|
DEVELOPMENT
OF THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PARAGUAY INTRODUCTION
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights presented its
Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.43,
doc.13, January 31, 1978) to the General Assembly of the Organization of
American States at its eighth regular session, which took place from
June 21 through July 1, 1978, in Washington, D.C.
In Resolution AG/RES. 270, the General Assembly resolved “To
thank the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for its Report on
the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay and to request it to continue
to observe the situation of human rights in that country and to report
on the matter to the General Assembly at its next regular session.”
In its report, the Commission drew the conclusions and made the
recommendations presented below:
Conclusions
An objective analysis of the information available to the
Commission leads to the conclusion that a state of affairs exists in the
Republic of Paraguay under which the majority of human rights recognized
in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and in
other similar instruments, not only are not respected in a manner in
keeping with the international commitments assumed by that country, but
also have become the object of a practice of constant violation.
The many denunciations received from within Paraguay itself,
information compiled by international bodies that visited the country,
and a great deal of other data coming from different sources, as well as
the silence of the Paraguayan Government in the face of the many
observations and recommendations made to it over the years by the
Commission, enable the latter to conclude that, under the state of siege
which has been in force in Paraguay—in uninterrupted fashion—for
more than 30 years, grave and numerous acts have been committed in
violation of fundamental human rights, and in particular of the
following:
1. The right to life.
Well-founded bases exist to conclude that various individuals have died
at the hands of the authorities under circumstances which have not been
properly clarified. Moreover, cases commonly classified as
disappearances, involving individuals who had been arrested by the
authorities and held for indefinite periods in “unknown” locations,
may well constitute instances of violation of the right to life,
although, due to a lack of direct evidence, it may not be possible to
adequately establish their occurrence.
2. The right to security
of the person. The use of physical and psychological duress and of
every form of cruelty in order to extract confessions or to intimidate
and humiliate detainees is a constant and continuing practice in
Paraguay, as attested to by denunciations and other information received
from widely different sources. The foregoing is also suggested by the
fact that the Paraguayan authorities impassively receive the
transcriptions of such denunciations which are transmitted to them by
the Commission, while allowing the time limits established for the
receipt of replies to lapse, without commenting on them in any way. In
addition to the above, the Commission must note that no information
whatsoever has been received regarding the application of sanctions
against even a single individual responsible for such inhuman treatment.
2. The right to personal
liberty. As noted in this Report, the detentions carried out under
the state of siege—that is, without any form of trial or filing of
charges—number in the hundreds. Some of the individuals arbitrarily
detained in this manner have spent as much as 19 years in prison without
being brought to trial. Indeterminate detention without charges or trial
is aggravated, in many cases, by holding individuals incommunicado
for indefinite periods.
According to what has been learned, which can be easily
ascertained from many sources, detentions of representatives of
different political tendencies, for indefinite periods of time, not only
create an atmosphere of natural anxiety and uncertainty among
Paraguayans, but also contribute to the creation of serious obstacles to
the free development of national life and to a return to the full legal
effectiveness of democratic institutions.
4. The right to a fair
trial. As stated in various passages of this Report, individuals
detained by virtue of the state of siege do not enjoy the right of due
process of law. They are not brought before a competent judge within the
prescribed time periods, nor are they allowed or provided lawyers to
safeguard compliance with procedural norms. The remedies of habeas
corpus or amparo are without effect in these cases, as there
is no court or judge that considers himself competent to grant such a
remedy.
Suspected individuals are, as a general rule, held in places not
suited for such purposes or in establishments which fail to meet even
the minimal requirements which every prison should satisfy.
Finally, from a number of denunciations it has also been
established that lawyers who assume responsibility for defending
individuals detained for political reasons and, in general, for cases
involving the state of siege, are frequently the object of threats and
acts of intimidation, including such measures as withholding their
license to practice.
5. The right to freedom
of expression and dissemination of ideas. Regarding this right, the
obvious conclusion to be drawn is that in Paraguay the mass media are
not free either to accurately report the news or to express their
opinions. This is so despite the fact that publications or broadcasts of
certain news items or commentaries critical of the Government are
occasionally ignored.
6. The right of assembly
and of association. These rights, established in Articles XXI and
XXII of the American Declaration, are frequently violated and ignored in
practice. The Commission has in its hands sufficient bases for judgment
to state that the Paraguayan Catholic Church and other religious
institutions have been the object of persecution directly affecting
their seminaries, schools and institutions of higher learning, as well
as the development of its social action and assistance programs.
Recommendations
On the basis of al of the foregoing, and in fulfillment of its
essential mission, the Commission believes it appropriate to make the
following recommendations to the Government of Paraguay, aimed at
rectifying the anomalies that have been described above and to
guaranteeing protection of human rights in the future:
1. To adopt the measures
necessary to lift the state of siege, in view of the fact that it has
been extended again and again in uninterrupted fashion over a period of
30 years, as the Commission has observed in various passages of this
Report, or, in the event that circumstances of grave danger or public
calamity make its maintenance absolutely necessary, to issue without
delay, in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the
Constitution, the regulatory law called for in order to establish the
indispensable compatibility which must exist between that institution
and permanent respect for fundamental human rights.
These provisions should establish a procedure by which detentions
are carried out under written orders issued by competent authorities,
with a copy of the same being formally transmitted within a fixed period
of time to a member of the family or an individual indicated by the
detainee. The order of detention should contain all the information
necessary to identify with precision the detainee and the individual
taking him into custody, as well as the location where the detention is
to be carried out and the name and authority ordering the measure.
2. These regulatory
provisions should also provide for additional safeguards, such as
medical examinations carried out both upon entry into and departure from
places of detention. Above all, the full legal effectiveness of the
remedies of habeas corpus and of amparo for all classes of
detainees should be reestablished or guaranteed by means of a special
law, in view of the fact that under ordinary procedures these remedies
are now considered incompatible with the institution of special powers.
3. To release as soon as
possible all individuals detained under the state of siege against whom
charges have not been filed, or, should there be legal cause for such
action, to submit them immediately to due process of law including a
fair trial.
To take all measures necessary to guarantee, with respect to
women who have given birth in prison or who have been detained with an
infant, the special assistance and consideration which is required due
to their condition and that of their small children.
4. To adopt administrative
and practical measures aimed at ensuring that any official who commits
abuses or uses cruel and inhuman methods against detainees will be made
an example of an duly punished.
5. To take the necessary
measures in order to guarantee the proper protection for lawyers and
judges, so that both may properly perform their special tasks.
6. To inform the Commission
as soon as possible of the measures adopted in carrying out these
recommendations.
For his part, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government
of Paraguay, Dr. Alberto Nogués, en a note dated July 2, 1979,
concerning Resolution 370, informed the Chairman of the Commission, Dr.
Carlos Dunshee de Abranches, of the following:
1. The policy of the
Government of Paraguay is to protect the peace and democratic stability
of its institutions, which places my country in the best possible
conditions to develop its economy in a climate of freedom highly suited
to ensuring the well being of the entire populace.
Without neglecting it steadfast commitment to those priority
objectives, in recent times the National Government has wished to
demonstrate, in substantive ways, its cooperation with the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, by responding to the
communications it receives from the Commission and, as a consequence, by
adopting certain decisions that are in keeping with the legal means
available to the public power to complement the Commission’s own
purpose.
Thus, for example, I hereby inform Your Excellency that to date
there are only four individuals under arrest by virtue of the power
granted to the executive through Article 79 of the National Constitution
and that no one is being deprived of his freedom without the
intervention of the competent judicial authorities.
2. Among the individuals
under arrest, by virtue of the state of siege, is an Argentine citizen,
Amilcar Latino Santucho, to whom the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees granted refugee status.
3. Paraguay lives under a
genuine state of law and legality where each one of the Executive,
Judicial and Legislative Powers acts within the sphere assigned to it in
the provisions of the National Constitution. I would like to remind Your
Excellency that the Constitution in force in the Republic of Paraguay,
unlike those of other countries, is the genuine expression of the will
of the National Constitutional Convention, which met in 1967, in which
the legitimate representatives of five democratic parties, freely
elected by the people in elections convoked for that purpose, took part.
4. The Report of the
Commission (page 15, paragraph 11) acknowledges that “the inescapable
fact is that the people of Paraguay live under a system of emergency
powers,” adding the adjective “emergency” (extraordinaria). We do
not accept this qualifying adjective because the provisions in force in
a country are either legal or illegal, without connotations that seek to
weaken their efficacy. And as for the total or partial enforcement of
the state of siege, I must insist once again that this
remedy—absolutely legitimate and legal—in no way presupposes the
replacement of the regular judges by military judges or courts, as
happens in other countries.
The Commission has expressed its concern that the rights of the
individual not be deprived of all legal protection in the case of an all
pervasive or absolutist will of the authorities. In Paraguay there is no
right or guarantee that is subject to the all-pervasive will of any
official or individual. All government acts are carried out in
accordance with the legal principles that govern the country, as an
expression of the free will of the people expressed through the
constitutional organs, as in any other genuinely democratic regime.
5. The free play of the
democratic parties in Paraguay is an ongoing daily experience. Groups or
factions that, for reasons of the juridical system of elections, are not
represented in the National Congress, act freely and issue their
statements, published advertisements in the commercial and independent
press, hold their proselytizing meetings without any restrictions and
make unlimited use of freedom of expression. Moreover, there is one
party that is duly authorized to act in accordance with the electoral
regulations, the “Partido Revolucionario Febrerista,” that meets and
acts freely, systematically proclaims that it will abstain from
elections as a form of political protest, has its own press organ, sends
representatives to international political meetings of its particular
ideological persuasion and is serving as a nucleus for the formation of
a political group called “Acuerdo Nacional,” which seeks to attract,
through dubious and circumstantial means, small dissident political
factions of a variety of ideological persuasions, whose common
underlying feature is the intent to subvert the constituted legal order
and injure Paraguay’s image abroad.
6. Freedom of the press is
an undeniable fact in Paraguay. A number of independent and commercial
newspapers and other publications that are organs of political parties,
of the Paraguayan church, and of other religious or professional
persuasions are published without obstacles of any kind. The “Partido
Revolucionario Febrerista” which, as said, proclaims its abstention
from the electoral process, has its own organ of the press, “El
Pueblo” which appears every two weeks. Some days ago, all the
newspapers directors in Asunción held a roundtable televised throughout
the country via Channel 9 “Cerro Corá.” During the roundtable, all
the directors of national newspapers stated emphatically that there is
unlimited freedom of the press in Paraguay, a fact fully confirmed by
the conduct of the national government in this regard.
7. The Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights notes the lengthy enforcement of the state of
siege and the absence of a law to govern a constitutional remedy of that
kind.
I wish to emphatically state to Your Excellency that the
Government of Paraguay does have this legal remedy in its Constitution
to defend the peace, a state of democratic normalcy, and institutional
stability in the country, which it will not renounce because the public
authority alone is competent to measure the scope of its responsibility
in a matter that is within its exclusive purview. The Commission is
aware that Paraguay was often the scene of attacks by guerrilla bands
and other subversives, in which armed elements from abroad sought to
undermine institutional legitimacy and subvert the existing order, with
a view to imposing totalitarian doctrines from the extreme left. The
Commission also knows that the repression of these criminal and
anarchistic outbreaks has cost the forces or order and legality many
lives and that their nefarious activities have seriously damaged the
country’s economy, which is so in need of peace in order to develop
completely.
Despite all these manifestations of social danger, the Government
makes prudent use of the constitutional measure in question. At the
present time, the measure in question is in force only in the capital of
the Republic, which is exposed because of its dangerous proximity to an
international border and the forces that incite subversion,
indiscriminate terrorism and urban guerrilla warfare.
Regulation of the constitutional power of the date of siege is
the exclusive responsibility of the legitimate leaders of the Paraguayan
people, as represented in the National Congress.
Apparently, an attempt is being made to show that the 1967
Constitution amended certain provisions in connection with the state of
siege. The pertinent constitutional prescriptions are practically the
same as those in the 1940 Constitution. Consequently, the power of the
Executive to detain individuals suspected of participating in events
that give rise to conflicts, international war, foreign invasion,
internal disturbance or serious threat, remains intact. Even with this
Constitutional power, the Executive has preferred to bring the suspected
parties before their natural judges, so that they may be judged in
accordance with Law 209 on Defense of the Public Peace.
Enforcement of the State of Siege, which unquestionably is based
on legal grounds and is supported by the vast majority of the citizenry
who appear among the ranks of the Republican National Association
(Partido Colorado), protects order and the free play of democracy in
accordance with the law and with respect for the inhabitants and public
and private property.
8. Laws 294 and 209 regulate
provisions set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution does not
authorize the preaching of class hatred and proselytizing efforts in
favor of doctrines which abusing democratic freedoms, in the last
analysis, seek to eliminate free and representative institutions. Law
294 concerning “Safeguarding of Democracy” does not conceive of
“the simple act of disseminating a particular political ideology” as
a criminal act, as might be inferred from the report of the Commission.
It does not penalize ideas or mere opinions, but the act of campaigning
for a change in the established order, a first step toward creating an
institutional crisis or a crisis of the civilized life prevailing in a
free and democratic nation. The provisions of Law 209 on “Safeguarding
the Public Peace and Freedom of Individuals” have been applied
exclusively to persons who, either individually or in association with
others, are guilty of subversion or terrorism.
At the present time, there is not a single person under arrest or
indictment because of these laws.
9. Reply to denunciations
made to the Commission. It is with great satisfaction that the
government of my country can say that it is completely up to date in
replying to all the communications it has received from the Commission,
which cite denunciations brought to it by different people. Several
times, the Ministry under my direction, has sent the Commission over
which you preside, without the Commission having asked it to do so,
cautionary reports and information on matters of concern to it. This
exchange of communications has indeed been advantageous, because it has
helped to clarify situations in which the persons making the
denunciations were evidently interested in distorting the facts for
political reasons.
10. We make no reference to
the basic laws of Paraguay, because on November 16, 1978, at the request
of Edmundo Vargas Carreño, Executive Secretary of the Commission, we
sent him the texts of these laws, including the Constitution.
But we think we should say a few words on the structure of the
Judiciary in Paraguay. Criminal procedure is divided into two stages:
summary and plenary proceedings.
The judge has in his possession all the necessary elements to
enable him to hand down a fair judgment; he can hear the arguments of
the lawyers for the defense and the prosecution, and the Ministry of
minors. In short, he can give the complainant and the plaintiff every
opportunity to present their explanations and allegations before the
law. The judgment of the court of first instance may be appealed to a
court of appeals, where three judges review the judgment and give the
parties a second chance. If the judgment of this court is different, the
case is taken to the Supreme Court, where five judges hand down an
opinion which is final. Under no circumstances is it admissible for the
judges to work with their hands tied, or to be subjected to influence.
The judges are lawyers or doctors of law, and some considerations which
have been raised as, for example, regarding the writ of habeas corpus,
are incorrect and do not conform strictly to the law. A judge who takes
it upon himself to decide whether or not to grant this writ, even though
the provision of Article 79 of the Constitution (State of Siege) might
apply to the case, would deviate from and upset the correctness of the
laws of the republic.
11. Although the Government
of Paraguay once more states its willingness to receive the visit of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it continues to hold in
abeyance its decision on just when this may take place. For reasons of
sovereignty, action on this matter is something that the government of
my country must reserve for itself.
12. Guarantees to persons
and institutions furnishing the Commission with information, evidence,
and proof. In no case has the government taken any measure which
might interfere with the action of these natural or juridical persons.
In our note of last April 2, we gave a detailed explanation of
everything that happened in connection with Mrs. Carmen de Lara Castro,
so-called president of a so-called Paraguayan Commission on Human
Rights. This body has no representative quality whatever, since it is
composed exclusively of a radical group of political opponents, whose
evident objective is to create problems for the government through a
systematic campaign of defamation and besmirchment of the country’s
image to the outside world, on the pretext of defending human rights.
As we informed the Commission in our note, the only action taken
was to have Mrs. de Lara Castro appear before the sitting judge of the
criminal court of the first instance, for the sole purpose of making a
statement to provide information by the attorney general of the state.
This special report will make reference to the development in the
situation of human rights in Paraguay during 1978; to present an up to
date a picture as possible of the situation in Paraguay, it will also
cover events that occurred during the first months of 1979. THE SYSTEM OF LEGAL NORMS RELATING TO HUMAN RIGHTS
In its first report on the situation of human rights in Paraguay,
approved in January of 1978, the Commission pointed out that a state of
siege has existed in Paraguay since 1929, except on days when national
elections are held and for approximately 6 months during 1946. One of
the recommendations contained in that report called upon the Government
of Paraguay “to adopt the measures necessary to lift the state of
siege” and to issue the complementary law mentioned in Article 79 of
the Constitution of the Republic. The Commission also suggested certain
areas to be governed by the complementary law.
Since our report was issued, the state of siege has been lifted
throughout the country, with the exception of the capital. However, this
news is marred by the fact that the courts have ordered that individuals
arrested in other parts of Paraguay can be taken to Asunción and held
there under the state of siege. Thus, the lifting of the state of siege
throughout the country, with the exception of Asunción, has little
practical effect.
To date, the government has not enacted the complementary law
that would establish the scope of the limitations placed on human rights
when a state of siege is declared.
The Commission also commented upon Law 254, of October 17, 1955,
entitled “Defense of Democracy” and Law 209 of September 18, 1970,
entitled “Defense of public peace and physical liberty of the
individual,” which makes mere dissemination of a particular ideology a
criminal offense. It recalled that it had stated on another occasion
that laws of this type were inconsistent with the American Declaration
of the Rights and Duties of Man.
In its note of July 2, 1979, the Government alleges that Law 294
does not punish the individual for his ideas or opinions, but rather for
“a proselytizing campaign aimed at altering the existing order.” The
right to hold an opinion has no real content without the parallel right
to express that opinion, either individually or together with others.
The Government also states that Law 203 has been applied only
“to individuals involved, either individually or in association with
others, in subversive or terrorist activities.” However, as true this
may be, this type of law leads to abuses because the Government itself
must enter into the nebulous realm of defining subversion and terrorism.
In actual fact, in a note dated October 13, 1978, on Case 3099,
the Government of Paraguay described the formation of a coalition of
political opposition as “the beginning of subversive activities
against the National Government under the label of (Acuerdo
Nacional.)”
What is more, the Commission has received denunciations to the
effect that members of the legal political opposition have been detained
for brief periods under La 203. THE
RIGHT TO LIFE A.
Homicides attributed to the authorities by the claimants
i)
According to the claimants, Jorge Zabala Esquivel, 27 years of
age and a militant member of the Organización Política Militar, was
arrested by the police at dawn on January 12, 1978. Witnesses stated
that Zabala died some hours later from blows received. The Government of
Paraguay, in a note dated April 27, 1978, answered the request for
information sent by the IACHR and stated that “the events that led to
the death of Zabala Esquivel occurred precisely as recounted in the
report submitted by the Minister of the Interior and were widely
publicized at that time in the national press.” The Government did not
attach a copy of that report. (Case 2704).
ii)
It is alleged that Doroteo Brandel, a leader of farm workers, was
shot in an ambush in August of 1978, some weeks after having spent two
years under secret arrest in the Second Infantry Division in Villarica.
The Government attributes the death to a dispute in a canteen. It is
also alleged that Agustín Bareiro Avarilla was killed in September of
1978 by the Chief of the Eighth Police Headquarters, Lucio Soca Cardoza,
who was arrested and brought to trial in January 1979. B.
Attacks imputed to the authorities by the claimants
In a communication dated January 20, 1979, a denunciation was
filed alleging an attempt by Government agents on the life of Eulogio
Constantino Coronel Zorrilla, a former leader of the Catholic Agrarian
League, who had been held under arrest for political reasons from April
4, 1976, to July 20, 1978. The attempt occurred in the early morning
hours of January 2, 1979, in the patio of his brother-in-law’s house
where the Coronel family was staying. The Government’s official
position, as it appeared in the newspaper of the Partido Colorado “La
Patria,” is that the brother-in-law shot Coronel when he found him
trying to rape his daughter. Coronel is being held on a charge of rape.
(Case 3658). C.
Persons detained and presumably dead
In its first report the Commission included the case of Derlis
Villagra Aramendia who, it is alleged, was detained in 1975 and then
disappeared. The Government denied the arrest. In December of 1978 the
wife of Villagra received, indirectly, official confirmation of the
death of Villagra at the hands of the Security Guard, shortly after his
arrest. THE
PHYSICAL FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL, HABEAS CORPUS AND THE WRIT OF
AMPARO THE
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW
In its first report, the Commission devoted special attention to
individuals who had been detained unjustifiably for lengthy periods of
time, as much as 17 years, without ever having been brought to trial or
having been accused of a crime. The Commission stated that such
detentions were possible because of the uncertain juridical situation
that developed as a result of the indefinite period of state of siege in
Paraguay.
The first report indicated that the judicial authorities had
disclaimed jurisdiction in the case of individuals detained under the
special powers of the state of siege and that those powers annulled or
rendered ineffective such remedies as amparo or habeas corpus
and any other guarantee that might protect the detainee against excesses
or abuses of power. The fact that the state of siege continues in effect
in the capital and that a supplementary law to govern its operation has
never been enacted means that the situation has not changed.
The Commission is pleased with the statement made by the
Government to the effect that it has made certain decisions that are in
keeping with the recommendations made by the Commission in its first
report. As an example, the Government reports to the Commission that at
present there are only four individuals under arrest by virtue of the
authority granted to the Executive by Article 79 of the Constitution.
The question that arises is why those four individual, two of whom have
spent more than 10 years in jail, cannot be released or brought to
trial, as the Commission recommended. Further, it has also been reported
that prisoners released have not received identification papers or that
at times they are given especially marked identification papers that
make it impossible for them to obtain work or leave the country.
In is note of July 2, the Government of Paraguay mentions only
the specific case of the Argentine citizen, Amilcar Latino Santucho
(Case 2745), which the Government says the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees has granted refugee status. Santucho has
remained under arrest since 1975, without being brought to trial, and
has been regarded as a refugee by mandate of the High Commissioner, for
some two and a half years. However, despite the fact that the Government
of Sweden has granted him a visa, Amilcar Santucho is still being jailed
unjustly in Paraguay.
The Commission has received information to the effect that a
number of lawyers working in the area of human rights have been harmed
by the authorities. For example, Mario Melgarejo and Celso Castillo,
lawyers residing in Fernando de la Mora who protested the excessive cost
of a new sewer line, were kidnapped on the street on June 19 and
disappeared until they were released three days later. Melgarejo was
arrested on a charge of violating Law 209.
In a statement presented to the Ministry of Justice and Labor and
to the Supreme Court in May 1978, the Paraguayan Bar Association made
the following reference to the independence of the judiciary, which was
also brought up in the report of the Commission and in the note from the
Government:
We solemnly reaffirm that we need an independent judicial power
in the broadest sense of the word. The constitutional guarantees of amparo
must apply equally to the highest judicial authority of the nation and
to the lowest ranking justice of the peace. All must again believe that
the administration of justice depends solely on proper application of
the laws and is not contingent upon other factors extraneous to the
bench.
It is essential that we understand the danger to the nation posed
by the conviction that certain matters of litigation should be resolved
outside the courtroom. To eradicate these problems, which arise in these
cases from a lack of independence, will enable honest
magistrates—which there are—to again sally forth.
The Bar Association also asked that the Judiciary be composed of
“honest and capable magistrates, appointed because of unique personal
merits, without discrimination … and on the basis of their conduct and
background in lower-ranking posts in the judiciary or in private
practices” and a “Judiciary that serves the people, conscious of its
important work and service to the cause of freedom, human dignity and
the moral and material heritage of all Paraguayans.” FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS
In its note of June 2, 1979, the Government of Paraguay states
that freedom of the press is an undeniable fact in Paraguay. The
majority of sources acknowledge that there has been some improvement in
this area since the Commission’s first report. It seems that
newspapers have a little more freedom to criticize certain actions taken
by the Government and more frequently contain information on the
political opposition.
However, the closing of two newspapers, La Tribuna and Ultima
Hora for a thirty-day period, in June of 1979, is a negative sign in
terms of freedom of the press. RIGHT
OF ASSEMBLY AND RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
With regard to these two rights, the first report of the
Commission made reference to the pressures brought to bear against a
number of individuals who actively promoted the defense of human rights.
Special mention was made of Mrs. Carmen Casco de Lara Castro, a former
deputy of the Radical Liberal Party and Chairman of the Committee on
Defense of Human Rights in Paraguay, who in March of 1979 was brought
before the Criminal Judge of First Instance of First term. According to
the denunciation, this was done in order to harass Mrs. de Lara Castro.
With respect to the Commission on Human Rights of Paraguay, the
Inter-American Commission is concerned over the language which appears
in the note received from the Government, dated July 2, which alleges
that the “supposed” Commission “is in no way representative, as it
is composed exclusively of a radical group of opposition politicians
whose patent objective is to create problems for the Government.”
Frequently, the very nature of national human rights commissions leads
to confrontations with the governments. However, this in itself does not
justify government attacks either by deed or by word, upon such groups.
Furthermore, the Paraguayan Commission sponsored the First
National Congress on Human Rights, held in Asunción in December 1978,
which was held without police interference.
Certain remarks are in order in this chapter on the political
parties in Paraguay. In other parts of this report it was stated that
Mr. Domingo Laíno, Vice Chairman of the principal opposition party, was
detained by the police for more than a month after returning to Paraguay
from abroad. That party established a coalition in 1978 with two other
independent parties, the Christian Democrats and the Febrerista,
and the opposition sector off the Partido Colorado (MOPOCO).
Plans to celebrate the signing of the National Agreement which
resulted from this coalition in February 1978, were aborted by the
police who refused to permit a public meeting that was to be held when
the National Agreement was signed.
Further, the leaders of the National Agreement planned to hold a
series of meetings in Washington, D.C., in order to explain their
programs, but they were dissuaded from doing so by Government officials
who warned them that they would not be permitted to return to the
country if they left. Other examples of harassment of political leaders
include the incarceration in September 1978 of Luis Resck, a leader of
the Christian Democratic Party, and Angel Bernal, a leader of the Febreristas,
who were released after two days under threats of expulsion. On August
12, 1978, Aníbal Recalde, Chairman of the Christian Democratic Party,
was threatened with expulsion by the Chief of Investigations, Pastor
Coronel, and 11 days later, Humberto Pérez Cáceres, Chairman of the Febrerista
Party, received the same threat. THE
RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS AND TO FREEDOM OF WORSHIP
In a communication dated February 23, 1978, a denunciation was
filed to the effect that the Government of Paraguay, by an official
decree dated January 3, had outlawed the Christian religious group known
as Jehovah’s Witnesses and its legal body, the Bible and Watchtower
Society, which had operated in Paraguay for some 40 years.
The reason for the censure was ostensibly linked to the
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal, for reasons of conscience and
religion, to accept military service or to participate in patriotic
ceremonies. The claimants point out that only a small number of
individuals who are members of that faith had refused to participate in
military service and only a few children had preferred not to
participate in patriotic ceremonies. But the prohibition was invoked
against all its congregations and all their parishioners in Paraguay.
In a note dated April 9, 1979, the Government sent the Commission
a copy of Decree Nº 3272, which “canceled the legal capacity of the
Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and prohibits it from
functioning in the territory of the Republic,” because the sect had
not observed the provisions contained in Article 70; 3, 1 and 4; 125 and
123 of the Constitution. GUARANTEES
TO INDIVIDUALS OR INSTITUTIONS THAT PROVIDE
INFORMATION, TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE TO THE COMMISSION
In its Resolution on the Report of the Commission on the
Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay, the General Assembly of the OAS
resolved “to make an earnest appeal to the Government of Paraguay
to… grant appropriate guarantees to those individuals and institutions
that may provide information, testimony, or evidence of any other kind
to the Commission.”
Domingo Laíno was a Paraguayan who attended that session of the
General Assembly and who visited the offices of the Commission in order
to speak with various members of the IACHR during his stay in
Washington, D.C.; the individual in question is an economist and Vice
Chairman of the Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico of Paraguay. Less
than 24 hours after his return to Paraguay from Washington, D.C., two
armed men dressed in civilian clothing forced him to get out of an
automobile in which he was a passenger, beat him and took him away in
their automobile. This occurred in downtown Asunción around noon, on
July 7, 1978. The driver of the automobile in which Laíno was a
passenger was Dr. José Francisco de Vargas, a layer for the Committee
of Churches for Emergency Aid, who was taken away in another vehicle.
The wife of Dr. Laíno immediately inquired at all the police
headquarters in Asunción as to the whereabouts of her husband. It was
not until 8:30 that night when she returned to the Investigations
Department, that a Government official acknowledged that he had been
detained.
On the very day of the incident, the Commission sent a cable to
the Government of Paraguay requesting information and reminding it of
the resolution adopted by the General Assembly.
In a cable dated July 12, the Government stated that Dr. Laíno
had been arrested by Paraguay Security Forces in connection with
activities that allegedly were in violation of Laws 209 and 294 and
because of which a suit was filed in 1975.
Dr. Laíno was released by virtue of a court decision of August
8, 1979 (Case 2940).
Similarly, by means of a note dated March 13, 1979, the
Commission requested information from the Government of Paraguay in
connection with a court hearing of March 6 to which Mrs. Carmen de Lara
Castro had been cited. Mrs. Castro, it was said, is Chairman of the
Commission for the Defense of Human Rights in Paraguay and, in that
capacity, is in frequent contact with the IACHR. The note itself made
reference to Resolution 370 of the General Assembly.
Another Paraguayan organization on behalf of human rights, which
has encountered difficulties with the authorities, is the Comité
Febrerista Juvenil sobre Derechos Humanos (Febrerista Committee of Youth
for Human Rights.) On June 13, 1979, fifteen leaders of that Committee
were taken to police headquarters for interrogation where, it is
alleged, they were harshly beaten. All were released. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the information that the Commission has been able
to compile, including that provided by the Government of Paraguay, it
can be stated that since the Commission issued its first Report on the
Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay, a number of changes have taken
place.
First, virtually all the political prisoners have been released.
Further, it would seem that the torture practiced by Government
authorities has declined considerably during 1978. However, the
Commission has not been informed of any government agent who has been
brought to trial for that crime. Also, another positive step noted by
the Commission has been the fact that there is less control of the
press.
On the other hand, the Commission notes that there have not been
any significant institutional changes to dissipate the fears that the
past will repeat itself. The state of siege continues as a permanent
fact of life for most Paraguayans, since it continues to be in force in
Asunción. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission reiterates to the Government of Paraguay the need
for it to establish a specific date, as soon as possible, for the
Commission to conduct during 1979 or during the first half of 1980, the in
loco observation on the situation of human rights in that country,
by virtue of the permission already granted by the Government of
Paraguay.
Again, the Commission recommends that the measures necessary to
lift the state of siege throughout the Republic be adopted. As has been
indicated, the existence of the state of siege opens the door to abuses
on the part of Government authorities. This is especially true in the
absence of the complementary law called for by the Constitution. The
Commission repeats its earlier recommendation regarding the form that
this law should take.
The Commission likewise recommends that the four individuals
still being detained by virtue of Article 79 of the Constitution be
released or put to trial should there be legal grounds for such action.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |