Alex Saab’s defense team assures that the federal prosecutors handling the case know that they will not be able to dismantle the diplomatic immunity of the Colombian businessman.

Therefore, the diplomat’s lawyers have focused their trial on presuming that the Department of Justice seeks to delay the hearings in order to generate desperation; with what they seek to achieve is that Alex Saab collaborates with them, extracting information from the Venezuelan government, which may be useful to Juan Guaidó, political opposition leader of Venezuela.

This including that Alex Saab, has been exposed to ill-treatment since his illegal detention in Cape Verde in 2020; so in the African country “he was tortured”; with the purpose of extracting information from the government of Venezuela, Alleged Nancy Hollander in a videoconference with her colleague in the defense team, David Rivkin.

“Why would the Justice Department do this, when they knew they were going to lose? I think what they wanted was to get information from Mr. Saab and wanted him to provide information about the Maduro government that they could use” to strengthen the movement led by opposition leader Juan Guaidó,” Hollander told the Nuevo Herald.

“But he’s not going to cooperate, he’s not going to do it. He’s a strong man, and the government failed in its efforts in Cape Verde” and he’s not going to get it in the United States, he added.

Update on the Alex Saab case

Alex Saab is being illegally detained, which is a fact labeled by the Venezuelan government as “kidnapping”, in the United States; the case is being handled by the prosecutor’s office in Miami.

Therefore, the Eleventh Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta must rule on the appeal previously filed by the defense alleging that Saab cannot be prosecuted because he enjoys diplomatic immunity.

Rivkin, who is involved in the defense before the appeals court, said the way prosecutors are handling the case hints that they do not feel very confident about the argument that Saab does not enjoy immunity.

“One can read the briefs and feel what level of confidence it underlines. So far the arguments are not among the strongest,” said Rivkin, who plans to argue the case before the appeals court in April.

Being then, a valid argument since his illegal detention in Cape Verde, having diplomatic immunity; in view that the government of Venezuela, had appointed him “Special Envoy to Iran”, and because of that, the African country should have released him; considering that Cape Verde did not.