About Diplomatic Immunity - From Ambassador Wood

Versión en español tambien:
http://bogota.usembassy.gov/wwwsww54.shtml
******************************************
Ambassador William B. Wood's Comments at the of Ibague Country Club

Versión en español

About Diplomatic Immunity

Immunity is not impunity. In the Apiay case, during the month of April the Army prosecutors presented more than 15 counts against one of the individuals involved. And in May this case will proceed to the first phase of a trial. Among the 15 counts, some carry maximum sentences of up to 15 years each. And in our military justice system there is no probation, no reduced sentence. We are taking these cases very, very seriously because immunity does not mean impunity.

Diplomatic immunity is not a bilateral issue. It is reciprocal, for every diplomat in the world. Colombian diplomats in Washington have immunity, just as ours do here, according to the 1963 Vienna Convention. Colombian soldiers also enjoy immunity in the Sinai, where they are part of a peacekeeping operation. This type of immunity is normal.

The bilateral agreement between Colombia and the United States, which was signed in 1974, and entered into force in 1975, did not create a new immunity. It simply stated that our military personnel (here in Colombia for the purpose of cooperation, understanding, planning, analysis, all that) are part of the Embassy and for that reason enjoy the same immunity as the Embassy itself. That's all. I think the Minister of Foreign Relations explained that a few weeks ago before Congress.

Immunity allowed U.S. ambassadors in Moscow and Soviet ambassadors in Washington during the Cold War. The system of immunity is necessary so that governments can have diplomats in the capital cities of other countries even if there are bilateral problems between the two countries, because it is the diplomatic job to maintain a minimum exchange and understanding between countries. Immunity allows us to do that.

We are following the agreement with Colombia to the letter of the law and we always work under the rules of the 1963 Vienna Convention. In the case of the two soldiers that were arrested, they are in the hands of U.S. authorities. Before they left Colombia, they spoke with the National Police and the Prosecutor General's office in an informal but very pragmatic and cooperative way.

They face the possibility of stronger sentences because they did not only commit civil crimes, they also violated their duties as members of our Armed Forces. In that sense they are being charged in a military court and they face not only charges related to the crime itself, but also regarding the fulfillment of their military service duties. I can assure you that we are working very hard to ensure that these problems do not occur. We will have to continue our cooperation, our coordination in this case, and that is, in my judgment, the best way to confront these problems, these tragedies.

About the 1962 Bilateral Agreement

In 30 years the Agreement has served both countries very well. More than 7,000 U.S. military members have come through Colombia for short or longer periods during the last three years, precisely to offer the Colombian Armed Forces assistance, cooperation, support, follow-up. If the Colombian Government want to change our agreement, we will always be open to its position, but I think the Agreement has served both countries very well for 30 years.

By Dan on Jun 5, 2005, 17:39 in Politics & the war.