Drummond Colombian Investigation of Witnesses

Exhibit 1

FILED 2015 Aug-31 PM 03:42U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 of 104

��

� ��

NATION’S GENERAL PROSECUTION OFFICE DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL PROSECUTION OFFICES

SPECIALIZING IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

SPECIALIZED PROSECUTION OFFICE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN FILING 996 DH-DIH

Bogotá, August twenty-five (25), two thousand fifteen (2015).

MATTER TO BE DECIDED The Prosecution Office proceeds to resolve the legal situation of SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, identified with Citizenship Document No. 5.088.026, issued in la Paz, Cesar, who was subjected to this investigation as the alleged person responsible for the crimes of AGGRAVATED COLLUSION TO COMMIT A CRIME and AGGRAVATED HOMICIDE, the victims of which were Messrs. VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA, President and Vice President of the SINTRAMIENERGETICA labor union, respectively, pursuant to what is set forth in article 354 C.P.P., in the following terms:

SUMMARY OF FACTS The record shows that on March 12, 2001, Messrs. VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA, President and Vice President of the SINTRAMIENERGETICA labor union, respectively, upon conclusion of their work day, were traveling by bus of the company “Transalva”, a Drummond contractor, from the mine of the multinational company Drummond to the Municipality of Valledupar, and around 6:15 p.m., in the sector of “Casa de Zinc”, the bus on which they were riding was intercepted by a group of persons belonging to the “Juan Andrés Alvarez” Front of the Northern Bloc of the AUC, who climbed onto the bus, carrying weapons, and ordered the passengers to get off the bus, and as soon as VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ was identified, they murdered him on the spot. His body showed four bullet wounds to the head, as described in the autopsy, and as shown in photographs. Immediately thereafter, the murderers proceeded to separate the second victim from the group, who was initially confused with JESUS ENRIQUE BAUTE HERNANDEZ, who is taken to the green Ford Lobo pickup truck in which they were traveling, but in its interior, there was a person who, without lowering the window completely, indicated that such person was not the one they were looking for, and therefore, they let him return to the group.


��

� �

Once VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA was identified, they took him to the “VADELCO” warehouse, and then, after midnight, is lifeless body was found in the rural district of Loma Colorada. His death is recorded at around 2:20 a.m. of March 13, 2001, at around the kilometer 72 plus 500 meter mark of the road from Bosconia to Cuatro Vientos, jurisdiction of the Department of Cesar. The body had three (3) bullet wounds, two in the head and one in the face, as illustrated photographically in the process.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CRIME The facts as described above fit the characterization of the crime found in articles 104, numeral 10, and 304, second clause, of the Colombian Criminal Code of 2000, with the latter provision modified by article 8 of Law 733 of 2002, which describe and punish, respectively, the crimes of aggravated homicide and aggravated collusion to commit a crime, which provisions must be applied because they are the most adequate, given that at the time of the events, the ones that were in effect, and which set the most stringent prison sentences for the aforementioned punishable conducts, were articles 30 of Law 40 of 1993, which modified article 324, numeral 8 of the Criminal Code of 1980, and article 4 of Law 589 of 2000, which modified article 186 of the same criminal statute.

IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, identified with Citizenship Document No. 5.088.026, issued in la Paz, Cesar, born on May 19, 1955, in Valledupar, the son of Santander and María Teresa, both deceased, with 12 brothers, education level up to the ninth semester of law in the University of Rosario in Bogotá, with a Civil Status of being married, with 2 children of legal age, whose assets are the home where he resides in Valledupar, and an apartment in the city of Bogotá, and the twelfth part of another home in Valledupar and a farm inherited from the parents, and who has been a Drummond officer for 26 years now, in the position of Manager of Community Relations, with main office in the city of Valledupar.

RESPONSE SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, upon being questioned, denies the charges made against him in this process. He says that at the time of the events, he worked for the company Drummond as a manager of community relations, that he has never belonged or collaborated with groups that are outside the law, and that, to the contrary, he has always had good relations with the public force located in the department, whether it is the police, the army, or even investigation agencies, and that when Drummond began it operations in the center of Cesar, the first facilities they built were those to house the public force,


��

� ��

especially the national army, which institutions have always protected the operation of the company. That with respect to the declarations of certain demobilized personnel, which seek to involve him in illegal activities, he is somewhat aware of them, because they were rendered in Colombia, but were used by U.S. attorneys in proceedings in the United States; that he is also aware of declarations of paramilitaries that were collected by the 22nd Prosecution Office specializing in anti-terrorism, which opened a process against him for the crime of collusion to commit a crime, regarding which he exhibits a copy of the prosecution-precluding resolution issued by that office on July 26, 2010, within the process of the filing 68 Sijuf, which is a structure that supports paramilitary policies. That proceeding was begun as a result of a claim filed by the person who claimed to be named CARLOS JULIO PIEDRAHITA GOMEZ, stating that he represented the committee of attorneys from the coast, which information was later to be proven to be false, as a result of the respective investigation, in which an important group of demobilized persons freely and broadly rendered declarations, which demobilized persons had also rendered declarations for the proceedings in the United States, in which absolutely all of them coincide in that they had no relationship with him or with other officers of the company. With respect to the events that occurred on March 12, 2001, in which VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA lost their lives, he states that, while he was at his residence after seven-thirty or eight p.m., he received an urgent message informing him of the events that occurred. Within the company, there is a contingency plan that requires that, given the onset of serious events, a certain group of persons must be informed, and in that case, they were to immediately notify the authorities that a homicide had occurred at the scene of the crime, along with a kidnapping, and he immediately notified the authorities and requested support from the investigation agencies as well, and to coordinate the actions for moving the only body they had at the time, and coordinated all the funeral arrangements that were earmarked for employees. That he never knew or had dealings with the paramilitaries. He knew JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS, because he was an employee of JAIME BLANCO, with whom he had studied, and who additionally was a contractor of the company Drummond. The relationship with him was normal, and had nothing to do with is contract, which contract was audited by the campsite management. That it is absolutely false that in his position as executive of the multinational DRUMMOND, he met with JAIME BLANCO MAYA, JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS, RODRIGO TOVAR PUPO ALIAS JORGE 40 in order to plan and organize the multinational company’s support to the AUC, especially the JUAN ANDRES ALVAREZ front, or to plan the crime against the union leaders.


��

� ��

He claims to be innocent of the charges leveled against him as mastermind of the crimes of aggravated collusion to commit a crime and co-mastermind of the crime of aggravated homicide, reiterating that he had already been investigated by the prosecution office once, and that carefully studying the case, the prosecution office declared itself unable to reach a decision to open a criminal proceeding against him.

PRIOR RECORDS Before beginning to study the evidence that has been legally incorporated into the process, it should be stated that RODRIGO TOVAR PUPO, alias JORGE 40, OSCAR JOSE OSPINO PACHECO, alias TOLEMAIDA, JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, alias CHARRIS or MIGUEL, ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES, alias SAMARIO, JOSE ARISTIDES PEINADO MARTINEZ, alias YUCA, and EDWIN ANGULO BLANCO, have all been previously accused of the events that are the subject of this investigation. This group of persons belonged to the Northern Bloc of the so-called United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), “Juan Andrés Alvarez” Front, which, as demonstrated in the process, was the group in charge of materially carrying out the homicides of VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA.

CONSIDERATIONS BY THE PROSECUTION OFFICE As set forth by the Legislator in article 354 of the Adjective Criminal Statute, the Legal Situation is to be defined in those events in which Preventive Arrest applies. In accordance with Article 356 of the procedural statute, and in accordance with the investigated crimes, it becomes necessary to resolve the Legal Situation in the case in question. Now then, for a Preventive Arrest to apply, according to article 356 of the Criminal Procedures Code, as a means of detention, it is indispensable to have at least two serious indications of responsibility, as deduced from the aforementioned provision. This requirement refers to the degree or participation of the accused in the criminal event, and deems insufficient an intuition of the possibility of the degree of responsibility, and therefore requires that such degree of responsibility be proven with at least two serious indications from which the accused’s criminal participation is derived. We are now charged with examining the evidence found in the investigation, to determine whether the substantial requirements of the Colombian procedural code do exist, to be able to issue an order of detention against SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, identified with Citizenship Document


��

� ��

No. 5.088.026 issued in la Paz, Cesar, who has been accused of being a probable co-mastermind in the collusion to commit the crime of the homicides.

(i) Relevance of the punishable conducts In this chapter, we shall study the objective aspect of the punishable conducts the subject of the investigation, in the following order:

1. The aggravated homicides The following relevant evidence demonstrating the material existence of these conducts have been incorporated to the process: The record of inspection of the body of VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA performed at 2:20 a.m. on March 13, 2001, by the 28th Prosecution Office Local to Bosconia, on kilometer 72 plus 500 meters of the trunk eastern highway, in the vicinity of the rural district of Loma Colorada. The protocol of the autopsy of March 16, 2001, performed by the physician of the San Juan Bosco Hospital of Cesar, on VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA describes 3 wounds with entry and exist orifices caused by a firearm projectile and concludes that the victim died due to acute neurogenic shock caused by the severe and extensive cranial-encephalic injuries. The certificate of death issued in the name of VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA. The record of the gathering of the body of VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ performed by the 19th Sectional Prosecution Office of Valledupar, in the municipality of Chiriguaná, Cesar, Casa de Zinc sector, on March 12, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. The protocol of the autopsy practiced on VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ on March 12, 2001, by the physician of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of the Local Unit of Chiriguaná, Cesar, describes 4 wounds caused by a firearm projectile, with entry and exit orifices, and trajectory, and concludes that the victim died due to neurogenic and hypovolemic shock due to the fracturing of cranial bones and severe cerebral lacerations, as well as a massive severe anemia due to the severance of the ascending aorta caused by firearm projectiles.


��

� ��

Photographs of the procedures of gathering the bodies of VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA. Declarations rendered by JOSEFINA LARIOS ENRIQUES, FLAVIO CORAL OLIVO, RAUL ESTEBAN SOSSA AVELLANEDA, VICTOR ARIEL GUERRA USTARIS, WILLIAM RAFAEL LIZCANO ARCINIEGAS, JANETH ESTHER BOLOCCO TAPIA, YURIS DANIEL PAREJA GUERRA, VICTOR JULIO ESCOBAR JIMENEZ, NICOLAS MARTINEZ DIAZ, DELMIRO ALFONSO HERNANDEZ CAMPUZANO, MILSO ENRIQUE RUIZ, EMEL ERNESTO BARROS VANEGAS, RICARDO JOSE URBINA AROCA, JOSE ALFREDO POLANCO USTARIS, RAFAEL ENRIQUE GARCIA TORRES, JAVIER ERNESTO OCHOA QUIÑÓNEZ, EDGAR EMILIO ORTIZ PARRA, JUAN CARLOS ROJAS FLOREZ, ROBERTO CARLOS EBRAT BASTO, LUIS ENRIQUE BAUTE, who coincide in stating that VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA and VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ were the victims of the crime of homicide on March 12, 2001. The eyewitnesses state that on that day, upon ending their work day at the mine, they were traveling to the city of Valledupar, and around six fifteen p.m., they were boarded by a group of armed persons who were riding in a green Ford Lobo pickup truck, with tinted windows, which cut in front of the bus, made it park to the side of the road and then three armed persons got onboard the bus, who, after advising the passengers not to be afraid, that nothing was going to happen to them, said to them: “there’s a man carrying a gun here, hand it over”. Since nobody hands over a gun, they proceed to collect the cell phones and then order the driver to follow them, making it turn into a detour known as Casa de Zinc, stop the bus, ask all passengers to get off and have their identification document in hand, which was received by the person who is at the entrance to the bus. They then place the passengers alongside the bus, with their hands up, and frisk them, and that is when they capture VALMORE LOCARNO, taking him to the front of the bus, where he hands over the revolver to one of the armed persons, who, upon receiving it, says to him: “so you were going to kill me” and at that time he shoots VALMORE once in the neck, and when he falls to the ground, he shoots him three more times in the head. Next they take JESUS BAUTE with his hands tied toward the pickup, but a window is lowered and from the inside somebody honks and indicates with his hand that it is the wrong person, so they untie him and then go towards VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA, who, after identifying him, gets tied up and taken away on the bed of the pickup truck to the site known as the VADELCO Warehouse, where he is delivered to the commander alias TOLEMAIDA, who, after spending approximately 45 minutes with him, orders him killed, which was effectively accomplished, and his body was found after midnight of that day, at the rural district of


��

� ��

Loma Colorada. His death is recorded at around 2:20 a.m. of March 13, 2001, in the vicinity of kilometer 72 plus 500 meters on the road from Bosconia to Cuatro Vientos, jurisdiction of the Department of Cesar. The body had three (3) firearm bullet wounds, two of them in the head and one in the face, as shown photographically in the process. This report of events is complemented by LUIS ENRIQUE GUERRERO GAMBOA and JESUS ENRIQUE BAUTE HERNANDEZ himself. The former states the following: “… a pickup was suddenly alongside me and signaled me to stop the vehicle. 4 persons got on, who were going to speak to some men inside the bus, three got on and one stayed at the door with me, and about 10 minutes later the one that was with me told me to following the pickup, along a dirt road known as “casa de zinc”… when I entered the dirt road, after about five hundred meters, they told me to park there, then they got everybody off the bus, that I should remain sitting on the cushion, that I close my eyes and lower my head, and after about 20 minutes I heard a shot and then shortly after, I heard two more, and then the personnel got back on the bus…”. BAUTE HERNANDEZ, in turn, states that he was confused with VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA, but that the one in the pickup with the identification documents honked twice, “half-lowered the window and said that I was not the one, pointing to colleague VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA, and the head of the group ordered him tied up, and once tied up, they got him onto the pickup truck, and then ordered my release, saying that he who has no debts has no fears, and gave me the set of identification documents of all of those who were on the bus, and 5 minutes later said, you may leave, and then we got onto the bus and took off for Valle, he was taken and then was found dead, all this happened around 6:00 p.m. in an isolated place…”. The foregoing account is corroborated, in its essential parts, by ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES, one of the material executors, who in this regard stated: “…When we stopped the bus, I got onto the bus with ADINAEL, he tells me to get off because LUCAS was getting on, the green pickup truck was stopped to the front and the side of the bus and the red pickup truck was at the rear of the bus, when LUCAS got on I heard some shots inside the bus, they got off the bus with a man, they took him to the green pickup, but they returned him and they got him onto the bus, and then they got back off with another man; they took him to the green pickup and then they called us and told us to get him onto the rear


��

� ��

of the red pickup and ADINAEL got in in front, scoping the zone, I don’t know if he was with another person, because they got one off the bus and got him back on, and then they got the other one whom the got onto the red pickup… we arrived at Vadelco, a warehouse of Vadelco, ADINAEL communicated with TOLEMAIDA and he arrived with KENER, I went over to the house of a lady who cooked the meals for the AUC, TOLEMAIDA stayed with the Drummond person they had brought, and around hours in the afternoon [sic], we left for San Angel, TOLEMAIDA, KENER and me, and the man stayed in the Vadelco warehouse. The next day I found out through the ADINAEL reports that the man had been murdered and that they left him in Loma Linda or Colorada. As such, there is therefore no doubt of the occurrence of the crime of homicide, the victims of which were Messrs. VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA, a crime that is aggravated according to numeral 10 of article 104 of the Criminal Code, because it is also shown that at the time of the events, they belonged to the SINTRAMIENERGETICA labor union, and as such, were part of the Board of Directors, as President and Vice President, respectively, as indicated in the briefs dated December 14 and 15, 2000, through whom the Board of Directors of the labor union forwards petitions to the Head of Human Rights of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security. Such capacities are corroborated by the National Board of Directors of the labor union, through a brief delivered to the then President of the Republic, repudiating, among other deaths, those of VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR ORCASITA, “President and Vice President of the EL PASO, CESAR, SECTION OF SINTRAMIENERGETICA”. The members of the labor union also recognize that VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA were directors. So say, among others, RAUL SOSA, VICTOR JULIO ESCOBAR JIMENEZ, NICOLAS MARTINEZ DIAZ, DELMIRO ALFONSO HERNANDEZ CAMPUSANO, MILSO ENRIQUE RUIZ, EDGAR EMILIO ORTIZ PARRA, JUAN CARLOS ROJAS FLOREZ, JESUS ENRIQUE BAUTE HERNANDEZ. Everything therefore indicates that they were killed because of such capacities, because, as members of the Board of Directors of the labor union, they were empowered to adopt substantial decisions in all matters related to the 2000-2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, including, with special emphasis thereon, the matter of the food that the company ISA was supplying at that time. The Drummond workers and the union members who were the colleagues of the victims assert that there were several problems between the workers and the multinational DRUMMOND, and that the most complicated problem the company faced


��

� ��

in the first semester of 2001, was the one related to the poor quality of the food, which gave rise to a meeting between VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and the executives of the multinational company in the morning of that day, because the halting of activities by the workers of the company was imminent, unless a real solution to that problem was offered to them.

(ii) The aggravated collusion to commit a crime In this regard, it is warranted to first of all state that as of the decade of the nineteen nineties, the paramilitary phenomenon was consolidated in several zones of the national geography, and since then, selective homicides began to appear, committed by private justice squads, created, promoted or financed by certain economic groups that were set on openly combating the actions of the guerrillas. These squads, at first fragmented and disorganized, bit by bit became consolidated until agreeing to form a large structure that followed the directives of the command staff of the United Self-Defenses of Colombia (AUC), which achieved the influencing of everyday life in the different regions, under the protection or auspices of obscure economic and political interests. Recent judicial history shows that in the period between 1997 and 2001, serious and massive human rights violations were committed, such as massacres, forced displacements of peasants and homicides of workers, union leaders, public officers and candidates to public office who were labeled as being assistants, informers or sympathizers of the guerrillas. The department of Cesar was not exempt from its indiscriminate violence, of which social and political leaders at the local, regional and national levels were accused. Judicial references also indicate that several fronts of the AUC operated in Cesar, such as the so-called “Héctor Julio Peinado Becerra” front, under the command of JUAN FRANCISCO PRADA MARQUEZ, and the “Juan Andrés Alvarez” Front, under the command of alias TOLEMAIDA, with jurisdiction mainly in Codazi, La Jagua de Ibirico, Bosconia, Chiriguaná, El Paso and Cuatro Vientos. These illegal armed groups exercised absolute control and committed all kinds of crimes and barbaric acts in the municipalities of Cesar, where they exercised their dominion at that time. Within such atrocious dynamics of violence, the criminal project of the self-defenses was developed, the main purpose of which was to completely eliminate anybody opposing their perverse goals, or anybody they suspected of being a member of the left, or an informant or collaborator of the guerrillas. The initial objective of combating the guerrillas subsequently became an insatiable craving to acquire economic and political power through the use of weapons


��

� ��

as the former members of the AUC themselves have stated, in their declarations in this process, such as ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES, alias SAMARIO, who in this regard states: “… we combated the subversives and that is no lie, we entered into many zones they used to have, what’s more, the zone of influence of the “Juan Andrés Alvarez” front was a zone that was hit very often by the subversives and the guerilla fronts of the FARC and ELN were active there. Of course, it is no secret to anybody that after liberating this zone, the AUC changed their purpose, its actions and the hunger for power of several commanders became a business and a political game, since we played the role of the State, because even the Public Forces, to do anything, had to have the consent of the AUC and the wars in Colombia are wars of power and money and whoever has the power and the weapons, has the money and whoever has the money has everything else…”. Regarding the existence, mode of operation, places where they exerted influence and the members of the “Juan Andrés Alvarez” Front, attached to the “Northern Bloc of the AUC”, besides MATTOS TABARES, other ex members of that illegal organization also declared, such as JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO, alias EL TIGRE, JOSE ARISTIDES PEINADO MARTINEZ, alias EL GUACHE, JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, alias CHARRIS or MIGUEL and OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL, alias YUCA, among others, refer to the presence of this illegal group in the zone and the relations and ties that ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO and the executives of the multinational Drummond had with said illegal group, and especially with its commanders TOLEMAIDA and JORGE 40. As such, the relevance of the conduct is proven by evidence in the record of this process, to date. The possible responsibility of SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO Having studied the material aspect of the investigated punishable conducts, it is now warranted to analyze the responsibility of the accused with respect to the two charges leveled against him. We first refer to the charge of AGGRAVATED COLLUSION TO COMMIT A CRIME (CLAUSE 2 OF ARTICLE 340 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE). The crime of aggravated collusion to commit a crime is described in article 340, clause 2, of the Criminal Code, in the following terms:


��

� ��

“Collusion to commit a crime. When several persons collude with the purpose of committing crimes, each of them shall be sentenced, just for that conduct, to three (3) to six (6) years of imprisonment. “If the collusion is to commit crimes of genocide, forced disappearance of persons, torture, forced displacement, homicide, terrorism, toxic drug, narcotic or psychotropic substance trafficking, kidnapping for extortion, illegal enrichment, laundering of assets or fronting in order to do so, and related crimes, or financing of terrorism and the administration of resources related to terrorist activities, the sentence shall be eight (8) to eighteen (18) years of imprisonment, plus a fine of two thousand seven hundred (2,700) to thirty thousand (30,000) current legal monthly minimum salaries.” To recognize the crime of Collusion to commit crimes, three factors must be present: FIRST, the permanent existence of an organization with the purpose of committing crimes; SECOND, for the members of such organization to voluntarily have come together with a common objective; and Finally, that such objective endangers public safety. The aggravation applies when the Collusion to commit a crime is to commit crimes against humanity, such as genocide, kidnapping, torture, forced displacement, homicide, terrorism, drug trafficking, extortion, illegal enrichment, laundering of assets or being a front to do so, or to organize, promote, arm or finance armed groups outside of the law. In this investigation, it is clear, up to this procedural moment, that there was a permanent existence of an organization with criminal objectives: the Northern Bloc, the JUAN ANDRÉS ALVAREZ Front, of the United Self-Defenses of Colombia, A.U.C., which was at the time concentrated in the Department of Cesar, under the command of RODRIGO TOVAR PUPO alias “JORGE 40”, the maximum commander of the Bloc; with responsible commands and with territorial control, which allowed them to develop sustain and planned military actions, deploying such military apparatus in that part of the territory, and combating illegal guerrilla groups that were also present in the region. Within this process, there is evidence that Mr. SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, together with other executives of the Company Drummond, associated themselves to effectively collaborate in the financing and general support of the northern bloc of the AUC, Juan Andrés Alvarez Front.


��

� � �

This prosecution office should mention that only at the time of the questioning, and only because Mr. SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO informed us that this conduct had already been investigated by the 22nd Prosecution Office of the Unit against terrorism, support structure, did this prosecution office become aware of such process, because it is not reported in the mission information systems such as SIJUF, and none of the witnesses, or of the judicial police officers, mentioned it, and so now that this prosecution office is aware of its existence, it proceeds to judicially inspect such investigation, pointing out the following aspects of interest. Such preliminary investigation originated from the claim made by the person who claimed to be named CARLOS JULIO PIEDRAHITA GOMEZ (who was never found by the investigators, because it was an anonymous name), representing the Committee of Attorneys of the Coast, against Mr. ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO and other executives of the company Drummond Ltd., with paramilitary groups [sic]. It is stated in the claim, that the paramilitary RODRIGO TOVAR PUPO, alias Jorge 40, was supported by private persons, among which doctor AUGUST JIMENEZ, the former president of Drummond Ltd., and ALFREDO ARAUJO, were mentioned. Once it was charged with the preliminary investigation, the 22nd Prosecution Office gathered diverse evidence, among others, reports of the judicial police; the declaration of Rafael García given before the Supreme Court of Justice, the voluntary declarations of Rodrigo Tovar Pupo in Justice and Peace, and the deposition rendered on April 25, 2007, in a Human Rights Prosecution Office; the judicial inspection of Sintramienergética; the official documents of 2009, signed by the 3rd Delegate Prosecution Office, to the Superior Tribunal, reporting that none of the demobilized candidates of the northern bloc of the AUC has ever mentioned any ties to AUGUSTO JIMENEZ and ALFREDO ARAUJO; a photocopy of the guilty sentence rendered by the 11th Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit, against JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, for the death of the Drummond employees occurring March 2001, the declaration of JOHN JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO, alias El Tigre; the testimonies and voluntary declarations rendered by OSCAR JOSE OSPINO PACHECO before Justice and Peace, alias Tolemaida; the declarations of Edgar Ignacio Fierro Flórez and Javier Ernesto Ochoa Quiñones. GUILLERMO ENRIQUE SANCHEZ QUINTERO also denies having spoken with RAFAEL GARCIA regarding the issue of the paramilitaries, or specifically about the Sintramienergética labor union. That he never had any knowledge of AUC meeting with the workers or executives of DRUMMOND.


��

� ��

After this, the 22nd Prosecution Office of the Anti-terrorism Unit concludes that… “SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO between 1998 and 2004 did not execute any contract for transportation and food, much less contracts with Jaime Blanco Maya, given that his position was that of Community Relations Manager since May 1, 1989, and the Purchasing Department was the one that selected the contractors” (page 19 of the decision). After weighing the declaration of JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, it is concluded that he is not knowledgeable of any ties of the investigated ALFREDO ARAUJO with the AUC, or of any AUC vehicles filling up their tanks at the DRUMMOND facilities, that his knowledge is only about JAIME BLANCO, whom he knew to be a friend of Alias TOLEMAIDA, and accompanied him to San Miguel to meetings, where he became aware of the details, from what JAIME BLANCO told him. That he is not aware of and has no knowledge of alleged relationships between Drummond executives and the Northern Bloc of the AUC”. With respect to the testimony of JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO alias El Tigre, it concludes that according to his declarations, there was no relationship between the investigated persons, Drummond and the AUC. It is likewise concluded that according to the testimony of OSCAR JOSE OSPINO PACHECO, alias Tolemaida, who stated, in relation to the two executives of the company, that “I have never had a direct or indirect relationship with the two men” (page 32). On page 33 of the resolution of the 22nd Prosecution Office of the Anti-Terrorism Unit, support structure, it is observed that it is precisely the same prosecution witnesses in this investigation who are stating that they are completely unaware of any ties between DRUMMOND officers and the AUC. What the foregoing means is that ALFREDO ARAUJO, in relation to the alleged crime of collusion to commit crimes, is protected by a decision precluding prosecution that has not been revoked, and which reached the conclusion that there was no evidence to claim the existence of any ties between him, as a DRUMMOND executive, and the AUC.


��

� ��

In addition, it is observed that there is no new evidence in this investigation, that undermines the basis to issue the oft-mentioned prosecution-precluding resolution. Therefore, and with respect to the crime of aggravated collusion to commit crimes, this prosecution office must abstain from issuing an order of detention against SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO. Secondly, we must analyze the responsibility regarding the accusations of the homicides of union leaders VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR ORCASITA as President and Vice President of the labor union SINTRAMIENERGETICA, respectively. The evidence reveals that prior to the homicides, VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA had already received threats, as stated by JANETH ESTHER BALOCCO TAPIA, who said that her partner VALMORE LOCARNO had received a threatening call around September or October of the year 2000. She also stated that around the month of December, a work colleague informed him that they were looking for him and pamphlets against the labor union had appeared, which is why he was nervous and restless and had not been to work for two months because he was constantly on leave. She said that on occasion, pamphlets were circulated in town, which labeled are union members as guerrillas, and that the far right was therefore going to take action in the matter. This depiction of the SINTRAMIENERGETICA labor union to the community led VALMORE LOCARNO, as president, to request protection from the Ministry of Social Protection for the union directors on December 14, 2000, which is to say, a few months before his death, and also to file a formal claim with the Nation’s General Prosecution Office. Another fact that is recorded as a precedent is the one related to the threats against FLAVIO CORAL OLIVO, a friend of VALMORE, by HECTOR VALLEJO. FLAVIO CORAL tells that VALLEJO threatened him twice, first at the cafeteria of La Loma, where he told him that he was a union member and that he had already identified him, and then at Valledupar, where he threatened him with a weapon, riding with two others in a LUV double-cabin pickup with tinted windows. He also said that he would frequently meet with VALMORE at the union headquarters, and that VALMORE would tell him that he was being threatened through his residential phone. They would ask him to resign the union membership, because otherwise, he would lose his life. However, he did not heed those threats. Such persecution


��

� ��

is also corroborated by other witnesses, such as VICTOR ARIEL GUERRA USTARIS, YURIS PEREJA AND WILLIAM LIZCANO ARCINIEGAS. GUERRA USTARIS says, for example, that they kept threatening him constantly, that he would tell him that they would make phone calls to his home, especially when they held meetings with the company, of which VALMORE left written and verbal records. Within this environment of intimidation and threats, it is known that in the days immediately preceding March 12, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Labor Union had been pressuring the multinational company Drummond to change or improve the food service at the La Loma cafeteria, which was the responsibility of the company Industrial de Servicios y Alimentos, ISA, owned by Mr. JAIME BLANCO MAYA. In this regard, FLAVIO CORAL says that the problems that had always been discussed with Drummond were related to the food service that the company provided through the contractor JAIME BLANCO MAYA. This fact is also corroborated with the declarations of the members of the Board of Directors such as WILLIAM RAFAEL LIZCANO ARCINIEGAS and YURIS DANIEL PAREJA GUERRA, who tell about several meetings with Mr. JAIME BLANCO, geared toward specifying and resolving the problem of the food service. LIZCANO ARCINIEGAS pointed out that precisely on the day of the events, he had known of a meeting between VICTOR ORCASITA, VALMORE LOCARNO and the manager of the Mine, WALT REED, dealing with the quality of the food service, and that he was also aware of a prior meeting at the headquarters of the union, where FRANCISCO RUIZ, VALMORE LOCARNO, YURIS PAREJA, the declaring party and also JAIME BLANCO MAYA, intervened. That in that meeting, besides the problem of the food, VALMORE also brought up the use of the ISA vehicles to distribute some pamphlets at Loma de Calentura, stating that the union was with the guerrillas, and a copy of such pamphlets is in the record of the process. But we cannot say that the only cause of the violent death of the president and vice president of the SINTRAMIENERGETICA labor union was the union struggle to achieve an improvement in a service that is of basic and sensitive need, such as the food for the workers, to the point that if no other arrangement or solution was found, the threat to cease activities, as a pressure mechanism, was imminent, and that was an important factor, but not the only one. Because it is clear that there existed a very tense atmosphere involving, besides the internal problems at the company, the permanent struggle between the right and left sectors, which divided the population into two groups, and made it so that


��

� ��

anybody who gave evidence of belonging to one or the other, would automatically become the enemy of the other group. In that zone, as in many other regions of the national geography, the union members were stigmatized as guerrillas, which is the reason they were persecuted, threatened, assassinated, displaced and were the subject of many other conducts outside the law. Several persons, especially members of the paramilitary organization that have been heard in declaration, investigation or voluntary declaration proceedings, have varied their statements throughout their different procedural interventions, in the first ones they show themselves to be completely ignorant of any knowledge or relation with the groups outside the law, and they especially deny any participation or knowledge of the facts the purpose of this investigation, and in the end, they claim that a terrible criminal plan was concocted by the executives of the multinational company and the paramilitaries, with the purpose of killing the leaders of the SINTRAMIENERGETICA labor union, and the process has evidence thereof, presented below. On the other hand, these same paramilitaries have given declarations to American attorneys, to be filed in the civil proceeding in the United States, in favor of the motions before a U.S. court within the civil proceeding against the company DRUMMOND because of its alleged ties to the AUC and the death of the union leaders. From the material added to the record of this investigation, this prosecution office has found several aspects that warrant immediate mention, and which will establish the baseline for the argument for this decision. First of all, it must be taken into account that since the moment the events occurred, more than fifteen years have elapsed, in which time the investigation work has not ceased, and was able to indict and find guilty several of the co-perpetrators of these homicides. That it is clear that they were perpetrated by members of the AUC, of the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front, of which OSCAR JOSE OSPINO PACHECO, alias TOLEMAIDA, was its commander, which person, in all his procedural interventions, has stated that there were never any ties between the multinational company Drummond and his organization, and that the death of the union members was not executed with the intervention, request or assistance of the executives of that company. And who would be more knowledgeable of this aspect than precisely the commander of the front, to know with full clarity and accuracy which natural and/or legal persons


��

� ��

had ties to the organization, who collaborated, who contributed funds, and who did not. Within this investigation, the following have declared on several occasions: JAIME BLANCO MAYA, LIBARDO DUARTE, ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES, JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, JOSE ARISTIDES PEINADO, OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL, JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO alias EL TIGRE, who throughout their procedural interventions, have rendered different versions. Which, as the defense has correctly asserted, lack consistency. They are wind vanes gyrating depending on how the wind blows; they sin on account of this first defect, and that makes them unsuitable, according to doctrine. Mittemaier says the following: “The deposition of the witness must be consistent: it is necessary that in the different questionings that are performed, that his word always be the same, always exempt from contradictions or perplexities”. Within this investigation, it has been observed how in each of their interventions, their story changes, they contradict themselves, what was so yesterday is no longer so today, regarding aspects and situations they had no knowledge of, from one moment to the next and several years after the events occurred, they state in painstaking detail the circumstances of form, time and place, involving persons and companies about whom, in their prior declarations, they had known nothing regarding their participation in illegal acts. The lies, the grave and notable differences in the declarations rendered at different times, regarding the same circumstances, are evident in these declarations, which cannot help but deprive them of all credibility, along with the possibility of having received benefits simultaneously or subsequent to such declarations. These witnesses contradict each other, they assert and deny the same fact, they state that they are completely unaware of anything, then they say they know everything, they say they are aural witnesses, and then that they are eye witnesses, and their story is rife with mistakes vis-à-vis what other declarants have stated, and the evidence entered into the process. We find that they are persons that, due to their membership in criminal organizations in which life is worth little or nothing, they likewise consider that they may easily change their story, when it is in their interest to do so, be it to obtain benefits from “effective collaboration”, or else, economic benefits, apparently.


��

� ��

In addition, it should be pointed out how serious differences exist among the witnesses themselves, regarding who participated and who did not, who belonged or who did not belong to the organization at the time of the events, who was present at the site, and who was not, etc. They also fail when they report the circumstances of time, form and place, such as when they say that the events occurred in the morning, when in reality, they were perpetrated at night. Let us look at these declarations in detail:

1. JAIME BLANCO MAYA He was the first person who gave a voluntary declaration for the homicides of VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA, because several of the members of the labor union and workers of the company Drummond had stated that the legal representative of ISA had a poor relationship with them, due to the food service provided at the cafeteria, under the contract he executed with the multinational company. After entering some evidence and through a resolution dated July 26, 2002, he was protected by a decision precluding prosecution given that at that time, it was deemed that there was no merit to open a criminal investigation against him. Subsequently, and to the extent this investigation progressed, through a resolution dated August 18, 2010, the Nation’s General Prosecution Office revoked the prosecution-precluding resolution against him, and in its stead, ordered the opening of a criminal investigation against JAIME BLANCO MAYA, which is why he was indicted, through an inquiry, whose legal situation was resolved with a preventive arrest, as a means of Detention. On January 5, 2009, a resolution of Indictment against JAIME BLANCO MAYA, as a mastermind of Aggravated Homicide, art. 104 numeral 10 and mastermind of Collusion to commit a crime, article 340 clause 2, validated his criminal investigation, which decision was confirmed in a second instance on August 10, 2011. On January twenty-five (25), two thousand thirteen (2013) the Eleventh Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit OIT of Bogotá issued a guilty sentence against him, which sentence is undergoing an appeal.


��

� ��

Although in his first procedural interventions JAIME BLANCO claims to be completely oblivious to the investigated events, in light of the progress of the investigation and the weight of the evidence, both in his voluntary declaration rendered on February 14, 2002, as well as in his inquiry of September 8, 2010, as well as in the public hearing at the trial, he admitted that his relationship with the labor union of the company was not good, he admitted that he had relationships with persons outside the law, specifically some members of the Northern Bloc of the AUC, he accepted his responsibility in the crime of Aggravated Collusion to Commit Crimes and in the crime of Aggravated Homicide, but not as Mastermind, but just as an accomplice. In subsequent declarations, JAIME BLANCO MAYA said that when he obtained the food service contract with the multinational company Drummond, ALFREDO ARAUJO was one of the persons who recommended him, since his offices were located on the same floor as the building where the DRUMMOND offices in Valledupar were located, and they would see each other and talk daily. At the inquiry, BLANCO MAYA stated that as far as he knew, the DRUMMOND executives had nothing to do with the death of the union leaders, that at that time, he carried out the contract for the supply of food to the workers of the mine, that in the zone there existed a very strong paramilitary activity, which manifested itself in, among other activities, the forced collection of levies from cattlemen, farmers, merchants, that he never had any dealings with the AUC, and that, much to the contrary, he was a victim of their extortions. That JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS was one of his workers and that as far as he knew, he never provided any type of help or collaboration to the groups outside of the law, that any assertion that Drummond supported or collaborated with the AUC is totally false. With respect to the death of the union members, he states that he never had any prior knowledge regarding that event, that he never met with anybody to organize or plan such crime. That he had no knowledge that executives of the company DRUMMOND had anything to do with that, and he mentions ALFREDO ARAUJO among others, to reiterate that he had no knowledge regarding his having anything to do with those events. Subsequently, toward the month of October 2011, JAIME BLANCO MAYA started to change his declarations substantially, and in a sworn declaration earmarked for the proceeding against the company Drummond in the state of Alabama, he stated that he knew RODRIGO TOVAR PUPO alias JORGE 40, with whom he’d go to parties and carnivals in the city of Valledupar.


��

� ��

That JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO alias EL TIGRE, commander of the AUC in the zone, asked him to be the middleman between the AUC and DRUMMOND, since he expected that the multinational company would economically support the AUC. At that time, he told him that the adequate person to contact would be ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, who still maintained a great friendship with his friend RODRIGO TOVAR PUPO, ALIAS JORGE 40, the commander of TIGRE in the AUC. He also stated that during the time when he was a DRUMMOND contractor, he became very close to the executives of the company, ending up becoming really good friends with the president AUGUSTO JIMENEZ, the vice president JOSE MIGUEL LINARES, and he continued a close friendship with the community relations manager, ALFREDO ARAUJO, with all of whom he maintained a jovial yet respectful relationship. From such friendship with the executives of the Multinational, he became aware of the displeasure that existed in the company vis-à-vis the Labor Union, due to labor differences. On several occasions in which AUGUSTO JIMENEZ was in Valledupar, they talked about the issue of the displeasure with the labor union with other executives of the company, since the offices of ISA, DRUMMOND and ALFREDO ARAUJO were in the same building. That around 1999, JIMENEZ and other Drummond executives informed him that they considered the labor union to be a threat to the intentions of the multinational in Colombia, which was to achieve a production of 25 million tons per year. He stated that he went to several meetings with the executives of DRUMMOND, at their offices in Bogotá, with the president of DRUMMOND LTDA, AUGUSTO JIMENEZ. At one of these meetings, after the death of the union leaders, JIMENEZ informed them that he was satisfied, because a huge problem for the company had been resolved. On another occasion he told him about his concern as to who was going to manage the Drummond relationship with the AUC, if he departed. According to the evidence entered to this procedural date, it is inferred that between JAIME BLANCO and ALFREDO ARAUJO there existed a professional relationship that


��

� ��

arose from the ties that both had with the company Drummond, the first as contractor and the second as executive thereof. It has caught the eye of this prosecution office, how his statements have been changing radically throughout his different procedural declarations, finding that, as the defense has pointed out, his statements changed from the moment he was contacted by the U.S. attorneys, who seek to obtain diverse evidence to present to the U.S. courts. That is how on February 15, 2012, he submitted a written declaration to a U.S. Court, describing several situations that he had not mentioned in any of the prior proceedings, without making any accusation against ALFREDO ARAUJO.

2. JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO. In turn, JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, who, as stated at the start of this resolution, was linked to this process on April 23, 2007, captured in July 2008 and heard in defense on the 16th and 17th of the same month, was sentenced by the 11th Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bogotá, on August 04, 2009, as co-perpetrator of the aggravated homicide of VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA. The investigation proved that he was the head of security of the cafeteria, reporting to JAIME BLANCO MAYA. In the first procedural declarations, especially in the two inquiry sessions, on June 16 and 17, 2007, he roundly denied his participation in the homicides of VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA, and he also denied knowing OSCAR JOSE OSPINO PACHECO, alias “TOLEMAIDA”. He also stated that on the day of the events, March 12, 2001, he was at the cafeteria, and not at the mine, a distance of 20 kilometers away from it. With respect to ALFREDO ARAUJO, he solely and exclusively states that on some occasions, he saw him walk by the cafeteria, and likewise, when the prosecution office asks him about the alleged relationship between DRUMMOND and the AUC, he replies that he knows nothing about that. However, in subsequent procedural interventions, such as declarations, inquiries, expansion of the inquiry, intervention in a public hearing,


��

� �

he reported on the participation of the AUC, of Drummond executives and of JAIME BLANCO MAYA, in the homicides of VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA and VALMORE LOCARNO. He declares that the persons who participated in the planning and execution of the homicides are YIM HAKING (who in reality answers to the name of JIM ADKINS) a former CIA agent and at that time, the head of company-wide security of the multinational Drummond, who reported to Mr. GARY DRUMMOND and Colonel LUIS CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, head of security thereof, who called him upon departure of the union leader buses, which retired colonel was head of security of the DRUMMOND mine and also aware of the crime that would be committed against the union leaders, was AUGUSTO JIMENEZ, president of Drummond Colombia, RAFAEL PEÑA RÍOS, retired general and head of security of Drummond Colombia, ALFREDO ARAUJO, sectional Manager of Valledupar for DRUMMOND. They all knew what as going to be done to the personnel of the Drummond labor union, SINTRAMIENERGETICA, because in several meetings among JAIME BLANCO AMAYA, JIM HAKING (JIM ADKINS) and him, they always stated that Drummond’s intent was to finish off the union. That the death of the union leaders was organized, planned and ordered by members of the multinational DRUMMOND, that he attended meetings with BLANCO, COLONEL LINEROS AND ALFREDO ARAUJO, the director of community relations for Drummond, that it was BLANCO’s office where this crime was planned, that ARAUJO told them that the union leaders halted production with their protests, and that the American executives were sick and tired of the labor union, that ARAUJO wanted to take this message to OSCAR OSPINO PACHECO alias TOLEMAIDA, who assumed command of the JUAN ANDRÉS ALVAREZ Front in the middle of 2000, after EL TIGRE was captured. It is thus clear that before the prosecution office, in this process and under the solemnity of an oath to tell the truth, on May 7, 2009, he substantially varied his first declarations, informing of totally new facts, such as, for example, his joining the Juan Andrés Alvarez bloc of the AUC in the year 2003, where he was coordinator of neighboring towns of Cesar. He accepted that he was a witness to the homicides and that through JAIME BLANCO, he became aware of the conversations he had with alias “TOLEMAIDA” regarding the order to kill the members of the labor union, at the alleged suggestion of some executives of Drummond, among them ALFREDO ARAUJO.


��

� ��

It warrants mentioning that by this time in the procedure, the magazine “Semana” of July 27, 2007, had published an article titled “A twist in the process”, stating that JAVIER ERNESTO OCHOA QUIÑONES had said that “… To be able to execute the actions, the paramilitaries needed someone to finger the union leaders. That responsibility fell on Mr. CHARRY, who was the person who told me everything that I am telling the authorities. CHARRY knew when the union leaders got on the bus, and where, and went to a residence where the material murderers were waiting. He left with them to find the bus, but they had a bit of trouble because CHARRY was afraid that the other workers would recognize him if he got off the pickup. Finally, they got them off the bus and killed them”. In addition, we must take into account that while he is changing his declarations before Colombian justice, and days before rendering this last declaration we have mentioned, he had signed a declaration, before some U.S. attorneys, to be entered into the civil proceeding in the United States, in favor of their motions before a U.S. court, within the civil proceeding filed against the company Drummond for its alleged ties with the AUC and the deaths of the union leaders. After this, in the several declarations rendered by JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, he adds events, details, situations that involve the Executives of the company DRUMMOND, and for this case under review, he specifically involved doctor ALFREDO ARAUJO, as participant in the murders. JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRYS did not testify before the Court that tried him, on April 23 and June 9, 2009, where he made use of his right to remain silent. But on May 7, 2009, in a declaration rendered under oath before the Prosecution Office, he gives a detailed and extensive account of events in which he levels accusations against DRUMMOND and some of its executives, among them ALFREDO ARAUJO. As the defense points out, the declaration of May 7, 2009, occurred between two public trial hearings (April 23 and June 9) and precisely in this second session, the defender and the civil party attempted to enter it to the record to obtain benefits within the proceeding for the homicide of the union leaders for which he was being tried.


��

� ��

That is how in the first hearing, on April 23, 2009, he requests that he be placed under Justice and Peace, and he refuses to collaborate in that hearing. However, he does declare to the 12th Prosecution Office of Human Rights, under oath and without an attorney, stating that another person, EDWIN ANGULO BLANCO was who informed of the departure of the buses on which the union leaders were riding, and not Colonel LUIS CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, head of security of the company DRUMMOND, as he had stated before. In a sworn declaration for the Tribunal of Alabama in the case of Claudia Balcero Giraldo, et al. vs. Drummond Company, Inc., et al, rendered on May 16, 2012, CHARRIS links ALFREDO ARAUJO to the homicide of several victims killed by the AUC in the areas of the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front of the Northern Bloc of the AUC. In this process, the declaration of CHARRIS of February 10, 2010, before the 22nd Prosecution Office of the Anti-Terrorism Unit of Colombia, has been alluded to, wherein he states that he has no evidence of any relationship between Alfredo Araújo and the AUC. From what was stated by JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS and from the evidence gathered in this investigation up to this procedural moment, we have that he is a person that no doubt maintained a close relationship with the AUC, who also worked as head of security of JAIME BLANCO MAYA, and who served as a go-between between his employer and the organization outside of the law. In his procedural interventions, he kept varying his version, from stating that he had no knowledge of the investigated facts, which is logical, for a defensive strategy to consist of claiming that he had nothing to do with any illegal act. But once captured, he modifies his versions until reaching what in the opinion of this prosecution office is the truth, leading us to the conviction that the only interest that motivated him was to collaborate with justice first in exchange to be included in the jurisdiction of Justice and Peace, and then aspiring to a lowering of the prison sentence through effective collaboration, which is perfectly valid and legal. However, this prosecution office finds that Mr. JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, throughout his procedural interventions and despite the details he has been including, has incurred serious contradictions with respect to aspects as important as stating in his first procedural interventions that he barely saw ALFREDO ARAUJO, to then say that he attended meetings with him. With respect to the execution of the events, first he said that it was Colonel LUIS CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, the head of security of the company DRUMMOND, who called him


��

� ��

upon the departure of the buses on which the union leaders were traveling, to then say that it was EDWIN ANGULO who performed such function. On the other hand, he omitted to state that he was contacted by U.S. attorneys, who seek to obtain different evidentiary means to argue in U.S. court and which have seemingly been paying him monthly sums of money through Western Union, on behalf of GILMA YINETH BAEZA ACOSTA, who worked as an assistant to the attorneys trying the case in U.S. courts, who was in charge of receiving the money and distributing it. These contradictions and omissions are very serious, and they detract from the credibility of his declarations, given that there is no consistency in what he reports, regarding whether he knows or does not know ALFREDO ARAUJO, whether he met with him or not, whether he participated or not in the events in question, regarding knowing who was the person in charge of informing on the departure of the union leaders, these are fundamental aspects which do not allow any variation in each and every one of the procedural interventions. They must always be the same, without admitting any contradiction, or differences in the declarations rendered in the course of time, but in this case, these aspects keep getting modified in each version, and so at this procedural level, there is no certainty as to what is the truth and what is not. The foregoing is compounded by the fact that the collaboration provided by JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRYS, who in the beginning seemed selfless and sincere, now seems suspicious, because his purpose could be the securing of economic benefits, as asserted by the defense of ARAUJO CASTRO.

3. DECLARATION RENDERED BY LIBARDO DUARTE ALIAS “BAN BAN” He states that he met with ALFREDO ARAUJO on several occasions, especially recalling having seen him at a party in MARIANGOLA, where he was in attendance with JAIME BLANCO, who was a good friend and from the same part of the country and other members of the AUC were present, including OMEGA AND 611, whose name is AMAURI, he also recalls that COLONEL MUÑA and LUCAS GIVECO were there, both of whom were owners of truck businesses who contracted with Drummond and provided direct support to the AUC. They were all there drinking. He did not speak directly with ALFREDO ARAUJO at that meeting, but did see him speaking with OMEGA, on several occasions, with OMEGA


��

� ��

saying that ARAUJO told him that he was very happy with the work they were doing. That he met with ALFREDO ARAUJO and other members of the AUC at Rio Hurtado, a place on the outskirts of Valledupar, where there is a restaurant-bar, where they were drinking and socializing. His men and him were armed, and it was clear that they were members of the AUC. He also attended several parties where ALFREDO ARAUJO and JAIME BLANCO were in attendance, like in the year 2000, one in Chiriguaná where there was a festivity and the “Vallenato” band of the ZULETA brothers played, and in addition to ALFREDO ARAUJO, JAIME BLANCO, himself, the paramilitaries OMEGA, JHON and the bodyguard GUAJARO were present. He states that he was a kind of community relations person for CARLOS CASTAÑO and attended several political fundraising events, and that he was present with OMEGA at an event that took place in a rural property in the municipality of Curumaní, in front of the bridge over the Animito river, in 2001, in which the AUC were raising funds and in support, local politicians, ALFREDO ARAUJO and his son were present. All, the AUC, the Drummond executives and the Colombian army interacted and cooperated. They frequently met at JAIME BLANCO’s cafeteria in La Loma, which was the habitual meeting place. It should be pointed out that none of those who self-incriminated themselves for the homicides of VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA has mentioned LIBARDO DUARTE as co-perpetrator or participant in such crimes, or as a member of the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front. His appearance in this investigation is through the attorney who represented the relatives of the victims in the civil proceeding against Drummond in the United States. LIBARDO DUARTE, in his brief, states that Drummond used the PRODECO facilities to transport coal. That is not in agreement with what was proven in the investigation, since they are different and independent companies, and Drummond, since the year 1995, does it from its own port, and only this facility is used as an outlet for the coal. Alias BAN BAN also states that some persons were subject to a forced displacement by the company to obtain land for the railroad, but the investigation established that it was built by the Colombian government in the 1950s, and rebuilt in the 1990s under a contract signed by the government and the Brazilian company Odebrecht,


��

� ��

Drummond built a railroad spur for its mine near La Loma, which is approximately 12.5 km long, on land that Drummond purchased in 1994. The defense asserts that what Duarte mentions regarding the alleged meetings where ALFREDO ARAUJO was present is bewildering, claiming that they amount to nothing but fantasies, with the sole purpose of collaborating with attorney TERRENCE COLLINGSWORTH in its civil proceedings, but that such meetings were never held, since, moreover, Alias BAN BAN does not belong to the JUAN ANDRÉS ALVAREZ Front. In this regard, this prosecution office must state that in actuality, this testimony, when analyzed in comparison to those that were rendered by other members of the organization, is extremely suspect, because none of such others mentions him either as co-perpetrator or participant in such events, which is a very strange situation because they have all been clear and consistent in mentioning all the participants, but, remarkably, nobody ever mentions LIBARDO DUARTE. In addition, it also catches our eye that the other alleged members of the AUC that he refers to, have also not been mentioned beforehand by any of the confessed participants and declarants, as in the case of the aliases of “GUAJIRO” and “OMEGA”, who is unable to corroborate because, according to some of the declarants, he is dead. Furthermore, there are serious inconsistencies in his declaration, regarding the manner of transporting the coal and the acquisition of plots of land by the company, since as corroborated in the judicial inspection performed by this prosecution office and in the documents contributed to this proceeding, the company Drummond did not use the Prodeco ports, because they are different companies and each one has had logistical independence, and in addition, at the time of the events, the transportation of the coal was not done by truck, but by railroad. As such, this testimony also lacks credibility, since it seems like coming out of the blue, and he is a witness without backing or mention by the other declarants, who reports on aspects and circumstances that were proven untrue by other evidence.

4. ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES Alias SAMARIO He was linked to this investigation after being heard in an inquiry, through a resolution dated August 2, 2011, in which his legal situation was resolved for the alleged crimes of collusion to commit a crime, kidnapping and torture.


��

� ��

He was accused and through a summary sentence of September 15, 2009, the 11th Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bogotá found him responsible for the homicides of the union leaders BALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA. In his different procedural interventions dated December 3, 2008, February 27, 2009, March 18, 2009, April 13, 2009, December 9, 2009, February 10, 2011 and May 27, 2013, it is seen, just as with the other witnesses, that the more he declares, the more he introduces new data, which tend to involve the executives of the company Drummond more and more. Initially, he made no accusation against ALFREDO ARAUJO and/or the company Drummond. In a declaration of December 3, 2008, he made reference to three visits to the cafeteria, accompanying TOLEMAIDA as his bodyguard, on the visit of February 27, 2009, claiming to be ignorant of the issues discussed by his boss and JAIME BLANCO MAYA, and also he claimed ignorance as to whether the vehicles of the AUC entered the mine to fill up their tanks, and he also did not know whether Drummond was infiltrated by AUC personnel, and finally, he states his opinion that he does not believe that in a zone dominated by the AUC, that there would be no ties between the AUC and Drummond. In the inquiry of March 18, 2009, he adds that he heard that the commander of the front entered into the Drummond facilities at the mine to fill up the gas tanks of the vehicles, but did not see him go in, but he did, however, hear that he had gone in in the latter part of 2000, because the commander of the front said so, but he did not see him do so. As of that moment, it can be observed, even more clearly, that Mr. Mattos Tabares renders divergent testimonies with respect to Alfredo Araújo. In the testimony rendered on December 4, 2009, for the case of Drummond versus Balcero, heard in the U.S. courts, alias “SAMARIO” refers to the participation of ALFREDO ARAUJO in the homicide of two union leaders. On December 9, 2009, Mr. MATTOS TABARES alias SAMARIO provides new data, stating that he was present in about 2 or 3 meetings, as the bodyguard of the commander of the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front, with JAIME BLANCO MAYA, he doesn’t exactly know what they talked about because he was not in close proximity to them, but that TOLEMAIDA himself had told him, because he trusted him very much, it was towards the end of the year 2000, but he never heard the conversations.


��

� ��

Subsequently, in a hearing of justice and peace on November 23, 2009, “Samario” stated that he is unaware of anything about the Drummond case, that he has only heard rumors about it. Later he refers to a third meeting, in early 2001, in a rural property belonging to JAIME BLANCO MAYA, in El Paso, Cesar, where he remained with other bodyguards of the commander of the other front, outside at the entrance to the rural property. The meeting lasted all day and all night, and he believes that JORGE 40 was there, because some of his bodyguards were there, who called him CARDOZO, they also did not go into the rural property. He does not know who was present, it was a long meeting, it seems to him that CHARRYS was at the meeting as head of security of JAIME BLANCO. That alias “TATO” and alias “KENNER”, TOLEMAIDA bodyguards, told him that DRUMMOND executives had been at that meeting, and that that was the reason why all of them were not let inside. In a declaration dated April 23, 2009, when interrogated by the judge in the trial of CHARRYS, with respect to what he meant to say when he made reference to the meetings between Mr. JAIME BLANCO and Mr. TOLEMAIDA, and he said that he stayed apart, because the owners of the circus were on the other side, he replied that that was like a saying, a colloquialism, while the owners of the circus talk, the clowns stay away. JAIME BLANCO was a very powerful person in the zone and TOLEMAIDA was the commander of the front and that he was a patrolman at the time. On December 9, 2009, in a new declaration, he added that a long time after the murders of the union leader, he saw a man who handled the security of DRUMMOND, supposedly at a new meeting that he attended, near Bosconia, with JORGE 40 and TOLEMAIDA, and that he was subsequently a witness to economic arrangements between the AUC of the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front and the company, and that MANUEL GREGORIO GUTIERREZ GUTIERREZ, alias “CRISTIAN”, was the one in charge “of those arrangements with Drummond”. But as of now we have to say that we concur with what the defense stated, regarding the fact that RODRIGO TOVAR PUPO, alias “JORGE 40” denied in his inquiry, ever knowing or having had ties with any executive of the company Drummond at any level, stating that there was never any meeting where he was present with any executive of that company. OSPINO PACHECO, alias “TOLEMAIDA”, in a declaration rendered on December 3, 2010, at the 12th Prosecution Office for Human Rights and Humanitarian International Law. When asked if he ever met Mr. ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, he replied


��

� ��

with an emphatic “no”. Regarding whether “any member of the front that directed or belonged to the Northern Bloc ever had an arrangement or agreement with a member of that company, he answered: “None”. Which account has been confirmed by, among others, the declaration rendered at the 22nd Prosecution Office of the National Unit Against Terrorism, where he was also interrogated about knowing the accused ARAUJO CASTRO and whether he had had any kind of personal and direct relationship with him, he replied “no”. With respect to the collaboration provided by the AUC to DRUMMOND, he stated that the company did not need to because it had a permanent military base within its facilities. In addition, in a detailed inquiry, he stated that he had been approached by Dr. FRANCISCO RAMIREZ CUELLAR, among other professionals, after his capture on December 16, 2009, to offer him benefits if he declared against DRUMMOND. However, as the defense underscores, and the same judge who heard the case against MATTOS TABARES noted at the time of passing sentence against him, without considering them transcendent, there are huge inconsistencies in the declaration rendered about the events, because notwithstanding the fact that the homicide of VALMORE LOCARNO occurred between 6:00 and 6:30 in the evening of March 12, 2001, MATTOS declared, in his procedural interventions of December 3, 2008, February 27, 2009 and March 18, 2009, the last date on which he was interrogated, that the events occurred in the morning, between 7:30 and 8:00. During the trial against JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRYS CASTRO, on April 23, 2009, he stated that the events occurred “around 8 a.m., something like that, eight-thirty, more or less, or nine, I’m not sure of the time”. Which statement was completely at odds with reality, because the events occurred at 6:30 in the evening, as recounted by the workers of the company DRUMMOND that were on that bus on the day of the events, and not in the morning, as he has narrated them. Aside from such notable difference, there are other equally important inconsistencies, according to the declaration of February 27, 2009, he stated that he, alias “Adineel”, alias “El Boca”, Peinado and alias “Lucas”, all five of them left in a red Chevrolet pickup truck, to perpetrate the crimes, but in the inquiry carried out on March 18, 2009, he added to his story a green pickup truck with tinted windows. Given the presence of such other vehicle, the prosecution office asked why he had omitted mentioning it in his initial intervention. MATTOS explained that “his memory betrayed him… and that the proceedings have required improvisation, and therefore he requests permission to talk with CHARRIS and other members of the organization, to clarify


��

� ��

some details, but the truth is that since it is one single event, it’s hard to be confused not only about the time, changing night for day, but also the omission of the other vehicle. On top of the fact that VALMORE LOCARNO was shot to death when they got him off the bus, and not inside the bus, as he asserts. Another difference that arises is when in the testimony of February 27, 2009, he says that after the murder of VALMORE, he “got onto the pickup truck, on the lap of PEINADO, because it was full in back, and the person driving the pickup was ADINAEL, because in the back they had placed the man, moreover, I hear that alias “LUCAS” says “if you don’t kill him he would have killed me”, but such accuracy and detail changed diametrically on December 9, 2009, when he indicated that he was on the pickup “in the back with him”, referring to VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA, and that the person driving the vehicle was alias “LUCAS” and not alias “ADINAEL”, who, in this version, was driving the green pickup. In addition, the declarations of OSCAR JOSE OSPINO PACHECO, OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL and JOSE ARISTIDES PEINADO are in the record, who, in unison, all deny the participation of MATTOS TABARES in the events. First of all, OSPINO PACHECO, alias “TOLEMAIDA” recognizes his participation in the homicides but denies the intervention of MATTOS TABARES, stating that he was neither his bodyguard, nor head of security nor a commander of the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front at that time, clarifying that alias el “Samario” joined the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front in August 2001. OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL alias “Yuca” said the same thing – on August 26, 2010, he stated to the prosecution office that ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES had had no participation whatsoever in the homicides, because when they occurred he had not yet arrived at the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front. Likewise, JOSE ARISTIDES PEINADO, in an inquiry rendered on August 15, 2009, called ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES a liar, given the statements he made to the effect that as a bodyguard of OSCAR JOSE OSPINO PACHECO alias “TOLEMAIDA”, he entered on two or three occasions into the cafeteria for his boss to meet with JAIME BLANCO, narrating that when they arrived, they would ask for “alias Peinado or CHARRYS”, because he never saw him meet with JAIME BLANCO, clarifying that he did not meet him until the month of January of the year 2002, when “Peinado” joined the AUC.


��

� � �

On December 4, 2009, MATTOS TABARES provided information through a document signed in the Valledupar Penitentiary and Jailing Establishment, before a U.S. Court, within a civil proceeding filed against Drummond for acts precisely related to the union leader homicides. In this testimony, entered by attorney Terrence Collingsworth to this proceeding, MATTOS TABARES introduces a series of totally new events that were unknown to the process: He said that he killed the union leaders “because ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, who had an important position within Drummond, told him that they were left-wing guerrillas who were helping the FARC”, that in September 2001 a meeting was held in the Drummond cafeteria, between JAIME BLANCO, TOLEMAIDA and himself, “where it was decided how the operation to kill the president and vice president of the Drummond labor union would be carried out, according to the wishes of the company”. He talks about another alleged meeting carried out at the entrance to the Drummond facilities, at the mine, around two in the afternoon, between Mr. ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, the company’s community relations manager, and TOLEMAIDA. According to the transcription, TOLEMAIDA informed him that ARAUJO had told him that “you have to kill all the DRUMMOND union leaders” and that they complied with the order to kill the president and vice president of the union. In point 10, he varies his narration to say that ALFREDO ARAUJO called to a meeting “where he told TOLEMAIDA and me that he had a problem with the two union leaders. He told them [sic] that Drummond wanted us to help them with that problem… the two told me that they were guerrillas and that is why we had to kill them… Drummond’s angst was that the union leader was up in arms over the issue of the food, which was of poor quality. ARAUJO said that the union leaders needed to be eliminated”. He also talks about the payment agreements for the illegal AUC organization, especially the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front. Another meeting is mentioned, which was held in the month of May 2001, where JAIME BLANCO, TOLEMAIDA, KENNER, NIKKY, JORGE 40, ALFREDO ARAUJO, a DRUMMOND U.S. citizen, 05, MACHOMAN, EL CHINO, EL TORO, EL MOCHO and Mr. LUIS were present, to reach an economic agreement wherein DRUMMOND agreed to pay 1.5 million dollars to the northern bloc, with monthly payments of 100 thousand dollars. Recapping: we have that in his procedural interventions, it is observed, as stated before, that these versions have been more and more extensive, more


��

� ��

thorough, more rich in details that every time add more circumstances as to form, time and place, and more persons who intervene, aspects that made the prosecution office and its judicial police agencies, the CTI and DIJIN, believe that it all stemmed [sic] from the selfless desire of Mr. MATTOS TABARES to collaborate with the clarification of the events, to comply with the legal duty he had to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, to thus achieve the goals of justice. Because the rules of experience have shown us that when a person seeks to protect him/herself and evade his/her responsibility, that person initially reacts by denying any responsibility, but once indicted and with evidence against him or her, that person proceeds to tell the truth, guided by the desire to obtain benefits such as a reduction in his/her sentence, or his/her inclusion in the law of Justice and Peace, or simply not to be left to respond alone. Which situation led the prosecution office to give credibility to his narration, with the conviction that he was trying to collaborate, with the good intention of clarifying the facts in exchange for obtaining the benefits the law provides. As such, he has declared that he was a member of the AUC, that some persons were killed because they were in the wrong, or they needed to set an example for the people, that the union leaders they killed on Drummond’s behalf, were killed because ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, who had an important position in that company, told them that they were left-wing guerrillas supporting the FARC. The members of the AUC were not common assassins, they were the vanguard of the nations struggle against FARC and its followers. That the offices of JAIME BLANCO in Valledupar were located in the same building where the DRUMMOND offices where ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO worked. BLANCO was a person who was a go-between between ARAUJO AND TOLEMAIDA. He also reports that in November 2000, another meeting was held, where, in addition to the foregoing, ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, community relations manager of the company DRUMMOND, was in attendance. It was held at the entrance to the facilities of the company, at the mine, around two in the afternoon. BLANCO and ARAUJO came in a double cabin white pickup, TOLEMAIDA and him were in a green Toyota. The talks were between ARAUJO AND TOLEMAIDA, and the latter told him that ARAUJO had stated that: “you have to kill all the Drummond union leaders”, and in light of this, they complied with the order. Because of this meeting, everybody understood that they had to focus on killing the Drummond union leaders. In the first days of the month of May 2001, around 10 a.m., he went to a meeting as TOLEMAIDA’s head of security, on the road that goes from Bosconia


��

� ��

to Plato (Magdalena), a rural property located on the side of the road, a DRUMMOND executive was present, a U.S. citizen, older in age, with brown hair turning gray, weighing more or less 180 lbs, over one meter eighty centimeters tall, light-colored eyes, who arrived in a gray Toyota, accompanied by ALFREDO ARAUJO and JAIME BLANCO. At that meeting, representing the Front, were TOLEMAIDA, KENER AND NIKI, JORGE 40, MATTOS and the persons in charge of their security, among them alias “05”, MACHOMAN, EL CHINO, EL MOCHO, EL TORO and also DON LUIS, who was the one designated by 40 for the big negotiations and economic agreements of the northern bloc. But the American, JORGE 40 AND ARAUJO discussed DRUMMOND’s financial support for the Front, and when they were leaving, he heard JORGE 40 congratulate TOLEMAIDA, in front of the American, for the operation of the assassination of the two Drummond union leaders, LOCARNO AND ORCASITA, saying “commander, I congratulate you, we did a great operation eliminating those guerrilla bandits, that will bring great calm to the zone.” NIKI, was in charge of translating for the DRUMMOND American, who did not speak Spanish. His presence was very important, since the American was going to speak directly to JORGE 40 and needed a translator. Some time later, NIKI was disappeared by TOLEMAIDA, because he had stolen some weapons, it was said. The large payment was delivered by ALFREDO ARAUJO to JORGE 40 through don LUIS. He is able to say, with certainty, that the payments were permanent in nature. Because TOLEMAIDA told him that with DRUMMOND’s money, the military capacity of the AUC, especially of the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front, had just increased considerably. That after the assassinations of the union leaders LOCARNO AND ORCASITA, he participated in several additional assassinations, in his capacity as head of security of the Front. Since the first meeting with ARAUJO in November 2000, until they captured him in April 09, 2005, they performed several operations. He believes that TOLEMAIDA ordered the execution of 40 or more people, based on information that Drummond supplied him with, which information was always provided through ARAUJO or JAIME BLANCO, to TOLEMAIDA, and it was that they were members or followers of the FARC. It is his understanding that the group wanted to hide the reality of what happened, rendering testimonies that excluded his participation in the homicides of the union leaders. That is how ALEXANDER PIANETA, alias REYES, an army officer, was taken


��

� ��

to Bogotá to declare that everything had been because of their belonging to the guerrillas. Initially TOLEMAIDA offered to MATTOS, through alias CEBOLLA, a large amount of money to declare that their death was the result of their membership in the guerrillas. As seen, these versions have varied substantially, and every time, they are richer in details, but at this time, this prosecution office questions his credibility, since, just like with the previous declarants, his narration has varied to the extent his relation with the U.S. attorneys has become closer, and coincides with the payments made by such law firm from the United States, to the family of the declarant, since 2009, approximately. The defense claims that Mr. ALCIDES MATTOS has varied his versions because of an economic interest, because, according to them, JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO alias EL TIGRE, MATTOS TABARES alias SAMARIO received money from the civil party acting in the proceeding in the United States, to accept the investigated homicide charges, which statement fits in with the fact that DR. IVAN ALFREDO OTERO MENDOZA was their defense attorney in this process, which attorney works in coordination with the attorney of the counterpart of DRUMMOND in the U.S. proceedings, as acknowledged by the law firm of Collingsworth. Otero works with them since December 2008 and helps them in the case against Drummond in the United States, in exchange for a success fee. The variation in the testimony of MATTOS TABARES coincides with the wire transfers made by that law firm from the United States to the family of the declarant since 2009, approximately. In addition, the defense states that MATTOS TABARES worked as a bodyguard and the rules of experience show that bodyguards do not participate in the meetings of the persons to whom they provide security. In this regard, this prosecution office must mention that it shares the belief of the defense in the sense that the variation in the testimony of MATTOS TABARES is suspect. He now appears as a very suspicious witness, because his version is not selfless, but instead, corresponds to a compensation or arrangement with the attorneys of the U.S. law firm.

5. JOSE ARISTIDES PEINADO MARTINEZ alias PEINADO or GUACHE


��

� ��

In August 2009, he was captured and heard in an inquiry on the 15th of the same month and year, and at this proceeding, just like the other declarants we have been analyzing, he appeared to be oblivious to the events that are the subject of the investigation, asserting that he joined the AUC in the year 2002. In an inquiry dated June 17, 2011, before the 12th DH and DIH Prosecution Office, he stated that alias “Samario” is lying and that although he (Peinado) did participate in the deaths of the union leaders, he was not a that place where the homicides occurred, since his mission was to call EDWIN and ADINAEL to report the departure of the union leaders from the mine. In this proceeding he does not mention ALFREDO ARAUJO. On March 1, 2012, he rendered a declaration out of court, for U.S. Justice, in which he states that he was in several meetings attended by ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, where he told them that Drummond and the Americans wanted the union leaders dead. He narrates activities as member of the AUC, involving the multinational company Drummond, which declaration was rendered and delivered in writing to an American who was the attorney of the victims, arriving with IVAN MENDOZA OTERO, a Colombian attorney, who was also his attorney for awhile, telling him that he was working with the attorneys of the victims and that he needed the declaration, that he knew many things about Drummond’s actions, to jot down everything he recalled, he did so, what is in those sheets, all of that is true, he ratifies everything stated in that declaration, and therefore he does not believe it necessary to repeat it because everything is true and under the solemnity of the oath, he ratified the veracity of the content. He details how they started to organize an information-gathering group between the company Drummond and the AUC. JAIME BLANCO MAYA was the representative of the company DRUMMOND vis-à-vis alias EL TIGRE, JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO, who was the military commander of the JUAN ANDRES ALVAREZ front. When Drummond requested something of JAIME MAYA, MAYA would tell them [sic] and they in turn would tell alias EL TIGRE, JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO and the latter, in turn would send him messages with him if they needed money or some coordination by TIGRE and the company Drummond, all of this was done through JAIME BLANCO AND JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRI, and CHARRI would even meet with the American JEAN HADKINS who was in charge of the security of the company Drummond, which company had ties to the AUC front. [sic]


��

� ��

Around the end of 1999, el Tigre invited him to the facilities of DRUMMOND to pick up money that the company gave to el TIGRE to purchase more weapons and enlarge the front, commander TIGRE and he went to the air strips of the company in Borrego, where they met with a Drummond executive, who delivered the box with the money and left. Then el Tigre sent it to JORGE TOVAR PUPO alias JORGE 40, the meetings were more and more frequent when the death of the union leaders was being planned. The first meeting was between JAIME BLANCO and ALFREDO ARAUJO, and I told them that the company had a plan to assassinate the union leaders, of which JIN HADKINS, the head of security, was in charge, along with JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRI, that was two months before the murder of the union leaders. The Drummond executives first needed to give the order for that to happen. At that time, only intelligence tasks were undertaken, to verify the movements of the union leaders VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA and VALMORE LOCARNO. After killing the union leaders, they met around nine with the commander ADINAEL, EDWIN, the urbans and him, to comment that everything had gone well and that old JAIME had said that everything had gone well and that the money would be arriving pretty soon, arriving 15 days later. JAIME delivered it to commander TOLEMAIDA, giving them one million pesos each. He states that for the matter of the union leaders, they met around three times, and on behalf of the company Drummond, JACK ADKINS [sic] and the head of the company would attend. That ALFREDO ARAUJO was the company’s community relations manager, and that he had his office in the portal of the valley next to JAIME BLANCO MAYA, he helped plan the homicide of the union leaders, he gave them money for expenses, he was in charge of everything, he and JAIME BLANCO coordinated everything. JAIME BLANCO and ALFREDO ARAUJO planned the death of those union leaders under the argument that they halted activities too often at the mine, and they wanted to take JAIME BLANCO’s contract away from him, they were the two who planned all the time. Later, he lived in Bogotá, and they planned a meeting with JAIME BLANCO in Valledupar, and in attendance were EDWIN ANGULO, JAIME BLANCO and himself. The meeting was in Valledupar, and BLANCO explained that the American had sent word to him that he was in the country, and that he was going to send them money to keep quiet about the DRUMMOND case. Any time he mentions the company, he refers to JIM ADKINS, ALFREDO ARAUJO and COLONEL LINERO and another colonel that replaced him and whose name he does not remember, but JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS does know his name, that the company DRUMMOND and JAIME BLANCO gave the order to the AUC to kill those union leaders, they paid and the money was delivered by JAIME BLANCO, he does not know how much it was.


��

� ��

It is in this declaration, as was the case with the other witnesses who have signed this type of document, that he began to introduce new events, to involve persons that he had not mentioned before. It is observed that the variation in his narration was for no other purpose than to collaborate with the U.S. attorneys in the proceeding against DRUMMOND in the United States, for the proceeding to result in a judgment in favor of the claimants, in exchange for economic assistance, which is far from being a sincere and true declaration, which are the principles that should guide him. This prosecution office agrees with the defense in the sense that these declarations do not correspond to a selfless assistance to the administration of justice, but instead, may be motivated by the desire to collaborate with the U.S. attorney in the proceeding carried out in the United States. 6. OSCAR DAVID PEREZ BERTEL alias “Yuca”, who was made part of this proceeding as one of the co-perpetrators of the homicides of VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA, in events occurring March 12, 2001. In his first procedural interventions, he mentioned no type of participation or responsibility on the part of SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, in the homicides of VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA. On December 29, 2009, OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL, alias “Yuca”, responded to an inquiry before the 12th DH and DIH Prosecution Office, and in this inquiry, he made no mention of Mr. SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, to link him to the homicides, which was the subject matter of the entire inquiry. Subsequently, on January 19, 2010, before the same office, in an expansion of the inquiry, he also failed to make any statement against ARAUJO CASTRO. On August 26, 2010, eight months later, PEREZ VERTEL – alias “Yuca” – stated an interest on being heard by the prosecution office to furnish information about the homicides, during which inquiry he clearly indicated that ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES, alias “SAMARIO”, had had no participation whatsoever in these events, that he had not joined the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front, because his joining occurred in mid-September, 2001, which is to say, six months after the homicides of the union leaders. He stated that he did not have any knowledge about the masterminds of these homicides, that he never knew how the group he belonged to was financed.


��

� ��

In the inquiry of February 9, 2011, he stated that he had no knowledge of what agreements the companies made with the AUC to which he belonged. PEREZ VERTEL does not mention or relate ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, or any other Drummond Ltda. executive, with the events the subject of the investigation, responding clearly and with aplomb. However, on June 27, 2012, he rendered a declaration earmarked for a litigation pending in the United States against the company Drummond, for these same events, in which he radically varies his narrations and introduces a series of events never before mentioned, such as that Drummond had ties with the AUC to care for the railroad spur, in which task he collaborated with Alias “Cebolla”. That through alias “Adinael” he became aware that Drummond had ordered the homicides, which was public knowledge. He asserts that in the year 2009, he met with Tolemaida and an attorney, BOCANEGRA, who is also an attorney for JORGE 40, who told him not to talk about Drummond. He adds that from the money that Tolemaida received from Drummond, he received nothing, because that commander kept everything. That in mid-2011, one of the Drummond Attorneys, CAMILO, visited him at the Jail to tell him that he was there on behalf of GOMEZ [sic], TOLEMAIDA, that he had already spoken with el TIGRE and with SAMARIO, and that only PEINADO remained, and him; that he promised him money to give testimony in favor of Drummond and to say that the union leaders had been murdered because they belonged to the guerrilla, but he states that the lawyer never returned. Regarding the homicide and the masterminding of it, PEREZ VERTEL said that the order to kill those union leaders, whose name he remembers [sic] came directly from commander ADINAEL, who was the direct commander and who met with JAIME BLANCO, that he did not know who that man was, and with a man surnamed ARAUJO, whom he did not know either, and with JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, who worked in the cafeteria for Mr. BLANCO. Later, with respect to the way in which the AUC provided security for Drummond, he stated that the urban commandos kept a presence, not every day, but they did keep a presence, at the railroad spur, setting up checkpoints to prevent more blow-ups of the line, but they never found anything strange, but our job was to be vigilant.


��

� ��

That ALFREDO ARAUJO is the same ARAUJO that he has mentioned, that he knows he works at that company, that he never met him, never got together with him, he knows that he was chief of personnel or something like that, but that he is not absolutely certain of what position he held in the company, and he also does not know what ties he had with the AUC, that he only knows what he already relayed about the union leaders, because ADINAEL would tell them that they met with JAIME BLANCO. Finally, in an interview given on March 14, 2014 to the official of the technical investigation agency, MARTHA LUCIA PINILLA DIAZ, Mr. OSCAR DAVID PEREZ BERTEL stated his displeasure with the course of the process, because since his capture he has always collaborated telling the truth about the Drummond case, given that there is much interest on the part of the executives to silence the truth, and he also reiterates that ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO continuously met with the commanders such as JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL alias “EL TIGRE” and “JORGE 40”, and he knows this because he was a member of the group led by el TIGRE, when he went to the urban contingent in the year 2001 with commander ADINAEL, he held meetings. That he never participated in such meetings, because that was directly with the commanders, but he does know about such meetings because the commander would inform them. From the statements given by OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL to the Prosecution Office regarding the alleged Drummond links to the homicides, huge differences are observed between certain things and others, because it goes from the absence or lack of knowledge, to being an aural witness and eye witness to events that he never narrated. As such, on June 6, 2013 before this Prosecution Office, OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL, alias “Yuca” ratified the content of the out-of-court declaration indicating that some U.S. attorneys contacted him at the Montería Jail to inform him that they had filed a lawsuit against Drummond in the United States. However, it catches the eye of this prosecution office the fact that from the moment in which civil proceedings were begun in the United States against Drummond, most of the persons involved in this process began to render testimonies to submit them as evidence in those proceedings, changing their initial statements but now these new statements become biased, suspect and detached from reality. The defense claims that we are before new false declarations, where these novel narrations, subsequent and coincident to the text of the document he signed to be submitted as evidence in a U.S. Court, highlights the interest in involving ALFREDO ARAUJO with the


��

� ��

homicides despite the fact that he had not mentioned him before, and never met him, it emphasizes that the declarant says that he found out through the commanders who would tell him, but the defense asks that if such is the case, why did he wait so many years to disclose it, and why his statements coincide in timing with the declarations he signed for the U.S. courts. It concludes that there is an interest in implicating an innocent person, such as doctor ARAUJO, in acts in which he never participated, because had there been an actual involvement or responsibility, OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL, alias “YUCA”, would have mentioned it from the very moment he was questioned by the prosecution office, and not as a consequence of a declaration he signed for the promoter of the case in the United States against Drummond, which arguments diminish the credibility of the declarations rendered by OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL. 7. JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO ALIAS TIGRE. As with the other declarants, he presented two versions that contradicted each other, with respect to the relations between ALFREDO ARAUJO and the AUC, the first of which, earmarked for the U.S. Courts, rendered on December 3, 2009, and which was entered as evidence into the civil proceeding against Drummond, and which was resolved by the Court of Alabama, links ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO to the AUC. The second is part of the process of Justice and Peace against Esquivel, was presented to a Prosecutor belonging to the Anti-Terrorism Unit of the Nation’s General Prosecution Office, in which he states that he has never heard anything regarding relations between ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO and the AUC. In these testimonies, serious incongruences are found, which diminish the credibility of his incriminatory statements against ARAUJO CASTRO. Likewise, it is observed that in the judgment rendered in the U.S. Court, his testimony was thrown out. Recapping the foregoing analysis, the office finds several aspects that warrant mentioning: First of all, to reiterate the serious contradictions in the testimonies rendered by JAIME BLANCO MAYA, LIBARDO DUARTE, ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES, JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, JOSE ARISTIDES PEINADO, OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL, JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO alias EL TIGRE,


��

� � �

who, throughout their procedural interventions, have rendered differing versions, and which are also not coincident or coherent between each other. These testimonies lack firmness, consistency, persistence, and they change in the different procedural interventions, with their statements not always the same, and on the contrary, seem always surrounded by contradictions. As such, this prosecution office finds that, up to this procedural moment, the substantial requirements set forth in Colombian procedural law to order the arrest of SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, who identifies himself with Citizenship Card No. 5.088.026, issued in la Paz, Cesar, have not been met, and therefore what is warranted is to ABSTAIN from Issuing an Order of Arrest against him, as probable mastermind of the AGGRAVATED COLLUSION TO COMMIT A CRIME and likewise for AGGRAVATED HOMICIDE, the victims of which were VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA, according to the events and circumstances known in this process.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES The defense attorney of SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO performs a detailed analysis of the evidence entered into the record, after which requests of the prosecution office its abstention from issuing an arrest order against his client. He starts by mentioning two accusations against his client: that he was associated, as an executive of the Company Drummond, with the northern bloc of the AUC, the Juan Andrés Alvarez Front, involved in its financing and general support; and on the other hand, being involved in the homicides of the union leaders VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA. With respect to the first charge, the crime of collusion to commit a crime, he states that his client is not only protected by the general presumption of innocence, but also specifically by a decision to preclude prosecution that has not been revoked, which reached the conclusion that there was no evidence to support any ties between ALFREDO ARAUJO, as a DRUMMOND executive, and the AUC, which argument is shared by this prosecution office.


��

� ��

Regarding the accusations of the homicides of the union leaders VALMORE LOCARNO and VICTOR ORCASITA, the defense performs a detailed evaluation of the witnesses from which the accusations stem, making some theoretical considerations regarding the suitability of the witness and its credibility, and an evaluation of the testimony. It continues with an analysis of the process, highlighting that a reading of the initial testimonies contained in the first notebooks of the process, the majority of which allude to members of the labor union, reveals that none of them made any statements that directly or indirectly tie doctor SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO to the AUC or to the homicides the subject of the investigation. That the existence of groups outside the law in some zones of the department of Cesar, is also not indicative that doctor ALFREDO ARAUJO was a “collaborator” of their members, or knew of their activities, as stated by some of the witnesses in the course of this process, since such statements, based on the proximity between his client and JAIME BLANCO MAYA, does not go beyond being an assumption lacking factual basis. That the declarations of some DRUMMOND workers from the year 2001, which is to say, soon after the homicides, point to the differences or problems that existed between JAIME BLANCO MAYA and the members of the union for reasons related to the food service, regarding which issue, the defense reiterates, doctor ARAUJO never had anything to do, then or now. In relation to the threats against the union leaders, doctor ALFREDO ARAUJO, in his capacity as Community Relations Manager, usually never interacted, or had any inconveniences or problems with any of the workers of the company Drummond, whether union members or not, and so the reference made by some union workers regarding the alleged poor relations between doctor ARAUJO and VALMORE arose many years after the events took place. That the rumors about a possible responsibility by Drummond and its executives are nothing more than speculations created and propagated by those who are interested in gaining a economic advantage therefrom. The defense continues with a careful valuation of the prosecution testimonies, and almost all of them, as identified by the prosecution office, by material perpetrators of the homicides, stating that there are serious substantial contradictions in


��

� ��

their narrations that prevent the granting of credibility to them in everything related to the alleged responsibility doctor ALFREDO ARAUJO had in the events, which analysis has already been made by this prosecution office, mentioning in each of them what the defense stated, the great majority of which are shared by the office. The defense details the common characteristics of the prosecution witnesses regarding the lack of consistency, which leads us to the problem of the retraction, considering that they are wind vanes gyrating depending on how the wind blows; they sin on account of this first defect, and that makes them unsuitable, according to doctrine. Mittemaier says the following: “The deposition of the witness must be consistent: it is necessary that in the different questionings that are performed, that his word always be the same, always exempt from contradictions or perplexities. In fact, the person who has observed exactly must at each moment reproduce what was observed in the very same terms; contrariwise, the lie is discovered involuntarily by the notable differences in the declarations given in the different instances regarding the same circumstances, which cannot be allowed to stand.” The defense details the problem of the retraction, stating that to retract is to change narration, or as the Dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy says, “to expressly revoke what has been said, to disclaim it”. The witnesses in this process say and unsay, assert and deny, retract totally or partially what they have stated. Therefore, it is important to orient ourselves according to doctrine and jurisprudence; because they have indicated the way forward in these situations. The defense states that theoretical and practical law is a pondering activity devoid of mathematical methodology; in each case, one must weigh or ponder situations and make determinations that do not clash with the values that the laws attempt to achieve. The foregoing means that if a witness retracts himself, the attitude of the judge (Carlos Alberto Pliterraaier, Treaties on evidence in criminal matters) may not be the one that the naïve person adopts in his belief that since before, “A” was said, and now “B” is said, then “B” must prevail, because 1 minus 1 equals zero. That is a great error by the populace; on the contrary, a comparative study of the declarations in its internal connections must be performed, in their partial coherences, in their motivations for the first or for the second versions, in other words, in coincidence with the other evidence in the process.


��

� ��

It cites Francois Gorphe, in the famous work the “Judicial appreciation of evidence”: “The issue is to know which of the two successive declarations warrants the most credit, comparing and contrasting them to each other and with the other evidence or the other known facts. Above all, it is important what the motive was and under what circumstances the witness changes its declarations, to determine whether it was spontaneous and for a reason of conscience, or otherwise, it was under an extraneous influence and for a reason of interest or affection”. It cites our jurisprudence: in a judgment of April 21, 1955, the Supreme Court of Justice said: “The retraction is not in and of itself a cause that immediately destroys what the witness has stated in its previous declarations. In this matter, as in everything that attacks the credibility of the testimony, an analysis of comparison must be undertaken, never one of elimination, to establish in which of the different and opposed versions, the witness told the truth. Whoever retracts himself from his statement must have a reason to do so, which could ordinarily consist in a reaction of conscience, which induces him to state how things actually happened; or an own or foreign interest that leads him to deny or later what was actually perceived. Therefore, the retraction may only be admitted when it obeys a spontaneous and sincere act of whoever does so, provided what is most recently stated by the subject is believable and in accordance with the other evidence of the process”. In a judgment of June 12, 2000, the same Court, with doctor Carlos Eduardo Mejía Escobar writing the opinion, stated the following: “The fact is that not even the retraction of the witness, as stated by the Court, is in and of itself a cause to immediately destroy what has been stated in previous declarations, or a cause to their total discrediting, but a circumstance that must lead to the establishment of the reason for the contradicting versions, which must be weighed by the Judge to determine if any credibility is granted to any of them and with what scope, taking into account the other evidence of the process, naturally” (Refers to the judgment of May 25, 1999, Filing 12,885). It continues its analysis stating that the witnesses contradict themselves and each other, and clash with the evidence of the process, which leads us to an absence of agreement in the content of the testimony, which characterizes the ideal testimony, and in this regard, it cites Mittermaier: “But the strongest guarantee of stability of the testimony is its perfect agreement with the results of the other evidence. If the witness is proven to be lying or mistaken about a point of fact, the judge may not


��

� ��

refrain from conceiving mistrust and doubts about the good will or powers of observation; to the contrary, the conviction increases when the testimony is confirmed or corroborated by the other evidence discovered in the case… If the evidence in the case prove the main circumstance declared by the witness to be altered, at that time, the good faith owed to such witness falls to the floor and vanishes”. The defense cites Professor Jairo Parra Quijano: “The judicial officer or Judge must weigh the quality of the testimony… the agreements and disagreements between the several testimonies and if they have to do with important or secondary aspects of the facts, they are essential aspects to grant evidentiary efficacy to the testimony under examination. It pauses to state that the personality of the witnesses in its process, tending to lie, places us before the law of criminal acts: the man responds for what he does and not for what he is; the man responds for his behavior and not his personality. However, this does not prevent taking into account the notion of personality at the time of evaluating the conduct of the accused or the witnesses to determine the evidentiary value, as set forth in article 277 of Law 6001, when it alludes to the “personality of the declarant”, as one of the criteria to weigh the testimony. It concludes saying that: a person that follows the rules and the axiological system that govern its surroundings at a given time, shall always be preferable as a witness, to the one that walks in an accelerated manner, destroying the social scaffolding; in this context, the declaration of the person accustomed to lying in his life shall always be suspect: the loiterer, the tramp, the hoodlum, the beggar, the person dedicated to prostitution, to mendacity; the same may be said of a person who practices delinquency in a habitual manner. He says that these witnesses had a personal and economic motivation that the interest is the touchstone of the valuation of the witness in relation to its moral unsuitability; for this reason, the defense cites another of the great ones in the matter of criminal evidence, Pietro Ellero, who states: “A legitimate and legal witness is the one having no interest in lying”. Now then, this interest must be presumed from any who may expect a benefit or fears a damage, as a consequence of the result of the process. All [in this process] have had interest, or in benefits from “effective collaboration”, or economic benefits.


��

� ��

The defense indicates that in the brief filed by doctor Jaime Bernal Cuellar, as representative of the Company Drummond, there is evidence that indicates that all the prosecution witnesses have received economic stimuli by the U.S. attorneys indicated in moving forward with lawsuits with grave economic consequences for the company Drummond. Summarizing: The evidence indicates that the motivation of the declarations of the individuals whose declarations have been analyzed is either to seek to have sentences lowered, or to seek profit; or to cause damage, or the itch to cause damage. The aforementioned Mittermaier says the following in this regard: “Sometimes, it has been seen that criminals, when aware that they are unable to rid themselves of the sentence, have, in their desperation, endeavored to drag other citizens to the abyss where they themselves have fallen; others to designate as accomplices those that are innocent, with the sole purpose of freeing from suspicion those who have actually taken part in the crime, and to hinder the investigation, or also with the hope of achieving a less rigorous treatment by implicating persons of high position.” And regarding the credibility of the witness when his motivation to declare is money, the same author says: “If the accomplice, to make him talk, has been promised a reduction in the sentence or the pardon, no weight whatsoever must be given to any of his declarations: it would be dangerous to believe a witness to whom only promises or personal interest obligate him to speak”. The defense states that it has already demonstrated the basis to believe that the declarants have been motivated by price or compensation promises in order to implicate Drummond and its executives in the grave events that are investigated hereby. In addition, there are in the process emails that prove that Jairo de Jesús Charris intended to extort money from the President of DRUMMOND, in exchange for not speaking against that company. The Company’s response was the criminal complaint filed against such individual. The defense concludes its arguments with an affirmed summary: That the “rumor” that the company Drummond, through its Executives, was involved in the death of the union leaders, has been spread intentionally; such rumors coincide in time with when the U.S. attorneys demonstrated their interest in finding the Company guilty in order to obtain economic gains;


��

� ��

That from the analysis of the prosecution witnesses, based on which an order to open an investigation was issued, and an arrest order was issued, the following is proven:

A. That they are not consistent, as they change according to their interests; B. That they contradict themselves; C. That they contradict other declarants; D. That the evidence of the process disproves them: “the objective peripheral verifications” clash with

the accusations of the declarants; E. That the evidence indicates that the prosecution witnesses are being paid by U.S. attorneys, the same

ones who have sued Drummond in order to seek indemnification. The foregoing means that the witnesses who accuse in this process, are unable to be bear faith against the defendant, doctor ARAUJO. Due to the subjective aspect which is their interest in lying: they are being paid for their declarations; and due to the objective aspect, because they are unbelievable, inconsistent, incoherent, contradictory, and in the end, they do not fulfill the sound criticism requirements to establish responsibility. The defense therefore requests of the prosecution office its abstention from issuing an arrest order, because there is no evidence that supports it. Which arguments have in their great majority shared by this prosecution office, and which have been analyzed in full detail, when studying each and every one of the testimonies in the record of the investigation. The Agent of the Public Investigation Agency, as well as the Representative of the Civil Party, have remained silent.

OTHER DETERMINATIONS. In order to clarify the events under investigation, the office orders the following means of evidence:

1. To request from the office of international affairs of the Nation’s General Prosecution Office, that the following be delivered to this process, following the legal procedure: A. Copies of the judgments of the Alabama Courts, related to the lawsuits filed against Drummond,

for its possible ties with groups outside the law and the homicides of VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA.


��

� ��

B. A copy of the declaration rendered by ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES, alias SAMARIO, on December 4, 2009, and which is a documentary evidence in the proceeding Claudia Balcero Giraldo, et. al. vs. Drummond Company, Inc., et. al. in the Court of Alabama.

C. The declaration of JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO, alias “EL TIGRE”, rendered for

U.S. courts in the Modelo jail of Barranquilla on December 3, 2009.

2. To hear, in an expansion inquiry, the declaration of JAIME BLANCO MAYA, LIBARDO DUARTE, ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES, JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, JOSE ARISTIDES PEINADO, OSCAR DAVID PEREZ VERTEL, JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO alias EL TIGRE, to inform everything related to the alleged sums of money they have received from the U.S. attorneys who have filed suit against Drummond in the United States.

3. To request from the Unit of Justice and Peace, copies of the Testimonies rendered by ALCIDES MANUEL MATTOS TABARES alias SAMARIO, rendered in a hearing of that Jurisdiction on November 23, 2009; and of JAIRO DE JESUS CHARRIS CASTRO, rendered in a hearing of that Jurisdiction on February 10, 2010.

4. To request the declaration rendered by JHON JAIRO ESQUIVEL CUADRADO alias EL TIGRE before the Prosecution Office of the Anti-Terrorism Unit of Colombia, on February 10, 2010.

By virtue of the foregoing, the ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH Prosecution Office, Delegated to the Criminal Judges of the Specialized Circuit attached to the Directorate of National Prosecution Offices for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law,

RESOLVES: First. To ABSTAIN from Issuing an Order of Arrest against SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, as probable mastermind of the AGGRAVATED COLLUSION TO COMMIT A CRIME and likewise for AGGRAVATED HOMICIDE, the victims of which were VALMORE LOCARNO RODRIGUEZ and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA AMAYA, according to the events and circumstances known in this process. Second. To perform the required notices and communications. Third. To cancel the order to capture issued to the corresponding authorities.


��

� ��

Fourth. To comply with what was ordered in the section of other determinations. Fifth. To issue the communications set forth in article 364 of Law 600 of 2000. The legally-established appeals apply against this decision.

NOTIFY AND COMPLY [illegible signature] MARIA ASTRID GUEVARA ESLAVA Prosecutor


��

� ��

NATION’S GENERAL PROSECUTION OFFICE

CERTIFICATION 966 In Bogotá, on the twenty-fifth (25th) day of the month of August, two thousand fifteen (2015), Dra. NANCY LOPEZ VERGARA, who identifies herself with citizenship document No. 51.911.629, T.P. 16037 of the C.S.J., appears at this prosecution office 118, Specializing in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, as alternate defense attorney for Mr. SANTANDER ALFREDO ARAUJO CASTRO, to notify the resolution through which the legal situation of her client was resolved, dated August 25, 2015. With no other purpose to this proceeding, it is closed and signed by those who intervened in it, after reading and approving it in all its parts, as shown. CERTIFY. [illegible signature] Dra. NANCY LOPEZ VERGARA Defense Attorney GLORIA I. RODRIGUEZ S. Assistant, Prosecutor IV, Prosecution Office 118 Specializing in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law �


��

�

��

�

�� !��"� ��#"��$%��&��"��"��&��

�� %�� &� '(��)�� *�� !� ��

��+,��-��-��#"��.��

� �

�� &�� !��/�-��&��&�� .�

�

*��"��

�

�

*�0��.��

��12��&��.�

---.��.�!��

�


Drummond Colombian Investigation of Witnesses

Documents

Transcript of Drummond Colombian Investigation of Witnesses