The National Court has scheduled for November 13 the analysis of the request for the extradition to the United States of the pro-Palestinian American philanthropist Fergie Chambers, who has denounced “bad faith” on the part of North American authorities in the translation of the documentation sent to Spain.
According to a statement from the office of the former magistrate Baltasar Garzón, who acts as Chambers’s defense, the court has been informed of “the discrepancies detected” in those translated texts.
The firm details that among the irregularities is the replacement of the term “direct action” with “direct violence,” the inclusion in the account of the facts linked to the protests against the US company Elbit Systems of “three fires” that, it argues, do not appear in the original, or the use of the term “activation” of smoke boats with “detonation.”
“All these changes have later been reproduced in procedural documents in Spain, but they were not in the original documentation,” the note emphasizes.
The defense of the millionaire activist considers that these modifications are relevant “because it includes assumptions of violence, dangerousness, purpose, and authorship” and argues that “there are reasons to suspect that the most relevant alterations may respond to an exercise of bad faith by the US aimed at inducing error in the Spanish authorities by qualifying the facts and deciding on extradition.”
Overall, the legal representation states that it has located 12 “substantial alterations to the translation” which, in its view, “increase the seriousness of the facts” and could “affect the classification of the crimes in Spain,” which “would open the door to the extradition of Chambers.”
Three criminal charges in the United States
The statement specifies that the United States imputes to Chambers the alleged crimes of money laundering, disorder, and a supposed conspiracy to cause disorder.
Regarding the charges of disorder and conspiracy to commit disorder, the office explains that they refer to protests against an Israeli arms-manufacturing company in US territory and underlines that those facts “have already been judged, and in them other people were convicted to about 60 days in prison.” It also adds that, in the case of the conspiracy, that behavior “is not a punishable element” in the Spanish legal system.
In relation to the money laundering accusation, the defense argues that "the US claim does not reproach the origin of the funds, but rather the ideological affinity of their destination".
"It is important to clarify that the criminal complaint sent by the US does not accuse Chambers of any crime related to terrorist organizations," the brief insists.
In this way, the dispatch concludes that, in its view, the pro-Palestinian activist "is being pursued not for criminal activities, but for his political activity and for the financial support he has provided to certain causes and humanitarian projects".
Pretrial detention and risk of absconding
Fergie Chambers was arrested last July in Ibiza and since then has remained in a situation of pretrial detention at the Aranjuez prison center (Madrid).
In October, the Criminal Chamber of the National Court denied his release from prison, despite the fact that both the investigating judge, Antonio Piña, and the Public Prosecutor's Office had shown themselves to be in favor of his release. The decision came after a technical hearing on extradition in which Chambers stated his refusal to be handed over.
The court found a high risk of absconding and rejected the control alternatives proposed by the defense, such as the imposition of a bail bond, the obligation to appear periodically before the court, or the withdrawal of his passport.
The justices noted that Chambers opposes being handed over to the United States and has sufficient financial resources to facilitate a change of residence to another country that could ensure that he will not be extradited. For this reason, they concluded that simply withdrawing the passport would be insufficient.
"The risk of absconding remains inherent; the appellant does not want to be handed over to the United States and has sufficient financial means, he alleges, to facilitate a change of residence to any other country that he thought could guarantee him that he would not be handed over to the United States; and the withdrawal of his passport would not be enough, since land border controls are absolutely permeable. Therefore, the only appropriate measure to guarantee success in the handover, if it were to take place, is pretrial detention," they argued in their ruling.