adquisición de bonos de ayuda de 45 €, cantidad que  puede ser ingresada desde ahora en la cuenta de la APDHE en el BBVA 0182 2458 18 0200315721 indicando “Premios DDHH” y nombre del que transfiere el importe del bono.

En todo caso será necesario que con antelación suficiente (antes de la tarde del 24 de enero) se comunique cada inscripción para la cena, al teléfono 91 402 23 12, o al correo  legal@apdhe.org. Agradeceremos que reenvíes este mismo correo a personas conocidas tuyas que a tu juicio pueden estar interesadas en asistir.

jueves, 12 de enero de 2012

Corrupción en Guinea Ecuatorial y los excesos de Teodorín

The owner of the estate at 3620 Sweetwater Mesa Road, which sits high above Malibu, California, calls himself a prince, and he certainly lives like one. A long, tree-lined driveway runs from the estate's main gate past a motor court with fountains and down to a 15,000-square-foot mansion with eight bathrooms and an equal number of fireplaces. The grounds overlook the Pacific Ocean, complete with swimming pool, tennis court, four-hole golf course, and Hollywood stars Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, and Kelsey Grammer for neighbors.With his short, stocky build, slicked-back hair, and Coke-bottle glasses, the prince hardly presents an image of royal elegance. But his wardrobe was picked from the racks of Versace, Gucci, and Dolce & Gabbana, and he spared no expense on himself, from the $30 million in cash he paid for the estate to what Senate investigators later reported were vast sums for household furnishings: $59,850 for rugs, $58,000 for a home theater, even $1,734.17 for a pair of wine glasses. When he arrived back home -- usually in the back seat of a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce or one of his other several dozen cars -- his employees were instructed to stand in a receiving line to greet the prince. And then they lined up to do the same when he left.The prince, though, was a phony, a descendant of rulers but not of royals. His full name is Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue -- Teodorin to friends -- and he is the son of the dictator of Equatorial Guinea, a country about the size of Maryland on the western coast of Africa. A postage stamp of a country with a population of a mere 650,000 souls, Equatorial Guinea would be of little international consequence if it didn't have one thing: oil, and plenty of it. The country is sub-Saharan Africa's third-largest producer of oil after Nigeria and Angola, pumping around 346,000 barrels per day, and is both a major supplier to and reliable supporter of the United States. Over the past 15 years, ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., and other American firms have collectively invested several billion dollars in Equatorial Guinea, which exports more of its crude to the U.S. market than any other country.Energy revenues have flowed into the pockets of the country's elite, but virtually none has trickled down to the poor majority; since the oil boom began, the country has rocketed to one of the world's highest per capita incomes -- and one of its lowest standards of living. Nearly four-fifths of its people live in abject poverty; child mortality has increased to the point that today some 15 percent of Equatorial Guinea's children die before reaching age 5, making it one of the deadliest places on the planet to be young.Teodorin's 68-year-old father, Brig. Gen. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, seized power in a 1979 coup and has made apparent his intent to hand over power to a chosen successor. Obiang has sired an unknown number of children with multiple women, but 41-year-old Teodorin is his clear favorite and is being groomed to take over. That's a scary prospect both for the long-suffering citizens of his country and for U.S. foreign policy. As a former U.S. intelligence official familiar with Teodorin put it to me, "He's an unstable, reckless idiot."
He's also, according to thousands of pages of documents I've reviewed from multiple federal and congressional investigations of the Obiangs over the last decade, fantastically corrupt. As the minister of agriculture and forestry in his father's government, Teodorin holds sway over the country's second-largest industry. Investigators have documented how he has run his ministry like a business, operating several logging companies alongside the agency meant to regulate them. Documents from a secret joint investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency quote sources alleging that Teodorin supplemented his modest ministerial salary of $5,000 per month with a "large 'revolutionary tax' on timber" that he ordered international logging firms to pay "in cash or through checks" to a forestry company he owned. Investigators suspect a large chunk of his assets was derived from "extortion, theft of public funds, or other corrupt conduct," stated a 2007 Justice report detailing the probe, which I first reported on for the Harper'swebsite in 2009. Teodorin has not only assembled a vast fortune, he's routed much of it into the United States; a detailed report last year by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that he used shell companies to evade money-laundering laws and funnel more than $100 million into the United States.
All those millions purchased Teodorin a lavish and debauched lifestyle, according to allegations in a series of previously unreported civil lawsuits filed against him by a dozen former employees at the Malibu estate. They claim they were cheated out of salaries, overtime wages, and work-related expenses for items ranging from gasoline to toilet paper, while being forced to support a tawdry setup straight out of the movie The Hangover: There were drug "binges," as one ICE document claimed, escort service girls, Playboy bunnies, and even a tiger. "I never witnessed him perform anything that looked like work," reads a legal filing on behalf of Dragan Deletic, one of Teodorin's former drivers. "His days consisted entirely of sleeping, shopping and partying." (Without responding to specifics, a Los Angeles lawyer for Teodorin, Kevin Fisher, dismissed the charges as "salacious" and "extreme," adding, "The allegations have not been verified and the people making them are not subject to perjury, so I don't give a great deal of credence to them.")
After years of wrangling, most of the cases have now been settled, and the employees signed agreements that prevent them from speaking about Teodorin. But prior to that I interviewed several plaintiffs and their attorney, Jim McDermott, and read the case filings. I also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. and foreign investigations that involve Teodorin. They are incredibly damning.
The larger issue raised by all this is why the U.S. government -- after going to the effort to produce this mound of information pointing to Teodorin's flagrant corruption and apparent misuse of the U.S. banking system -- has been unwilling to do anything about it. "I'm surprised that he's still allowed in the country based on all of the information contained in the Senate report and uncovered by other investigators and reporters," said Linda Candler, a former Justice Department prosecutor who specialized in international criminal investigations. Indeed, legal experts say that Teodorin shouldn't have been allowed to enter the United States since 2004, when President George W. Bush issued Proclamation 7750, which bars corrupt foreign officials from receiving U.S. visas. "No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves," said Bush's successor Barack Obama, whose administration pledged to "vigorously" enforce 7750. "We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't."
And yet no formal action against Teodorin has been taken, despite an investigation whose stated goal, according to one of the Justice Department documents, was to shut down the flow of money into the United States "obtained through kleptocracy" by the Obiangs. Why? U.S. officials declined to discuss the ongoing cases on the record or speak harshly about Equatorial Guinea; it certainly appears to be the familiar story of a U.S. government unwilling to offend an important oil partner -- the same coddling that has produced such stellar results in the past with Saudi Arabia and other energy-rich, democracy-poor Middle East allies. The Obama administration last year did help block UNESCO, the U.N. cultural agency, from accepting $3 million from Obiang to endow a science prize in his name -- but only after a public outcry raised by media reports calling attention to a prize the United States had previously been willing to overlook. Otherwise the administration has said little publicly about Equatorial Guinea's awful record of corruption and human rights violations, and it has failed to impose sanctions against Teodorin or the state he is set to inherit. As of late 2010, years after the Justice Department probe began, investigators were still seeking to identify expert witnesses who could tell them about the early days of the Obiang regime.
To date, the only substantial actions taken against the Obiang clan in the United States have been prompted by the efforts of McDermott, the plaintiffs' attorney, and Superior Court judges in California. "In our system of international politics, there's a lot of ass-kissing, especially if there's oil involved," McDermott told me. "But in the cases that have gone to judgment thus far, the buck has stopped with our state court, which doesn't give special treatment to anyone, including Teodorin. That's the beauty of the rule of law."
BUT IN EQUATORIAL GUINEA, THE OBIANGS ARE THE LAW. The only former Spanish colony in sub-Saharan Africa, Equatorial Guinea gained independence in 1968. The country's first ruler was Francisco Macias Nguema, a crackpot dictator who named himself the "Implacable Apostle of Freedom" and "The Sole Miracle of Equatorial Guinea." In 1979, by which time his regime had murdered as many as 50,000 of his opponents -- real and imagined -- the Sole Miracle was overthrown and executed by his nephew, Obiang père. Teodoro was then only 37 years old, but he was already skilled in the art of dictatorship after running Macias's National Guard and Black Beach prison, a notorious torture chamber for political prisoners. Over the past three decades, Obiang has been thrice "elected" in sham ballots, most recently in 2009 when he won 95.4 percent of the vote (a record low; he peaked with 97.85 percent in 1996).
The United States historically had little interest in Equatorial Guinea and closed its embassy there in 1995 after the Obiang regime issued threats against Ambassador John Bennett, who had lodged protests over human rights conditions. But in an unfortunate twist, American companies soon discovered vast reserves of oil and gas in the waters off Equatorial Guinea, and successive U.S. governments have been slowly but steadily backtracking ever since. The key step came in 2003, when after an intense lobbying campaign by the oil industry, Bush approved the reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea's capital. (The embassy formally reopened three years later.) "With the increased U.S. investment presence, relations between the U.S. and the Government of Equatorial Guinea have been characterized as positive and constructive," notes the State Department's country profile. Relations may be good, but the official U.S. assessment of the country is much less rosy. The State Department's most recent global human rights report cited abuses in Equatorial Guinea including "torture of detainees and prisoners by security forces; life-threatening conditions in prisons [and] arbitrary arrest." Freedom House's 2011 "Freedom in the World" survey put the country in its "worst of the worst" category for governments that violate political rights and civil liberties, along with North Korea, Sudan, and Turkmenistan.
Equatorial Guinea's economy depends almost entirely on oil, which generated revenues last year of well over $4 billion, giving it a per capita annual income of $37,900, on par with Belgium. "The oil has been for us like the manna that the Jews ate in the desert," Obiang has said. It certainly has been for him. Obiang placed eighth on a 2006 list by Forbes of the world's richest leaders, with a personal fortune estimated at $600 million. His population hasn't fared so well. Human Rights Watch reports that one in three of Obiang's impoverished subjects dies before age 40.
Obiang's corruption is hardly unique among oil-rich dictators. French authorities have uncovered 39 properties in France and 70 French bank accounts held by the family of President Omar Bongo, who ruled Gabon for 41 years until his death in 2009. (Soon thereafter, his son, Ali Bongo, took power.) Denis Sassou-Nguesso, the leader of Congo-Brazzaville, has bought a variety of French properties with tens of millions of dollars in oil revenues funneled out of his country. "All the leaders of the world have castles and palaces in France, whether they are from the Gulf, Europe, or Africa," Sassou-Nguesso recently said by way of explanation. In Central Asia, fantastically rich new ruling families have exploited energy wealth with great panache too, from throwing birthday parties featuring Elton John to doling out luxury villas to friends and family.
But Obiang watchers say the scale of his regime's looting appears to be approaching the sort of baroque levels reached before by historic crooks like Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, America's closest friend in Africa during the Cold War, and Nigerian Gen. Sani Abacha, who funneled several billion dollars into Swiss accounts before dying in 1998 of undetermined causes, reportedly in the company of two teenage prostitutes. Many African regimes have degenerated into kleptocracy, but Equatorial Guinea's corruption is so entrenched, scholar Geoffrey Wood has written, that it "is one of the few African countries that 'can be correctly classified as a criminal state.'"
A few members of Congress have criticized Obiang -- Michigan Sen. Carl Levin once compared him to Saddam Hussein -- and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has twice investigated the regime, in its report on Teodorin last year and in 2004, when it found that Obiang personally controlled as much as $700 million in state funds deposited at Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., overwhelmingly by U.S. oil companies. The Senate panel said Riggs opened multiple accounts for Obiang and helped the president stash his wealth in offshore shell corporations; it was eventually hit with a huge fine for this and similar dealings with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and for violating the Bank Secrecy Act.
But in general, the U.S. government has preferred to look the other way since the oil boom hit, aside from the criticism contained in the pro forma annual State Department human rights reports and milquetoast appeals for better behavior. "We've raised our strong concerns about the country's poor human rights record consistently in meetings with officials from EG up to the highest level," a State Department official told me by email.
To ensure that Equatorial Guinea stays within the reasonable limits of Washington's good graces, Obiang has hired a team of American lobbyists and PR specialists, among them Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Bill Clinton and now a Washington lobbyist who has also represented the 2009 Honduran coup plotters and, briefly, Laurent Gbagbo, the human-rights-abusing leader of the Ivory Coast who refused to step down after losing elections late last year. "I've kidded him he'd dobetter to win by 51 percent than 98 percent," Davis told the New York Times about Obiang -- the type of sage advice for which Equatorial Guinea pays him a cool $1 million a year. The government also retains Qorvis Communications, which for $15,000 per month emails out a steady stream of news releases highlighting all manner of heartwarming news about Equatorial Guinea, from the Obiang government's alleged support for animal conservation to native daughter Matinga Ragatz being named Michigan's "Teacher of the Year." Teodorin separately pays the firm $55,000 per month to help polish his image, lobbying disclosure reports say.
Early one evening this past summer, I met two of Teodorin's PR handlers from Qorvis, Matt J. Lauer and Seth Pietras, at a bar in Washington. The two men unknotted their ties in unison after slipping onto a couch and ordering drinks. Allegations of human rights abuses in Equatorial Guinea are highly exaggerated, they said, citing as evidence their experience during a trip to the country. "We could walk around at night and talk with people and no one interfered with us," said Lauer. "No one is saying there are no problems, but it's not North Korea." They were similarly miffed about Teodorin's reputation as a high-rolling kleptocrat, saying that officials from a number of energy-rich countries also live lavishly, while their client was unfairly singled out. Pietras noted that Bush had reportedly been a drinker and partier as a younger man before becoming more serious. Teodorin, he offered, "is at the point where he's thinking about his legacy."
IF SO, THEN SOME SERIOUS SOUL-SEARCHING IS IN ORDER. In the fall of 1991, Teodorin, then 22, arrived on the posh Malibu campus of Pepperdine University to enroll in an English-as-a-second-language course. Walter International, a Houston-based energy firm that then had a stake in Equatorial Guinea's as-yet-untapped offshore fields, financed Teodorin's studies. Walter also agreed to pick up Teodorin's living expenses, which proved to be a costly mistake. Tuition was a mere $3,400 and included boarding at Pepperdine, but Teodorin deemed the dormitory unsuitable and shuttled between two off-campus residences: a rental home in Malibu and a suite at the Beverly Wilshire hotel. He rarely attended class, instead spending much of his time shopping in Beverly Hills. Teodorin dropped out of the program after five months; Walter International's tab came to about $50,000. The aggrieved firm complained to Ambassador Bennett, and the story later came out in public.
Teodorin traveled the world in subsequent years but returned frequently to the Los Angeles area. In 2001, he bought a $6.5 million home on Antelo Road in Bel Air, across from actress Farrah Fawcett. He never moved in, however, lamenting to a real estate agent that in retrospect the house was too contemporary for his taste.
Teodorin dreamed of being a hip-hop mogul and for a time owned and operated a label whose name was derived from his initials: TNO Entertainment. TNO's most significant project appears to have been a flop titled No Better Than This by Won-G -- a fitting collaboration given that the rapper, whose real name is Wondge Bruny, has described his father as a former military official under "Baby Doc" Duvalier, the Haitian dictator deposed in 1986.
Teodorin continued to burn through cash during these years. He lived for a time at a Paris hotel off the Champs-Élysées; a French TV crew captured him on a shopping spree during which, it reported, he bought more than 30 suits in a single day. In 2004, he bought two estates worth a combined $7 million in Cape Town. But he and his family generally stayed off the radar screen in the United States -- until the Riggs scandal broke.
Lesser kleptocrats might have turned tail and fled, but not Teodorin. He employed two lawyers to set up shell companies and associated bank accounts that he controlled but on which his name never appeared, according to the 2010 Senate report. It found that the companies were merely vehicles for him to receive and spend funds wired from abroad.
In 2006, Teodorin used one of the firms, Sweetwater Malibu LLC, to purchase the Malibu estate, which is among the largest homes in the private gated community of Serra Retreat. When it came to spending habits, Teodorin wasn't to be outdone by his Hollywood-star neighbors. He owned at least three dozen luxury cars, including seven Ferraris, five Bentleys, four Rolls-Royces, two Lamborghinis, two Mercedes-Benzes, two Porsches, two Maybachs, and an Aston Martin, with a collective insured value of around $10 million, according to the Senate investigation. There were far too many cars to keep at the estate, so Teodorin rented storage space in the garage of the Petersen Automotive Museum on Wilshire Boulevard and had his drivers fetch the one he wanted for an outing, a choice that sometimes depended on his attire. "I'm wearing blue shoes, so get me the blue Rolls today," he once told Benito Giacalone, a former driver.
His favorite was a blue Bugatti Veyron, a car that can reach speeds of more than 250 miles per hour and sells new for about $2 million. One night, Teodorin parked his toy near the entrance of L'Ermitage, a favorite hangout where he'd gone for drinks. When he saw gawkers stop to admire it, he sent Giacalone back to Malibu by cab so Giacalone could drive back his second Bugatti to park next to it.
Teodorin's household staff included drivers, housekeepers, caretakers, estate managers, executive assistants, chefs, landscaping crews, and two security teams with off-duty and retired cops, and guards from Equatorial Guinea. One security unit was based at the estate while a second, called the "chase team," tailed Teodorin on his late-night excursions into Malibu and beyond. Legal filings depict the "prince" as a nocturnal creature who generally slumbered until afternoon and sometimes as late as 9 p.m.
He dated a series of women, among them the rapper Eve, whom he designated as president, treasurer, and chief financial officer of his Sweet Pink shell company, according to the 2010 Senate report. An Equatorial Guinean logging company owned by Teodorin transferred $60,000 into Sweet Pink's corporate account, but the Union Bank of California, where it was housed, shut it down a month later, in October 2005, because it deemed any funds sent from Equatorial Guinea to be potentially of criminal origins. In 2005, Teodorin reportedly threw a party for Eve aboard the Tatoosh, a 303-foot yacht that he rented for $700,000 from its owner, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. An account in the New York Daily News said she later cooled on him, perhaps after hearing that his father was an accused cannibal who had eaten his political rivals. Other companions included Tamala Jones, who appeared in such movies as Booty Call and Confessions of a Call Girl, and Lindsey Evans, named Miss Louisiana Teen USA in 2008 and Playboy Playmate of the Month in October 2009.
The guest list at Teodorin's mansion invariably included an assortment of high-heeled, miniskirt-clad women procured from escort agencies, according to my interviews with former employees. Giacalone noted in his legal filings that his unofficial duties included accompanying his boss's girlfriends on elaborate shopping sprees. He also said the Dolce & Gabbana store on Rodeo Drive periodically dispatched a sales associate and tailor to Teodorin's estate in a van packed with racks of merchandise for his viewing and would close off its second-floor showroom when his girlfriends came in to shop. Giacalone said he escorted one who racked up about $80,000 in purchases, including bronze and red dresses that cost nearly $7,000 apiece. Giacalone claims Teodorin gave him the embarrassing task of paying the tab from a Nike shoebox filled with shrink-wrapped bills.
Thanks to his diplomatic passport, Teodorin routinely carried as much as $1 million in cash into the country, the ICE documents allege. Several ex-employees said he had a bag the size of a small suitcase that was forever stuffed with stacks of fresh $100 bills. Teodorin traveled on a Gulfstream V, which he bought in 2006 through a British Virgin Islands-registered shell called Ebony Shine International, Ltd. "He used it like a taxi," Giacalone said. "He'd fly alone or use it to pick up one passenger. Once he sent it from Rio to Los Angeles to bring back his barber." And Teodorin didn't travel light. He bought a 15-seat cargo van and had the seats taken out to fit his collection of Louis Vuitton luggage.
Records compiled by FlightAware, a firm that tracks private and commercial air traffic, show that Teodorin's ministerial duties took him to such vital destinations as Las Vegas, where a July 2009 bill for the presidential suite at the Four Seasons -- made out to "Prince Teodoro Nguema Obiang" -- showed a rate of $5,000 per night; to Miami, where he docked one of his two Nor-Tech 5000 speedboats; and to Palm Beach. International destinations included Bermuda, Nice, and Paris.
His fall 2009 monthlong jaunt to Maui stands out for debauched luxury, according to an account by Giacolone. Teodorin flew on the Gulfstream V and chartered a second jet for a group of household employees. He also brought along a few escort girls and shipped several sports cars and one of the Nor-Tech speedboats, painted in gaudy orange, purple, and yellow. The leaded fuel it ran on wasn't sold on the island, so it was flown in, at a cost of $600 per barrel, the former driver claimed. But the holiday was marred when the Nor-Tech capsized into the Pacific following a brief excursion. "I still have not be[en] able to confirm where the guy is from, but money is not a problem," one bemused local wrote on an online boating forum, thehulltruth.com. "Yesterday, when it was time to drive the boat, the prince showed up at the ramp in his Bugatti.… Between the car, the boat, the royal aides (including four absolutely stunning foxes) with him, they were quite an image at the tiny ramp."
AMERICA HAS BEEN ONE LONG PARTY FOR TEODORIN, but his days of wine and roses might finally be coming to an end. He still owns the Malibu estate; Lauer at Qorvis insists there is no information suggesting he is barred from the United States and that he came on a visit last spring. (Qorvis declined to reply to questions about the claims of corruption and money-laundering by U.S. investigators or the allegations from the former employees suing Teodorin.) But the 2010 Senate report disclosed reams of the family's sensitive banking information, which has surely reduced his ability to move money into the country. Meanwhile, new lawsuits keep sprouting up -- there are four still outstanding -- and the charges grow ever more lurid, with one former employee alleging full frontal nudity by Teodorin. "He is a guest in our country who clearly does not think that the rules apply to him," McDermott argues.
Perhaps all this helps explain why Teodorin is seldom in Los Angeles these days, spending far more time in Equatorial Guinea. It may not be Malibu, but he owns a huge beachfront estate there with a swimming pool set on a patio dotted with marble statues imported from Italy. Better yet, there are no investigators or financial regulators to worry about. Through a holding company called Abayak and other assorted business vehicles, Teodorin's father reportedly has a stake in all key economic sectors. Gabriel, Teodorin's younger brother, controls the oil sector from a post at the Ministry of Mines and Energy. His cousin runs the treasury department and oversees the budget, and another relative heads the military cabinet.
Nor does Teodorin need to fret about nosy reporters, because there is no independent radio or television in Equatorial Guinea. In 2009, the Information Ministry dismissed four journalists at a state broadcaster for "lack of enthusiasm" about the government's "merits." A few years earlier, an announcer on Radio Asonga -- owned by Teodorin -- declared that President Obiang was "inpermanent contact with the Almighty" and has the authority to "kill without anyone calling him to account."
Washington's accommodation of Obiang stands in marked contrast to its harsher treatment of global thugs who aren't lucky enough to be sitting atop vast energy reserves. And the relationship between the United States and Equatorial Guinea is as oily as they come. In June 2000, with American oil company executives starting to call Equatorial Guinea the "Kuwait of Africa," the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a U.S. government agency, approved $173 million in loan guarantees to build an American-owned methanol plant in Equatorial Guinea, at the time its largest program ever in sub-Saharan Africa. Five months later, Rep. William Jefferson led the first-ever congressional delegation to Equatorial Guinea and was presented with a key to Malabo. (Jefferson was sentenced to prison in 2009 after being convicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Prosecutors charged that he took bribes in exchange for promoting deals in Africa, including oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea.)
In September 2005, the Obiang regime tortured dozens of detainees it had accused of having links to an alleged coup attempt the year before, according to credible human rights groups. Yet the following April, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Obiang in Washington and called him a "good friend" of the United States. In September 2009, two months before Equatorial Guinea held its sham presidential election, a smiling Obama posed for a photo with Obiang during a reception at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, marking a minor PR coup for the regime.
American business ties have meanwhile deepened and expanded. In February 2010, Equatorial Guinea quietly awarded a $250 million contract to Virginia-based private security firm Military Professional Resources Initiative (MPRI) to provide coastal monitoring, a deal that required State Department approval. "Granting a license to MPRI is consistent with our foreign policy goal of ensuring maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea," a State Department official told me in an email, adding that the license came with training that "includes an important human rights component and anti-trafficking provision and we believe this training is a strong tool for tangible improvement in human rights and transparency."
Several other countries, however, appear to be going after Equatorial Guinea's leaders with more vigor. A Spanish court is investigating a complaint charging that 11 of Obiang's relatives and associates used $26.5 million in laundered money to buy houses and chalets in Madrid and the Canary Islands. A 2007 French police inquiry uncovered tens of millions of dollars' worth of assets belonging to the Obiang gang, including luxury cars owned by Teodorin worth a combined $6.3 million. Late last year, a French court ruled that a related corruption case brought by human rights groups against the Obiangs and several other African ruling families could proceed.
After years of allowing him to run amok in the United States and otherwise enabling him, the U.S. government may soon find that it needs to deal far more directly with Teodorin in the future. In a clear sign of his political ascendancy, his doting father named him vice president of the ruling party last July. Furthermore, a well-placed source told me that government officials in Equatorial Guinea have already informed American oil company executives that Teodorin will be the country's next leader. Given the size of his country's oil reserves, he's going to have leverage -- and cash -- for a long time to come.
Note to the Obama administration: If you think he was hard to manage as the Prince of Malibu, just wait until Teodorin becomes the King of Equatorial Guinea.