Although the trial of the so-called "Colombia Three" finished on August 1st, 2003, the verdict was only issued on April 26th last. The 'Colombia Three' case judge found flaws in the prosecution evidence, writes Deaglán de Bréadún.
It is now clear that one of the reasons for the delay was the determination of the judge, Dr Jairo Acosta, to analyse the case in the closest detail. The full text of his verdict has been made available on computer disk to this reporter by the office of the court. When printed as "hard copy" it comes to 169 foolscap pages.
The most striking feature of his very comprehensive judgment is Dr Acosta's detailed analysis and assessment of the evidence from the main prosecution witness, an alleged deserter from the FARC guerrillas called Edwin Giovanny Rodriguez.
In his summing-up the judge cleared the three Irishmen, James Monaghan (58), Martin McCauley (41) and Niall Connolly (38), of training the FARC in bomb-making techniques, although he found them guilty of using false passports. He further ordered that Rodriguez and another alleged FARC deserter, John Alexander Caviedes, be investigated for perjury.
Rodriguez had claimed in court that he was an illiterate former coca-leaf picker (the raw material for cocaine) who joined the FARC in 1999 at the age of 22 and became a driver for the second-in-command of the guerrillas, Jorge Briceno, alias "El Mono Jojoy".
In that capacity he testified that, on February 5th, 2001, he picked up a man matching the description of James Monaghan at La Sombra, Caqueta, in the zone which was formerly ceded to FARC during the now-defunct peace process involving the Colombian government and the guerrillas. Commander Briceno allegedly told Rodriguez that Monaghan had come to provide training in explosives.
The witness claimed to have stood guard while Monaghan and two other foreigners gave classes, over a 20-day period, in such matters as the use of 150 mm mortars "to bring down aircraft".
He further stated that the training finished on February 25th with a practical demonstration of explosive techniques close to the village of Los Pozos. However, the judge finds it "strange" and "a paradox" (Irish Times translation of the Spanish text) that, in the same place and on the same date, peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC were taking place.
Rodriguez said he recognised Monaghan and the other Irishmen later, when he saw them on television after their arrest. He claimed to have seen Monaghan and the others on TV the same day as the much-publicised release of a number of Colombian military officers from captivity by the FARC at La Macarena, which took place on June 28th, 2001. The judge points out that, on this date: "The Irish citizens, including James William Monaghan, hadn't even arrived in this country."
The witness quoted Commander Briceno as saying, after the arrest of the three Irishmen, that "they had better defend themselves as best they can", indicating that the FARC had already obtained what it wanted from the three men, viz., explosives training, and had no further interest in them.
The judge points to a contradiction between this testimony and a demand from the same witness for protection by the state for himself and his family, as the FARC had allegedly threatened to kill them because of his role in the case. Indeed the witness wore body armour in court.
The judge also accuses the witness, in effect, of bartering his willingness to give evidence for a place on the government's witness protection programme.
As driver for the FARC deputy leader, Rodriguez would be expected to have met many of the key figures in the peace process which was then under way.
Therefore, the judge was "very surprised" that Rodriguez did not know the name of Colombia's High Commissioner for Peace, Victor G. Ricardo, despite the fact that there would have been frequent contact between Ricardo and Briceno at the time.
Finally, the judge expressed doubt that the evidence given by Rodriguez was either "original or spontaneous". He noted similarities between the comments by the witness and media statements by State military organisations about the FARC and subversion in general. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that, on one of the days that Rodriguez was giving evidence, some unusual visitors were present in court: well-dressed men, who were clearly pleased with the witness's performance on the stand. The men left before any journalist had an opportunity to ask them who they were.
The judge may be less than fully informed on the nature of contacts between the prosecutor's office and the Garda Síochána. He criticises Ireland's police for providing information only on the republican background and history of the accused men but no "definite and categoric information" relating to the main charge they were facing.
However, the Sunday Times reported in its Irish edition on December 8th, 2002, while the trial was taking place, that the Garda was not told what evidence the prosecution wanted and that the Colombian authorities were under the impression that Garda headquarters were in London. The prosecution also indicated in court that there were insufficient funds to bring two Garda Special Branch witnesses to Colombia for the trial.
Dr Acosta also appears to be under the impression that allegations of human rights violations have been made against the Garda that are on a par with the allegations against members of the former Royal Ulster Constabulary and that this would reflect on the credibility of Garda evidence. He shows that he is aware of miscarriages of justice such as the cases of the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and Maguire Seven.
The judge is genuinely puzzled by the men's use of false identities and apparently does not give credence to evidence that republicans with previous convictions, such as Monaghan and McCauley, needed to use false identities if they wished to travel abroad. "If Monaghan's interest in the peace process in Colombia was such, why hide his good intentions and allow his presence in Colombia to be suspicious?"
He continues: "Why not admit it, if it was in line with a noble cause?" The judge describes the "surreptitious entrance" of the three men to Colombia as the evidence with the "highest value" for the prosecution. But he argues the failure of accused persons to give a satisfactory explanation of their behaviour did not mean they were guilty of a particular offence.
Convicting them of using false passports, the judge gave Monaghan 44 months, McCauley 36 months and Connolly 26 months in prison. Under Colombian law, sentences below 48 months can be suspended if certain conditions are met - this would potentially allow the men to return to Ireland within a short time.