Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05WARSAW4058, 2006 HAGUE COMPLIANCE REPORT PREPARATION -- POLAND

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05WARSAW4058.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05WARSAW4058 2005-12-15 17:07 2011-08-24 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Warsaw
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS WARSAW 004058 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR CA/OCS/CI 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CASC KOCI PL
SUBJECT: 2006 HAGUE COMPLIANCE REPORT PREPARATION -- POLAND 
 
REF: A. 05 SECSTATE 220951, B. 05 WARSAW 4022 
 
1. (SBU) We welcome the opportunity to provide comments 
related to Poland's compliance with The Hague Convention 
provisions.   Although we generally agree with the negative 
portrayal of Poland's compliance efforts, we believe that 
Poland has made some small progress in its handling of Hague 
cases that should be recognized. 
 
2. (SBU)  As a result of recent presidential and legislative 
elections, a new government came into office on October 31, 
2005, and a new President will be inaugurated on December 
23, 2005.  The new government and its supporters are made up 
of representatives of parties previously in opposition.  As 
we have only just begun to work with this government as they 
formulate their policies, we advocate giving them an 
opportunity to work towards a resolution of the problems 
presented in reftel A before downgrading Poland to "not 
fully compliant". 
 
3. (SBU) We have expressed our concerns regarding Poland's 
lack of compliance with the new government.  On December 6, 
2005, Ambassador Ashe met with the new Justice Minister, 
Zbigniew Ziobro, and raised this issue.  The Minister was 
not familiar with the Convention, so we followed up by 
providing  a background memorandum to him  laying out the 
details of our concerns related to the Hague convention and 
Poland's lack of demonstrated ability to comply with its 
obligations.  On January 30, 2006, Assistant Secretary Harty 
will be chair a session of the US/Poland Joint Consular 
Working Group, which will present another opportunity to 
raise Hague Convention compliance with GOP officials. 
 
OTHER COMPLIANCE ISSUES 
 
4. (SBU) Although we concur in part with the assessment in 
reftel A, we do wish to highlight the fact that this 
assessment is based upon evidence from very few cases.  Post 
is currently following three Hague cases (Szuta, Mikolajczak 
and Sawicki) and it is difficult to make overall 
generalizations based on the limited evidence from these 
cases. 
 
5. (SBU) Regarding the specific concerns raised in reftel, 
we agree with the description of the Szuta case as an 
egregious example of Poland's lack of compliance with the 
Hague convention.  We also concur with the description of 
the difficulties experienced by left-behind parents in 
enforcing return orders.  We do feel, however, that we may 
be seeing some signs of improvement in the way Hague cases 
are being handled in Poland.  In the Sawicki case (reftel B) 
the court specifically rejected the taking parent's motion 
for psychological studies despite her allegations of abuse 
by the left-behind parent.  The court also refused to hear 
testimony related to the current condition of the child as 
custody of the child was not at issue nor relevant to the 
Hague hearing.  Regarding the time it has taken to hear 
cases and to reach a decision, the Sawicki court has been 
moving at a much faster pace than the court in Szuta.  After 
a two-month delay caused by the unsuccessful motion of the 
left-behind parent for a change of venue to Warsaw, the case 
has moved forward relatively quickly.  The final decision on 
Sawicki is due December 21, meaning the time from the denial 
of the change of venue motion to the issuance of the 
decision in the Hague case will be exactly 3 months. 
 
ASHE