Iván Duque gives his version of the controversy between Santos and Uribe over immunity in the US.

Former President Iván Duque contacted this newspaper this Tuesday to make some details about the controversy that broke out between former Colombian presidents Juan Manuel Santos and Álvaro Uribe.

(Read here: Did Santos intercede for Uribe before US justice? This is the truth after controversy)

This is a judicial process from 2010 in which NGOs and union groups in that country tried to force Uribe's testimony before the US courts in a case against the multinational Drummond.

In your communication, Duque insists that both Santos and his ambassador at the time, Gabriel Silva, are lying. alleging that it was his management that led to Uribe being granted immunity for heads of state.

Although it is true that the Santos government sent a letter to the State Department in 2010 claiming the immunity of the former presidentDuque warns that the strategy was designed in its entirety by Uribe's lawyers in the United States and that they enforced international standards and the same laws of this country before the courts.

In fact, Duque maintains, it was Uribe's lawyers who “guided” the Colombian government on how to respond to the subpoena they issued to Uribe to give his testimony in the case against Drummond.

At the time, and after receiving that letter, the Department of State He presented a brief to the court in which he suggested that the former president enjoyed residual immunity from United States justice.

Both this court in Washington and, later, an appeals court, agreed with this interpretation and denied the possibility of Uribe being called to testify.

What Iván Duque says

In his response to this newspaper, former president Duquand refers specifically to three statements that have been left in the air and that they say are “lies.”

First of all, refers to the idea that Uribe's immunity In the United States it was a “generous gesture” by Juan Manuel Santos, product of a “management at the top” and diplomacy.

“From the moment that a testimony from former President Álvaro Uribe was sought before a United States Court, it was understood that this would be a judicial matter and therefore it was necessary to find a great lawyer. Luis Alberto Moreno, then President of the IDB, recommended the prestigious lawyer Gregory Craig, former legal secretary of Barack Obama and former advisor to Senator Ted Kennedy,” says the former president.

And he adds: “Once the case had been analyzed – he continued – the lawyer explained the procedure: That he would speak with the Department of State and the Colombian Embassy, ​​so that the general criterion of immunity enjoyed by former heads of State could be enforced. to appear before calls from the justice of the United States for his actions in the exercise of his duties. This general criterion is the same criterion that is applied in the United States to former American presidents for not attending calls from justice in other countries. The lawyer Gregory Craig prepared the argumentative texts and even suggested the texts and procedures that the Colombian Embassy should carry out to enforce the general criterion applicable to all former presidents.

Completed that procedure, says the former president, Uribe's lawyer “had to defend that criterion, applied on multiple occasions in the courts of the United States and won against the plaintiffs in the first instance in 2011 and the appeal in 2012 (a case that was ruled when Gabriel Silva was not the Ambassador from Colombia)”.

Secondly, Duque states, There is a mistaken idea that Uribe's immunity was “a task of coordination” between Santos and the person in charge of Human Rights in the State Department and with the White House..

“Former President Álvaro Uribe not only denied that Gabriel Silva, through some coffee partners, paid for the lawyers who would represent him, but also asked that the Government of Colombia not take any action in his defense. It was the lawyer Gregory Craig who spoke with the Legal Advisor of the State Department and who guided the government of Colombia on how to respond to the innovation of the general criterion of immunity,” maintains the former leader of the Democratic Center.

And finally, Duque adds, the concept that Uribe's judicial defense was only a subsidiary process to the obvious confirmation of immunity by the State Department.

According to Duque, “it was the courts that maintained the application of a general criterion, based on doctrine and custom, under the clear situation that a court could also change its mind in specific situations. “The entire legal victory, both in the application of the general immunity criteria and in the successful defenses in the first and second instance, is due to Gregory Craig.”

Sergio Gomez Maseri
EL TIEMPO correspondent
Washington