“This is the true reality of the creation of a Chinese Gestapo with the objective of exterminating thousands of innocent people [including women, the elderly, and children] under the control, direction, supervision, and coordination of Luo Gan, the accused … .”
On December 17, 2009, Judge Octavio Aráoz de Lamadrid of Court No. 9 of the Federal Criminal Court of Argentina, after four and a half years of investigation, considered the evidence sufficient to issue warrants for the arrest of the former leader of the Chinese Communist Party, Jiang Zemin, and ex Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Committee of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, Luo Gan, who was also the head of the notorious “610 Office,” which has the responsibility for the control, direction, supervision, and coordination of the persecution of millions of Chinese, simply for their belief.
The evidence gathered was sufficient to convince the Court that, upon trial, the two could be found guilty of the crimes of Genocide and torture against practitioners of Falun Gong in China. Judge de Lamadrid issued an arrest warrant requiring them to appear for oral questioning and declaration. The warrant was issued to the Interpol Department of the Federal Police of Argentina. As such, should the accused former officials travel to any country having an extradition treaty with Argentina, they would ostensibly face being detained and transferred to Argentina where they would be imprisoned while awaiting trial.
An essential condition in the conduct of this investigation is the right of access to justice. This right is firmly rooted in Article 18 of the Fundamental Argentine Law, which says that all petitions filed, following the proper and suitable legal process, must be accepted. The judge ruled that, since the practitioners of Falun Gong do not have a right to justice in China, it is the responsibility of other courts to offer this right to them and give them an opportunity to be heard.
Judge de la Madrid accepted the complaint under the principle of universal justice. “All civilized countries, including China—because she signed the relevant treaties—are responsible for giving any citizen of the world access to justice, and to be able to go to a court and claim his or her rights. Because the crime affects the entire international community, the complaint was accepted, basically to give the victims a court where they could claim and enforce their rights. China does not do this. Therefore, it generates international jurisdiction.”
When he began to review reports, the Judge found the UN reports provided very convincing neutral information, enabling him to maintain neutrality. The testimony that touched him the most was about how the victims were deprived of sleep, and how they had to work the earth with their bare hands. He always remembered both how they were made to assemble throw-away chopsticks for export worldwide, and the torture, the magnitude of the torture!
After taking some forty or fifty declarations, the Chinese government’s method with the practitioners became very clear. “When they detect them [Falun Gong practitioners], there is first is a short to medium detention of a few days, with beatings and confinement; these vary depending on who is the first to carry it out, but basically the first stage consists of a few days of confinement and telling them that they have to stop practicing Falun Gong. If they continued with the practice and were arrested again. Then the confinement was much longer. There was never any judicial intervention, and the confinement was longer. Then came the brainwashing, with beatings, and torture, trying to convince them not to practice. They were released again. If they were arrested again, they then went through a form of, let’s say, a fake trial. Then they were transferred to detention centers; in some cases they do this, not always; we have documents of some sentences, and they were sentenced for 3, or 4 years, and then they simply disappeared.”
“All this structure, and all this organization is what most surprised me. This means we are talking about something that happens far away from us, which we do not see, which we cannot touch, but there are a whole lot of people who are subject to torture, and so many things are happening to them. When you can see that behind it there’s a system, it is very shocking.”
“Why in ten years, with all the complaints that were filed, the lawsuits that were presented in so many countries, why did they never move forward? I am surprised. The only answer would be that this is an action taken against the “Asian giant,” the country with which all the countries in the world have very strong economic interests.” “(W)hen one reviews the declarations and imagines of living through this in China, it is impossible to describe. The things that happened to the practitioners with whom I spoke are unbelievable; they are unbelievable and impossible to understand in the 21st century.”
“I am very surprised by something we Westerners find difficult to understand: how the practitioners give everything for their spiritual belief, everything, and everything. … The level of dedication they show, the degree of sacrifice, only so that they can practice their belief peacefully, is something so moving.”
(In China) “They arrested a commissioner of the United Nations. They detained him illegally. They did not torture him, but they caught him and brought him to the airport. This is what I always looked for in the case and not because it was repeated to me a great number of times; I looked for objective elements, direct victims, and when you can obtain independent information, this is what has great value, and this is what was gathered during these years to finalize the capture requests.” “We should continue to build cases in this style all around the world. Therefore, it will not be one capture order; instead it will be 50 international capture orders.”
According to local media, Mr. Aráoz de Lamadrid resigned shortly after this ruling due to internal political pressure. The interview took place in his office located in downtown Buenos Aires. In the interview that follows, he spoke candidly about this case and related issues.
Interview of Judge Octavia Araoz de Lamadrid in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on January 7, 2010.
Q) Tell us something about yourself.
A) I was born here in Buenos Aires, in the Capital; I grew up in Martinez outside of the city. I went to state schools, both grade and high school, and studied in the Catholic University of Argentina. I am married, 40 years old and have three children.
All my brothers are lawyers, my father is a lawyer. He was an economic criminal judge for 15 years and my grandfather was president of the Court under the governments of [Presidents] Frondizi, Guido, and Illia.
Q) How did you come to study law? Was it a personal decision, or did your family influence you?
A) [The decision to study law] came naturally; it was a natural inclination of the family. We all opted for the legal profession. …
Q) Going back to your wanting to be a judge ... did you always have an inclination for defending human rights…?
A) My inclination has always been criminal law, probably inspired by my father. … I always had a heart for justice. Then, in the course of study and practice, I become more interested in certain subjects, for example, human rights.
When I was studying for a year in Spain, I became more involved in … the recognition of the person and how an efficient criminal justice system, which protects and guards all of the people’s rights, can be achieved. This perspective moved me toward this subject.
Q) Now going into it a bit more in this case ... Many here and around the world feel that you have demonstrated great courage in applying these principles of international concern. What were your thoughts when you accepted the complaint?
A) I tried to be very technical on the subject of the complaint. It is clear that, when accepting a complaint against a foreign country, it has a significant international relevance that can cause problems with the national government. So I tried to be very strict respecting the treaties that Argentina has signed. I went back into the Argentine doctrine of Jimenez Azua, and other authors, which recognized the possibility that Argentina could prosecute crimes committed abroad that violate international law.
I tried to be very technical, to avoid wounding anything that is sensitive. It is clear that federal trials have a very important political aspect for two reasons: if you make a complaint against a public official, you have to be very sure and be very clear if you're going to proceed, and why you are doing it, because to proceed against an active public official affects the government, and one must be responsible to think what you will do when you can exercise power. We should not involve the national government beyond what is strictly necessary.
That responsibility made me approach it very technically, to reach the conclusion that the complaint must be accepted, and that we cannot evade this responsibility …
Q) It concerns a world power like China, did this generate any difficulty?
A) What it generated was institutional responsibility. The power of the judiciary is part of the three powers of the State, so when you make a certain decision as a judge and it has an impact on other powers, you have to be very careful in what you are doing. Once you are certain and you are prudent and that technically you are convinced about what you're doing, I don’t think you need any special courage to carry it out. Some say that they went to a judge who has a special courage… but you know what? If you do not assume the responsibility of the job, knowing that there will be difficult moments, you are not a judge.
To tell you the truth, at that time no one pressured me. There was a call from the Foreign Ministry and nothing else at that time. They informed me that Luo Gan had diplomatic status, but nothing more. I did not consider it as pressure or anything else. … Okay, no problem. The one who decides is I, and I decide according to my convictions and to my spirit.
Afterwards, two years ago the Foreign Ministry called again because Taiana [the Foreign Minister of Argentina] was visiting China and he wanted to know if we had made any decision against China. At that time, not yet; I had not yet travelled to the United States [to obtain testimony]. These were the two contacts I had.
Q) What are the reasons that you accepted the claim and later ordered the prosecution of the accused?
A) First regarding accepting the complaint. The complaint was accepted, basically, under the principle of universal justice, under which all civilized countries, including China—because she signed those treaties—are responsible for giving any citizen of the world access to justice and to be able to go to a court and claim his or her rights. The complaint was accepted, basically to give the victims of a crime—which, by its nature, affects the entire international community—a court where they can claim and enforce their rights. That China does not do this, therefore, generates international jurisdiction.
Any country that arrests the accused can put them on trial. In our case, we had the conditions to arrest him. We were in Argentina [in reference to Luo Gan’s visit to Argentina in December 2005, when the complaint was filed], and therefore, the complaint was accepted. However, later, due to processing procedures, he had already left Argentina, so the possibility of arresting him did not become a reality. The final resolution in this case is not an indictment. Technically it is a summons for oral questioning and declaration. We conducted an investigation; it was considered that sufficient evidence had been accumulated to suspect that this person committed a crime and was also the perpetrator, so he was summoned to oral questioning and declaration. Since the person is not in the country, after a summons, an order for international capture was issued, requesting any country in the world to arrest him and that he be sent to Argentina for trial.
Q) What role did moral issues play?
A) I always tried not to mix the judicial functions, in order not to lose objectivity and not let the crimes that I was investigating affect me. But this is inevitable when you start to make contact with victims, and when you begin to come into contact with the reports; the UN reports were very convincing. Dr. Alejandro Cowes [the plaintiff’s lawyer] knows how many times we have asked for neutral information, which is why the United Nations was ideal for me to enable me to maintain neutrality in order to assess whether what I was gathering in the file was what the victims were providing and nothing else, or there was someone independent and neutral, who also reinforced what the victims declared. That happened with the UN reports.
Q) Is there any report or declaration that attracted your particular attention?
A) Yes, a lot. One was the testimony about how they were deprived of sleep, and how they had to work the earth with bare hands. I always remembered both how they were made to assemble throw-away chopsticks for export worldwide, and the torture, the magnitude of the torture! And what I always tried to look for, as I gathered the declarations, is the method. They fine-tuned a very clear method. They [the persecutors] have a very clear procedure. After taking, I forgot how many declarations, forty or fifty, more or less, the method of the Chinese government on how to proceed with the practitioners became very clear. When they detect them [Falun Gong practitioners], there is first is a short to medium detention of a few days, with beatings and confinement; these vary depending on who is the first to carry it out, but basically the first stage consists of a few days of confinement and telling them that they have to stop practicing Falun Gong. If they continued with the practice and were arrested again, then the confinement was much longer. There was never any judicial intervention, and the confinement was longer. Then came the brainwashing, with beatings, and torture, trying to convince them not to practice. They were released again. If they were arrested again, they then went through a form of, let’s say, a fake trial. Then they were transferred to detention centers; in some cases they do this, not always; we have documents of some sentences, and they were sentenced for 3, or 4 years, and then they simply disappeared.
How the arrests were made in Beijing when there were large demonstrations, and how the policemen from all of the provinces in China went about identifying their people made an impression on me. Before they [the practitioners visiting Beijing] were registered under the system in Beijing, they were arrested, put on trains, buses or different means of transportation, and taken back to their provinces. The central government punishes those governors who have a lot of people going to protest in Beijing. In order to avoid that, they kidnap them beforehand and take them to the provinces and torture them there, to maintain good relations with the central government.
All this structure, and all this organization is what most surprised me. This means, we are talking about something that happens far away from us, which we do not see, which we cannot touch, but there are a whole lot of people who are subject to torture, and so many things are happening to them. When you can see that behind it there’s a system, it is very shocking.
Q) How does it feel to be the first judge who made such a ruling?
A) Yes, I feel pride, but I repeat what I said before: I do not think that judges have to show this as something special. They should not. It is normal that a judge does this because it is his duty. Judges do not have to issue a ruling because this is going to be better for his ego or it will have more or less press exposure. In fact, I refused to do interviews for years and I have refused this for years, because a judge never gives an interview. This should not be anything special for a judge. It has to be done because that is his job. Apart from this, due to all the greeting cards and gratitude that has been given to me, yes, it gives me a certain joy to have done something very little, because the truth is that what I did was very little, but when I see that many people take it as a breath of fresh air, as something that is good for them, this makes me happy, yes.
Q) It has been 10 years. Why do you think that a judge has only now taken this step?
A) Yes, this is really something. Why in ten years, with all the complaints that were filed, the lawsuits that were presented in so many countries, why did they never move forward? I am surprised. The only answer would be that this is an action taken against the “Asian giant,” the country with which all the countries in the world have very strong economic interests. It is the only answer I can think of, because, looking at it objectively, it makes no sense that these lawsuits have been delayed so long in being accepted.
It surprised me a lot; in fact very much that Spain took so long to open the case to prosecution. When I studied in Spain, I knew some members of the Spanish judicial system. They have much more recognition and much more independence than the Argentine judicial members. The Spanish justice system has advanced against cases of crimes against humanity in Guatemala, and Iraq, but it cost them so much to progress in this. That really surprised me. I do not know the reasons, but I was surprised.
What struck me about Spain is that they did not apply the principle of universal justice, yet they already have it in their laws. The Constitutional Court, which opened the case to prosecution now, used the principle of universal justice; they did the same as I did and this is hardly surprising. Although it is surprising that they did not do this in the earlier stages. [Ed. The Spanish case went to many courts. Each time it was rejected, it went to a higher court, and at last to the Supreme Court, which decided that the case could be accepted and it was then handled by the Constitutional Court.]
In the Spanish Supreme Court … are people of great ability. I am not even near to the height of their heels. …
Q) The Argentine government has championed human rights. How should the Argentine government react to the Chinese regime’s declarations?
A) The government should support justice. They should say nothing. The Argentine government has nothing to comment on with respect to this matter. They must respect the judicial system, and maintain its position on human rights, and should request that China, via diplomatic channels, provide evidence, and that the persons accused should present themselves. I do not think that this will happen; it’s difficult.
Q) What did you know about the spiritual culture and the human rights situation in China before this case?
A) Nothing, I must say, very little. What everybody knows is that it is a communist regime, and like all communist regimes, it is oppressive and limits all freedom. On the religious issue, I only knew that there is the religion of the Party, but I did not know anything at all about other religions in China. I had no idea.
Q) Did that change in the course of your work?
A) Yes, yes, and it has been very surprising. I am very surprised by something we Westerners find difficult to understand: how the practitioners give everything for their spiritual belief, everything, and everything. We have not been able to understand this. We cannot see this because our Western mind does not have anything like this. The level of dedication they show, the degree of sacrifice, only so that they can practice their belief peacefully, is something so moving. It's something we do not experience ourselves. In our culture, this does not exist. We don’t have this. The closest thing which you can compare to it, and it is even ridiculous, is the love we have for football, or an emotion we have when we are in a fight over political ideologies. But this is more than that; it is much more than that; it is a teaching so complete that it is very difficult for us to see it, and this caught my attention.
Q) Several Chinese dissidents within China have dared to praise the cases of Argentina and Spain, despite the danger of being repressed. This could be a sign of the degree of importance for the Chinese, at least for the few who have been able to learn about this by breaking through the regime’s information blockade. What impact do you imagine your ruling will have for the future of China?
A) Let's see, in order not to make predictions. You have the declarations of the spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry (in China), which are important. It means that the arrest warrant affected China, really, much more than I thought, because we are talking about the arrest of a former president and former important official. They are not even acting officials. In other words, the Chinese government could have ignored the matter without important comments. That a present spokesperson expresses the displeasure of the Chinese government is a sign that it is something that pains the Chinese government. This is something that would not have happened if it had not affected them.
With time, if there are more detention requests, I believe that there could be a change. How long it will take, it is impossible to know, but (the rest of the world) must force a change. For this, there is justice. It is like a little key. Little by little, it adds up. Yes, this must have an important effect. Now, as to what the effect will be, we do not know.
Q) The spokesperson said that they will continue to treat Falun Gong practitioners with Chinese laws. Do you have any comments on that?
A) China has never disavowed that they banned the religion, which is the first big mistake. If they want to persecute practitioners of a religion and prohibit them by law, they are showing the entire world that they are carrying out a religious persecution, which is prohibited by all the conventions signed by all countries around the world, including China. China did not sign the Rome Statute, if she would have signed it, she would be, without doubt, before the International Criminal Court. They have in writing the exact crime: prohibition of a religion. This is inconceivable in any part of the world.
Q) Is it possible for the case to go to the International Criminal Court, although China is not a member?
A) International criminal law, which is the subject we are talking about, foresaw the creation of these international courts. What do the international courts and the Rome Statute do? They generate a criminal code for the whole world, a prosecuting code for the whole world and a court (the ICC). However, if the country does not submit voluntarily to the jurisdiction of this court, there is no way to bring the country to the court. However, it is a possibility that the development of international law will make it possible to prosecute a country in the international court. Not yet today, but to me, this is a possibility. International law has demonstrated a degree of development and progress far richer and more important than what was expected from the beginning. This takes time.
Q) When the persecution stops and it is recognized, what is the function of this court? Is it that nothing can be done, because China is not a member?
A) In this case, the International Criminal Court could try Luo Gan and the former Chinese president but cannot condemn the country. The United Nations could do that.
Q) So Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan can be tried?
A) But they must be under the jurisdiction of the international court, and as China is not under the jurisdiction of the international court, thus, for this reason, I made room for it in the complaint; Spain also made room for the lawsuit. As the international court cannot give room to this complaint, the principle of universal jurisdiction arises. Therefore, any other country can accept it [the complaint]. The most important issue is that the victims of the crimes cannot remain without access to justice. The complaint against the country, against China, this lies with the United Nations, but for the United Nations to condemn China … today this is impossible.
Q) What do you foresee for the Chinese communist regime?
A) One possibility is what happened to Russia. The communist government could burn itself out. This has been demonstrated. You can say that China is managing better than Russia, but this is happening to Cuba, and this will happen to China; how long before it happens? I don’t know.
Q) What should be the position of the international community and of public opinion in general?
A) To me, the international community seems to be giving importance to the subject; the countries that are not doing this are those which we mentioned earlier who have an economic interest with China. But the international community is interested. Three years ago an article appeared in a French magazine, which was published by Clarin [Argentina’s largest newspaper], about the trips made to China for organ transplants. There were no repercussions at the national level, but there were at the level of the international community, yes. The international community in Canada is permanently concerned. In the United States the community is concerned. The government always tries to remain on the sidelines, but who made a gesture? Bush…. when there was a manifestation of a representative of Falun Gong, a woman was arrested, a journalist and Bush said to free her.
It was not something out of the world, but it was a gesture, it was a gesture of the president of the most important country in the world; the community is interested, but I repeat, at the national level, it is more difficult.
Q) Is it a coincidence that Spain and Argentina have come this far in this case, but not other countries?
A) No, it is not a coincidence. Looking for a connection, Argentina and Spain have the same identities. Besides the same language, we also have in general the same religion. Whether this is the factor of influence or not, I don’t know. Our judicial systems are very similar; our laws are similar. Yes, these could be the factors.
Q) Is it important for Argentina to take this step?
A) Argentina is getting renowned for human rights; we hope that this is maintained. Spain is also a country which always had a calling in the subject of human rights. If you want different concepts, Spain looks more outward. Spain goes out to recognize human rights crimes committed outside of Spain.
Q) Victims of the crimes you ruled on think you represent a ray of hope. Do you have any comments on that?
A) I understand. I repeat that I am very happy to have given them a very small ray of hope; what I did is a very little step. I hope it has some effect; I hope that this will make China recognize that they are in the wrong and become more pluralistic and open. Hopefully this was generated. I don’t think that what I did has so much value that it will cause the Chinese Communist Party to do this; however, I would be very happy if it would happen. For the practitioners, I share their permanent pain that they suffer from the persecution; when one reads the files and the testimonies, and when one reviews the declarations and imagines of living through this in China, it is impossible to describe. The things that happened to the practitioners with whom I spoke are unbelievable; they are unbelievable and impossible to understand in the 21st century. I cannot send them a specific message, because the spiritual belief they have contains much more substance than any message I could give them. If what I did gave them hope, then I am happy because of this.
Q) The Canadian lawyer, David Matas, said that when he first came to this case, he had an obligation to investigate it. Later he found that this was something very big, something real, and something clicked. Did this happen to you?
A) Look, I put everything in two stages: when I accepted the case and when I requested the capture [of Luo Gan and Jiang Zemin]. I wanted to be very technical. I could work with the testimonies of the plaintiff, of the first witnesses who came, and in regards to the reason to travel to the United States, I always said that what we had up until then were declarations from witnesses of witnesses, or what someone said to someone. Judicially this does not have any value. It is something to begin with, beginning with whom they saw and what happened to someone, but we needed the declarations of direct victims. Therefore, we travelled to the United States, and there we got in contact with 10 victims from different cities and different provinces [of China]. We already had several reports from the United Nations.
It was not that something clicked at a specific moment; I always looked at this from the perspective of a judge who looks for objective elements for the case. The first report of the United Nations told about a commissioner of the United Nations who travelled to China and sought to have an interview with a family of the lawyer who was persecuted. He arranged an interview that was not in the program that the CCP had set up for him. He went and met with this lady, but the police went to stop him, detained him and brought him to the airport. The report was two pages long and it was a surprise to me that the United Nations did not do anything. This is objective data of a very clear signal that a person who is not a practitioner suffered from the CCP’s policy. They arrested a commissioner of the United Nations. They detained him illegally. They did not torture him, but they caught him and brought him to the airport. This is what I always looked for in the case and not because it was repeated to me a great number of times; I looked for objective elements, direct victims, and when you can obtain independent information, this is what has great value, and this is what was gathered during these years to finalize the capture requests.
Q) Now that Argentina has reached this step, the case in Spain is also advancing. Perhaps more will come. How do you think they can collaborate with each other?
A) Basically share information; the plaintiff remembers perfectly that from the moment the case began, it has been about gathering information, gathering documents, and gathering objective information that allows us and Argentina to record everything that happened and that is happening. This can be shared with Spain. The communication of information is very easy with Spain. If one desires to do so, it is very easy, and this can help. To have a case of determined facts which serves as tools for other cases is what I believe will happen.
That is, we should continue to build cases in this style all around the world. Therefore, it will not be one capture order; instead it will be 50 international capture orders. For example the international community, the nations, and international justice in different countries should advance little by little, closing the circle. Interpol is pretty concerned, as they called two or three times to know how this order of capture is to be carried out. Interpol places importance on this; Interpol said, “We are focusing on two ex representatives of the Chinese government. The Foreign Ministry communicated with the Interpol, but Interpol must obey the order of capture and is doing it; the ruling has been sent to Interpol; all data is being communicated. I think that the Chinese government must have learned about this from Interpol. It is most probable that they have learned everything from there.
Q) When Spain issues the arrest order, it will be the second country. There are several orders of capture for the same persons in different countries. Therefore, is there a necessity for a higher authority or a development of international laws due to these cases?
A) Hopefully, hopefully ... but no, no ... I don’t know if this will happen or not. What could probably happen is that as the arrest orders start to accumulate, it would be convincing for the international community to believe that this is real, and that the knowledge that China is violating human rights is going to be known more universally.
That is, as this happens, there will be more capture orders and an understanding of whose turn it is to emit the third one. If there is a desire to do this, there will be fewer problems. There will be also fewer difficulties for the fifth, and fewer still for the tenth, and this will keep adding up. Those arrest orders that have already been issued will serve as precedents for more capture orders to come.
I want to remind you of the significance of this type of accumulation of countries. With this country, that country, another country recognizing that this is a crime and also looking for these people, then why shouldn’t another country do the same too? I think this will most likely happen before a higher authority or international authorities can unify. But if this occurs, it will be much more important, and much better. However international law has its years of evolution; no, no, it is not too quick; it requires a lot, and international law has too much, too much, i.e. too much political interference. I don’t know, maybe in 10 years, the CCP will collapse; or less, in five years, or less, in two years?
However, if China might open up to a democratic system, and let’s say, decide to subject the crimes attributed to the communist regime to the international community; yes, I think, this could happen.
Q) In this case, this lawsuit is going to break the ice. Will it be possible that China, with an open government sometime in the future, might decide to accept the judgment of the crimes committed under communist rule?
A) Yes, yes, this is what happened to Argentina; this is what Argentina did. Argentina was closed off with a dictatorship for several years. Afterwards, little by little, because it was also not from one day to another, the possibility opened for trying the crimes committed at that time.
Argentina focused on the issue of human rights to punish the crimes which the military committed during the dictatorship. The specific effect of the crimes against humanity is to break the barriers which impede a crime from being tried.
Q) As a father, have you thought that you are leaving a legacy of principles for your children?
A) Yes, yes. When I think about what I will leave my children, although they are still very little, it is this lawsuit. It is a legacy of how one must comport oneself in life, and they will understand the reason why I left the court and my resignation. I believe, in time, my children will see it as something important.
It was difficult for me to leave the court, because I loved what I did ... but the legacy, in effect, are two or three things more that have value if you are a human being, an internal important value, and, yes, they helped me; they helped me very much. I prefer to go; I have to leave or resign this way, in order not to give in or have to do a lot of things, things which I will regret doing, just to remain in the office.
Q) Do you have any other thoughts about the wider issues associated with this case?
A) One day I was thinking about this case and about what I said about the practitioners. Guess which example is for me the closest, in order to explain the attitude I see in the practitioners? What we know about the first Christians is that those who persecuted them gathered them together in underground caves and crucified them, but they continued to persist in their religion until even a Roman emperor became a Christian.
That attitude is what I see today in the practitioners of Falun Gong. Yes this… Could this be influencing the case? Yes, it could be. I'm not a practitioner of Falun Gong, have not read, and I told them I only want to know the minimum there is to know to keep me independent, but there is a very important resemblance, that is very, very important.
Q) Did you have any fear in the course of investigating the case?
A) No, I have to say that in these four years, no one ever pressured me from the Chinese Embassy, and the national government never told me anything, except those two or three telephone calls from the Foreign Ministry, and nothing more, never. The national government knew this, because I told them. I cleared it with the national government. I said, “Be careful. There is this case. I am going to start the process. I am going ahead and this may bring some conflict for Argentina. This was in the federal justice system that has a lot of relations with the government, and it is right that I told them. I did not overlook this. I did this and I informed them, “Look, this is an important issue; and, moreover, it is an important issue from the standpoint of human rights and for Argentina to continue to position herself as a country which guarantees human rights. But they did not pay attention to me; I could not believe this.
This case was well executed. It was done in an orderly way. We always took care to do things well objectively, to have everything documented. The quantity of information and documentation that we prepared to go to the United States, during the trip and afterwards, was so much that it was difficult to find someone to document it all. Everything was documented and that gives me a great peace of mind, knowing that things were done well, and that there is nothing about which you can say, “No, that was badly done; that was forgotten.” There is nothing that we can feel we were wrong about or that we were treating wrongly; we always were very sure, a little slow last year, but always sure.
Q) Did you know that universities are using your ruling as a study reference?
A) Many postgraduates use the ruling [from 2006] to study the principles of universal justice, because it is the only one about this subject. I feel embarrassed to tell the students that it was my ruling, or to talk about it.
Q) Someone commented that you are very young to be a judge. How did you begin your career?
A) Yes, in other countries, one starts this career later. I began my career when I was 19 years old in the criminal court. I was there for 4 and half years more or less, and in 1993 I went to the Chamber of Criminal Appeals in Cassation.
Q) You were studying at the same time?
A) Yes, in 1994, I received my degree as a lawyer. I continued to work in the Chamber until 2000 when I went to Spain. I returned in 2001and continued to work in the Chamber until 2005 when I went to the court.
Q) You went to Spain for study or work?
A) Yes, I went for postgraduate work in criminal law.
Q) Where?
A) In Barcelona, a very beautiful place.