Drummond Colombian Investigation of Witnesses

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 104
FILED
2015 Aug-31 PM 03:42

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Exhibit 1

NATIONS 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
Bogot, 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 Andrs 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 Mara Teresa, both
deceased, with 12 brothers, education level up to the ninth semester of law in the University of Rosario in
Bogot, 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 Bogot, 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 prosecutionprecluding 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 companys 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 Andrs 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 accuseds 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 Chiriguan, 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 Chiriguan,
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 QUINEZ, 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: theres 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
0

of the red pickup and ADINAEL got in in front, scoping the zone, I dont 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
1

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 Hctor Julio Peinado Becerra front, under the
command of JUAN FRANCISCO PRADA MARQUEZ, and the Juan Andrs Alvarez Front, under the
command of alias TOLEMAIDA, with jurisdiction mainly in Codazi, La Jagua de Ibirico, Bosconia,
Chiriguan, 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
2

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, whats
more, the zone of influence of the Juan Andrs 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 Andrs 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 ANDRS 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 Andrs 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 Garca 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
Sintramienergtica; 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 Flrez and Javier Ernesto Ochoa Quiones.
GUILLERMO ENRIQUE SANCHEZ QUINTERO also denies having spoken with RAFAEL GARCIA
regarding the issue of the paramilitaries, or specifically about the Sintramienergtica labor union. That he
never had any knowledge of AUC meeting with the workers or executives of DRUMMOND.
*+

After this, the 22 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).
nd
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 Nations 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 Andrs 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--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.
*0

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
Nations 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 Bogot issued a guilty sentence against him, which sentence is undergoing an appeal.
*1

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 hed go to parties and carnivals in the city of Valledupar.
*2

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--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 Bogot,
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 Bogot, 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 PEA ROS, 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 Drummonds 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 BLANCOs 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
ANDRS 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 Andrs 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 QUIONES
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 Andrs 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 Arajo 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 MUA 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 Chiriguan 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 CASTAO 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 Curuman, 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 BLANCOs 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 coperpetrator or participant in such crimes, or as a member of the Juan Andrs 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 ANDRS
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.
+0

He was accused and through a summary sentence of September 15, 2009, the 11 Criminal Court of the
Specialized Circuit of Bogot found him responsible for the homicides of the union leaders BALMORE
LOCARNO and VICTOR HUGO ORCASITA.
th
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 Arajo.
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 Andrs Alvarez Front, with
JAIME BLANCO MAYA, he doesnt 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.
+1

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 Andrs 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
+2

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, Im 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, its 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 dont 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 Andrs Alvarez Front at that time, clarifying that alias el Samario
joined the Juan Andrs 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 Andrs 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 companys 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 Drummonds 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 Andrs 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
Drummonds 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 TOLEMAIDAs 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 DRUMMONDs 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
DRUMMONDs money, the military capacity of the AUC, especially of the Juan Andrs 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 Bogot 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 15 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.
th
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 Drummonds 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--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 companys 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 BLANCOs contract away from him,
they were the two who planned all the time. Later, he lived in Bogot, 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.
,0

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 Andrs 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.
,1

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.
,2

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
Montera 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 Nations 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
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 Andrs 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 nave 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 Meja 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 Jess Charris intended to extort money
from the President of DRUMMOND, in exchange for not speaking against that company. The Companys
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;
-0

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.
B.
C.
D.
That they are not consistent, as they change according to their interests;
That they contradict themselves;
That they contradict other declarants;
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 Nations 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.
-1

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
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.
-2

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
.)

NATIONS GENERAL PROSECUTION OFFICE
CERTIFICATION 966
In Bogot, 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
.*

+2"+)*.

(

&%

'"

#

"
#

"

#

$
"#
#

#

Drummond Colombian Investigation of Witnesses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drummond Colombian Investigation of Witnesses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

2015 Aug-31 PM 03:42

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

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 3 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 4 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 5 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 6 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 7 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 8 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 9 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 10 of 104

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

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 12 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 13 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 14 of 104

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

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 16 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 17 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 18 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 19 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 20 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 21 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 22 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 23 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 24 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 25 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 26 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 27 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 28 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 29 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 30 of 104

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

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 32 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 33 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 34 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 35 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 36 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 37 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 38 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 39 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 40 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 41 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 42 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 43 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 44 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 45 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 46 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 47 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 48 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 49 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 50 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 51 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 52 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 53 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 54 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 55 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 56 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 57 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 58 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 59 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 60 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 61 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 62 of 104

Case 2:11-cv-03695-RDP-TMP Document 355-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 63 of 104