Last 18 January 2015, Public Prosecutor Alberto Nisman (PP Nisman), Head of the Special Unit investigating into the bloody bombing of the Israel-Argentina Mutual Benefit Society (AMIA) on 18 June 1994, was found dead. He was found with a bullet wound on his head, in the bathroom of his apartment; all the doors of his house bolted from the inside.

Four days before, he had lodged a poorly drafted report lacking an evidentiary basis and containing a string of contradictons. The report accused, without any evidentiary backing, the country’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the Chancellor Héctor Timerman, and other persons, of trying to conceal that Iranian officials were responsible for the attacks. Within days, a covert coup of foreign origin was put in motion.

PP Nisman had been assigned to lead the investigation in 2004. This was after ten long years, when the most outrageous and irregular trial in history was discontinued, having failed to nail those responsible for the bombing that left 85 dead and hundreds injured. This fact appears more like a link than a coup in the making, in which the following participate: a section of Argentina’s judiciary, the opposition, the mass media, the CIA (the Central Intelligence Agency by its English acronym), Mossad, the United States and Israel.

To understand this, we need to first understand what happened in the AMAI case and to be aware of the serious irregularities committed when, in the nineties, the investigation was handed over to US and Israeli intelligence services that worked with a group from SIDE: the Secretary of Intelligence of the State of Argentina.

An Investigation under Foreign Control

The bloody bombing moved the country; the judge mandated to carry out the investigation in July 1994 was Juan José Galeano. It was clear that his mission commenced under much pressure.

In only 24 hours, the Israeli intelligence – that sent its men to work from the very outset of the case – and the CIA accused, without any evidence, the Islamic Repubic of Iran and the Hezbollah of Lebanon.

Even before the investigation began, they offered Argentine Judge Galeano, an important witness whom Judge Galeano travelled to Venezuela to interview.

The man’s name was Manouchehr Moatamer. He introduced himself as a former Iranian official that had fled his country. He accused, without any evidence, the Iranian government of being responsible for the attack. In little time, his inconsistent statements were demolished. Else put, the CIA and Mossad had sold to Argentine Judge a false witness.

Moatamer had left Iran with his family in 1993. It is not known how he arrived in Venezuela in 1994 nor how he ended up as a “protected CIA witness” in Los Angeles, US,

Galeano’s case continued navigating a sea of irregulairities. But in 1997, Gaelano went to see Moatamer again, this time in the United States. Moatamer added nothing to his previous statement. In 2008, Moatamer finally confessed that he had lied to obtain a US visa.

In 1998, again the CIA and Mossan offered another alleged witness, this time based in Germany. He was Abolghasem Mesbahi, known as “witness C”. In 1989 the Iranian intelligences had moved Mesbahi from minor assignments because they suspected him of being a double agent. He worked on private matters and carried out a series of scams, after which he went to Germany where he has been based since 1996.

At this time, Mesbahi accused Iran of each of the “terrorist attacks” that were unexplained throughout the world– what always happens with attacks under a false flag – such as Lockerbie in Scotland et al.

“Witness C”, who acquired fame on account of the mystery surrounding his name, saw another opportunity to accuse Iran (with the consent of the German, US and Israeli services) of the AMIA bombing.

Without any evidence, he recounted his version in Germany before a national judge and an Argentine judge, Juan José Galeano, who travelled to Germany in 1998.

“In the proceedings, Mesbahi made five declarations under oath on the key issues. He gave five different versions each contradiciting the other, that could never be admissible as evidence. Only expressions and words, and, of course, his conjectures and inference”, sums up the lawyer Juan Gabriel Labaké in his book, “AMIA-Embajada, verdad o fraude?”

The lawyer Labaké (clearly no government supporter), took a trip to Tehran, Europe and the United States, gathering information and interviewing important sources. He finally came to the conclusion that there was no evidence against Iran in the AMIA case, neither when Galeano was in charge, nor when PP Nisman was in charge. Furthermore that PP Nisman, only gathered together and rewrote his predecessor’s documents and gave them some structure; however, he always accused Iran, as instructed to do by Washington and Tel Aviv.

On 16 May 2010, Gerth Porter, a journalist writing for The Nation, wrote an article indicating that when he interviewed James Cheek, the US ambassador in Argentina at the time of the AMIA attack, the latter said: “I know that there was no real evidence that Iran is involved. They never proved anything.”

What is strange is that at the time PP Nisman accuses Iran in 2006, it was already known that both witnesses were not credible and the UK Courts also had dimissed, a request for extradition against the former Iranian ambassador in Argentina, Hadi Soleimanpour because there was no evidence. The Iranian diplomat was doing a course in London when they detained him in 2003 until the request for extradition arrived. But they were forced to release him in 2004 and to pay him compensation totally 189 000 pounds sterling.

The International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) also dismissed the first request for red alert for lack of evidence. Ditto for the second request in 2013, for a special request of the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner government and the Treasurer Héctor Timerman, that to date, does not even have the foundation of the events that the Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral asked Nisman to investigate. We now know that Nisman had not managed to gather evidence, but only mere circumstantial evidence - inferences - that serve neither justice nor the truth.

The first AMIA proceedings had to be discontinued on account of scandals and serious irregularities. One of these was that Judge Galeano, with the support of Ruben Berajas, who was then president of the Delegation of Argentine-Jewish Associations (DAIA), paid 400,000 dollars to Carlos Telledin, a person who deals in stolen cars, to accuse Iranian diplomats and the police in the Province of Buenos Aires.

The latter were detained for five years and had to be released for a total lack of evidence and having no connection to the proceedings. So the outrageous end to these proceedings.

The records of the proceedings relating to the bloody AMIA bombings was a tangled network of falsehoods and lies, pressures and interests that forced the proceedings to end in 2004. The then president Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) urged the judge to proceed, investigation further till he reached the truth.

A Special Unit for the AMIA proceedings was then established. Pursuant to a decision of the Attorney General’s Office, it would be led by PP Alberto Nisman. This was surprising because Nisman had been part of the proceedings that begun in July 1994 and closed 10 years later: a failure that had not achieved anything.

The Nisman Affair

It was in 1997, in Morón, in the province of Buenos Aires, that Nisman began his journey to his final position as Public Prosecutor. In his career, one case marked his path. This was the investigation into the fate of Iván Ruiz and José Díaz, two participants in the failed attack on the headquarters in La Tablada in January 1989. This attack was led by a former guerrilla leader, Enrique Gorriarán Melo, when the democratic government of Raúl Alfonsín was in power. Both Iván Ruiz and José Díaz were detained after a bloody clash that left several dead and injured. The last time they were seen they were being brutally tortured and hauled away by soldiers and police in a Ford Falcon automobile.

Until now they had “disappeared”. But both Nisman and the judge that put him in charge of the investigation, supported the Army’s official version that “they had died in combat” despite evidence of their forced disappearance.

In July 1997, the then Attorney General Nicolás Becerra called him to join Public Prosecutors, José Barbaccia and Eamon Mullen (both of whom had expressly requested this), to investigate the bombing of the Jewish Mutual Cooperation Association, AMIA.

According to the Argentine Government’s Infojus Noticias, “the team of Nisman, Barbaccia and Mullen worked up to the oral proceedings but it did not end well”. During this proceedings on account of a so-called “local connection” many witnesses said that the team and Judge Juan José Galeano had made a string of irregularities that were confirmed.

At the end of the hearings, the Oral Tribunal acquitted the criminal Carlos Telleldín, to whom the judge handed over 400 000 dollars so that he accuse Iranian officials and police, with the approval of Rubén Berajas, then President of the powerful Delegation of Jewish Argentine Associations.

In the reasons of the judgement, he accused Galeano (who wound up destitute and prosecuted), his team and the public prosecutors, Mullen and Barbaccia, who were also prosecuted.

“In the oral phase of the proceedings it is demonstrated that they made absolutely no investigations whatsoever” in the AMIA proceedings. So declared the lawyer Juan Carlos García Dietze to Infojus Noticias. He defended Ariel Nizcaner, who was acquitted of having participated in the adulteration of the van Traffic, that was supposed to have been used in the attack.

“It has always been a paradoxal issue: Barbaccia and Mullen were charged, and Nisman continued in post. It is bizarre”, reflected García Dietze.

In 2004, Nisman, now heading the Special Unit that centralized all the investigations related to the bombing, approaches Antonio Stiusso, alias “Jim”. Jim was a key figure in the then Secretariat of State Intelligence, the former SIDE. He had been removed from the AMIA proceedings because of his role in the procedural irregularities. However with Nisman, he reassumed a position of importance. Both worked with the CIA and Mossad.

The Special Unit received significant sums of money to investigate. But Nisman alone worked on sorting through Galeano’s documents. He continued to hold the Iranians responsible even though no evidence had been obtained over the last ten years to corroborate his charge. His first request for red alert against the 12 Iranian diplomats and officials that were charged, was dimissed for lack of evidence. This is exactly what happened when he made a request to London for the extradition of Hadi Soleimanpour, the former Iranian embassador in Argentina. The British court dismissed the request for lack of evidence and paid compensation to the diplomat in 2004. A shameful event for Argentine justice.

Nisman and the US Embassy

For ten long years, the documents that Nisman was investigating included «reports based on a series of deductions» without any real evidence, impossible to corroroborate, that the CIA and Mossad had provided as well as their false witnesses.

In 2010, when a series of US Department of State secret cables relating to the AMIA proceedings (revealed by Wikileaks) were published in Argentina, there was evidence that PP Nisman forewarned them of the measures he was going to take in relation to their Embassy’s diplomats.

These discoveries did not lead to a key measure being taken – removing the Public Prosecutor from this case because “iudex qua parte in causa stare non potest” (which is what happened in his relationship of subordination to the United States and Israel).

The Iranian track did not succeed in collecting specific evidence. However there is no doubt it favoured the geopolitical interests of both countries that continue to try to invade Iran, connecting this situation to the heralded imperial plan of an enlarged Middle East which meant invasions and colonial occupations of different countries in this region in the 20th Century. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence should ever have participated, monitored or armed the AMIA proceedings.

In a communiqué of 22 May 2008 sent from the US diplomatic office in Buenos Aires, it is specifically stated:
“Officials of our Legal Office have recommended to PP Alberto Nisman that he focus on those that carried out the bombing and not on those that divert the investigation.”

This was the same time that the then federal judge, Ariel Lijo, ordered the detention and investigation of the former president, Carlos Menem, his brother Munir (now dead), the then head of SIDE, Hugo Anzorreguy, and others, such as the judge Juan José Galeano and the former Commissioner, Jorge Palacios, for covering up the bombing.

Nisman had not informed the US Embassy of this development as he normally used to. Other cables from WikiLeaks show that the Public Prosecutor in the AMIA Proceedings had apologized to the US officials for not having anticipated requests for detention. There are several cables on this issue, published by the journalist Guillermo O’Donell.

As early as 2013, Memoria Activa and families and friends of the victims of the July 1994 attack declared that Nisman be removed from the AMIA proceedings. In November 2013, in an open letter to the Public Prosecutor, the families supported the Memorandum of Understanding between Argentina and Iran and challenged “Nisman’s lack of commitment and his inertia in the proccedings”, considering him “functional to the interests of those that always want to keep us away from the truth”.

The Memorandum of Understanding with Iran is an authentic document of foreign policy that sets a precedent in unsuccessful dispute resolution, as was the AMIA case. It was about Judges in the AMIA proceedings going to Tehran to investigate, in the presence of a Commission made up of recognized and neutral personalities, Iranian high officials – without evidence of the bombing. For the first time, one could know the truth, whatever it was.

20 years after the attack, on 19 July 2014, the victims’ families not only made another request for clarification of the facts but also formally requested that Nisman be taken off the case “having shown his total inability to investigate in this Case”. So complained Diana Malamud of Memoria Activa.

Iran has always offered to cooperate; but the CIA and Mossad have rejected any possibility of this. No sovereign country in the world was going to hand over a group of officials, charged on an insufficient evidentiary basis, to the courts of a third country. Iran even made a proposal to establish a Mixed Commission (Argentine-Iranian) to investigate the AMIA matter.

In Iran there is no extradition. That is why the government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner tried to find a way, that was unfathomably rejected by the Government of Israel.

The DAIA and the AMIA, that had supported the Memorandum in the principle had to bow to the Israeli mandate. The Argentine opposition quickly allied itself to this refusal and then judges rose declaring that the law was not constitutional, which was a legal aberration.

Iran had been expecting this outcome. What noone knew was that, on the basis of false complaints, this issue would be converted into a manoeuvre for a coup against the Government of Fernández de Kirchner, a government that worked for the truth. This may be observed from its efforts before the United Nations and its own Memorandum.

On 12 January 2015, in the middle of this judicial recess, and interrupting a trip that he had taken to go to Europe to celebrate the 15th birthday of one of his daughters, PP Nisman, Head of the investigations into the AMIA bombings, decided to return unexpectedly to Argentina. He sent a message to his closest friends on WhatsApp to let them know.

Just one day after reaching Buenos Aires, Nisman announced that he was going to file a complaint against the President of the Nation, the Chancellor and Andrés Larroque, a Member of Parliament and Leader of the Youth Movement La Cámpora and against 2 social leaders, Luis D’Elía and Fernando Esteche, for allegedly attempting to cover up the Iranians accused, by a secret agreement with Iran for “trade”, an agreement that never existed.

The Dirty War Plot

As we know, on 18 January, Nisman was found dead in his apartment. But PP Nisman’s rigorous inquiry continues so that its final conclusions are watertight.

The Judicial Recess permitted PP Nisman to choose his judge. He chose Ariel Lijo. She takes cases invented against government officials for complaints based on journalistic information and without evidence. On 14 January, Nisman presented his report. It generated much scandal however he did not substantiate his incriminations, nor did he produce any evidence of the bombing that killed 85 persons in 1994.

Immediately, opposition leaders rose to support him, because this notice enabled them to mount a brutal attack against the government in election year.

PP Nisman promised that he would publicise the telephone tappings (illegal still today) in order to justify his charge. On 19 January he went to present his complaint before the Committee for Criminal Legislation of the House of Representatives, summoned by the opposition, although government support was also going to be present, to ask that this event to be open to the public and not held huis clos.

The phonetappings of conversations between social leaders and a person of the Islamic community broadcast illegally by a television channel of the Opposition could never prove anything. But on 19 January, Nisman’s death shocked the country, attracting the attention even of those outside Argentina.

In declarations made before the new public prosecutor, Nisan’s former wife, Judge Sandra Arroyo Salgado, who was in Barcelona, Spain, with the other daughter of her marriage, stated that Nisman called her on 12 January from Barajas Airport, Madrid. He told her that he had to return urgently to Buenos Aires because his mother was going to have an operation on one of her arms; that then he was going to return to Europe to continue his journey.

Arroyo Salgado says they had argued because she refused Nisman to return with his daughter to Buenos Aires and they agreed that he leave her in the airport so that her mother arrives to pick her up from Barcelona.

It is should also be noted that Nisman’s mother, Sara Garfunkel, declared in the proceedings that her arm had already been operated on. Nisman had lied to his family about having to return in great haste.

For this reason, the question is:

- Who called Nisman so urgently to file, only two days after his return, a complaint against a person of no lesser stature than the President?

Viviana Fein, the Public Prosecutor now investigating Nisman’s death, by any reckoning under intense pressure, said that the deceased had bought a return ticket from 12 January to 31 December. This then begs another question:

- Why did he send a message on WhatsApp to his closest friends, that he had to return unexpectedly? According to the press of the opposition, he sent it before he revealed that he had already bought the ticket. Or was it a plot that had already been woven beforehand?

The accusation was the bombshell at the beginning of the election year and the right wing Member of Parliament Patricia Bullrich, of Unión Por Todos-Propuesta Republicana, swiftly organized for Nisman to explain the report to a Congressional Committee.

Bullrich, who had spoken several times with PP Nisman before his death, is linked to several US foundations in Argentina; so is the MP Laura Alonso. Both of them are distinguished for supporting the most fundamentalist sectors of the United States against Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina or any country playing a prominent role in Latin American integration.

On the afternoon of Sunday 18 January, PP Nisman’s mother found him dead. Two guards had called her when he failed to respond. The flat was locked from within, including the service door that has two bolts; the one at the top, the mother was able to open but the one at the bottom had a key that was jammed from inside and they had to call a locksmith to open it.

Nisman’s body prevented the bathroom door being opened. There was a gunshot on his head, a pistol and a cartridge case of 22 bullet calibre were at his side, on the floor. A horrifying image. He was 51 years old. And the preliminary results from the autopsy carried out by acclaimed forensics in the presence of experts ruled that «no third party had intervened ».

All this information, as well as that subsequently discovered, mentioned a gunshot only a little more than 1 centimetre on his right temple. This makes one think it was suicide. The death was classified as “suspicious” until the experts concluded, some repeated that there was no doubt.

President Fernández de Kirchner, in her first Tweet, never said that it was a suicide. She even cast doubt on this, by putting a question mark after the word. And in her second Tweet she gave greater articulation to her belief that it was not a suicide. In any event, not an induced suicide, and specifically not induced by the government, given that in actual fact, her government is the only one that is affected in this game of foreign and local secret services and the domestic opposition, largely dependent on Washington and its foundations.

From Bolivia, President Evo Morales defined this situation accurately. He said they ambushed the Argentine President, in order to undermine her results.

It is a terrifying oversimplification to think that a government whose president is accused without any proof, on the basis of a report so deficient that it does not even appear to be drafted by a public prosecutor, could trigger the tragic death of this man.

The local political opposition, that already armed several coup scenarios in the country, took the fact as a red flag to charge the government. The media, especially the Group Clarin, that refuses to comply with the Audiovisual Media Law that required ending harmful media monopolies, began to speculate, thus confusing the population, a prisoner to this enormous power of misinformation.

The information had an intoxicating effect on the people such that noone knew how to distinguish the Investigating Public Prosecutor’s Report from the “parallel reports” that were broadcast on stage on TV.

It was the government that insisted that the meeting in the Congress was open to the public. This was so that the whole world could see what was going to be discussed there. Curiously, this was something the opposition rejected. The Governement legislators from the very moment that Bullrich summoned the special audience, declared that they were meeting to thoroughly question the Public Prosecutor to get to the the bottom of the matter. The Public Prosecutor’s death prevented this.

Nisman’s death is being used in a peverse manner by the opposition media network and by the entire network of global misinformation, under the reins of hegemonic power trying to inculpate the government in one of the fiercest campaigns we can recall.

The covert coup is being carried out by a sector of the Judiciary (a decadent structure that never has been democratised), by mass media, the opposition and the action of local intelligence services that were displaced by the Executive and came from the former dictatorship and before it. But undoubtedly, by the United States and Israel as well.

On the morning of 19 January 2015, the State of Israel published in the United States a brief press release on the “tragic circumstances” of the death of Nisman. A phrase that is code for “suicide”. And on the same day, the DAIA Secretary General, Jorge Knoblovits said to the Argentine media – as it is recorded– that “they think that it was a suicide” and that this entity was concerned on account of fate of the Proceedings. Why then did they change track?

Continuing with the line of action taken by the Israeli State, they encouraged continuing with the Proceedings – as if suggesting that someone had spoken of abandoning it. Also, of bringing to justice those responsible for the crime and continuing with what Nisman was doing. This means – and this cannot be lost sight of– maintaining the charge against Iran – which means continuing in the closed circle that began in July 1994 with false clues and false witnesses. What lies in the shadows of this Case?

At the scene of the crime

Diego Lagomarsino was a close colleague of the late public prosecutor. He was “an IT expert”, contracted by PP Nisman on an unusually high salary. He went to see PP Nisman on Saturday, 17 January. Lagomarsino presented himself spontaneously to the court to say that he had taken an old weapon, a calibre 22 pistol, which PP Nisman subsequently used to commint suicide.

First he said that Nisman asked him for a pistol to defend himself. But actually, Lagomarsino went twice to the building where PP Nisman was living, a building that was supposedly secure and highly patrolled, a service offered to those who bought flats in this area. From the last visit in the night, there are no records of him leaving. Fein, the investigator, said that according to the log, Lagomarsino left on Sunday morning, that is, the day after Nisman died.

The complete report published on 20 January is undeniably an item without legal value on account of the way it is written, its contradictions and its lack of evidence. The illegal phone tappings that were publicised by a television channel controlled by the Opposition also violated all rules. Yet they do not add anything. On the contrary, they make it look infantile. Recognized jurists indicate that although all what is said was certain, it does not constitute a crime because none of this took place.

A curious fact which is not acknowledged in the media: Damian Pachter, a collaborator on the Buenos Aires Herald internet site, on the night of 18 January twittered without notifying his paper, the scoop that PP Nisman had been found dead. He decided to leave the counry on the grounds of “fear”. First he bought a return ticket to Uruguay; but suddenly he appeared in Tel Aviv.

But what is strange is that he left for Uruguay and then went to Israel where he claims to have sought asylum. But we know that Pachter is Argentine-Israelí and that he travelled on an Israeli passport.

If he was an Israeli citizen and had been in the Israeli army for three years, why did he seek asylum?

Lagomarsino also was arranging to update his passport. This is why he went to the relevant offices on the same day that PP Nisman had published his accustations (12 January). Immediately after PP Nisman’s death, the authorities retained his passport and prevented him from leaving the country.

The suspicion surrounding Pachter grew when he gave several interviews to European media, where he talked of journalists being persecuted in Argentina – Argentina where the Opposition’s media publishes articles that insult the president and other officials without any problem.

Another important fact to record. PP Nisman used a luxury car, an Audi, from the son-in-law of one of those charged as a local accessory in the AMIA proceedings: Hugo Anzorreguy, who was the former head of the SIDE at the time AMIA was blown up. He was also connected to the former CIA agent Frank Holder, of little known business in Central America, that like many other former agents of other countries, handles local security companies.

In the United States, the most stubborn groups, like Republican Marco Rubio, Bob Menéndez and others, accuse the President and the Government of Argentina without any proof. This threatens and pressurizes the local Argentine judges, just like the Argentina mass media does, that in various ways, warns public prosecutors and judges that this case, like the AMIA case, they have to attribute “culpability” to those that they see fit. What is more, the calls of these lawmakers, sheds light on their connection with the Argentine Right.

They want to remove the government in a way that appears in conformity with due process; a bloodless coup, but with deaths. They do not want the truth.

In addition to striking Argentina at the same time that a prospect of a coup against President Nicolás Maduro was growing in Venezuela, they try to weaken institutions for unity and integration that are gathering strength in Latin America.

If something was missing in ending this series, it was made known that the former president of Uruguay, José Mujica, denied the story that a diplomat of the Iranian Embassy in Montevideo was expelled 2 weeks before in relation to the placement of an explostive device in the vicinities of the Israeli embassy in this city. This verison was published in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretzy, and picked up again by serveral media outlets around the world.

But there still is one question that may have a quick response: what are the experts of false flag attacks in our countries now plotting?

- “Buenos Aires bombing in 1994 allegedly instigated by former Interior Minister”, Voltaire Network, 3 July 2013.
- “Argentina’s President slams Israel Lobby”, Voltaire Network, 18 February 2013.
- « Mensaje de Cristina Fernández sobre el Memorandum entre Argentina e Iran», por Cristina Fernández de Kirchner , Red Voltaire , 8 de febrero de 2013.
- “False Flag Attacks in Argentina: 1992 and 1994”, by Adrian Salbuchi, James Fetzer, Voltaire Network, 13 October 2009.
- “Iran and the AMIA Bombing in Argentina”, by Belén Fernández, Voltaire Network, 26 July 2009.
- «El AJC acusa al Hezbollah de los atentados de Buenos Aires a pesar del fallo de la Corte Suprema argentina», Red Voltaire , 16 de agosto de 2006.
- «Fuga documentación clasificada de inteligencia sobre atentado terrorista», por José Petrosino, Oscar Abudara Bini, Red Tango, Red Voltaire , 27 de septiembre de 2006.
- «Se acusa a los musulmanes de los ataques a AMIA y la embajada de Israel sin pruebas», por Juan Gabriel Labaké, Red Voltaire , 4 de septiembre de 2006.
- «Investigando la bomba en la Asociación Mutual Israelita», por José Petrosino, Red Voltaire , 22 de julio de 2006.
- «¿Musulmanes o pista israelí?», por José Petrosino, Oscar Abudara Bini, Red Voltaire , 22 de julio de 2006.
- «Washington pretende rescribir la historia de los atentados de Buenos Aires», por Thierry Meyssan, Red Voltaire , 20 de julio de 2006.
- «Kirchner y el sistema de inteligencia argentino», por Jorge Serrano Torres, Red Voltaire , 26 de septiembre de 2004.
- «Nota del ministerio de las relaciones exteriores de Argentina, 25 de Agosto de 2003», Red Voltaire , 25 de agosto de 2003.

Anoosha Boralessa
Contralínea (Mexico)