Protesters with signs calling to Free Alex Saab, June 6, 2022. Photo: File.
On Monday, December 12, the US court in charge of the case concerning Venezuelan citizen Alex Saab, accused of alleged money laundering, began hearings with witnesses to determine whether or not the defendant has diplomatic immunity.
The defense presented several witnesses in support of the argument concerning the diplomatic rank of Saab, who was arrested in 2020 in Cape Verde due to an international arrest warrant issued by the United States, where he was extradited in October 2021.
From Venezuela, an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs testified via Zoom. The official verified the authenticity of the documents presented by the defense, where Saab is listed as the Special Envoy of the Venezuelan government to Iran.
Protest Called in Miami for Freedom of Venezuelan Diplomat Alex Saab, Jailed in US
Last May, a US appeals court refused to hear Saab’s immunity case and referred it to a lower court in Miami.
Judge Robert N. Scola is the one who will decide on the diplomatic immunity of the Venezuelan special envoy and whether to dismiss the Venezuelan government’s allegations and the defense in the United States.
According to the criminal indictment, the US detained Saab for allegedly laundering $350 million in the proceeds of an alleged corruption network to carry out public projects.
Saab pleaded not guilty to the money laundering charge, saying it was all part of a politically-motivated persecution, as he was a high-level official tasked with dealing with the US blockade.
Last month, the District Attorney’s Office demanded that Judge Robert N. Scola not withdraw the indictment against Saab, as requested by the defense, because – in its opinion – Saab does not enjoy the alleged diplomatic immunity.
It also argued that a digital copy of an announcement of diplomatic appointments in the Venezuelan Official Gazette, where Saab appears among those named, does not correspond to the original.
Representatives of the US government stated that the defendant’s name does not appear on the list.
Other details
For the US District Attorney’s Office, Saab’s immunity claims were litigated and denied in their entirety in Cape Verde. In this regard, the defense described the argument as incorrect.
The US side noted that Saab does not satisfy the criteria for transit immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or customary international law.
The Venezuelan government expressed its rejection of the judicial process and its condemnation of the illegal detention of Saab.
Day 1 of Hearing About US Political Prisoner Alex Saab’s Diplomatic Status
In its almost 40-page petition to the judge, the District Attorney’s Office also noted that the United States does not recognize Maduro’s legitimacy nor members of his government as diplomats and representatives of Venezuela because it recognizes Juan Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela.
In the US, the FreeAlexSaab Movement called for protests against the kidnapping of the Venezuelan diplomat.
On Monday, December 12, a group of people demonstrated in front of the Miami courts with banners calling for the release of the official.
According to lawyer Laila Tajeldine, a member of Alex Saab’s defense team, the prosecution makes a series of irrelevant and inconsistent arguments:
Firstly, they argue that there is an appointment of Alex published in the Official Gazette, but it was later disseminated.
In Tajeldine’s opinion, this is irrelevant because, in Venezuela, the appointment of a Special Envoy is never published in Official Gazette. There is no legal obligation to publish it. Why, then, do they insist on referring to the publication in the Official Gazette?
Second, they describe Saab’s appointment as illegal because it is not similar to other appointments.
Of course, it is not similar to other appointments; it is the appointment of a Special Envoy for humanitarian tasks due to the blockade, something the country has never experienced before. The appointment complies with the requirements of the Organic Law of Administrative Procedures of Venezuela. That is the important thing, says Tajeldine.
Finally, they do not recognize the Maduro government.
This is another inconsistency, as the United States does recognize the Venezuelan government. In addition to the countless trips by Biden administration officials to Caracas, State Department offices, such as the Office of Children’s Affairs, work with the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In fact, the US only recognizes officials appointed by Maduro. Therefore, there is real recognition of Maduro’s government, even though the media maintains the opposite.
In Tajeldine’s opinion, the evidence presented by the defense is compelling.
Between December 12 and 16, the evidence and witnesses will continue to be presented. Later, on December 20, the final arguments from the prosecution and the defense will be heard.
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/FV/SF
