History ETDs

Judith Ewell

Publication Date

12-5-1972

Abstract

Many Latin American countries have suffered the results of modern piracy. Heads of state such as Marcos Pérez Jiménez in Venezuela have used their official positions to enrich themselves at the nation's expense; when overthrown, they live comfortably in exile on the proceeds of wealth earlier sent abroad. Democratic nationalists such as Rómulo Betancourt have called for the extradition of accused embezzlers and the surrender of their stolen wealth. Until the extradition of Marcos Pérez Jiménez from the United States in 1963, the principle of political asylum protected the refugees just as the principle of banking secrecy guarded their riches. International jurists proclaimed a new precedent when Pérez Jiménez was returned to Venezuela to stand trial for embezzling more than thirteen million dollars. Betancourt hoped that the extradition and trial of the ex-president would encourage Venezuelans to renounce their former toleration for corruption in government. Examination of the extradition proceedings and trial records revealed that the circumstantial case against Pérez Jiménez was stronger than the juridical one. The Venezuelan government, often in the absence of specific indications of guilt, argued that the president bore the responsibility for all the criminal actions of his government; they called for a liberal interpretation of the extradition treaty and of the Venezuelan penal statutes in order to condemn Pérez Jiménez. In his defense, Pérez Jiménez asserted that each cabinet member had been responsible for his own actions, that the extradition and trial had been politically motivated, and that the prosecution lacked the evidence to prove the alleged crimes. He further used the trial to compare the accomplishments of his government (1948-1958) with that of Acción Democrática (1959-1968). From his trial statements, later published, he gained some popularity as a nationalist who condemned the United States for becoming involved in a Venezuelan political feud. The Venezuelan Supreme Court in an eight to seven decision in August 1968 found Pérez Jiménez guilty of the minor crime of profit from public office. Although condemnatory in form, the decision allowed Pérez Jiménez to leave Venezuela since he had already been in jail for a period longer than his sentence. In December 1968 he was popularly elected to the Venezuelan Senate; the Supreme Court nullified his election on a technicality. It might be said that he received two virtual absolutions: one from the Supreme Court and one from a segment of the Venezuelan population. Although the extradition of a head of state to stand trial for peculation set an international precedent, the tradition of political asylum remains an honorable alternative. Many nations lack the patience and the resources of Venezuela. International organizations did also pass resolutions calling for the restoration of stolen property, but the privilege of banking secrecy still thwarts viable action in this regard. Pérez Jiménez was humiliated by having to undergo trial for nine years, but he apparently became a martyr in the process. Procedures for enforcing administrative morality had been established and tested in Venezuela, but by 1968 had not gained universal approbation. Most encouraging, however, was the indication that Venezuela was developing a mature judicial system and an independent Supreme Court.

Level of Degree

Doctoral

Degree Name

History

Department Name

History

First Committee Member (Chair)

Edwin Lieuwen

Second Committee Member

Troy Smith Floyd

Third Committee Member

Edwin Chase Hoyt

Language

English

Document Type

Dissertation

Download

Included in

History Commons

Share

COinS