The Selective and Abusive Usage of Law

[Music] Hello, Kachim Bunas. Welcome back to Season 7. This is the third episode of Season 7 and it's a special one. I invited back the homee Hordequea to discuss the recent judicial decision on the Santa Marta 5 retrial. Last episode was a panel discussion with Carrie McLean from the National Lawyers Guild in Burning Him and a professor from Ontario, Canada. Now, Hordequea and I are getting more into the trial decision but also this concept of law fair and the legal system for political ends. And just drawing on Hordequea's knowledge of Salvadoran history to compare and contrast the transnational solidarity work happening now to that that was happening in the 1980s and the part of CESFIS. And just also getting into other instances of law fair, you know, post the charging and prosecution of the Santa Marta 5. There have been multiple instances of, you know, high profile ones as well of human rights lawyers being, for example, being falsely arrested and indefinitely detained under the book of a list of the state of exception. So we're going to get into all of that today. Again, if you want to support the podcast, this is a 100% independent podcast, very small operation. It's two of us who do this outside of our full-time jobs. And I want to continue bringing all content and really the only way to do that is if the Patreon membership increases. And when you do become a patron, you actually get the amazing benefit of the lit review of Book Club for Catching Bonus. It's Patreon only segment. I've unlocked a few of them on the podcast suite if you want to listen and see if you enjoy. But there's dozens of Patreon exclusive lit reviews where myself and other women of color break down timely texts. So thank you so much to everyone who is listening. If you want to join the Patreon, the link to join is in the show notes. And it's also always in the link in my bio on Instagram. You can follow @aggbona on Instagram, X and Facebook. If you want to support but are unable to do so monetarily, you can leave an Apple podcast or Spotify rating and review. It helps us gain new listeners, helps keep the podcast visibility up and it's a great way to support. So thank you to Grant Bloom for the editing and for the intro as always. And I hope that you all enjoy this episode. Bye Catching Bonus. [Music] Okay, hello Catching Bonus. I'm what? Did you say something? No, it didn't say anything. I didn't say anything. What an amazing way to do that. Okay, hello Catching Bonus. I'm very excited to bring back my esteemed guest, Hold Hick Played. We're going to be talking about the recent re-trial verdict of the something like the five. But also talking a little bit about a forthcoming article that we wrote based on our experiences as international servers of the October 24 trial. But before we get into it, just wanted to say, Hold Hick, thank you for coming onto the podcast. Yeah, no, thanks for having me again, if it is good to be in conversation about this, especially with what just happened to. For sure. So to start, I just wanted to give an update of what's happened and then we're going to get into the conversation. So on to pepper 24, the appeals court found the something like the five, not guilty of the murder of Maria Ines Alba Renga. The attorney general can still appeal the case. So it's their legal saga is still ongoing. The fives whereabouts are still unknown as well. And this is a trial that's been ongoing for years at this point. Hold Hick and I observed the first trial in October of last year. And wanted to focus on this on how, how much the sense of month of five have already suffered, even though at the end result of both of their trials. They were found not guilty. They're still living under state repression. You know, they were held eight months in Coventy-Thadal when they were first arrested. And then they were eventually held on house arrest after international pressure. They were subject to a multi day trial that we witnessed during which they were the totality which they were handcuffed. And then they were informed of the attorney general appeal after their fiddles. And I think we both think that all of this is an example of law fair or the weaponization of the legal system for political ends. But before we get more into that, I wanted to ask if you could define what law fair is and how you seen it work in this case of the month of five. Yeah. No, thank you for that recap too. Like what I like that you point out the fact that a lot of the damage of the case and the and the retrials right that they've gone through is actually not the damage. Of being inside the courtroom, awaiting a verdict, but in fact it's in that stuff that happens before those moments right in that kind of violence that and hardship that that the five have had to endure right the the antagonism of the state, the intimidation right of officers. The kind of indeterminate and uncertainty right of waiting for for their for the results right and all of that in being under house arrest all that is something we don't get to see really right is just kind of time passing by. But a lot of the effect of the judicial system as implemented by the naïve book early government today against social movements happens in those kind of quiet moments that are off camera no. And so you know that brings me to what is law fair law fair is exactly this know the the selective and like abusive utilization of law to disqualify to stigmatize and criminalize political opposition in this case environmental defenders right. And attempting to maintain that that legitimacy that veneer right of judicial process and transparency and that and so using the law in this kind of negative way right to go after groups that stand in opposition to state interests in this case mining right in the Cavanias region is is an instance of how the laws is weaponized as you said, if it right and so. So the oftentimes the way it expresses itself is in this kind of exaggeration of of of of charges right of that's as we saw in this case that they're dredging up issues from the 1980s from the war right and bringing them to the president using things like terrorism corruption right these kinds of weird nebulous concepts in order to. Deligitimize the work of of social leaders in many instances are human rights defenders right in ways that. Shape public opinion and often and often whose goal is really to destroy the reputation of these people right in a really in a really deep in a really deep way. And so that's what we saw here you know we see in a Latin America very often like they did this to Lula right in Brazil they've done it to ever more Alice in Bolivia right law fair expresses itself in in a lot of different ways but it's not but it but it's primarily something that. Has become more common in in attacking and disarticulating social movements right and civil society organizations right accusing them of you know organized crime or rebellion right. And we see that, we see that very clearly in this case. But we also see it with like the way that this government in El Salvador has gone after human rights defenders, feminists, right? The environmental activists around, I think it's not El Estor, but the case with Alejandro Antonio Enriquez, right? Fidel Sabála, all these folks who, you know, we're still holding the line in terms of defending their communities, the environment, and attempting to protect their communities from the encroachment of this aggressive state. And so those people are being maligned and reframed as being these essentially criminals or foreign agents in many instances. And this is the way sort of law fair has expressed itself in Latin America and in El Salvador specifically. - Yeah, thank you, that's super helpful. And I just wanted to like draw out some of the threads that you just presented us with. So this was very much a selective prosecution, which he mentioned is a feature of law fair because the Attorney General's unit that brought this case was one that was supposed to be focused on war crimes. And the Truth of Reconciliation Commission report tells us that 90% of the violence and death that occurred during the Civil War of what's perpetrated on the part of the Salvadoran military. So for the Attorney General's Office to use their war crimes unit to bring this case against Gidea members for the alleged murder of one person is probably the best example of selective prosecution because it's like, it's like offensive in this context where so much of the like, you know, we can talk about whether prosecution and adversarial trials are the best way to adjudicate war crimes. But if that is ostensibly what you're charged with, it's offensive that you're going after since the month of the five former Gidea fighters when you have not and will not ever prosecute like the government officials, the military people that were the ones that were engaging in the vast majority of the violence. - Yeah, no, there's an incredible hypocrisy in the way that the legal system is being utilized. Like you said, selectively, right? In order to try people on war crimes that, you know, after 1992 there was an amnesty, right? So there's really no legal grounding to go back and bring this up. But yet nonetheless, right? In this guy is to present itself as like rectifying the issues of past history in El Salvador, they're using this right to dismantle activist networks and supposedly suppress dissent, right? And go against civil society organizations that are linked to that sort of progressive current in El Salvador. (upbeat music) - You just wanted to talk Sean what you said about the amnesty which should have made it so it this couldn't be brought. Also, there's the issue that the statute of limitations would normally apply like, you know, in the law there's this idea that after a certain time period, like even if you theoretically have committed a crime, you should be able to live in society without the worry that you'll be prosecuted for it. And the statute of limitations, like, would have made it so that this really, 'cause this is a crime that occurred like in '79, maybe, or it was during the Civil War years, it was a really long time ago. And that came out in the trial where it was full of the witnesses were like, "I don't really remember." But I think that's where the exaggeration of charges comes in that you were mentioning too, is that 'cause like the way that the Attorney General got around the statute of limitations is that they did charge these, they did charge this as a war crime. And so there's no statute of limitations that would be for war crimes. So that's how they were able to get around that. - Yeah, and you know, like, I think your listeners were really sort of care why we're focusing so much on the Santa Marta trial. And the reason is because it's emblematic, no? It's emblematic in the way that this new strategy of Lafayr that we're identifying in the Bukheli government that goes from the dismissing of constitutional court judges that we're placing of tribunals all over the country, right, and like the-- - Extracting the courts. - The remaking of the judicial system in the image of what Bukheli desires is emblematic here. And we see this again too with the case of Ruth Lopez of Christos Maria. - Yeah. - I was thinking about Alejandro Enriquez from the El bosque community that are trying to push back against the development and accumulation of that land by the government to build skyscrapers and apartment complexes and stuff like that. But this is very emblematic because we see it play like every single aspect of how the state has infiltrated the judicial system is being played out here. So a lot of what I remember you and I at that first international observation mission, a lot of it was like this is kind of a stress test to see where the system really is and whether or not it could actually deliver justice, right? Is it still like a valid forum to work out these kinds of issues or is it already so far gone that it can actually, that it can't deliver, right? And what ended up happening is that it seemed like it couldn't deliver in that moment, no? Because there was a trial, right? But yeah. - Well, I guess, I mean, I think this is like, why this is a quintessential example of law fair? Because like an appeals mechanism for example, like should be something that always exists within a legal system, like you should be able to get a second or third opinion on something. But and like this case is a complicated one because both sets of judges did the right thing. - Yeah. - You know, so like a story could be told about how due process was met in this instance because or that are not too, immoyal to process, but the judicial independence was shown during this process because theoretically, like both sets of judges found them not guilty. But that's why like during the panel that I spoke on and also like now that we're doing this interview, I just, and to start off explaining the story, I just wanted to emphasize that even though like in the end, the legal result was what we wanted, like the legal system itself and all of its mechanisms are subjugating and like we're intentionally subjugating in this instance to these environmental defenders, like who Guquella wants to chill, now that he wants to bring mining back to the country. - Yeah, and like one of the things that was really unique about this case, right, was the incredible sort of international visibility of it, the resources as well. Like I remember we had that conversation with folks when we were there, right, that the Santa Marta cases emblematic and representative because it is the kind of, the tip of the iceberg, right? It's the visible part of a larger process, right? Of a larger process of actually other communities that are being similarly impacted, similarly criminalized, marginalized displaced, et cetera, but that don't have the resources to be visible at this level, right? And so that's another sort of key aspect of this, right? Because it shows that while yes, some of the results that came down were acceptable, and sort of accurate. - Yeah. This is a very hard fought victory that required incredible amounts of resources, visibility, public action, international solidarity, right? That other struggles that are happening in parallel are not, don't get that kind of visibility yet. - Yeah. And I do think it's important to also note like how this idea of organized crime or illicit associations is also weaponized both in the Santa Marta Five case, but also kind of, more broadly under his legal state of exception because the whole basis of arresting so many people is that they're involved, they're all involved in the gang and so that they're a part of this elicit association, they're a part of this organized crime. And it's I think just important for people to take a step back and like even though like these words sound scary or like these accusations sound scary like oh organized crime like oh listen associations like you should actually investigate or like look further into what these relationships are because it's really like the criminalization of solidarity that is like especially in the sentiment of the five days in particular it's criminalizing like their relationships as the former Gideos but also their relationships as environmental defenders into this month of my community that is really like what is being criminalized and like that's what these laws allow for especially in the context of a legal system like Dylan's that has been that he is like very actively weaponizing and it's you know there's like what apparelos the US to to the criminalization of the activists of stop cop city they and like mutual aid and the targeting of bail funds all it's all an example of criminalizing people because they came together and tried to engage in solidarity and mutual aid with other people and that's like a really really really scary thing. Yeah I mean I'm glad that you brought up the the state of exception because it's that's the thing that has been that's sort of the backdrop to all of this all of this and it's like it's been incredibly normalized right like it's the kind of just this normal state of things now and I think that is is part of another I guess another aspect of why the sentiment that case is so critical to understand in its fullness because it's actually trying to help us remind us really right that under the constitution of El Salvador all persons are equal before the law it guarantees freedom of association right assembly and expression all that kind of stuff that has been you know thrown by the wayside with the state of exception right and so we're in this and and and becomes so normalized that we can't even think it's very difficult rather to think about those constitutional guarantees that are no longer available right to to citizens right this is why speech has been totally chilled in El Salvador right people's organization their participation in political activities right has been criminalized right and and so people oftentimes don't do it or they say or they speak you know quietly around political issues in a way that this is what this is what is at stake right with the Santa Martha case because it it demonstrates that and like I like how you said this if it like it's criminalizing solidarity right because it's it's demonstrating that you know this really strong network that is intergenerational that's decades deep right that has gone through a whole historical process of the Salvadoran internal armed conflict right can be dismantled can be destroyed right can be totally done away with and what the what the victories that that the five have had right demonstrates that no those actually those links and that fabric right that ties them all together the community them right international solidarity you and I right is is still strong and that and that is something that's also in play in in this in this case now so you mentioned a little bit how this you know how the Santa Martha how the community of Santa Martha represents like intergenerational transnational solidarity that really goes back to the civil war period so wanted to ask you if you've noticed differences between that initial that initial transnational solidarity that was happening in the 80s versus like what's happening now and I think part of what is well I think one place to start would be like the increased or or I don't know maybe it's parallel government surveillance such chilling speech and political activity but yeah I'll let you take it for me yeah I mean like I think the comparison to the 1980s is really interesting especially around the question of of transnational solidarity I think we're in a different moment in the sense that those kinds of progressive groupings and you know strong community organizations that were politically active in a in a way that critiqued and brought to question uh US foreign policy right in that in that period are kind of like not there in the same way that critical mass right because remember you know post Vietnam right we're in the cold war there was so many um uh kinds of abuses of power by the United States internationally that it that it really gathered an anti-war movement right that that connected with um religious and and and and community groups that also added right to to that movement that then became sanctuary to some degree but we don't we're not seeing that at the moment um right um even though it back then it was also clandestine right I think there are clandestine networks now um people are moving in in ways that um are supporting these groups right like such as anta-madata migrants etc but it's not that kind of critical mass that has that permeated the general public right um we're not we're not there yet uh and the reason being is because there's two regimes right um uh the bouquet le regime and the trump regime that are very much kind of like entangled with one another enamored with one another right in cooots with one another that are that are um that are kind of minimizing right and and pushing down these kinds of efforts and you see it right in the way that bouquelismo right has has become a kind of common sense among Salvadoran uh diasporans in the United States that has created another you know um you know ideological problem in around organizing around bringing attention to the abuses and misuses of the law right and of the state and of the military and of the police um in bouquelles government right it's it's really made that uh it's added another layer another complicating layer um whereas i think that the um clarity of the foreign policy situation in in al-savador um in the 1980s right um where the fmln also had an incredible international visibility right that that showcased the abuses of power um the massacres right the funding uh that was coming from the united states to um to the to fund repression in al-savador was um also created other conditions for people to be aware of what was going on and and and today i think that's much more challenging and this kind of sort of media ecosystem that we're in no it's just much more challenging to um to fight the algorithm in some kind of way right in order to get some of this messages across in a way that brings uh some of these uh issues and and details around um you know cases like Santa Marta and others right um to uh the general public's eye i do wonder if some of the common sense of galeithmo among the diaspora is lessening now um maybe because of kill mara brigo garcia you know um there's a lot of desks for al-savadorians that are protected under tps which is a precarious legal status that's comparable to what kill mara brigo garcia had um although what we what he had i think this maybe arguably should have even been more protective because he had what's been granted was holding a removal which you get when you can prove that it's more likely than not that you be persecuted if you return to as of al-savador to your country of origin and um with tps it's like a it's a conditional temper set us as renewed every two years by the president and can be revoked they have to like give a reason why but anyway my point is that there's like a lot of salvadorians who i think maybe like understood that their they have a precarious legal status similar to kemar brigo garcia's and maybe previously they had an ambition that they would be deporting to sickle up But now they're seeing that yes, this is a possibility and that it is a possibility because of Trump and Bucharest post-relationship. Because I will say my mom, who's been a Bucharest supporter for many years, kind of tuned me out whenever I would talk to her about it, has now said that she's changed her mind. And the reason she gave was freedom of expression being curtailed, which-- yeah, I was like, I don't even know-- you thought about that. Or like, I don't know, she's not-- she's not going to be a very political person whole life. So I was really shocked at that. But she's like, yeah, I don't like that that's what's happening. And then my uncle has also changed his tune. And he's campaigning amongst our family members. It's his boldest year to get them to not vote for him. So I wonder if you've seen any diminishment amongst your community, or if it's still feeling like there is that common sense that hasn't been-- Yeah. Well, I mean, I just got back from El Salvador. And it was interesting because it was in the moment where the Kilmar, his trials and tribulations were still playing out. I mean, they're still playing out right now. But they're a very kind of present in people's minds. And actually, many people that I spoke to were actually in agreement with the Bukheli administration and offering these kinds of penitentiary services to the United States for people like Kilmar. In some ways, they saw it as positive. And I don't know how that-- Oh, no. How representative that is of the general population, but they actually saw that as a good thing. And I think about this-- Like what? Like economically? Economically, right? They also see it as-- They want to incarcerate the dangerous for health. They get rid of the bad people. There's more space for the good people. And so this kind of logic that to me was very scary. But also, I understand it because during the prior administrations before Bukheli, there was always this conversation about we have to be in the good graces of the United States. We have to always maintain that positive relationship, that special relationship with the United States in order to allow for the labor stream of migrants to the US to continue. Yeah. To keep their remittances also to keep harder economy. Yeah. And so this is-- but many people are seeing some of this is like, this is a good thing to offer-- to offer carceral services to the United States. And make use for this mega-prison that there's been a lot of investment into-- To service that. I mean, that's like a tale is all this time. If you build a prison and you put beds in there, they will be filled. Yeah. And then putting a lot of people in the US, I think my sample size here is very limited because I don't live near a lot of Salvadoran community. But-- You know, bless you. You live in New Hampshire. Yeah. But from Latinos that I've spoken to out here, there's a mini kids, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Guatemalaans. They see this as like-- this is also a good thing. They see this as a good thing. And they support what Buckele is doing. There's still this kind of like we want our own Buckele. He should become president of all Central America. All this kind of stuff is still very much present in other Latino communities. Within Salvadoran communities, I think some of this might be changing, but it's still very slow moving. Because there's always-- there's like a propaganda counterpoint that the state always has that if we want to get rid of Buckele because he is an authoritarian or he's a dictator, all the gangsters are going to be released. And they're going to be back on the streets. We can't get back to that. And so that argument, which is a very common sense to go argument in some weird way, right, is still very impactful on the way that people end up expressing their negative-- negativity or positivity in relationship to Buckele. Yeah. [INAUDIBLE] Wow. I'm kind of shocked at everything you just said. But I guess not shocked at the same time. I know that Buckele has popularity amongst other Latin American groups, slash Latin American diaspora's because I've heard it. And that's also why I continue putting out Buckele information on the podcast, because there's other groups that listen to the podcast. And people are like-- multiple people are going to be like, oh my gosh, you're the first person that's presented a critical view of Buckele, like every other media source that I consumed or other way that I've heard about this person has been praising him. So I know the propaganda machine is very strong. It's just a little disheartening because I like-- I think it's very terrible. And this is why criminalization is so dangerous. And why I'm abolitionist is the things that happen after you label someone a criminal is terrifying. And I think people do this thing where they're like, there's a dichotomy, and there's criminals, and then there's everyone else. And they're a part of the everyone else. And they're never going to be a part of the criminal groups so they don't need to think about what happens to them. Because it's the only way you can get to a place where you're like, oh, well, ethnically, maybe we should impart sorry people in sickle. And not care about the conditions there and what happens. But in California, I went through a similar thing to last year there was an initiative that would have outlawed slavery as in it would have outlawed prison labor. And it was like it didn't pass. And I also was confused about that. And my friend was like, well, I think that-- because I'm like, what's controversial about ending slave labor in the United States, like the unledged land of the free? And she was like, well, I think what happens is people are like they're incarcerated. They must have done something really bad to have been there. And I don't really care what happens to them, though. And it's that logic is so far in widespread. Yeah, it's sort of like it reinforces itself once someone's been realized their criminalization reinforces itself. And in El Salvador, you brought up the question of prison labor. That's a huge part of the profit making. Yeah, to lay-- Supposedly rehabilitate prisoners. But in fact, it's just them doing free labor, no? But for many people, that's a good thing. Oh, they're learning the skill. And so there's a way that there's a positive spin on it, even though what it signifies is much more dystopian. Much more dystopian. OK, the last question I had was just about what other cases of political persecution/lofter have you heard of since we witnessed a trial this month and months and five. We mentioned-- we didn't mention Bruce Lopez. Yeah. OK, yeah, there's Peter Savala, Bruce Lopez, both are lawyers, both-- oh, and then there's also been ripple effects, like groups like Lisa Salen, Unidec, and Socorro Horigico that have provided legal accompaniment to folks being persecuted by Chile, have had to flee the country altogether because of these increasing threats of arrest. Yeah, I mean, all those cases, the one El Bosque that I mentioned as well, right, where people protested in front of Bucaylis home, telling, like, actually asking Bucaylis to intervene on their behalf, right? But instead, those folks were quickly criminalized, accused of being in a list of association and a couple of the leaders were jailed, and are still in jail. disappeared in the prison system now. But then, you know, another instance in the way that law fair operates in El Salvador is with that foreign agents law, right? Well, you know, there's like, there's these new taxes that are that are levied on NGOs, international organizations, right? And the idea being that they're foreign agents, right? That they're spies, that they're against the government. That they're terrorists, right? And so it just opens the door for this kind of like, arbitrary persecution of folks who participate and are involved with those organizations of which in El Salvador are many, right? For decades since the war, like, there's been a massive increase of NGOs and international, international linked NGOs, right? That have supported so many things from that the state never did from like building sewage systems, bridges, helping repair schools, fixed roads after torrential rains, right? All sorts of different things that a lot of these NGOs are involved in and they're being and they're being criminalized for for that work because it's now perceived or reframed by the government as being anti-government work, right? And so that that's been a big thing which is pushed, which is pushed many groups to dissolve, some have like relocated to like Guatemala, and Honduras, Costa Rica, right? But some have just been completely, you know, dismantled. And that happening at the national level in addition to, right, the pulling of USAID funds in the United States, so many of those groups that were basically like supporting much of civil society, where the state has always been generally absent, or because of corruption, a lot of the, you know, support and funding never reaches the places it's supposed to, are now left, you know, wanting and left without that kind of support. So that's another kind of, you know, if Kilmar Brego's one one side of this kind of transnational relationship with the with the US Anderson Valor, this USAID for an agency is the other part too, right? And this is kind of the, this is there's a kind of dual motion here, in order to clear the terrain for the state to continue doing what it wants to do in criminalizing opposition and activists, right? Yeah, that's super important. I'm really glad you brought that up. And I think this is also refining the point I had just made about how this is why criminalization is scary. So I think a lot of things have happened under the charge of terrorism. And I've been like thinking a lot about the post 9/11 era. And all of the people that were convicted of like decade with decades long sentences for really diminimous support of alleged terrorist organizations. And I think a lot of that happened because people heard the word terrorist and like we're even more inclined to, you know, to ignore what was happening to folks who are being charged with that. And I think this for an agent's designation law and similar things happening in the US, like for example, like the recent designation of cartels as terrorist organizations, like that sounds like perhaps it can not controversial designation, but it will, I think, should be because what's going to end up happening is that he's going to target immigration rights groups. Because his narrative is that anybody that helps undocumented people, non-citizens stay in the US or come to the US or like live better lives here are aiding the cartels, a terrorist organization. And I think that's really important that people like not hear that word and just shut down that like that is also quintessential law fair, like, you know, methods. Yeah, I mean, like, I think your point is really clear in the sense that like, there's just a lot of redefinition that's happening around a lot of terms and the deploying of those terms in ways that like captures our imagination and doesn't allow us to think critically about what those terms actually signify. Like the other one I think that goes with terrorism, right, is that it is the notion of human rights and the ways that that has been completely like evacuated of all meaning, but also criminalized, right, like human rights for whom, right, is the kind of the way that Bukheli will talk about it, saying that if you support human rights is because you are affiliated with gangs, you know, as I think it's weird, this weird kind of conflation, right, and redefinition of a lot of these, you know, democratic terms, right, that are about institutionality that are around like the judicial process, right, and that kind, and that is being redefined, actively being redefined, right, where even something like human rights in a place like El Salvador that experienced, right, an internal armed conflict is no longer can ground the meaning of human rights in the contemporary moment, right, because it's been captured by the state, right, and defined as something terroristic essentially. Yeah, yeah. Okay, well, we impact so much, I think this is a great conversation. To end, I want to ask you, what is something that has inspired you lately? What has inspired me, lady, that's a challenging question. I know, these are times, well, it wouldn't be a curable if you actually listened to my fucking podcast, but because that's the question I've been asking, yes, for like four or five years. I know different me. It's always a curable for me, because I'm thinking about negative things, you know, what brings me, what's something that has excited me. I mean, again, I want to go back to Santa Marta 5, I think the results of this last, you know, this retrial just again demonstrated the fact that, you know, solidarity is not dead, right, that working together in support of justice and community is valid and still has relevance in this moment where it feels like everything's being enclosed on that we're kind of like in this weird historical like cul-de-sac that we're not going to be able to get out of, right, like there's still space and validity to social movement, you know, and social movements are showing us that there's still a struggle to be had, right, and it's not a foregone conclusion. And to me, that's exciting because of the kinds of people that are getting involved, right, the incredible dynamism that this, even this decision, right, will bring to other groups that are facing the state in similar ways, right, and so like it just becomes a point of reference, a really positive point of reference that while authoritarianism is trying to continue to try to consolidate itself, it'll never be fully complete. Yeah. Well, thank you for that, Jorge. I hope that the Kachimbonas enjoyed this episode and I'm sure you'll be back again to discuss the next dystopic bleaching. For real. Bye.