 |
|
April 2004 Brazilian Foreign Ministry Issue Response Which Contains Incorrect Statements and Inaccuracies Which Could Damage Craig's Case. The following statement was issued by the Brazilian Foreign Affairs department and contains several inaccurate statements and one serious error in particular which could mistakenly cast doubt on Craig's innocence. We urge readers to study the original document and read the family's response [in red text]. Response by the Alden family to the document issued by the Brazilian Embassy in London shown in red. OFFICIAL STATEMENT: INFORMATION ON THE CASE OF MR CRAIG ELIOT ALDEN
•
In March 2002, the Public Prosecution Service (Ministério Público) in Planaltina received a complaint against Mr Alden from an adolescent who had lived in the shelter as a child. The adolescent claimed that Mr Alden had mistreated and sexually abused children in his care. Following an investigation by the Public Prosecutor, Mr Alden was arrested on July 1st 2002; The adolescent prosecution witness was placed in the Abrigo by Public Prosecution Service [Promotora in Planaltina] and was later found to have been employed by the Promotora. This raises great doubt as to the validity of this prosecution witness and several of the adolescents in the Abrigo testify that this prosecution witness was reported by Craig Alden to the Promotora for sexually abusing other adolescents at the Abrigo. The adolescent witness was handed over to the Promotora and charged by Craig Alden with the abuse only to be released by the Promotora without charge.
• Other allegations of sexual abuse and mistreatment were made by children and employees at the shelter. Many of these allegations were withdrawn by the witnesses stating they were forced to sign statements in the presence of the Promotora without another adult present. The retraction statements were not allowed to be heard because of the deadline passed for submitting a defence.
Sentence pronounced by Single Judge (1st instance)
• At the local single-judge court in Planaltina, charges of mistreating and sexually abusing children in his care were brought against Mr Alden by the Public Prosecutor, according to definitions contained in the Children and Adolescents Act (Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente - Articles 232 and 243) and the Penal Code (Articles 214 and 224);
• Mr Alden dispensed with the use of a translator-interpreter at the beginning of the proceedings; In fact Craig was advised by his lawyer not to ask for a translator in the first detention period because it would delay the habeas corpus application to have him released. The habeas corpus action was in fact granted. However Craig was immediately re-arrested on new charges [charges supposedly discovered in the hours of 22.00 - 03.00 when Craig was taken from jail for a prolonged journey to have a medical examination to show he had not been mistreated! It was at this second arrest that Craig asked for a translator-interpreter and was refused!
• The defence lawyers hired by Mr Alden allegedly failed to defend him adequately; This is a 'fact' rather than an allegation because it is stated in the court documents by the judge that the lawyer did not attend court and walked about town and did not submit a defence etc. and that Craig Alden was convicted on the evidence of the prosecution only.
• At the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, Mr Alden was found guilty of multiple charges of sexually abusing children in his care, and sentenced to 48 years and 8 months in prison on November 19th 2002.
Sentence pronounced by the Court of Justice of Goiás, upon Mr Alden's appeal
• On September 4th 2003, the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of the State of Goiás heard the appeal lodged by Mr Alden's lawyers and reduced his term of imprisonment from 48 years to 11 years, 9 months and 20 days, to be served under a "closed regime'' (i.e. with no right to leave prison at any time);
• In fact 16 points of law were contained in the appeal but the Court ignored 15 points of law, ruling on only one. 2 years of this original sentence was for something that Mr. Alden was never charged with.
• The ruling of the Court of Justice reduced Mr Alden's sentence because it considered he had not committed multiple crimes against the children under his care, but instead one single crime of aggravated sexual assault (albeit repeated, and with multiple victims);
·
The 'category of crime' was increased at the same time. The sentence to be served will be the same
• The Court of Justice recognized that the acts committed by Mr Alden constitute a heinous crime under Brazilian law (Law nº 8072/1990), and that therefore he must serve his entire sentence under a closed regime. However, Mr Alden is still entitled to parole if he meets the legal requirements; Mr Alden's sentence was further reduced to 9 years. According to papers with our lawyers Mr Alden's sentence was reduced to 11 years and not 9 years.
Decision of the Supreme Federal Court in response to Mr Alden's Habeas Corpus application
• On October 14th 2003, the Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) rejected an application for Habeas Corpus made on Mr Alden's behalf; The allegation presented in the Habeas Corpus application was that there had been a conflict of interest on the part of the Public Prosecutor in the case, since she herself initiated the investigation and brought the criminal charges against Mr Alden. The Federal Supreme Court decided that the actions of the Prosecutor were entirely consistent with the norms of the Federal Constitution of Brazil and with the Children and Adolescents Act. Therefore, there was no conflict of interest; In the presentation to the court, the minister mentioned that the case dealt with sexual abuse of children and pornographic videos were found as evidence. In fact no video evidence was found or exists and therefore I feel the STF was misled and this fact would have been raised in a forthcoming appeal. However we understand that the right to take this appeal to the STF has just been refused by the Court of Justice of Goiás.
• The Supreme Federal Court is composed of eleven judges directly appointed by the President of the Republic. It is the highest court of justice in the Brazilian judicial system.
Current situation
• Mr Alden remains in prison in Planaltina. There are other appeals on his behalf pending decisions: in the Superior Court of Justice (Sperior Tribunal de Justiça-STJ), in which Mr Alden's lawyers seek further clarification of the reasons for the Court's decision regarding the original appeal, and in the Supreme Federal Court. We are awaiting news on this as we understand that the Court of Justice of Goiás has just refused permission for these appeals.
Allegations made by Mr Alden's relatives
CONSPIRACY: Mr Alden claims the case against him was fabricated by the Public Prosecutor and members of the Child Protection Council (Conselho Tutelar) of Planaltina, with whom he had had previous conflicts allegedly arising from Mr Alden's refusal to allow children involved in prostitution or drug abuse into his shelter. It is important to point out that the charges against Mr Alden have so far been maintained in the Higher Courts. If the case against Mr Alden had been fabricated, presumably all charges against him would have been dismissed by a Higher Court. This statement is incorrect in that all of the appeals to date have been based on points of law and no judge has yet examined the evidence supporting or defending against the charges and without this no judge is yet in a position to judge whether the charges against Mr Alden can be upheld. Only in the Criminal Revision stage of this process [due in 2005] will a judge see the evidence and charges. The statement implies very dangerously that Mr Alden's charges [and evidence for prosecution and defense] have been looked at by several courts and they have not dismissed them. Please consult and confirm that neither the STJ nor STF have seen 'evidence' supporting or defending the charges against Mr Alden and that all appeals to date have been on the technical points of law. We understand that no defense review can be undertaken until the Criminal Revision stage [res judicata] because of the lack of a defense in the first instance by Mr Alden's lawyer.
INTERPRETER: Mr Alden claims that his right to an interpreter was not observed. In fact, Mr Alden voluntarily dispensed with the use of an interpreter at the beginning of the proceedings against him. In fact Craig was advised by his lawyer not to ask for a translator in the first detention period because it would delay the habeas corpus application to have him released. The habeas corpus action was in fact granted. However, Craig was immediately re-arrested on new charges. ( Charges discovered in the hours between 22.00 and 03.00 when Craig was taken from jail for a prolonged journey to have a medical to show he had not been mistreated!) It was at this second arrest that Craig asked for a translator-interpreter and was refused. As for the extent to which Mr Alden actually needed an interpreter, it is perhaps relevant to point out that he has been living in Brazil for ten years. Although Craig has lived in Brazil for 10 years he thought he would need help with the translation and understanding of legal terminology. (I think we all would in a second language!)
·
RIGHT TO FULL DEFENCE: Mr Alden's right to full defence was strictly observed by the Brazilian judicial system. Mr Alden (a) had free and unimpeded access to his lawyers, and indeed changed his legal representation three times; (b) appealed against all the rulings he considered unjust, and had the term of his sentence significantly reduced by the Court of Justice of the State of Goiás; and (c) even took his case to the Brazilian Supreme Court by means of a habeas corpus application. Some of the problems alleged by Mr Alden (e.g. insufficient time allotted to the defence) may in fact be attributed to failings on the part of the defence lawyers he himself hired. The inadequate use of Mr. Alden's right to full defence, due to his own choice of defence lawyers, should not be confused with the denial of his rights by the Brazilian Justice system. On the contrary, Mr. Alden can and is in fact using the legal remedies available in the Brazilian Justice system. In fact Mr. Alden dismissed the first and second lawyers and therefore has only changed his lawyer twice. Mr. Alden dispensed with his first and second lawyers for incompetence and irregularities as supported by the statement made by the original judge in this case.
Meeting between Ms. Maureen Alden and the National Secretary for Justice
·
On Tuesday, March 9 2004, Ms. Claudia Chagas, National Secretary for Justice, will meet Craig Alden's mother, Mrs. Maureen Alden;
·
As soon as there is a res judicata sentence, Mr Craig Alden, if confirmed guilty, will be able to benefit from the Treaty on Exchange of Prisoners between Brazil and the United Kingdom, and therefore serve his sentence in the United Kingdom.
Other relevant information
· In Brazil, according to the Federal Constitution, the Judiciary is independent. The Public Prosecution Service is itself independent from the Judiciary. It plays an essential function to the impartial dispensation of Justice (the "fourth power", as it is often called, exists in other countries such as France). Among the powers of the Public Prosecution Service are the power to protect the interests of children and adolescents and the power to present criminal charges before a court.
March 2004
The Alden family feel that in light of the above inaccuracies, in particular the use of the word 'alleged' in relation to the failure of his original lawyers to defend Mr Alden and the implied statement regarding the charges being upheld by the review courts that this official document from the Brazilian Government is very misleading and doing an injustice to his case. Incorrect statements such as the above could damage Mr Alden's rights to a fair re-trial in due course and potentially rob the Alden family of support. The Alden family therefore request that the Brazilian authorities check the court documents to confirm that the Judge stated that he was not adequately defended by his original lawyers and that one is under investigation for her role as defence lawyer, and issue a revised statement to include all the omissions and correct the errors listed above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig
Elliot Alden is locked in a darkcell right now wrongly accused.
|
