PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 30614/15) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Venezuelan and Colombian national, Mr Andrés López Elorza (“the applicant”), on 11 August 2015.

The applicant, who had initially been granted legal aid and on 10 March 2016 waived his right to receive the referred legal aid, was represented by Mr J.L. Mazón Costa, a lawyer practising in Murcia. The Spanish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A. León Cavero, State Attorney.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that his extradition to the United States of America would expose him to a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

On 2 July 2015 the Court indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the applicant should not be extradited to the United States until 1 August 2015 and requested the Government to provide the Court with more information as regards the applicant’s extradition. It was also decided to grant this case priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 31 July 2015 the Court decided to prolong the referred interim measure for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

On 12 November 2015 the above complaint was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

On 15 March 2016 the parties were informed that the examination of the case was suspended, pending the outcome of the proceedings in the case Harkins v. United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14. On 10 July 2017 the Grand Chamber of the Court declared that case inadmissible.

The Chamber decided, after examining the request of the applicant, that there is no need to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Rule 72 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1982 in Venezuela and is currently detained in Valdemoro Prison.

A. Extradition proceedings

The applicant has been living in Spain with his family since 2003.

In an indictment filed on 15 November 2005 in the United States (hereinafter, “the US”) District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the applicant was charged with one count of conspiracy to import one or more kilograms of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance, into the United States in violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 952(a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(1)(A), and 963, and Title 18, United States Code, sections 3551 et seq. (Count Four); and one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one or more kilograms of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(I), and 846, and Title 18, United States Code, sections 3551 et seq. (Count Five). Each of those offences carried a possible maximum term of life imprisonment.

By diplomatic note of 6 December 2013, the US authorities transmitted a request to the Spanish authorities for the applicant’s provisional arrest with a view to his extradition.

On 13 December 2013 the applicant was arrested in Lugo by the Spanish police. The Central Court of Investigation No. 4 (Juzgado Central de Instrucción) initiated extradition proceedings on the same day and ordered his provisional release. The extradition request was then allocated to the Criminal Section of the Audiencia Nacional.

On 31 March 2014 the Public Prosecutor’s Office agreed to the applicant’s extradition.

On 1 October 2014 the Audiencia Nacional granted the extradition request on condition that the US authorities provided a guarantee that any life sentence that was handed down would not be irreducible. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision.

On 3 November 2014 the ruling was upheld by the Plenary of the Criminal Section of the Audiencia Nacional. The applicant subsequently lodged a plea of nullity (incidente de nulidad de actuaciones) against that decision. On 19 December 2014 the Plenary of the Criminal Section of the Audiencia Nacional ruled against the applicant, arguing that the object and purpose of annulment proceedings was not to serve as a second appeal instance against an extradition decision, but to correct possible violations of a fundamental right committed in a decision which was not subject to appeal.

On 3 December 2014 the U.S. Embassy issued a note verbale, which provided the following answer: “The United States notes that the bilateral extradition treaty between the United States and Spain does not provide a basis for conditioning extraditions on assurances relating to life sentences. While the United States is not, therefore, obligated to provide the assurance requested, in consideration of the request of the Spanish Court and given the intentions of the U.S. prosecutor, the United States is prepared in this particular case to inform the Government of Spain as follows: Should LOPEZ ELORZA be convicted of either of the charges in the indictment filed on 15 November 2005 for which extradition is sought, he will not be subject to an unalterable sentence of life imprisonment because, if a life sentence is imposed, he may seek review of his sentence on appeal and he may subsequently seek relief from his sentence in the form of a petition for a pardon or commutation to a lesser sentence ...”

On 19 January 2015 the note verbale was communicated to the interested parties. On 23 January 2015 the Public Prosecutor submitted a report stating that the guarantees provided by the United States were adequate and that consequently extradition should be granted.

On 24 February 2015 the Audiencia Nacional issued a decision (providencia) assessing the US guarantees, deeming them to be “sufficient”.

The applicant brought two súplica appeals against that decision, the first of which was lodged on 28 February 2015. The applicant argued that the decision of 24 February 2015 should be declared null and void since the matter should have been addressed through an auto, instead of a providencia. Secondly, the applicant contested the argument that the US Government had provided sufficient guarantees, stating that they were identical to the ones that had already been analysed by the Court in the case of Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and found to be in violation of Article 3 (inter alia). The second súplica appeal was lodged on 2 March 2015 and included three different requests. First, he requested that the decision on whether the US guarantees were sufficient be addressed and dealt with by the Plenary of the Audiencia Nacional. He also sought the recusal of three judges who were members of the bench which had initially issued the decision of 24 February 2015. Lastly, he lodged an application for the general recusal of all the judges of the Audiencia Nacional who “had been invited by the United States of America on holiday trips” which had been paid for by that country.

On 25 March 2015 the Audiencia Nacional issued a decision stating the following: “FIRST - We will examine in the first place the plea for a referral to the Plenary formation of this Court of the decision about the sufficiency of the assurances given by the U.S. Government concerning the possibility for two life sentences to be imposed on the extradited person. This Chamber, given that the President of this Court has duly empowered it to decide about this matter, considers that the referral is not necessary as the assurances given are correct and sufficient, and furthermore show compliance with the ECtHR case-law in the Trabelsi vs Belgium case referred to by the appellant .... Therefore, if the assurances given by the U.S. Government are the following: “Should LOPEZ ELORZA be convicted of either of the charges in the indictment filed on 15 November 2005, he will not be subject to an unalterable sentence of life imprisonment, he may seek review of his sentence on appeal and he may subsequently seek relief from his sentence in the form of a petition for a pardon or commutation to a lesser sentence;” we can conclude that the warranty expresses the actual existing legal means for the revision of a sentence of life imprisonment in a way that shows that this punishment is not irreducible during the whole life-span of the person, complying with what the ECtHR has requested in order to consider that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention. That is why there is no need to refer a decision on this matter to the Plenary formation of this Court.”

Additionally, the Audiencia Nacional agreed on opening a procedure aimed at addressing the issue of the recusals requested by the applicant through a full report, at the same time ordering the suspension of the extradition proceedings until the recusal proceedings had been terminated.

On 12 May 2015 the Audiencia Nacional issued a decision (acuerdo gubernativo) dismissing the applicant’s request.

On 25 May 2015 the Audiencia Nacional ordered the applicant’s provisional detention (auto). The applicant lodged another súplica appeal against that decision and requested that the extradition proceedings be suspended on the grounds that no decision had been taken on the issues complained of in the first súplica appeal of 28 February 2015.

In a decision of 28 May 2015 the Audiencia Nacional rejected the applicant’s request to stay the extradition proceedings, finding that the complaints contained in the first súplica appeal had already been dealt with in the decision of 25 March 2015.

On 1 June 2015 the applicant lodged another súplica appeal against the decisions of 25 May 2015 and 28 May 2015, contesting the reasoning as regards his request to stay the extradition proceedings and emphasising that no decision had been taken on the issues complained of in the first súplica appeal of 28 February 2015.

On 3 June 2015 the Audiencia Nacional issued a new decision dismissing the súplica appeals lodged by the applicant and confirming the decision on the applicant’s imprisonment pending extradition to the United States. In particular, the decision stated the following: “The applicant considers that his súplica appeal lodged against the decision of 24 February 2015 has not been answered ... . This Court refers at this point to what was already established in its decision of 25 March 2015 ... . Nevertheless, in order to clarify any doubts that the applicant might have concerning whether or not he has received an answer to his súplica appeal, we [the Court] will resolve here the issued raised in that appeal. ... The guarantees provided have been considered sufficient for the Court. Consequently, regardless of the judgment mentioned by the applicant, we consider that they comply with the requirements established in the ECtHR’s judgment Hutchinson v. United Kingdom [(no. 57592/08, 3 February 2015)], as well as the judgment of 13 November 2014 [Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, 13 November 2014)], lodged by a French citizen... Taking into consideration the above-mentioned reasoning, the Court Decides to dismiss the súplica appeals referred to in the present ruling, maintaining the order of imprisonment for Andrés López Elorza, in view of his extradition to the United States of America”.

On 19 June 2015 the applicant was detained for the purposes of being extradited to the United States.

On 22 June 2015 the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court against the extradition decision. He asked for interim measures, requesting the Constitutional Court to order a stay of the extradition while the case was still pending. He contended, inter alia, that the assurances provided by the US authorities did not fulfil the criteria for assessing the reducibility of a life sentence and that the extradition would amount to a violation of his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

On 1 July 2015 the Constitutional Court issued a decision declaring the amparo appeal and the request for interim measures inadmissible. In particular, it found that the part of the amparo appeal concerning the validity of the assurances given by the US authorities and about a possible violation of the applicant’s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment had been lodged too late as the alleged violations stemmed from the decision of 25 March 2015, thus the 30-day time‑limit established in section 44(2) of the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court No. 2/1919 had already passed when he had lodged his amparo appeal.

B. Proceedings before the Court

On 2 July 2015 the applicant lodged a request for interim measures with the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. He requested the Court to indicate to the Spanish Government that his extradition should be stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Court. The request was granted on the same day on a temporary basis until 1 August 2015, and the Government were asked the following questions: “a.- Does the applicant risk under US criminal law, in respect of the charges, a maximum penalty that precludes early release and/or release on parole? b.- What are the concrete mechanisms and under what US legal basis is the applicant entitled to review his possible final life sentence? In this sense, are the appeal, pardon and other review mechanisms referred to in the note verbale of 3 December 2014 the ones described in the case of Trabelsi v. Belgium (application no. 140/10, 4 September 2014, § 27)?”

On 23 July 2015 the Government submitted their response and attached a document issued by the Office of International Affairs of the US Department of Justice called “supplemental information to Spain on Sentencing Issues in Relation to Andres Lopez Elorza, a/k/a ‘Andres Lopez Flores’ (hereinafter, “the US report”). The report stated the following: “By way of introduction, Lopez Elorza’s extradition is sought in order for him to stand trial on federal narcotics offenses in the Eastern District of New York. In essence, Lopez Elorza, a veterinarian, is charged with having been a member of a conspiracy between September 2004 and January 2005, the goal of which was to import heroin into the United States for subsequent distribution, in which Lopez Elorza’s role was to surgically implant packages of liquid heroin into the bodies of dogs that later were transported to the United States. The charges followed the search, in January 2005, of a farm Lopez Elorza operated in Medellin, Colombia, in which law enforcement authorities seized six puppies into which three kilograms of liquid heroin had been surgically implanted. The six puppies were bound for the United States, and the heroin they carried was surgically removed. After the search of his farm, Lopez Elorza fled Colombia.”

As regards the first question put to the Government, the US report argued that there were pretrial factors that could affect the applicant’s sentencing. In particular, the report noted the following: “Before any trial, Lopez Elorza could, with the advice of his lawyer, decide to give up the right to a trial and plead guilty to the charges in the indictment, with or without the agreement of the prosecution. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a). A timely admission of guilt is a factor which could reduce the sentence the judge decides to impose following a conviction. In the United States, the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved by guilty pleas. Lopez Elorza may seek to reach an agreement with the prosecution wherein he would plead guilty in exchange for certain favorable actions, such as an agreement to allow him to plead guilty to fewer than all the charges in the indictment (with the remainder of the charges to be dismissed at sentencing), or even to lesser charges, or in exchange for the government’s promise to affirmatively recommend to the court that a particular lesser sentence be imposed. The agreement may also include the parties’ recommendation as to the appropriate sentence that - depending upon the type of plea agreement that is negotiated - may or may not bind the judge regarding the sentence that will be imposed. Such agreements are within the discretion of the government to enter into, and the judge may also decline to approve an agreement she or he does not believe to be in the interests of justice. The agreement may include, inter alia, an agreement to cooperate with U.S. authorities. Thus, if Lopez Elorza were willing and able to provide substantial assistance to the United States in the investigation or prosecution of another person who had committed a crime, a plea agreement might include a promise by the government attorneys, in exchange for his guilty plea, to file a motion with the court asking that Lopez Elorza’s cooperation be taken into account and permitting the Court to impose a lower sentence that it might otherwise impose. Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(e); United States Sentencing Guidelines, Section 5K1.1. In such cases, it is not atypical for a judge to impose a sentence that is significantly less than the Guidelines recommendation.”

It also observed that “[i]f, however, Lopez Elorza decides not to plead guilty and instead exercise his right to a trial, and if he is found guilty of one or more charges, his sentencing exposure will vary, depending on the nature of the charges on which he is found guilty. Moreover, the judge will have broad discretion to determine the appropriate sentence [...]”.

As regards the estimated sentence that the applicant could face, the US report stated firstly that, “In imposing a sentence in a federal criminal case, the judge must consult the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines”. It added that the Guidelines were advisory since the judge had “the discretion to impose a sentence outside the applicable Guidelines range so long as the court states ‘with specificity,’ both at sentencing and in the written judgment and commitment order, its reason for doing so”. It additionally stated that, “[b]oth the defendant and the government have the statutory right to appeal any sentence imposed on the grounds that it is substantively or procedurally unreasonable under the circumstances of the case”. Moreover, the decision whether to sentence a person convicted of multiple counts concurrently or consecutively was at the discretion of the court. Section 3584 of Title 18 of the US Code, states, in part, that “[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively”. The report further stressed the following: “Prior to sentencing, a probation officer will prepare a presentence report that contains information about the defendant’s offense, his criminal history, other background information, and a calculation of the advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant has the right to object to the information and conclusion in the present report. Later, during the sentencing phase of the proceedings, defense counsel will be able to present to the judge various mitigating factors to consider that may result in the reduction of his sentence. Specifically, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), in determining the particular sentence imposed on a defendant, the court shall consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, punishment for the offense, deter the defendant or others from committing similar criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the applicable guideline range; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and (7) the need to provide restitution to the victims of the offense(s). In assisting the court in considering the above seven factors, defense counsel will be able to present to the court in detail any mitigating factors relating to these criteria. This would enable the defense to provide to the sentencing court information regarding Lopez Elorza’s background and circumstances, including: his family environment and relationships, the environment in which he was raised, his work history,... socioeconomic factors including educational opportunities or lack thereof, his physical and psychological well-being and any past or current treatment, prior criminal conduct, if any, and any resultant rehabilitative programs and periods of probation, incarceration, and parole, as well as Lopez Elorza’s longterm educational, vocational, and sociological goals”.

The report noted that there were many factors that contributed to the imposition of a sentence and that it was “impossible to address every conceivable permutation that could occur or every possible scenario that might arise”. However, the report indicated that according to the US Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the advisory sentencing range was “188 to 235 months incarceration, far less than the possible life sentence provided for under the statutes with which he was charged”.

Furthermore, the report stated that under section 3553(a) of Title 18 of the US Code, there was a “need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities”. In that regard, the report stated that several of the applicant’s co-conspirators had already been sentenced in a related case before the same judge who had been assigned to the applicant’s case. One of the co-conspirators “faced a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months and received a sentence of 72 months incarceration”, another “faced a Guidelines range of 78 to 87 months and received a sentence of 14 months incarceration” and a third had “faced a Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months and received a sentence of Time Served (approximately 12 months incarceration)”. The US report also noted that none of those defendants had entered into cooperation agreements with the government. Consequently, the sentences imposed on the applicant’s co-conspirators by the same judge who had been assigned to the applicant’s case “[could] be of value in assessing the sentence that will be imposed on him”.

The report concluded that while it was possible that any available maximum sentence could be imposed for an offence, under the circumstances present in this case, “the risk of López Elorza receiving such a sentence is low”.

As regards the second question, the US report stated that if the applicant was sentenced to a life term, he could benefit from a variety of mechanisms to seek to have the sentence invalidated or reduced or to obtain early release.

Concerning the applicant’s right to invalidate or reduce his sentence, the Government stated that the applicant would have the right under US law to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeals, asking for a reversal of his conviction “based on an error in the proceedings”. The applicant would also be able to “ask the Court of Appeals to review the appropriateness of his sentence”. He could argue that a life sentence was “unreasonable” in the circumstances of his case. The report also stated that even after the applicant had exhausted his rights at trial and on appeal, he could under US law file “a motion in the trial court claiming that his life sentence was imposed ‘in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States’, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack”.

Concerning the applicant’s right to obtain early release, the report specifically stated that “since 1987, there has been no federal parole system in the United States”. The applicant, however, could ask for early release if he provided substantial assistance after his conviction and the imposition of his sentence. In addition, US law also allowed for compassionate release under section 3582 of Title 18 of the US Code. The report specifically stressed that the Bureau of Prisons could reduce the applicant’s sentence if it found that there was “an extraordinary and compelling reason to do so; for example, if a medical condition arose with López Elorza that would warrant such a modification”. Finally, the applicant could also seek executive clemency in the form of commutation (reduction) of his sentence. The report noted that in cases similar to the applicant’s, commutation of life sentences was not “a rare occurrence”. It gave as an example that of 13 July 2015, when President Obama had commuted the life sentences of “fourteen persons who had been convicted of drug related offenses”.

On 31 July 2015 the interim measures under Rule 39 were extended and the Court requested that the Government stay the applicant’s extradition to the United States while the proceedings were pending before the Court.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e1
001-179422_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
30614/15
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e2
001-179422_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e3
001-179422_a11_em3
DEM
QUASI
Venezuelan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e4
001-179422_a11_em4
DEM
QUASI
Colombian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em5
PERSON
DIRECT
001-179422_a11_em131
Mr Andrés López Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e6
001-179422_a11_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
11 August 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e7
001-179422_a11_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
10 March 2016
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e8
001-179422_a11_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J.L. Mazón Costa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e9
001-179422_a11_em9
LOC
NO_MASK
Murcia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e2
001-179422_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
001-179422_a11_em2
Spanish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e10
001-179422_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R.A. León Cavero
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em12
ORG
QUASI
United States of America
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e12
001-179422_a11_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
2 July 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em14
ORG
QUASI
001-179422_a11_em12
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e13
001-179422_a11_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
1 August 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e14
001-179422_a11_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
31 July 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e15
001-179422_a11_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
12 November 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e16
001-179422_a11_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
15 March 2016
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e17
001-179422_a11_em19
MISC
NO_MASK
Harkins v. United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e18
001-179422_a11_em20
CODE
NO_MASK
71537/14
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e19
001-179422_a11_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
10 July 2017
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e20
001-179422_a11_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
1982
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e21
001-179422_a11_em23
LOC
QUASI
Venezuela
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e22
001-179422_a11_em24
LOC
QUASI
Valdemoro Prison
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e2
001-179422_a11_em25
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e23
001-179422_a11_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e24
001-179422_a11_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em28
LOC
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em29
LOC
QUASI
001-179422_a11_em28
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e25
001-179422_a11_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e26
001-179422_a11_em31
ORG
QUASI
Eastern District of New York
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e27
001-179422_a11_em32
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
one or more kilograms
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em33
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em34
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e28
001-179422_a11_em35
CODE
QUASI
952(a)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e29
001-179422_a11_em36
CODE
QUASI
960(a)(1
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e30
001-179422_a11_em37
CODE
QUASI
960(b)(1)(A
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em38
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e31
001-179422_a11_em39
CODE
QUASI
3551
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e27
001-179422_a11_em40
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
one or more kilograms
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em41
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e32
001-179422_a11_em42
CODE
QUASI
841(a)(1)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e33
001-179422_a11_em43
CODE
QUASI
841(b)(1)(A)(I
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em44
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e31
001-179422_a11_em45
CODE
QUASI
3551
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e34
001-179422_a11_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
6 December 2013
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em47
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e35
001-179422_a11_em48
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e36
001-179422_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 2013
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e37
001-179422_a11_em50
LOC
QUASI
Lugo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e35
001-179422_a11_em51
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e38
001-179422_a11_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Court of Investigation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e39
001-179422_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Juzgado Central de Instrucción
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e40
001-179422_a11_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
31 March 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e41
001-179422_a11_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e42
001-179422_a11_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
1 October 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em58
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e44
001-179422_a11_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
3 November 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e45
001-179422_a11_em60
ORG
NO_MASK
Plenary of the Criminal Section of the Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e46
001-179422_a11_em61
MISC
NO_MASK
plea of nullity
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e47
001-179422_a11_em62
MISC
NO_MASK
incidente de nulidad de actuaciones
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e48
001-179422_a11_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e45
001-179422_a11_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
Plenary of the Criminal Section of the Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e49
001-179422_a11_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
3 December 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e50
001-179422_a11_em66
ORG
NO_MASK
U.S. Embassy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em67
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em68
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e2
001-179422_a11_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
001-179422_a11_em2
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em70
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e51
001-179422_a11_em71
ORG
NO_MASK
Spanish Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em72
ORG
QUASI
001-179422_a11_em12
U.S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em73
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e52
001-179422_a11_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
Government of Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e53
001-179422_a11_em75
PERSON
DIRECT
LOPEZ ELORZA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e24
001-179422_a11_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e54
001-179422_a11_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
19 January 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e55
001-179422_a11_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
23 January 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e56
001-179422_a11_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
Public Prosecutor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em80
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e57
001-179422_a11_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
24 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em83
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e58
001-179422_a11_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e57
001-179422_a11_em85
DATETIME
QUASI
24 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em86
ORG
QUASI
001-179422_a11_em12
US Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e59
001-179422_a11_em87
PERSON
NO_MASK
Trabelsi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e60
001-179422_a11_em88
ORG
NO_MASK
Belgium
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e61
001-179422_a11_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
2 March 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em90
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e62
001-179422_a11_em91
ORG
NO_MASK
Plenary of the Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e57
001-179422_a11_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
24 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em94
ORG
QUASI
United States of America
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e63
001-179422_a11_em95
DATETIME
QUASI
25 March 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em96
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em97
ORG
QUASI
001-179422_a11_em12
U.S. Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e59
001-179422_a11_em98
PERSON
NO_MASK
Trabelsi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e60
001-179422_a11_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
Belgium
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em100
ORG
QUASI
U.S. Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e53
001-179422_a11_em101
PERSON
DIRECT
LOPEZ ELORZA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e24
001-179422_a11_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
15 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em103
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e64
001-179422_a11_em104
DATETIME
QUASI
12 May 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em105
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e65
001-179422_a11_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
25 May 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em107
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e58
001-179422_a11_em108
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e66
001-179422_a11_em109
DATETIME
QUASI
28 May 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em110
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e63
001-179422_a11_em111
DATETIME
QUASI
25 March 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e67
001-179422_a11_em112
DATETIME
QUASI
1 June 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e65
001-179422_a11_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
25 May 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e66
001-179422_a11_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
28 May 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e58
001-179422_a11_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e68
001-179422_a11_em116
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e43
001-179422_a11_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
Audiencia Nacional
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em118
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e57
001-179422_a11_em119
DATETIME
QUASI
24 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e63
001-179422_a11_em120
DATETIME
QUASI
25 March 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e69
001-179422_a11_em121
ORG
NO_MASK
ECtHR
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e70
001-179422_a11_em122
MISC
NO_MASK
Hutchinson v. United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e71
001-179422_a11_em123
CODE
NO_MASK
57592/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e72
001-179422_a11_em124
DATETIME
QUASI
3 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e73
001-179422_a11_em125
DATETIME
QUASI
13 November 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e74
001-179422_a11_em126
PERSON
NO_MASK
Bodein
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e75
001-179422_a11_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e76
001-179422_a11_em128
CODE
NO_MASK
40014/10
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e73
001-179422_a11_em129
DATETIME
QUASI
13 November 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e77
001-179422_a11_em130
DEM
NO_MASK
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em131
PERSON
DIRECT
Andrés López Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em132
ORG
QUASI
United States of America
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e78
001-179422_a11_em133
DATETIME
QUASI
19 June 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em134
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e79
001-179422_a11_em135
DATETIME
QUASI
22 June 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e80
001-179422_a11_em136
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e80
001-179422_a11_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em138
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e81
001-179422_a11_em139
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e80
001-179422_a11_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em141
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e63
001-179422_a11_em142
DATETIME
QUASI
25 March 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e82
001-179422_a11_em143
DATETIME
NO_MASK
30-day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e83
001-179422_a11_em144
CODE
NO_MASK
2/1919
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e12
001-179422_a11_em145
DATETIME
QUASI
2 July 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e2
001-179422_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Spanish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e13
001-179422_a11_em147
DATETIME
QUASI
1 August 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em148
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em149
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e49
001-179422_a11_em150
DATETIME
QUASI
3 December 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e59
001-179422_a11_em151
PERSON
NO_MASK
Trabelsi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e60
001-179422_a11_em152
ORG
NO_MASK
Belgium
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e84
001-179422_a11_em153
DATETIME
QUASI
4 September 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e85
001-179422_a11_em154
DATETIME
QUASI
23 July 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e86
001-179422_a11_em155
ORG
QUASI
Office of International Affairs of the US Department of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e2
001-179422_a11_em156
ORG
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e87
001-179422_a11_em157
PERSON
DIRECT
Andres Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em158
PERSON
DIRECT
001-179422_a11_em5
Andres Lopez Flores’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em159
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em160
PERSON
DIRECT
001-179422_a11_em5
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e26
001-179422_a11_em161
ORG
QUASI
Eastern District of New York
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em162
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e88
001-179422_a11_em163
DEM
QUASI
veterinarian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e89
001-179422_a11_em164
DATETIME
QUASI
September 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e90
001-179422_a11_em165
DATETIME
QUASI
January 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em166
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em167
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em168
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e90
001-179422_a11_em169
DATETIME
QUASI
January 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em170
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e91
001-179422_a11_em171
LOC
QUASI
Medellin, Colombia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e92
001-179422_a11_em172
MISC
NO_MASK
six puppies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e93
001-179422_a11_em173
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
three kilograms
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e92
001-179422_a11_em174
MISC
NO_MASK
six puppies
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em175
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em176
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e94
001-179422_a11_em177
LOC
QUASI
Colombia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em178
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em179
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em180
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em181
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em182
ORG
QUASI
U.S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em183
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em184
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em185
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em186
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e95
001-179422_a11_em187
CODE
QUASI
3553
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e96
001-179422_a11_em188
MISC
QUASI
United States Sentencing Guidelines
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em189
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em190
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e97
001-179422_a11_em191
MISC
QUASI
001-179422_a11_em192
U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e97
001-179422_a11_em192
MISC
NO_MASK
Guidelines
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em193
MISC
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e98
001-179422_a11_em194
MISC
QUASI
Sentencing Guidelines
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em195
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e95
001-179422_a11_em196
CODE
QUASI
3553
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em197
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e5
001-179422_a11_em198
PERSON
DIRECT
Lopez Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em199
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e99
001-179422_a11_em200
DATETIME
QUASI
188 to 235 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e95
001-179422_a11_em201
CODE
QUASI
3553
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em202
MISC
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e99
001-179422_a11_em203
DATETIME
QUASI
188 to 235 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e100
001-179422_a11_em204
DATETIME
QUASI
72 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e101
001-179422_a11_em205
DATETIME
QUASI
78 to 87 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e102
001-179422_a11_em206
DATETIME
NO_MASK
14 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e103
001-179422_a11_em207
DATETIME
QUASI
70 to 87 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e104
001-179422_a11_em208
DATETIME
NO_MASK
12 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em209
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-179422_a11_e105
001-179422_a11_em210
PERSON
DIRECT
López Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em211
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em212
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e106
001-179422_a11_em213
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e106
001-179422_a11_em214
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em215
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em216
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e107
001-179422_a11_em217
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em218
ORG
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em219
ORG
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em220
MISC
QUASI
US
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e108
001-179422_a11_em221
ORG
QUASI
Bureau of Prisons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e105
001-179422_a11_em222
PERSON
DIRECT
López Elorza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e109
001-179422_a11_em223
DATETIME
QUASI
13 July 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e110
001-179422_a11_em224
PERSON
QUASI
Obama
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e14
001-179422_a11_em225
DATETIME
QUASI
31 July 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-179422_a11_e11
001-179422_a11_em226
ORG
QUASI
United States
Andrés López Elorza
ESP
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Andrés López Elorza