A federal judge in New York rejected on Thursday the motion presented by former President of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández, between 2014 and 2022, to make a new trial, after finding him guilty in March of conspiracy and drug trafficking while in office.

Hernández used the alleged trough that DEA analyst Jennifer Taul lied in the criminal trial in which she was blamed for working with cartel-backed drug traffickers to transport cocaine through Honduras destined mainly to the United States.

Taul defended in the trial that cocaine trafficking through Honduras increased during Hernández’s two periods, while the former president argued that it actually decreased using as a source a professor from Trinity College who assured that the amount of this drug from Honduras to the United States had fallen by 82% during his government.

The federal district judge P. Kevin Castel questioned that claim and clarified that Hernández was convicted of conspiring with drug traffickers “regardless of whether the total cocaine trafficking in Honduras increased or decreased” while he was president.

“The evidence that cocaine trafficking through Honduras as a whole decreased during the Hernández administration would only be relevant to demonstrate that Hernández promulgated anti-narcotic policies,” he said.

In his motion, Hernández alleged that Manhattan (New York) was not the right place to judge his case, but the South district of Florida for landing for the first time in Fort Lauderdale after being sent from Tegucigalpa (Honduras).

Castel also dismissed this thesis, with the explanation that the time that Hernández spent in South Florida was equivalent to a half-hour stopover en route to a New York airport, who knew the stop and who never before opposed the chosen place.

During the trial against Hernández, the Prosecutor’s Office presented as main witnesses drug traffickers from Honduras who are serving sentence in the United States after reaching an agreement with the authorities for the reduction of his sentence, as well as the DEA agent.

“The accused accepted millions of dollars in bribes from his drug trafficking partners and, in return, he protected his drugs with all the power of the State, including the Honduran police, the military and judicial system,” the Prosecutor’s Office explained during the process.
His sentence is scheduled for June 26 and faces life imprisonment.

Social Democrat Peter Pellegrini, supported by the coalition government with proximity to Russia and Hungary, and the diplomat Ivan Korcok, supported by the liberal and progressive opposition who defend to help Ukraine militarily, will compete for the Presidency of Slovakia in a second round on April 6.

With 85% of the scrutiny, Korcok achieved 39.2% of the ballots, while Pellegrini received 39%, according to the statistical office that offered the live scrutiny.

Since his return to power at the head of a coalition of leftist populists and ultra-nationalists, Prime Minister Robert Fico has reoriented foreign policy towards a more favorable position to Russia and has attacked independent institutions, such as the judiciary, dismantling the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office that investigated senior officials in the formation of the head of the Government.

In this context, the Presidency becomes a key position to control the executive power.

“The country is not well and I want it to move,” Korkoc said after learning the preliminary results that give the passage to the second round and in reference to the massive protests against the latest measures of the coalition executive.

“Slovakia has lost the compass in foreign policy,” the experienced diplomat also said about the radical turn that has meant to stop supporting Ukraine militarily since Fico came to power, unlike what happened in the previous legislature.

The participation of 50 percent was slightly higher than the 48 percent there was five years ago, when the current head of state, Zuzana Caputova, and the then vice president of the European Commission, Maros Sefcovic, passed the second round.

Pellegrini stressed that the country now needs “concord,” and “not to witness continuous conflicts between politicians and institutional representatives.”

It must be seen which of the two candidates will be able to attract the most nationalist and radical vote that has not managed to be represented in these elections, since, despite the differences in political ideology, there are many points on which Pellegrini and Korcok agree, the latter has recognized.

Pellegrini already has a remarkable trajectory: he has been prime minister and currently presides over Parliament for the second time.

In addition, he leads his own party, La Voz (“Hlas”), after having been a minister on several occasions.

Hlas is a split of the social democratic formation Smer de Fico, the politician who has been at the head of the Government in Slovakia for the longest time and who in recent years, since the pandemic, has resulted in populist, anti-immigration, reluctant with vaccines and pro-Russian positions.

The main criticism that Pellegrini receives is that he has not managed to disassociate himself from the figure of his previous leader, Fico, and it is unknown if as president he will be able to put a halt to some of the reforms of the Executive that violate the rule of law.

Korcok, 59, former foreign minister and former ambassador in the United States, Germany and the EU, presents himself as the counterweight to the current government.

His profile is close to that of the outgoing president, the liberal Caputova, who has hindered the controversial reforms of the Government.

On April 6, the Slovaks will choose the successor of Caputova, the country’s first female president, after she decided not to seek a second term. The outgoing president, who has sued Prime Minister Fico for calling her a “traitor” and an “American agent,” says she does not have the energy to continue for another five years, citing threats against her family in a very polarized period of Slovak politics.

Caputova expressed his hope that his successor “will represent the country well abroad.”

The United States will present in the coming days, probably tomorrow, a resolution in which for the first time it will specifically ask for “an immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, after having opposed three resolutions of other countries that requested it.

It was Secretary of State Antony Blinken who announced a few hours ago in Cairo that the resolution had been presented to the Council, but there is no certainty that it will be voted on tomorrow.

Blinken made it clear that the ceasefire would be “linked to the release of the hostages” in the hands of Hamas, although that release is no longer a precondition, as appeared in the first versions of the text circulated by the American diplomats.

The United States needed to present six different versions for more than a month until it reached what seems like a consensus text. It remains to be seen if it gets the support of nine nations and does not receive a veto by any permanent member country (in this case Russia or China). Two necessary conditions to approve any resolution.

The key paragraph of the Washington resolution says that “an immediate and sustained ceasefire is imperative to protect civilians on both sides, allow the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, alleviate human suffering (…) and support diplomatic efforts to guarantee that ceasefire in connection with the release of all hostages.”

Last Monday’s publication of a UN report that warned that 1.1 million Gazans face the most serious levels of famine and food insecurity in a matter of days seems to have accelerated U.S. diplomatic efforts.

The French ambassador to the UN, Nicolas de Rivière, went out that same Monday to ask for urgent action from the Council to stop the war “now, not next week,” he said graphically.

In the previous resolutions vetoed by the United States, American diplomacy criticized several details: that they did not reflect Israel’s right to defend itself, that they did not condemn Hamas as a “terrorist” and that if a ceasefire was declared, that would allow the rearmament of Hamas.

Therefore, in this resolution that Washington now promotes, those same ideas appear in some way but in a more lowered tone, in order to win the support of member countries such as Russia, China or Algeria, which have harshly criticized on the past occasions the American attitude of seamless support for Israel.

The new resolution makes precise allusions to the protection of civilians, access to humanitarian aid, opposition to altering the map of Gaza with ‘security runners’ and the rejection of the forced displacement of civilians, arguments that can garner unanimous support from all countries.

However, it also contains phrases that are more difficult to achieve consensus, such as the request to Member States to “intensify their efforts to suppress the financing of terrorism, including restrictions on the financing of Hamas.”

In any case, the calls for a ceasefire already come from all UN agencies, from Muslim, African and Asian countries. And now also from the majority of the Western world, including countries that in the first weeks of the war had a more pro-Israeli attitude as in the case of France and the United Kingdom.