ESTUDIO DE LA FORMACIÓN DEL HIDROGEL

In response to negative publicity in the international media, Drummond usually responds by referring to a letter from their lawyer, Mr William H. Jeffress, posted on their website. This letter says: “There has been much publicity in the Colombian news media of lawsuits against Drummond Ltd.; claiming that the company collaborated with paramilitaries in the department of Cesar during the period 1997–2006. Drummond has strongly denied those allegations and courts have repeatedly rejected them in a series of decisions over the years.” 330

Drummond’s legal representative also states in this document that the lawsuit at the US District Court has been dismissed. He refers to the ruling of the US District Court Judge of Alabama in the US court case on 25 July 2013 and says that: “The court in this case [...] concluded there is

to do with a change in case law rather than the quality of the testimonies. The judge declared the action inadmissible pursuant to a judgement of the US Supreme Court that held a stricter interpretation of the Alien Tort Claims Act. 331 _{Plaintiffs in such an action must henceforth prove}

a strong connection between a company in the United States and involvement in human rights violations abroad. Proving that the local subsidiary’s (i.e. Drummond in Colombia) management in the US.

judge had the following to say about the statements: “when the statements are brought into the sunshine, they cannot withstand scrutiny.” 332 _{However, he refrained from commenting on the large}

view of its irrelevance to the admissibility of the court action. Almost all of the statements we use in this report are concerned with the alleged involvement of executives of Drummond Ltd. Colombia. Moreover, Drummond´s general letter states that the court judgement was critical of some testimonies. Drummond has since widely quoted these criticisms in order to emphasize the alleged unreliability of the testimonies. We do not share Drummond’s interpretation of the judge’s

comments. In our view, Drummond’s legal representative has quoted phrases without giving the context in which the judge placed them.

A second issue mentioned by Drummond in its general letter is that the judge in the US court case did not take into account the testimony of key witness, Blanco Maya, on the issue for purposes of the motion for summary judgement. This court decision was based on Blanco Maya’s refusal to answer important follow-up questions on cross examination, stating instead: “What I said was already made clear in my statement. What I don’t – see, what I said is already there. It’s clear it was made in that statement and if I already made it in that statement I don’t see it needs to be repeated.” However, the judge expressed no opinion about the content of Blanco Maya’s testimonies.

This witness for the plaintiffs in the US court case has since made various supplementary statements as part of various judicial investigations in Colombia, in which he describes the events in great detail. The Colombian court accepted these statements. His testimonies in Colombia are also consistent with those of other witnesses, such as Mr Charris Castro. In Colombia, both Charris Castro and Blanco Maya have been convicted of complicity in the murder of the three grounds for the subsequent criminal investigation of senior managers of Drummond (Garry Drummond of Drummond Company Inc. and Augusto Jiménez of Drummond Ltd. Colombia) for their alleged involvement in these murders (see chapter 6).

of alias El Canoso, which the judge describes as hearsay evidence. 333 _{The judge’s comment}

relates to only one relatively small component of El Canoso’s entire testimony, in which he recounts a conversation with a Prodeco security manager (Gutiérrez). According to PAX, the preceding and subsequent parts of El Canoso’s testimony are certainly based on events that he personally witnessed, such as the meetings between Drummond and Prodeco managers and their meetings with the paramilitary commanders.

The judge also found that part of the evidence was based on statements made outside the court, including the written statements of alias El Peinado and alias El Yuca. Again, this procedural argument in no way detracts from the value of the testimonies for the purpose of this report. The written statements reinforce and complement the testimonies made in court by other ex- paramilitaries.

PAX is of the opinion that criticism of the kind made by the judge in Alabama does not detract from the relevance of the substance of the testimonies for this report. The court did not reject the evidence given in the action on substantive grounds. The US court also said nothing about the likelihood of the involvement of Drummond’s Colombian employees in human rights violations. The Alabama judge’s decision in the Balcero case was appealed on 14 March 2014 and is awaiting a decision by US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 334

93

PAX ! The Dark Side of Coal

Finally, it is also important in this context to mention that another US court case is still pending: Baloco et al. v. Drummond Company, Inc., in which the children of the three murdered union leaders have brought claims for extrajudicial killing against Drummond for their alleged participation with paramilitary forces in the murders. The case was dismissed and appealed twice and is still pending before the Court of Appeals as per 30 May 2014.