Number 298, January 09, 1998.
Visit our home page: http://www.oneworld.org/sejup/
To all our readers and visitors to our homepage - may 1998 bring you all you desire.
Beginning 1998 a word of explanation - until now the manner in which you received our material was as follows: it was placed in a newsgroup (apc.sejup.news) which automatically sent it to your e-mail box. Unfortunately something happened which our internet provider did not manage to explain as yet and the entire address list 'disappeared' from the newsgroup in mid December. Fortunately we had a copy and so the loss was not as great as it might have been. However we have decided that for at least the present we will not send our material via the newsgroup. We will administer it ourselves. For this reason over the next few weeks we will be experimenting with mailing systems. You should not notice very much difference but if any problem occurs please contact us immediately.
- Follow up to our Christmas story.
You will probably recall that our last issue of the year carried a translation of material prepared by Rede Rua and had as a title ''A Christmas story ... Today's Herods''. It dealt with the precarious existance and life struggle of street children in the city of Sao Paulo.
Here at SEJUP we frequently get numerous e-mail messages after the publication of each edition of NEWS FROM BRAZIL. After our Christmas story we received what was perhaps the most touching message in over six years of producing weekly newsletters. It was entitled ''Our Christmas Story'' and we reproduce it with the authorization of its' author, Ms. Marilyn Lamont:
Dear Mr. Kilcrann,
I very much appreciate being on your e-mail list. Your reports are invaluable to all of us receiving them to keep us up-to-date on what is going on in Brazil. The human rights abuses that you report are horrendous enough, but think of how much goes on that is unreported!
Thank you especially for the Christmas story which you have just sent to me. It is very meaningful to me, since my daughter, Christine Lamont, is spending her 9th Christmas, away from her family, in the Penitenciaria Feminina. We had strong hopes this year that your President would expel her, but that has not happened.
Christine is one who did care about the human rights abuses in her world, which included Central America and Brazil. The sentence of 28 years which she was given for her peripheral participation in the kidnapping of Abilio Diniz is in itself a human rights abuse. It is actually a death sentence.
We have done everything in our power to bring her home to Canada, but in spite of our efforts everything has failed.
We miss her so very much! Christmas time is especially hard for us, but especially for her, because Christmas was one of her favorite times of the year.
Please, Mr Kilcrann, if you have any ideas for ways in which we can help her, let us know.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Lamont
e-mail address: kmlamont@bc.sympatico.ca
You may recall that in our February 27, 1997, issue of NEWS FROM BRAZIL we carried a report of Christine Lamont and her fellow prisoners entitled ''Justice: Two weights and two measures?''. Our report showed that the prisoners have been tortured and that their 28 year sentence is unduly and unjustly long according to Brazilian legislation.
Having received Ms. Lamont request for help we thought that a possible response on our part would be to request your solidarity. Below we publish material prepared by Christine Lamont and David Spenser supporters last month. It gives a detailed background to the case. Please consider replying to the action call found at the end of the material. Your message will make a difference - Brazilian authorities are VERY sensitive to international attention.
December 1, 1997
Summary of the case of Christine Lamont and David Spencer
Background:
Christine Lamont and David Spencer, currently in prison in Sao Paulo, Brazil on charges of kidnapping, are suffering a grave injustice due to the internationally unprecedented length of their sentences.
David and Christine are human rights idealists who were caught up in a highly publicized, politically motivated kidnapping in Brazil. They have been in prison in Sao Paulo, Brazil for eight years as of December 17, 1997, since Dec. 17, 1989.
Their trial, beginning only 18 days after the arrests, with two lawyers defending all ten of the accused, was marred by numerous judicial irregularities and considerable political interference. The resultant conviction sentenced them 8 and 10 years respectively.
The prosecution immediately appealed the sentences of the accused, ranging from 8 to 15 years, based on the opinion that these sentences were not severe enough , and the defence was forced in response to launch an appeal. Upon the conclusion of these appeals, on December 2, 1991, in the midst of a volatile political milieu, and ignoring the political motivation of the action, the sentences, (along with others in the case) were increased more than three-fold to twenty-eight years - exceeding by far the sentences given up to that time for perpetrators of a kidnapping in Brazil.
Three of the accused took total responsibility for the crime. The others, including Christine and David, were instructed by their defence counsel to plead not guilty. Subsequent to the conviction in May, 1990, the defence counsel advised continuation of the claim of innocence during the appeal process. This was done because their conviction was of a common criminal act rather than a politically motivated one which, in Brazil, carries significantly lower sentences. The numerous appeals were centred around changing the conviction to that of a political crime. The case would then have been heard at the federal level rather than at the state level where political interference and corruption were pervasive.
It was not until late in 1996 that officials of the Chilean Movimento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR) legally and publicly admitted that the kidnapping was ordered and orchestrated by their organization. It was only after this event, covered extensively by the print and TV media in Brazil, that all 10 people imprisoned for this offense were able to divulge their participation in the kidnapping.
In Central and South America, historically, and in the absence of democracy, governments have been changed through the activities of clandestine organizations formed for this purpose. Until very recently, in the early 1990s, this has been the prevailing course of events in Brazil and Latin American countries.
Because of this, political crimes have been established as being less culpable than common criminal acts for personal gain. For instance, while a common criminal kidnapping (frequent in Brazil) may receive heavier sentences, a political kidnapping should receive sentences of 5 to 12 years.
Christine was introduced to the history and current conditions of Central America through her studies at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. She learned of the activities of the Treasury Police, death squads and the atrocities by the prevailing repressive regime in El Salvador, and made a short trip to San Salvador in 1987 with other university students to appraise for herself the current situation. What she saw horrified her. She met David during this period who, through working with refugees from Central America, had also developed a concern for the repressive conditions, particularly in El Salvador. They learned of disappearances and murders, destruction of whole villages and crops, torture and incarceration of the citizens of El Salvador who in any way did not co-operate with the ruling regime. This included oppression against such people as politicians, members of the clergy, lawyers, teachers, doctors and nurses, including the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. They shared the feeling, as a privileged member of an affluent society in Canada, that in not doing whatever they could to alleviate such horrific conditions they were complicit in perpetuating the prevailing injustice.
David and Christine chose to ally themselves with the revolutionary forces of El Salvador - the FMLN (now a recognized political party in the government of that country) and the Fuerzas Populares de Liberacin (FPL), giving their unconditional commitment to do what was considered by them to be necessary to end the 10-year civil war between the ruling regime and the citizens. The FMLN requested the aid of the MIR of Chile to which the MIR agreed.
Christine and her now-fiance David were asked to travel to South America for this cause. They did not know what they were being recruited for, only that a major event was to be undertaken. The style of their group's activities is well described as "the need to know principle". The group was made up of cells, and only necessary information was given to each cell. By the time Christine and David learned of the plan to kidnap, it was too late for them to back out.
In the recent public admission of the MIR, Roberto Moreno, former leader of the MIR, stated: "It [the kidnapping] was an operation which was decided by the political direction of the MIR. It was not the action of individual people. Those who made the decision as to the target, the place, and how the action would be directed were the leaders of the [MIR] party. The militants who carried out the action obeyed orders. They had no possibility of refusing or turning back."
The Arrests
On the day of the first presidential election in 30 years, media interest should have been on coverage of this election. Running for president were Fernando Collor and Luis Ignacio da Silva, known as "Lula". The race was very close, with predictions that either candidate could win.
However interest shifted to the police siege of the house where supermarket magnate Abilio Diniz was being held. The house was surrounded by over 200 military police, sharp-shooter and dogs. Those who had been previously arrested outside the house were brought to the house, where those inside could see that they had been severely tortured. At this time David and Christine stayed in the house rather than surrender to police (who have a well documented reputation for killing suspects). They felt that to walk out of the house was to commit suicide. So they remained in the house under the direction of the leader, Humberto Paz. After a siege of 36 hours, Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns, internationally respected Archbishop of Sao Paulo, was instrumental in effecting a peacefully negotiated surrender. The hostage was unharmed after having been held for 5 days, and no money changed hands.
The charges brought against those arrested were for kidnapping, "forming a gang" to carry out several illegal acts, and resisting arrest. The latter charge was brought because they did not surrender to police, even though there was no armed resistance to the arrests. Christine and David were convicted largely because they were in the house where the hostage was held.
The Families' Efforts
Since the beginning, the families and supporters of Christine and David have fought unceasingly to bring the matter of the illegal sentences to the public in an effort to obtain justice in this case. Repeated appeals to the former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs under the previous Conservative government were all rejected. Until the Canadian Justice Committee of the House of Commons considered this case in June of 1992 there is no evidence that Foreign Affairs did anything to expedite the return of Christine and David to Canada, nor to question the legitimacy of the trial.
Further, the fact that there was no evidence of Christine's and David's participation brought forward during the trial was disregarded - they were convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. Police and some politicians manipulated this case in an attempt to bolster their own tarnished image, having been largely ineffective in containing an outbreak of kidnapping in Brazil; they exerted extreme pressure on the presiding judge to bring in a clean sweep conviction of all ten accused. Christine and David were absolved of the charges of "forming a gang" and resisting arrest, but on May 2nd, 1990, were sentenced to 8 and 10 years respectively on the kidnapping charge. The two other charges were dismissed.
Within a week the prosecution appealed the sentences, which they considered to be too lenient; the defence was then obliged to appeal the conviction. The appeal lasted 19 months, at the end of which time those accused were given 28-year sentences. These severe and unprecedented 28-year sentences were meant to serve the purpose of showing that kidnapping would not be tolerated. There was no recognition of the fact that Christine and David were at most, as even the prosecution alleged, peripherally involved.
David and Christine have no previous criminal record in any country. Their record as a human rights activist is known and respected.
Political Pressures:
In Brazil, political pressure was used extensively in this case, both at the state and the federal levels. The original trial judge, Roberto Barioni, told Christine Lamont's parents, in the presence of witnesses, that heavy pressure was brought to bear on him to convict with heavy sentences all of the accused, although there were some he wished to acquit, including Christine. Further, Judge Barioni ordered minimum conditions of confinement as part of the 8-year sentences he gave to several of those he convicted, again including Christine. Later, he disclaimed this pressure, although he was forced to rescind these minimum conditions of confinement. It is pertinent that he was then removed from the criminal court bench, due to claims that his sentences were too light. Careers were made upon the basis of this case at the state level in 1990 and 1991. Luiz Antonio Fleury, at that time head of State Public Security, used this case, and in particular Christine and David, as a focal point in his successful political campaign to become Governor of the State of Sao Paulo in an prodigious law-and-order crusade. Pressure continued to be applied to the appellate court at the federal level in 1992, and is reported to be continuing to the present time.
An appeal, disputing the constitutionality of the 28-year sentences, was delayed for two years and then denied. This denial ignored the opinion of the Procuador Geral (Attorney General) that the sentences were, in fact, unconstitutional on two counts: first, all ten accused were given the same sentence, rather than being individualized according to culpability, as required in the Brazilian constitution; secondly, first time offenders may not be given these maximum sentences. Another appeal in 1994, charged that the case was political in nature, and therefore should have been given the lesser sentences which are called for in Brazilian law for political crimes. This appeal was delayed for well over two years at the federal level in Brasilia, before being denied in August, 1995. This plea contended that as a political action, this case should have been tried in the appropriate federal court, rather than as a common criminal act tried in the state court. Even the police initially charged that the case was political, but changed this contention upon learning that the sentences would be more severe if the case was considered non-political. Before the trial many documents proving the political nature of this case "disappeared" in the hands of the police.
The Supreme Court decided in its August, 1995 decision that the case was not a threat to the national security of Brazil (part of their definition of political), although the international political nature of the case was recognized. The appeal was denied on this technicality. At this same time the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the sentences were excessive and should be adjusted, and the lawyers were advised that the next step toward this end would be to submit a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court to nullify the present 28-year sentences. This writ was submitted, and in December, 1995, a sub- section of this court denied this application, thereby making the 28-year sentences definitive and closing off all further judicial appeals.
A judicial dilemma exists in Brazil in that the practical aspects of parole are denied to foreign nationals despite the fact that Brazilian constitutional law states there shall be no discrimination against foreign national prisoners. In practice, foreign prisoners do not receive parole rights. Although Christine and David have been eligible for day parole for over three years, and their prison review was without flaw, they and all foreign prisoners involved in this case have officially been denied this right to day parole. By extension it is realistic to believe that no parole will be given at any time during the 28-year sentence.
Managuan Bunker Incident May 23, 1993
In Nicaragua, on May 23, 1993, an explosion in a bunker in a suburb of Managua turned up over 300 false and blank passports and other documents, including material belonging to Christine and David. (There was some doubt that their documents were actually found at the bunker site.) An attempt was made to link this occurrence with an international kidnapping ring to which Christine and David allegedly were connected.
Subsequently, the Nicaraguan government requested a U.S. State Department investigation of this incident. The Washington Post reported that the investigators, after a thorough search, "found no evidence to support suspicion of a terrorism and kidnapping ring operating throughout Latin America". U.S. officials said "...investigators were unable to establish any link between the documents and recent terrorism acts".
According to the State Department investigators, the site of the explosion was not used as a bunker until late 1990 or early 1991. Christine and David had worked in Managua for 5 months before leaving in June, 1989, on the trip to South America. They left belongings and documents behind, expecting to return soon to recover them.
At the time their belongings were found in Managua, Christine and David issued sworn statements from their prisons stating "We did not leave any documents at the so-called bunker in Santa Rosa, Managua. We do not know how any documents of ours might have appeared there, nor have we ever been in the area where the explosion reportedly occurred. All our passports in Managua were authentic and in our own names and were unaltered when we last saw them four years ago. We cannot be held responsible for what has been done to them since that time."
The fact that Christine and David carried false documentation is not denied, and is explained by the fact that they were working "underground" at the time of the El Salvador civil war and felt their safety in travelling was at risk. Experienced human rights workers advised them it is acknowledged practice to carry alternative credentials to protect one's safety in Latin American countries.
The Rights of Nationals Incarcerated Abroad
It is a fundamental proposition of international law that the rights of foreign nationals are protected through their country of citizenship. Where the foreign national has been unable to obtain a satisfactory enforcement of his or her rights through ordinary domestic channels, the state of citizenship must act appropriately in attempting to further those rights on its national's behalf.
In the present case, the rights of Christine, carrying dual American-Canadian citizenship, and David, a Canadian, convicted and imprisoned in Brazil, have been violated in a number of different ways. These include various miscarriages of justice in the trial process itself (in the areas of arbitrary detention, right to instruct counsel, extreme and extensive media prejudice, impartiality of the proceedings, lack of the presumption of innocence, torture of several of the co-accused to obtain evidence, ) as well as what is internationally defined as "cruel and unusual treatment" in the Brazilian prisons, and discrimination in sentencing and parole. The cumulative effect of these irregularities provides ample ground for intervention to seek a remedy on their behalf.
The Expulsion Procedure:
Relief from such extreme punishment is available under Brazilian law, when requested by the prisoners' home country, called expulsion, made at the discretion of the head of State. When Christine's parents visited Brazil in January, 1992, they had the opportunity to speak personally to Jarbas Passarinho, the then Brazilian Minister of Justice. At this time the Minister of Justice assured them that upon a request from the government of Canada he would expedite the expulsion procedure for Christine and David.
The Canadian government of that time declined to make this request. The Department of Foreign Affairs, in a decision released to MPs and media across the nation, had, in the words of the families' Brazilian lawyer Marco Antonio Nahum, "ratified the injustice of the Brazilian system".
The former Canadian Minister of External Affairs simply ignored the issue of the right of citizens to call upon their government for assistance. Prolonged periods of solitary confinement in Brazilian prisons, described by Amnesty International as being among the worst in the world, are classified as Cruel and Unusual Punishment under all international human rights codes. The refusal to request expulsion could well be a death sentence for Christine and/or David, especially in view of the violent massacre of inmates in the October 2, 1992 riot referred to below.
Further hazards as outlined in a recent report by the Brazilian Bar Association, including unsanitary conditions, exposure to communicable disease, malnutrition, plus other perils specific to the women's prisons, make prolonged imprisonment a continuing threat to life.
Carandiru Massacre - October 2, 1992
On October 2, 1992, storm troopers massacred 111 prisoners (reported in the Brazilian press to be 238 prisoners) at a prison in the same compound as the prisons in which Christine and David are held. According to an Americas Watch report, prisoners were killed in their cells; prisoners awaiting trial were killed; and some prisoners whose sentences had already been completed were killed. The New York Times reported that prisoners had been interrogated about the length of their sentences; if the sentence was over 10 years, the prisoner was shot. Prisoners were compelled to carry the dead, barehanded, despite the high HIV positive incidence. Doctors and AIDS groups are saying that AIDS contamination in this single event will be by far the largest in history.
In August 1992, a riot broke out in Christine's pavilion, and was fortunately contained internally. Another two serious rebellions occurred in July and August, 1997. Although Canadian Foreign Affairs have at the Justice Committee hearings commented that "there have not been, in either of the prisons, incidents of this kind in recent years", in 1987 riots similar to the Carandiru massacre occurred in David's prison, and over 100 prisoners were killed by police.
Foreign Affairs' empty assurances
At the Justice Committee hearings (see below) in June 1992 then-External Affairs officials said that "if at any time there appears to be any threat or any menace of any kind - at the moment that does not appear to be the situation - then we would intervene immediately." After the 1993 riot occurred, the record showed that by "intervene" they meant that they would visit the prison three days after the riot was over. The assurance of "intervention" was a misrepresentation to the Justice Committee. On October 22, The Department of Foreign Affairs was asked what it would do if there were another riot. The answer, recorded by the media, was that there was "no indication that there will be a[another] riot." At the very moment this was being said, another riot was occurring in a Sao Paulo prison. There were 4 riots, including the above, within 6 weeks. Riots are a continuing threat in Brazilian prisons; an item from News from Brazil supplied by SEJUP on October 09, 1997 reports that this year prison rebellions have doubled in the State of Sao Paulo, due to "severe overcrowding and consequent tensions". Both prisons in which Christine and David are held are in this category: Christine has been double bunked for more than a year in a very small cell, with one of the two sleeping on the floor.
The Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General
On June 4 and 9, 1992, the Canadian Standing Committee of the House of Commons for Justice and the Solicitor General, because of its grave concern, met to consider the handling of this case by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The all-party committee thoroughly reviewed the evidence, the trial proceedings and the actions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and her Department. Based on their findings of a clear miscarriage of justice, the Committee recommended unanimously on June 11, 1992, that the government of Canada request Brazil to expel Christine and David, in accordance with Brazilian law "without undue delay". They made this recommendation with the full knowledge that the Department of Foreign Affairs asserted that a yet-to-be ratified Transfer of Offenders Treaty was a legally appropriate vehicle to use. The committee had examined all the evidence produced by Foreign Affairs as well as by the Lamont-Spencer families. The families have been informed that one expulsion request was submitted by the Canadian government in the last month in office of the outgoing substitute president following the impeachment of the former President Fernando Collor. The request was denied.
Transfer of Offenders Treaty
From the time of the recommendation of the Justice Committee in June, 1992, Foreign Affairs insisted that a Transfer of Offenders Treaty, rather than an expulsion, was the appropriate means to resolve this case. It was suggested at that time that the ratification of this treaty was imminent. Repeatedly deadlines projected by the Department of Foreign Affairs failed to materialize. In September 1994, there was vociferous resistance in the Brazilian government and media against the perceived interference and pressure tactics of the Canadian government to establish this treaty. It should be noted that the Canadian initiative proceeded against the wishes of Christine and her family. The Transfer of Offenders Treaty, as of December 1, 1997, has still not yet been signed by the President of Brazil. In April, 1997, during his visit to Canada, President Cardoso refused to address the Canadian Prime Minister's request that he sign this treaty.
The terms of the proposed treaty confirmed that the Canadian government would be required to carry out the full terms of the Brazilian 28-year sentence upon their return to Canada. Christine repudiated the use of such a treaty, which would mean several more years of imprisonment in Canada, plus many additional years of parole restrictions. Further, Canada's Solicitor General's office advises that delays are inherent in the treaty mechanism: even after it is ratified, it will not be activated for many months, and the classification process entails more months.
Christine's Brazilian lawyers advised waiting for the granting of expulsion by Presidential decree, which would see them free upon return to Canada. (In 1992 expulsion would have been automatic, had Canada requested it, but the tactics and the ensuing publicity have made the situation much more sensitive and difficult to resolve.) Recent lobbying by the Canadian government has been selectively for the treaty, to the exclusion of the expulsion resolution. At this time Christine is not absolutely ruling out the use of a treaty should one be ratified by the Brazilian president, but only as a last resort. As negotiated, the proposed treaty requires the Receiving Country to carry out the Brazilian sentences. In contrast, a treaty presently being negotiated between Brazil and Spain gives the Receiving Country the right to lessen sentences or grant pardons. The proposed treaty could have been tolerable if the appeals had been successful in recognizing the political motivation of the sentence, therefore reducing the 28-year sentences to an internationally acceptable level. But the upholding of unconstitutional, unprecedented and (as described by one Brazilian prison official) "barbaric" sentences condemns Christine and David to a sentence usually reserved for pre-meditated murder. Christine was accused of only peripheral involvement in the crime; all the accused were tried as a group; and they suffered severe political, police and media interference. Christine Lamont and David Spencer, according to the Canadian House of Commons Justice Committee, have suffered "a gross miscarriage of justice" in Brazil.
Human Rights Commission - House of Deputies of Brazil
In April, 1995, criticism of the Brazilian handling of this case came from within the government of Brazil itself. The Human Rights Commission of the House of Deputies, drew up a report by an eminent jurist which was presented to Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso by Nilmario Miranda, head of the Human Rights Commission of the Brazilian House of Deputies. This report outlined the injustices in this case and concluded with a request for the expulsion of the nine foreigners and a pardon for the one Brazilian involved. The report listed excessive sensationalism and emotionalism in the media coverage, the exorbitant sentences, the use of torture to gather evidence, the political motivation in the case, police coercion, as reasons for granting expulsion. Also mentioned was the support for such a move from officials of the Canadian, Mexican, Chilean and Panamanian governments as well as from the Brazilian government itself. As well, church officials, judges, unionists and others in many countries are documented as being supportive of expulsion. (Human Rights Commission document available upon request)
Comparative Justice
Christine and David have already served eight years in maximum security confinement, of which both spent, respectively, eight months and fifteen months in solitary confinement conditions. They face 21 more years without parole.
Compare their sentences to another case of Brazilian justice: the murderer of environmentalist Chico Mendez got only 19 years and then "escaped". A kidnapper who tortured, killed, quartered and burned the body of five-year-old Miriam Brandaos received a sentence of 21 years.
One other serious issue is that of the use of torture to obtain evidence. The use of torture against five of the co-accused in this case has been documented by well-established, reputable international human rights organizations. The only reason Christine and David were not also tortured was that counsel were present and prevented further torture. International lawyer Jennie Hatfield Lyon said at the Justice Committee hearings "The very fact that most of the accused in this case were tortured casts such a pall over the whole proceedings as to impugn the integrity of the legal system itself. The use of torture in the process is so repugnant to the conscience of mankind that it is truly shocking that any government appears in any way to condone its practice."
Christine and her family request support from the United States For seven years Christine and her family have invested efforts and hopes with the government of Canada, where the family now live. Members of the family have travelled to Brazil 12 times to give encouragement to Christine and David, and have gone to Ottawa on several occasions to ask for help in getting then returned to home and safety. There seems to be a growing acknowledgment by Brazilians themselves that the current situation is unjust. A number of recent media references to the case have been either neutral or sympathetic.
Can you help?
Thank you for your consideration of the above case, which is of such vital concern to the families and their many friends and supporters. Your interest is most sincerely appreciated and your help earnestly solicited. We hope that your understanding of Christine's and David's sincere, unselfish motivation, which at the same time was the cause of their involvement in an unacceptable situation, will warrant your sympathy and support.
If you are willing and able to offer your support, it would be extremely helpful if you would talk to the politicians who represent yourself and/or your organization or political party. Inform politicians of the case and engage their involvement. You could send them a copy of this case summary and ask that the case be discussed with colleagues.
Personal letters written on behalf of resolution for this case to the
Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy and to the
President of Brazil would be very much appreciated. The pertinent
addresses follow:
Excellency Fernando Henrique Cardoso
President of the Republic of Brazil
Palacio do Planalto
70150 - 900
Brasilia, D.F.
Brazil
Fax: (011-55-61) 226-7566 or 411-2222
(SEJUP note: President Cardoso's e-mail address is: pr@planalto.gov.br)
Right Honourable Jan Chretien
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Block,
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A2
Honourable Lloyd Axworthy
Minister of Foreign Affairs
314 West Block, House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6
If you have any questions please call the Lamont family at (604) 534-4424, fax. (604)534-2123. Their E-mail address is kmlamont@bc.sympatico.ca. The support group helping the family, Canadians for Justice for Christine Lamont and David Spencer (CJCLDS) may be contacted through the B.C. chairman Eric Robinson at (604) 930-7853 or by E-mail at 104331.2274@compuserve.com
The website established by CJCLDS is being kept updated: the address is http://www.peacesummit.com/justice/
The reproduction of this material is permitted as long as the source is cited.
The reproduction of this material is permitted as long as the source is cited. If you wish to contact us, send a message to braziljusticenet@braziljusticenet.org. If you wish to be removed from our email list, go to http://braziljusticenet.org/subscribe.htm, type in your email address, and click "unsubscribe" button.