(RSF/IFEX) – On 13 November 2003, RSF officially associated itself with the criminal proceedings launched in Spain against the three American soldiers responsible for shelling the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad on 8 April, killing Spanish cameraman José Couso. “By associating ourselves with these proceedings we hope to give them more weight,” RSF President Fernando Castello […]
(RSF/IFEX) – On 13 November 2003, RSF officially associated itself with the criminal proceedings launched in Spain against the three American soldiers responsible for shelling the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad on 8 April, killing Spanish cameraman José Couso.
“By associating ourselves with these proceedings we hope to give them more weight,” RSF President Fernando Castello said. “The public prosecutor seems reluctant to pursue this case, but the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts has been clearly established,” he added.
Couso’s widow and one of his sisters have also associated themselves with the complaint, which the deceased journalist’s brother, David Couso, filed on 27 May, claiming that the shelling constituted a “war crime” and “murder.” On 21 October, a judge with Spain’s principal criminal court ruled that the case could be heard.
The complaint names three soldiers from the 64th armoured regiment of the United States (US) Army’s Third Infantry Division: Sgt Gibson, who fired the shot, Capt. Philip Wolford, the unit’s commander, and Lt. Col. Philip de Camp, the regiment’s commander, who gave the order to fire.
Couso worked for the Spanish commercial television station Telecinco. Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian cameraman working for the Reuters news agency, was also killed in the incident, while two other journalists and a technician were wounded. At the time of the shelling, the Palestine Hotel was housing several hundred journalists who had come to cover the war in Iraq.
A US Army enquiry concluded on 12 August that the tank’s crew had followed rules and acted in self-defence. At the time, however, RSF Secretary-General Robert Ménard said, “The information in our possession indicates the exact opposite of the self-defence theory. To maintain it is a lie.”
