news

A Bolivian judge left this Wednesday, April 30, without effect the arrest warrant and the criminal investigation against former president Evo Morales for human trafficking, following a case related to the alleged abuse of a minor when he was president. After the ruling, Morales, who insists on being a presidential candidate, said that “justice has arrived”.

A judicial resolution signed by departmental judge Lilian Moreno annulled the arrest warrant against Bolivia's former governor Evo Morales. The former president, who has governed Bolivia for three terms, intends to run for the presidency in the national elections on August 17, despite the constitutional ruling that prohibits continuous or discontinuous reelection for more than one occasion.

In October, the Attorney General's Office had ordered the arrest of the 65-year-old indigenous leader, who since then has taken refuge in the coca-growing region of Chapare, where his followers set up a surveillance device to prevent his apprehension. After almost seven months, criminal judge Lilian Moreno annulled the arrest warrant, as well as “all procedural and investigative acts” against Morales, who governed Bolivia between 2006 and 2019.

“Any order of rebellion and judicial arrest warrant against” Morales is annulled, according to parts of the sentence disclosed by the defense and Bolivian media. The ruling is of first instance and can still be reviewed by a higher court.

Still, it is a relief for Morales.

"After a long time I feel that justice has arrived. The untiring struggle“ always bears ”good fruit," reacted the former president on the social network X.

In a recent interview with AFP, before learning of this ruling, Morales assured that he will break his confinement and go to La Paz in mid-May with his followers to register his candidacy for the August 17 general elections. "It is going to be a big caravan (...). On May 16 (May) we will register, then campaign, campaign", he said. He estimated that he does not believe that the electoral authority will prevent him from registering: “I am legally and constitutionally qualified”.

But that is another stumbling block for his reelection: a ruling of the constitutional court that does not allow more than two terms in office. Morales has already had three.

Wednesday's decision "is a judicial decision that is not final (...), it has to go through these review instances. However, this gives moral encouragement to Evo Morales," says Carlos Cordero, political scientist at the Bolivian Catholic University. According to the Prosecutor's Office, Morales had a relationship in 2015 with a 15-year-old teenager with whom he had a daughter a year later.

The politician was investigated in 2019 for this same case under the crime of statutoryremoved, which involves carnal access with a minor between 14 and 18 years old. In 2024, a new investigation was opened in the prosecutor's office of Tarija, in southern Bolivia, in which alleged trafficking was denounced.

The accusation alleges that Morales allegedly granted benefits to the parents in exchange for their daughter, who was part of the “youth guard” of the former governor's party at the time. Judge Moreno accepted the argument of the defense, according to which the prosecution could not investigate a process already closed under a new typification.

The former president accuses the government of Luis Arce, his former Minister of Economy, of plotting a judicial persecution against him with the aim of banning him from the August elections.

The same judge had annulled another order

This is not the first time that Judge Moreno crosses Evo Morales' judicial path. In October 2024 she also annulled a first arrest warrant that the Prosecutor's Office issued against the coca growers' leader for the same case. A higher instance later reversed its decision.

Manuel Baptista, president of the Bolivian Magistrates Council, warned that his act will be "reviewed" and that his institution would carry out the corresponding investigations. "If this judicial decision has been against the law, rest assured that this judicial official will be sanctioned in accordance with our regulations," Baptista told the press.

Morales' defense celebrated Judge Moreno's decision. "The former president can leave and move freely throughout the national territory (...), since his constitutional rights have just been restored," said Jorge Perez, the leader's lawyer, at a press conference.

Bolivia's former president Evo Morales said Wednesday (30.04.2025) that he feels that "justice has arrived" after a judge annulled the arrest warrant and charges against him, for a case related to the alleged abuse of a minor when he was president, "After a long time I feel that justice has arrived. The tireless struggle" always bears "good fruit," Morales wrote in X about the first instance ruling in his favor.

In the resolution, criminal judge Lilian Moreno ordered to "leave without effect" the investigation of Morales for alleged human trafficking, derived from a relationship he had with a minor during his mandate (2006-2019). The prosecutor's office had ordered in October the arrest of the 65-year-old indigenous leader, who since then has taken refuge in the coca-growing region of Chapare, where his followers mounted a surveillance device to prevent his apprehension.

Morales thanked in his message the supporters " who "took care of him" and who never betrayed him and remained firm "in the vigils at the head of the Tropic of Cochabamba". Judge Moreno's decision can be revoked or reaffirmed by a higher instance.

Svyrydenko's statementa

26 February agreement.

Let's look at it:

1. Full ownership and control remain with Ukraine. All resources on our territory and in territorial waters belong to Ukraine. It is the Ukrainian state that determines what and where to extract. Subsoil remains under Ukrainian ownership — this is clearly established in the Agreement.

That was never up for debate, it's actually a part of the agreement. In fact, for the agreement to work, the Ukrainian government has to own (directly or indirectly) the resource extraction projects and manage them: The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund, and will earn income from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government).

2. Equal partnership. The Fund is structured on a 50/50 basis. It will be jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States. Neither side will hold a dominant vote — a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.

The February 26th agreement already states this, jointly managed fund, Ukraine 50%, and USA share the maximum amount permissible under US laws: The Fund will be jointly managed by representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America... The maximum percentage of ownership of the Fund’s equity and financial interests to be held by the Government of the United States of America and the decision-making authority of the representatives of the Government of the United States of America will be to the extent permissible under applicable United States laws...The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets.

3. National assets are protected. The Agreement does not alter privatization processes or the management of state-owned companies — they will remain Ukrainian. Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.

Again, this was already stated, current Ukrainian projects are not included: For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine.

4. No debt. The Agreement includes no provisions regarding any Ukrainian debt obligations to the United States. Its implementation allows both countries to expand their economic potential through equal cooperation and investment.

Debt obligations (such as the $500 billion clause or 2021 GDP match clause) were already removed prior to the 26 February agreement, at a cost to other areas. Also on co-operation and investment: The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.

5. The Agreement complies with the Constitution and maintains Ukraine’s European integration course. It is consistent with national legislation and does not conflict with any of Ukraine’s international obligations. Importantly, the Agreement sends a signal to global partners that long-term cooperation with Ukraine — over decades — is not only possible but reliable.

Word for word what is written in the 26 February agreement: In drafting the Fund Agreement, the Participants will strive to avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s obligations under its accession to the European Union or its obligations under arrangements with international financial institutions and other official creditors.

6. The Fund will be financed exclusively from NEW licenses. Specifically, 50% of the revenues from new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil, and gas — generated after the Fund is created — will be directed to it. Revenues from existing projects or those already accounted for in the budget will not be included. The Agreement also outlines future strategic cooperation.

A rehash of point 3, and also already part of the February 26th agreement: The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), defined as deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure) as agreed by both Participants, as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine. Timeline, scope and sustainability of contributions will be further defined in the Fund Agreement.

7. Legislative changes will be limited and targeted. Only amendments to the Budget Code are required for the Fund to operate. The Agreement itself will be submitted to the Verkhovna Rada for ratification.

The Fund agreement shall be ratified by the Parliament of Ukraine according to the Law of Ukraine "On International Treaties of Ukraine."... Contact persons responsible for preparing the Fund Agreement on the basis of this Bilateral Agreement are: from the Government of the United States of America: the Department of the Treasury; from the Government of Ukraine: Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Economy.

8. The United States will help attract additional investment and technology. The Fund is supported by the U.S. government through the DFC agency. This will assist us in attracting investments and technologies from U.S., EU, and other international partners that support Ukraine’s fight against the Russian aggressor. Technology transfer and development are a key part of the Agreement — because Ukraine needs not only capital, but also innovation

The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine intend that the investment process will lead to opportunities for distribution of additional funds and greater reinvestment, to ensure the sufficient supply of capital for the reconstruction of Ukraine as set out in the Fund Agreement... Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine...The Fund Agreement will include appropriate representations and warranties, including those necessary to ensure that any obligations the Government of Ukraine may have to third parties, or such obligations that it may undertake in the future, do not sell, convey, transfer pledge, or otherwise encumber the Government of Ukraine’s contributions to the Fund or the assets from which such contributions are derived, or the Fund’s disposition of funds...The Fund Agreement will pay particular attention to the control mechanisms that make it impossible to weaken, violate or circumvent sanctions and other restrictive measures.

9. The Agreement provides tax guarantees. Fund revenues and contributions will not be taxed in either the United States or Ukraine, ensuring maximum effectiveness of the investment process.

That's not a good thing if it's only revenue... Also: Neither Participant will sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of, directly or indirectly, any portion of its interest in the Fund without the prior written consent of the other Participant... The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund... The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.

I guess sole discretion of the fund decided on tax free.

The United States will contribute to the Fund. In addition to direct financial contributions, it may also provide NEW assistance — for example, air defense systems for Ukraine.

To promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine...Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Trump’s rare earths agreement with Ukraine cements U.S. access to critical minerals, raising concerns over sovereignty, peace prospects, and the marginalization of Ukrainian interests as Washington acknowledges Russia’s hold over Crimea.

The long-anticipated minerals agreement between the United States and Ukraine was signed this week, granting Washington preferential access to Ukraine’s rare earths and other valuable resources. The deal, championed by President Donald Trump, comes amid shifting geopolitical winds, with the U.S. administration openly recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea and casting President Volodymyr Zelensky’s resistance to peace talks as an obstacle to regional stability.

For months, the Biden-Trump administration pushed Kyiv to cede control over its critical mineral resources, framing the agreement as a pathway to Ukraine’s reconstruction and a means for the U.S. to recoup military aid expenditures. The final text grants the U.S. sweeping rights to exploit up to 55 minerals, with provisions for further expansion, and establishes a joint fund to manage revenues from extraction. The White House has not concealed its intentions: Trump himself described the pact as a “great deal for us,” emphasizing the expected windfall from rare earths and other materials vital to U.S. industry and military technology.

However, Ukrainian negotiators were forced to accept terms under the shadow of ongoing conflict and mounting pressure from Washington, which made further military assistance contingent on the deal’s completion. The agreement’s timing-coinciding with U.S. overtures to Moscow and tacit acceptance of Russia’s hold over Crimea-has left Zelensky politically isolated and facing criticism from sectors of Ukrainian society that see the deal as a surrender of economic sovereignty.

Left-wing analysts across Latin America have long warned of the dangers posed by U.S. interventionism and resource extraction deals that echo neocolonial patterns. The Ukraine agreement fits this mold, with Washington leveraging its military and financial power to secure privileged access to strategic assets. While U.S. officials tout the pact as a win-win, critics point out that the supposed “rare earth bonanza” in Ukraine is largely speculative, with little evidence of significant, easily exploitable deposits. Instead, the real beneficiaries may be U.S. corporations and defense contractors, while Ukraine is left with environmental risks and uncertain economic gains.

Moreover, the deal undermines Ukraine’s ability to chart an independent path toward peace. By tying resource revenues to U.S. interests and acknowledging Russian control over Crimea, Washington is effectively dictating the terms of Ukraine’s future, sidelining popular demands for genuine sovereignty and self-determination.

The minerals agreement is being hailed in Washington as a strategic masterstroke, securing critical supply chains and countering China’s dominance in rare earth markets. Yet for many in the global South, it is a stark reminder of how resource-rich nations are pressured to trade away their wealth in exchange for security guarantees and fleeting promises of reconstruction.

True peace cannot be built on the foundations of economic dependency and external control. The U.S.-Ukraine deal, far from fostering stability, risks entrenching new forms of domination and deepening divisions within Ukraine itself. With Zelensky marginalized and peace talks stalled, the prospect of a just resolution to the conflict appears more distant than ever-while the machinery of extractivism grinds on.