|
|
|
NICARAGUA
I.
Background
During the period covered by the present report (October 1985 to
September 1986), the IACHR has continued to monitor the human rights
situation in Nicaragua with particular care, and his section reports on
the most significant occurrences in the human rights are in Nicaragua
during the period. The Commission published one Special Report on
Nicaragua in 1981, and in 1984, issued another special report on the
Situation of Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of
Miskito Origin. Reference was also made to Nicaragua in the Commission's
annual reports for 1981 through 1985 inclusive.
The central feature of the human rights problem in Nicaragua was
the renewal of the state of emergency, to which the Commission will
refer in the first instance. It will go on to discuss recent
developments with regard to the Miskito population and the Commission's
relations with the Government of Nicaragua, and will also refer to
certain individual cases that are of particular concern.
2.
The state of emergency
The IACHR will begin its examination of the state of emergency
declared by the Nicaraguan authorities with a presentation of the rights
that have been suspended and a review of how this dovetails into the
provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Within the
framework of the Convention, the Commission will examine the reasons
advanced for invoking the state of emergency, and will assess the way in
which the Government of Nicaragua has applied the state-of-emergency
provisions. We therefore refer, in the first instance, to the pertinent
provisions of the American Convention.
a.
The American Convention and the rights which have been suspended
Article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights states:
1. In time of war, public danger, or
other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State
Party, it may take measures derogating from its obligations under the
present Convention to the extend and for the period of time strictly
required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures
are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law
and do not involve discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex,
language, religion, or social origin.
2. The foregoing provision does not
authorize the suspension of the following articles: Article 3 (Right to
Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to
Humane Treatment), Article 6 (Freedom from Slavery), Article 9 (Freedom
from Ex Post Facto Laws), Article 12 (Freedom of Conscience and
Religion), Article 17 (Rights of the Family), Article 18 (Right to a
Name), Article 19 (Right of the Child), Article 20 (Right to
Nationality), and Article 23 (Right to Participate in Government), or of
the judicial guarantees established for the protection of such rights.
By note dated November 20, 1985, the Ambassador Permanent
Representative of Nicaragua to the Organization of American States
advised the Secretary General of the text of a cable from the Acting
Minister of Foreign Affairs stating that, by a decree issued on October
15, 1985, the Government of Nicaragua had established a State of
Emergency for a one-year period. That decision was ratified by Decree
No. 128 of the National Assembly on October 30 of the same year.
This Decree suspended the following provisions of the Statute on
the Rights and Guarantees of Nicaraguans: Article 8 (right to individual
liberty and personal safety, but preserving the right to humane
treatment during imprisonment and the right to habeas corpus in
the case of crimes not affecting public order and safety); Article 11
(right to due process, but maintaining the principles of presumption of
innocence; non-retroactivity of criminal laws; the right not to be
compelled to be a witness against oneself; the right of appeal; the
right not to be placed in double jeopardy (non bis in idem), and
the right to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction); Article 15
(right to residence and movement); Article 17 (as regards the principle
that no person is obliged to do what the law does not require nor
prevented from doing what the law does not prohibit); Article 18 (in
reference to the protection of private life and the inviolability of the
home and private correspondence); Article 21 (freedom of expression);
Article 31 (right to assembly); Article 24 (Freedom of association);
Article 31 (right to organize in social, professional and trade-union
organizations, including labor unions, federations and confederations);
Article 32 (right to strike); and Article 50 )The remedy of amparo,
which, however, remains in effect for administrative actions by the
Executive Branch that violate those provisions of the Statute on the
Rights and Guarantees of Nicaraguans that were not suspended by Decree
No. 128).
The Commission must reiterate the statements made in its previous
annual reports over the gravity of the suspension of habeas corpus
when it refers to situations affecting the security of the State. The
Commission observes that such suspension continues as the result of laws
recently enacted by the Government of Nicaragua. This suspension runs
counter to the provisions of Article 27(2) in fine of the
American Convention on Human Rights and creates conditions in which
serious abuses against the security of the individual could occur. The
Commission must reiterate to the Government of Nicaragua the need to
repeal this measure and to restore the right of habeas corpus for
all persons detained by its security service.
b.
Facts invoked in order to renew the state of emergency
We shall now turn to the facts invoked by the Government of
Nicaragua for renewing the state of emergency. The first paragraph of
Article 27 cited above establishes the conditions under which a State
Party may suspend some of the rights set forth in the Pact of San José:
war, public danger or other emergency that threatens the independence or
security of the State Party. Legal commentary, in general, and the
Commission, din particular, have elaborated on this list, describing the
characteristics that must obtain in these broadly defined situations of
“public danger” or “emergency that threatens…”. It is
understood that such situations must first be extremely grave, and
second, must be actually happening or, in fact, imminent.
In this context the Government of Nicaragua has maintained that
the United States Government has trained, armed, equipped, financed and
supplied the forces fighting it and has encouraged, supported and aided
in the execution of military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua.
The Government of Nicaragua has also maintained that the United States
carried out attacks against Nicaraguan territory, and cites those
carried out against Puerto Sandino on September 13 and October 13, 1983;
against Corinto on October 10, 1983; against the Naval Base at Potosí
on January 4 and 5, 1984; against San Juan del Sur on March 7, 1984;
against patrol boats at Puerto Sandino March 28 and 30, 1984, and
against San Juan del Norte April 9, 1984. According to the Government,
these facts were complemented by reconnaissance flights which violated
Nicaraguan sovereignty and by the mining of internal waters and waters
within the Nicaraguan territorial limits, further aggravating the
situation by not having made known the existence of the mines. Also as
part of the actions directed against the Government of Nicaragua, the
Government has cited the trade embargo decreed by the U.S. Government.
The Government of Nicaragua in order to renew the state of emergency has
invoked all these facts which have been adjudicated by the International
Court of Justice in its decision of June 27, 1986.
According to the Nicaraguan Government, the facts mentioned above
constitute a serious threat to the Security of the Nicaraguan State, and
they also satisfy the doctrinal requirement of an “actual
emergency”, as has been demonstrated by the U.S. Congress' recent
approval of US. $100 million to finance the activities of the armed
groups fighting against the Government of Nicaragua. c.
Means of applying the measures adopted in virtue of the state of
emergency
Article 27 of the American Convention states that emergency
measures may be taken “to the extend and for the period of time
strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.” Here, the
Convention seeks to limit the extent of the government's discretionary
authority, in order to prevent excesses from being committed under the
guise of an emergency. Indeed, an emergency situation may cause measures
to be taken that go beyond what is necessary in terms of duration of the
nature of what is required to deal with the emergency.
The preceding paragraphs show that the immediacy requirement is
met here, because there is an emergency that is threatening the security
of the Nicaraguan State and is occurring now. It is necessary to ask
next whether the measures taken are appropriate for dealing with the
emergency, or whether they go beyond the exigencies of the situation
demanding such measures.
First, such an assessment necessarily entails making a value
judgment about the discretionality with which a Government acts at any
particular time. The Commission finds it essential that the assessment
be made in those terms, precisely because the situation under review is
so difficult and tense.
The Government of Nicaragua has justified its actions by arguing
that it has been the victim of aggression and, therefore, must reduce
and even eliminate any sign of internal dissension that may signify a
challenge to its policies designed to deal with the attacks of the armed
contras. The Government thus maintains that it has been forced to
impose ironclad controls to prevent the “opening of internal fronts”
that would provide direct or indirect political support for the
activities of those armed groups. The strategy includes preventing
publication of communiqués that call for a dialogue with those
irregular groups, on the theory that the contras lack any
political representativity and that the solution will be found in direct
talks with the Government of the United States.
However, significant groups of opponents to the Government of
Nicaragua feel that the measures it has taken are consonant with the
totalitarian nature of the Sandinista Front's political program in
power. They maintain that military pressure therefore must be applied to
force the Nicaraguan government to respect the freedoms inherent in a
democratic system and to open a dialogue with the political-military
opposition living abroad. As stated above, these military pressures in
turn become the Government's justification for declaring the state of
emergency and for taking repressive measures against the opposition.
The situation sketched here generates a vicious circle which has
a severe, adverse effect on the human rights situation. It is in this
tense and contradictory context that the Commission will consider the
principal measures taken by the Government of Nicaragua during the
period covered by the present Report. A number of the situations
described below have been denounced to the IACHR, and are being dealt
with according to the procedure set forth in the American Convention and
the Commission's Regulations. Without prejudice to the resolutions that
it will issue at the appropriate time, the Commission will proceed to
describe the points submitted to it in the cases in question.
During the period covered by the present report, the Government
took serious measures against the Nicaraguan Catholic Church. On October
12, 1985, the first issue of an ecclesiastical newspaper called Iglesia
was seized. The Government claimed that the paper was not properly
authorized, to which the Church replied that the publication was under
the responsibility of the Archdiocesan Social Promotion Commission
(COPROSA), which had been accorded legal recognition. In fact, the copy
of Iglesia provided to the Commission contains no news items that
might be construed as having political connotations.
On October 15, 1985, the premises of COPROSA were raided by a
group of soldiers under the command of Commander Lenín Cerna, head of
the Bureau of State Security. All the papers and documents on the
premises were confiscated, the staff, even Cardinal Obando y Bravo, were
forbidden to enter, and the printing press operating in the building was
also seized. The building was occupied until July of last year, when it
was returned in what church authorities described as a disgraceful
state. However, the printing press and many of the papers and documents
have not been returned.
On January 1, 1986, the Government suspended the operations of Radio
Católica for an indefinite period of time; this radio station also
belongs to the Church. The reason the Government gave for the action was
that the radio station had not broadcast, in full, a speech delivered by
President Ortega at the New Year. The station managers claimed that it
had been the result of human error, which, once discovered, was remedied
by patching into the national radio network when much of the President's
speech was already over.
Another Government measure to restrict the Catholic Church's
means of expression was the prohibition, by prior censorship, of the
column “The Voice of Our Pastor”, containing the Sunday sermon of
Cardinal Obando y Bravo, which used to be published in the newspaper La
Prensa.
The Government also censored the publication of the Pastoral
Letter issued by the Bishops of Nicaragua at Holy Week. The Letter,
dated April 6, 1986, discusses the reconciliation of all Nicaraguans,
the Church as an instrument for achieving reconciliation, and dialogue
as the means of reaching it. Referring to dialogue, the Pastoral Letter
quotes the words of Pope John Paul II during his visit to San Salvador
in 1983. It goes on to quote two paragraphs from the Pastoral Letter of
April 22, 1984, which say:
Foreign powers are taking advantage of our situation to foment
economic exploitation and ideological exploitation. They see in us
support for their power, but do not honor our people, our history, our
culture or our right to decide our own destiny.
As a result, most of the people of Nicaragua are living in fear
of the present and are uncertain of the future. They feel a deep
frustration and are yearning for peace and freedom. But their voices are
not heard; they are drowned out by the warmongering propaganda of both
sides.
The letter went on to say:
We believe that any type of aid, no matter what its source, that
leads to the destruction, pain and death of our families, or to hatred
and division among the Nicaraguan people is to be condemned. To choose
the annihilation of one's enemies as the only possible road to peace is
inevitably to choose war.
The Government of Nicaragua has viewed appeals for dialogue and
reconciliation as backing for positions maintained by the United States,
which have made dialogue and reconciliation pre-conditions for ending
the aid it is providing to the irregular forces fighting against the
Sandinista regime. The Sandinista Government, as stated above, has
rejected the possibility of dialogue with these groups.
The reference to the aid made in the Pastoral Letter has been
presented by the Government as contradicting the actions of some senior
Church officials, whom it accuses of having gone to Washington to lobby
for aid to the contra forces.
During the entire period covered by the present Report, the
police authorities called in priests of various orders, some of whom
were fingerprinted and recorded, in order to give them serious warnings
that many interpreted as being open threats. Also during the period
covered by the Report, eleven seminary students were enrolled in the
Patriotic Military Service, over the strong protests of the Church.
The Commission was further informed during the period covered by
this Report that the Government of Nicaragua used unpardonable pressures
to prevent Marta Patricia Baltodano from taking up her post as director
of a planned office for Justice and Peace that was to work for the
defense and promotion of human rights under the Archbishop of Managua.
The pressures that the Government put on Ms. Baltodano, and its tense
relations with the Church as a whole have meant that the office has not
yet been able to operate.
On June 28, 1986, when the spokesman for the Archbishop of
Managua, Monsigor Bismark Carballo, was about to board a plane in Miami
to return to Nicaragua, he was prevented from doing so, on instructions
from the Government of Nicaragua to the airlines. This case was opened
before the Commission and is now being processed. Monsignor Carballo has
not yet been able to find out the reasons for such a drastic measure,
and is unable to return to the country of which he is a national.
On July 4, the Bishop of Juigalpa, Vice President of the
Episcopal Conference of Nicaragua, Monsignor Juan Pablo Vega, was
arrested, taken to the Honduran border and handed over to the Honduran
authorities. The Nicaraguan Government was thus making good on its
threat to expel from Nicaragua “any person identifying with the
thinking of the U.S. Administration”. After the threat had been made,
Monsignor Vega held a press conference in which he stated his
disagreement with the judgment of the International Court of Justice, at
which he maintained that the Nicaraguan people had a right to defend
themselves against, among other things, “Soviet aggression”. The
Commission has also opened a case file on this situation.
Both cases have had major repercussions both inside Nicaragua and
abroad. During his visit to Colombia, Pope John Paul II issued a harsh
condemnation of Monsignor Vega's expulsion. The President of Nicaragua,
Daniel Ortega, has announced that Monsignor Vega may return to Nicaragua
“when there is peace”, and has said that it had been decided to
expel him in order to avoid imprisoning him, which is what would be
appropriate to the Bishop's political actions.
The Commission must state its deep concern over the serious
deterioration in the relations between the Government of Nicaragua and
the Catholic Church. The Church has played an important role in
defending and protecting human rights, and represents a significant
factor in moderating positions that have now become highly polarized.
Free-flowing, frank and constructive communications between the two
institutions are thus essential if conflicts like the present one are to
be avoided.
The Commission thus finds that the measures taken by the
Government of Nicaragua in relation to the Catholic Church do not
contribute to forming the proper climate. The prolonged take-over of the
COPROSA premises, the seizing of the newspaper Iglesia, the
indefinite closing down of Radio Católica, the harassment of
priests, the conscription of seminary students, the confiscation of the
printing press and the expulsion from the country of two senior Church
officials all represent, in the view of the Commission, measures that,
overall, are out of proportion to the scale of the events that caused
them to be taken. The criterion of proportionality deriving from Article
27 of the American Convention on Human Rights is not satisfied in this
situation.
Another measure of particular importance that was taken by the
Government of Nicaragua during the period covered by the present report
was the indefinite closure of the newspaper La Prensa on June 26,
1986. It is widely known that La Prensa was the only newspaper
that was independent of the Government, and that it had criticized many
of the Government's measures. La Prensa had been closed down on
previous occasions, and its news items were subject to prior censorship
under the state of emergency laws.
The complaint filed with the Commission over this matter is
currently in process. However, the Commission finds in principle that it
will be difficult to justify the closing of a communications medium that
was already subject to prior censorship. The measure, therefore,
restricts freedom of expression. Thus, the prerequisite of
proportionality demanded of state of emergency measures would not be
honored in this case either.
Also in connection with freedom of expression, it should be
indicated that the Government detained three journalists under the
state-of-emergency rules. The journalists, Enrique García Urbina,
Alejandro Cordonero Carranza and José Ramírez Artola, who had started
to publish a newssheet called Prisma, were arrested on January
16, 1986.
The Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights has also felt
the effects of the state of emergency: it was informed that its monthly
reports, which lists the complaints received in its offices, was subject
to prior censorship by the Ministry of the Interior. This measure caused
the publication to be suspended for four months, after which time, it
reappeared without the Government having amended the measure nor applied
it.
In the period covered by the present Report, during the state of
emergency, the Commission has been informed of numerous actions taken by
the Government of Nicaragua against some opposition parties, in
particular, against the Christian Social Party and the Conservative
Party of Nicaragua. The Commission has observed that the practices noted
in its previous report—which it then described as clear harassment of
opponents of the Government—still continue. An increase has been noted
in the severity of the methods employed by the Government to prevent any
opposition activity that the Government interprets as support for the
armed attacks against it.
The Commission finds it necessary here to refer to the case of
Mr. Félix Pedro Espinoza Briones, who has filed many applications with
the Commission complaining of violations of his human rights,
particularly of his political rights. Mr. Espinoza Briones is a member
of the Constituent Assembly of Nicaragua for the Democratic Conservative
Party, which he also represented in the Council of State. Mr. Espinoza
has been brought to court in order to take away his parliamentary
immunity; a farm he owned was burned under still unexplained
circumstances, his house confiscated and he was subject to acts of
aggression by groups bearing arms. Mr. Espinoza Briones recently decided
to seek asylum in the Venezuelan Embassy in Managua, in order to protect
his physical safety.
Complaints have also been filed concerning acts of harassment
against independent trade unions. The headquarters of the Nicaraguan
Workers' Central (CTN) was entered on October 24, 1985 and several of
its leaders detained. In response to a plea from former President of the
United States, Jimmy Carter, during a visit to Managua in early February
of last year, the Deputy Secretary General of the CTN, José Altamirano
Rojas, was later released, along with a journalist, Luis Mora Sánchez.
The Government used a similar procedure against Larry Schoures Rivera, a
CTN union member, who had been detained on a number of occasions. He was
last arrested on January 16, 1986, and was kept in detention for 20
days. The Commission has been informed that the conditions under which
Mr. Schoures Rivera was detained were harsh, and that he was coerced to
turn state informer. The IACHR has also been informed that members and
leaders of the Trade Union Unification Congress (CUS) have been treated
in similar fashion.
According to information provided to the Commission, the effects
of the state of emergency have been felt particularly harshly in rural
areas where the armed groups fighting against the Government are
operating. Mass detentions of peasants have increased, in an effort to
prevent them from collaborating with or being used by those groups. The
peasants are pressured to join the various grassroots organizations (organizaciones
de base) controlled by the Sandinista Front, and if they do not do
so, they become suspect and may be held in prolonged detention during
which time, it has been denounced, torture occurs to oblige them to
inform about the movements of the armed groups. The Commission has been
informed that mass round-ups of peasants have occurred in Nueva Guinea,
Nueva Segovia, Jinotega, Matagalpa and Estelí.
Another area of profound concern to the IACHR during the period
covered by the present report has been the constant reports received on
the deplorable conditions in Nicaraguan prisons. According to various
communications received, the Nicaraguan prison authorities are
permitting a situation to develop in which those jailed for political
reasons suffer additional privations. Common criminals share jail cells
with political prisoners, political prisoners are beaten, sometimes
brutally—as was the case of Luis Mora Sánchez in December—and the
belongings that their families bring during their rare visits are stolen
from them. The Commission has also been informed that the prison food is
bard and portions small, and that medical care is poor. The situation
has been aggravated by the Government's practice of suspending visits
and transfers of prisoners from one prison to another without notifying
relatives, who must wait for a long time before the whereabouts of the
detainees are revealed.
In the case of Roberto Amador, the Commission has received many
complaints about the deficient care provided by the prison authorities.
Mr. Amador is serving a thirty-year prison term and suffers from a
painful spinal condition. For a number of months, his family tried to
send medicine and an orthopedic belt to alleviate the pain. At the
request of the family, the Commission intervened, through its Executive
Secretariat, in an effort to obtain information about Mr. Amador's state
of health. In spite of the fact that the Government replied promptly,
the family has informed the Commission that six months later, Mr. Amador
had received neither the medicine nor the orthopedic belt. Recently the
Government of Nicaragua again responded to the IACHR with information
that Mr. Amador is receiving the medical attention required by his
situation. This case demonstrates the need for the Nicaraguan Government
to allow the Commission to verify—on-site—certain facts in order to
clarify in an independent manner the controversy that may envelop them.
The prison situation is alarming, particularly in light of
information from the National Commission for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights, a Government organ, which states that 2,386
former National Guardsmen and 1,044 persons sentenced by the
anti-Somocista People's Courts are serving sentences in Nicaragua's
prison system. Recent cable traffic states that the Minister of Interior
in Nicaragua has stated that 34% of the Nicaraguan prison population has
not yet been submitted to a fair trial due to the lack of resources.
The Commission cannot but state its profound concern over the
serious human rights situation in Nicaragua. The escalation of armed
actions and the increase in the consequent repressive actions under the
state of emergency necessarily translate into greater suffering for the
Nicaraguan people, the deterioration in relations between the country's
basic institutions must be halted in order to preserve areas in which
peaceful coexistence is possible within a framework of respect for human
rights and personal dignity. A serious effort is thus called for to mend
relations between the Catholic Church and the Government of Nicaragua.
From this standpoint, a substantial improvement in the prison
conditions for those jailed for political reasons is essential, halting
the type of practices described in the present report which add further
punishment to an already harsh situation. Obviously, it is extremely
important for the right of habeas corpus to be restored,
particularly for cases in which the accused is suspected of having
committed crimes against State Security. Restoring habeas corpus
is necessary to provide an effective means of guaranteeing the personal
integrity of detainees and of contributing to counter the reiterated
allegations of torture and mistreatment imputed to government agents.
3. Recent events, which have
affected the indigenous population of Miskito origin
The Commission will now turn to recent developments in connection
with the Indian population of Miskito origin, to which it had referred
in its previous Annual Report. In that report, the negotiations between
the Government of Nicaragua and the Misurasata leader Brooklin Rivera,
and the authorization to the people resettled in 1982 to return to the
Rio Coco villages were regarded as positive developments.
During its 67th session, held in April 1986, the
Commission granted hearings to persons concerned over the recent events
that had precipitated the exodus of a large contingent of Miskitos into
Honduras. According to information received at that time, as well as in
the weeks preceding the session, a new exodus of Miskito Indians was
again leaving the villages on the Rio Coco and heading for Honduras.
According to information presented, the exodus was taking on the
proportions comparable to those of 1982 and 1983, and was caused by the
armed conflicts in which the Sandinista People's Army had committed
serious abuses, such as summary executions, indiscriminate bombings and
machine-gunning civilians when they were attempting to cross the River
Coco into Honduras.
During the month of May 1986, the Commission continued to receive
requests for an investigation of what had happened. The President of the
IACHR therefore instructed the Executive Secretariat to seek the
necessary consent from the Governments of Nicaragua and Honduras to a
visit by a staff attorney who would visit these countries and
investigate the situation to determine whether human rights was involved
in the exodus of the Miskito Indians.
The request for consent received a favorable response from the
Honduran Government, but the Nicaraguan Government denied consent to a
Commission staff lawyer to visit the country for the above-mentioned
purpose. The designated lawyer traveled to Honduras, where all the
necessary facilities were accorded to him by that Government, and in
particular, by the Representative of the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees and his colleagues.
The visit to Honduran Mosquitia from June 3-6 facilitated
interviews with newly arrived refugees from Nicaragua and with persons
who have received them and who are familiar with the situation. The
settlements visited for this purpose were those of Mocoron, Tapamlaya,
Musawas, Ahuas and Layasiksa.
The information gathered indicates that since the massive
arrivals of Miskitos in 1982 (approximately 12,000) in 1983 the total
influx registered by the UNHCR was 3,500 and in 1984, approximately
1,500. While the flow of arrivals to Honduras was diminishing the
repatriations of Miskitos to Nicaragua began to increase from 57 in 1984
to 586 in 1985. As was mentioned in the previous Annual Report, in
August 1985 the return of the population resettled in Tasba Fri began to
return to the Rio Coco, while Misurasata took place and achieved a
cease-fire with some groups of the organization Kisan.
This situation began to change in October 1985 and some movement
from Nicaragua to Honduras began in November according to information
provided to the Commission. Rumors of a new exodus began to circulate in
Honduras in December 1985 and took on the character of official
information in January and February 1986.
In January, and without apparent connection with the rumors
mentioned, the leader of Misurasata, Brooklin Rivera, entered the
Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua clandestinely accompanied by Canadian and
U.S. Indian leaders. According to the facts as presented by Mr. Rivera,
during a visit to the Executive Secretariat of the Commission in
February, after having visited several bases of his organization in the
Department of South Zelaya and finding himself in North Zelaya, the
Sandfinista Popular Army carried out several attacks as a result of
which four persons who were accompanying him were killed and six
wounded.
Mr. Rivera and his companions were able to elude government
forces and fled to the Island of San Andres where they were received by
the Colombian Government. The Nicaraguan Government interpreted this
action of Mr. Rivera's as a provocation, arguing that he had traveled
twice before to the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua without authorization.
Mr. Rivera, for his part, argued that it was indispensable for him to
travel freely throughout the Atlantic Coast in order to meet with his
people and to obtain first hand information on what was going on, which
would be impossible if the trip were to be carried out with government
escorts. The effect of the situation was to increase the tensions in the
region.
In this context of tension and rumors of exodus, new contingents
of Miskitos continued to arrive in Honduras. Thus, from January until
mid March 1986 the High Commissioner registered approximately 2,000
Miskitos coming from Nicaragua. Nevertheless from March 26 this number
increased dramatically with the arrival of 7,000 Miskitos in a 15-day
period.
Pursuant to information gathered by the Executive Secretariat,
the immediate origin of such a high number of people is due to the
combat which took place between the Sandinista People's Army and the
armed group, Kisan, which forms part of the Democratic Nicaraguan Force
(FDN). The combat took place during the night of March 25, when troops
of the Sandinista Army attacked Bilwaskarma, Wasla and Kum, towns in
which combatants of Kisan were to be found.
The persons questioned coincided in pointing out that a large
contingent of soldiers of the Sandinista Army was on the move; they
coincided also in pointing out that the towns had been subject to
bombing attacks and that tanks had entered Bilwaskarma. The information
gathered indicated that three members of a family with the surname
Williams, from Wasla were killed when a shell fell on their house, shot
by the Sandinista Army. A refugee stated that her cousin David Williams
died in Wasla but it was not stated that any other person in the family
had died. It is necessary to point out that the Secretariat's attempt to
find persons who had actually seen the dead proved to be fruitless.
Another refugee informed that he was in Kum when the combat
began, for which reason he fled into the mountains with a group of
people from the town. When the battle ended, the witness testified, he
and six persons decided to return to evaluate the situation, when they
were detained by soldiers of the Sandinista Army, tied up, bound and
rudely transported to Puerto Cabezas where they remained in detention
for 27 days and incommunicado. The refugees stated that they were
released following a decision by Commander Tomas Borge, Minister of the
Interior, when he visited Puerto Cabezas. He got to the refugee camp in
Honduras on foot since he was prevented from getting there by other
means by soldiers of the Sandinista Army that he meet on the way.
The investigation did not produce any information confirming the
denunciations, except as regards the combats between the Sandinista
People's Army and groups from the Kisan organization, which is allied to
the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN). The Nicaraguan Government's lack
of cooperation in denying authorization for an on site
investigation of the events denounced prevents the Commission from
issuing a firm judgment on the matter. However, the Commission must at
this time restate that this situation demonstrates that an assured peace
in the region is a basic condition for guaranteeing the human rights of
the Miskito population.
4.
Relations between the IACHR and the Nicaraguan Government
In conclusion, the Commission wishes to refer to its relations
with the Government of Nicaragua, which have been characterized by a
lack of cooperation on the Government's part. This is an issue to which
the Commission had occasion to refer to in its previous Annual Report.
During the past year, the Commission reiterated the request first made
in March 1984 that a member of the IACHR and a Secretariat attorney be
invited to Nicaragua for working meetings to resolve many individual
cases in the pipeline, since the cases are such that something more than
the usual procedure—basically an exchange of correspondence—is
required.
In response to repeated requests by the IACHR, the Acting
Representative of Nicaragua to the Organization of American States
advised the Commission that his Government would be ready to receive the
requested visit, but that “the aggression by the current North
American Administration of which my country is a victim does not make
the present time the most propitious for such a visit, and my Government
would subsequently therefore choose a mutually convenient date…”.
The Commission must state the deep frustration it has been caused
by this attitude of the Government of Nicaragua. The IACHR does not find
the Government's grounds for refusing its consent to the visit to be
valid, since there is no relationship whatever between the alleged
aggression and the examination of individual cases that must be
clarified. In the case of the Miskito Indians, the Government of
Nicaragua permitted representatives of various agencies and a number of
different countries to visit the area. During its 68th session, the Chairman of the Commission received the visit of representatives of the Nicaraguan Government with whom he had a frank interchange of opinions with respect to the relations between the Government and the Commission. The Commission hopes that the Government of Nicaragua will revise its stance and permit more positive relations to develop with the Commission. This would facilitate the solution of cases presented to the Commission and enable it to investigate situations related to the observance of human rights in the country.
Since its last Annual Report, the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights has continued to observe developments in the human rights
situation in Paraguay with particular attention. It also decided to
begin a special report on the human rights situation in Paraguay, and
again requested the Government's consent to a visit on a date certain,
as soon as possible.
These decisions were officially conveyed to the Government of
Paraguay by the President of the Commission. In its earlier 1983-84
Annual Report, the Commission had noted that the decision on the date
for a visit had been in abeyance since 1977 when the Government had
consented to a visit but without specifying a date.
Subsequently, in its 1984-85 Annual Report, the Commission again
reminded the Government of the commitment it had formally undertaken and
emphasized that the date must be set as soon as possible. It noted that
any other response by the Paraguayan Government would be taken as
evidence that it was not prepared to meet its commitment. Regrettably,
as of the date of the approval of the present report, the Government's
consent to the visit has still not been formalized.
Some changes have been made in the human rights area in Paraguay
during the period covered by the present report, even though the
Commission has not yet noted any significant steps being taken to lead
to an effective democratization of the country.
One can cite the unconditional release, on October 23, 1985, of
the peasant leader Marcelino Corazón Medina, President of the
“Agricultural Producers' Coordinating Committee”, who had been on a
hunger strike for almost a month, since his arbitrary arrest at the end
of September 1985.
Also during the period, Luis Alonso Resck, President of the
Christian Democratic Party, was authorized to re-enter Paraguay from his
exile in Argentina, and returned on April 20, 1985; the distinguished
writer Augusto Roa Bastos was also allowed to return. Both had been
expelled from the country under administrative regulations decreed in
June 1981 and April 1982, respectively.
As regards the massive and most serious violations of the right
to life and humane treatment, which were frequent in Paraguay in earlier
decades, it is to be pointed out that during the period covered by this
report there were no cases of disappearances; the incidence of torture
committed by the police authorities has diminished, as well as
assassinations for political reasons, although at least one major
exception occurred during this period that must be mentioned here.
Reference is made to the case of Rodolfo González, a young Law
school student who, according to those filing the complaint, died as the
result of torture inflicted on him on April 10, 1986. It was stressed
that the police had reported in the press that González had died as a
consequence of the injuries he sustained in a “traffic accident”,
while the autopsy by the forensic doctor, Dr. José Ballasai, showed
that the body had a bullet lodged in the cranium, that it bore another
bullet wound, and showed signs of having been tortured. Dr. Ballasai was
arrested on April 23, after conducting the autopsy. As of the date of
the approval of the present report, the Government has merely reported
that the case is heard in secret summary proceedings.
Constant violations still occur in Paraguay of important rights
recognized by the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
These violations affect, in particular, the right to a fair trial and
due process; personal liberty and safety; recognition of legal capacity
and other political rights and civil liberties, such as freedom to
organize, freedom of association, residence and movement, and freedom of
thought and expression.
The Commission once again regrets the continuous and
indiscriminate application of the emergency laws contained in Laws Nos.
294 of 1955 and 209 of 1970 on “Defense of Democracy” and “Defense
of Public Order and Individual Liberty”, as well as the permanent
state of siege established in Article 79 of the Constitution, which
without fail has been extended, without interruption, every three
months.
The absence of a truly autonomous judiciary has been evidenced by
a paralysis of the investigations and the failure to bring to trial
senior officials and authorities who may be involved in crimes. This
happened, for example, with important government authorities who were
presumed to have participated in the theft of several hundred million
dollars in foreign exchange from the Central Bank, which was reported at
the end of 1985. Initially, the courts had sentenced more than a dozen
individuals supposedly implicated in the fraud to jail, but all are
currently free.
Habeas corpus, a right that is guaranteed under Article78
of the National Constitution does not function in practice and is not an
available remedy; the Supreme Court has continued to abdicate its
functions by disqualifying itself from hearing writs of habeas corpus
filed during the state of siege.
In the area of political and civil rights, the Government
continues to regard the opposition parties that make up the “National
Accord” as being “illegal” or “irregular”. They are not
allowed to participate in elections, nor were they permitted to organize
ever since the time they were founded in 1970. The Government has also
flatly rejected the planned National Dialogue that the Episcopal
Conference of the Paraguayan Catholic Church encouraged in early 1986 in
an attempt to gain the participation of all political and social sectors
in a common, unified effort to facilitate a political transition by
peaceful change towards full democracy.
In that context of lack of conditions for the exercise of
democracy, the ruling Colorado Party again won municipal elections in
October 1985 by an 88% majority of all votes cast in the country. At the
same time, notable members of the militant wing of the Colorado Party
floated President Stroessner's candidacy for an eight presidential term
in 1988-1993.
As indicated below, there has been a new wave of mass arrests and
attacks on opposition leaders, and a move by the Government and
para-police forces to contain and repress demonstrations by the
political opposition and the popular demands and protests of the various
segments of the population seeking grater democracy in the country.
Among those detained are, on November 4, 1985 the editor-owner of
the paper ABC-Color, which had been shut down, and Miguel Abdón
Saguier, Secretary of the Authentic Radical Liberal Party (PLRA) in
March 1986, who had been arrested in September 1985 and was again
detained one month later, on April 13, 1986, in San José de los
Arroyos.
On April 23, 1986, a public demonstration for higher wages by
staff of the Hospital de Clínicas was broken up, and Dr. Aníbal
Carillo, Dr. José Bellasai, Dr. Juan Massi and Dr. Ursino Barrios,
among others, were arrested. On April 25, 1986, Mr. Quintín González
Escobar, a distinguished member of MOPOCO, was arrested on his return to
Paraguay from Argentina. On April 27, 1986, another PLRA demonstration
to promote the candidacy of its leader, Mr. Saldivar, was broken up, and
the journalist José Luis Simón, of the opposition weekly El Pueblo,
and a group of journalists from the West German state television who
were covering the event, were arrested.
On May Day, a street demonstration was broken up of more than one
thousand members of the Inter-Union Workers' Movement (MIT), who had
gathered in the Parish of Cristo Rey after a mass organized to celebrate
May Day. Among those arrested were Marcelino Corazón Medina, the
peasant leader, who had previously been arrested in September 1985; Mr.
Adriano Yegros, and Mr. Alberto Alderete, a student and member of the
PLRA. The representatives of CLAT and of the CMT, Messrs. Dante Oberlín
and Alfredo Ferraresi were brutally beaten. On May 2, 1986, the
President of the Medical Association of the Hospital de Clínicas,
Dr. Carlos Filizzola, was arrested in an attempt, it was said, to
intimidate him and end the strike for higher wages that had been going
on for several days.
It should be noted that in most of the cases described here, the
detentions lasted for a few hours or days, after which the persons
arrested were freed or brought before the appropriate court authorities.
The persons filing the complaints stated that the police and
para-police authorities acted with unjustified violence when they broke
up the group of demonstrators, firing their weapons practically over the
heads of the marchers and beating them with knuckle-dusters and the
butts of their rifles. They also used water cannons and extraordinarily
potent, asphyxiating tear-gar.
Freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom to publish
have continued under severe restrictions, in an atmosphere of an
increased number of arrests, threats and intimidation of journalists,
newspaper publishers and editors, and managers of radio stations and
news agencies.
It is now just two and a half years since the newspaper ABC-Color
was closed down; the printing and distribution of the paper had been
suspended “for an indefinite time” by Resolution No. 227 of the
Minister of the Interior, Sabino A. Montanaro, on March 22, 1984, and
despite all the efforts, there appears to be not the slightest
possibility that it will reopen in the near future. The harassment of
many of its former reporters, who are now working in other print and
radio media, has continued. The owner-editor, Mr. Aldo Zucolillo, was
again arrested on November 4, 1985, this time for some ten hours, by the
“office of investigations”, when he returned from New York after
receiving the Mary Moors Cabot journalism prize from Columbia University
for his contribution to freedom of the press. According to the official
Government communiqué, his statements during the award ceremony were
incitement to subversion as a means of changing the country's political
structure. When the Chief of Police, General Francisco Brites Borges,
informed him that he was being released, he “advised” him to leave
the country if he was not in agreement with the Government of President
Stroessner.
Radio Ñandutí, accused of contributing to creating “social
discord” was again closed down in January 1986. This time, the
suspension lasted for only 15 days. The manager of the radio station,
Humberto Rubín, had also been arrested in the first week of December
1985 for a few hours and held in the Central Police Station in Asunción.
He was warned by the Director of the Department of Public Order, Carlo
Schreirer, that he should change his editorial position or they would
throw him out of the country. In April 1985, Rubín complained that the
police had refused to provide him with protection after repeated death
threats against him, his family and his co-workers at the radio station.
Official spokesmen had accused the station of being responsible for the
street demonstrations that had taken place in recent weeks and in the
early hours of April 30, a horde of some 50 government sympathizers
stoned the outside of the radio station, firing into the air with cries
of “down with Communism” and “death to the bearded Marxist”
(alluding to the manager of the station, Mr. Rubín). They destroyed
almost all the outside windows of the building. A few days later, on
Saturday, May 3, another group of five or so armed men in masks again
assaulted Radio Ñandutí, destroying the premises and transmitters,
some pieces of which they stole. On Monday, May 5, the radio station
found all its communications and telephones cut. Since then, the station
has been subject to constant interruptions due to “radio
interference”, and has been prohibited from broadcasting news or
commentary critical of the Government. The manager of the station
announced publicly that because of this, and because businesses were
being forced to withdraw their advertising from the station, it appeared
practically inevitable that the station would have to close down.
Attacks on and harassment of the press and representatives of the
press denounced during this period included the following: Nicolás
Arguello and Miguel Angel Arguello, of the newspaper La Tarde and
Radio Ñandutí, were beaten when they were covering a student
demonstration in the Law School of the National University on April 24,
1986; Osvaldo Fonseca and Roberto Bazán, of TV Channel 13, and Martín
Ciccano of the Diario de Noticias were beaten up on April 2; José
Luis Simón of the weekly El Pueblo, the news organ of the
opposition Febrerista Revolutionary Party, and four correspondents from
a team from Channel One of the West German state television, Nikolaus
Brender, Peter Wendt, José Antonio Vulín and Eduardo Johnson, and the
Press and Cultural Attaché of the West Germany Embassy, Armir Stever,
who was accompanying them, were all beaten up when they were covering
the peaceful demonstration organized by the opposition Authentic Radical
Liberal Party on April 27. While the Germans were released a few hours
later that day and their equipment returned (estimated damages were
US$40,000), José Luis Simón was kept under arrest, incommunicado, for
two days before being released.
It should also be mentioned that on July 2, Celso Velásquez, a
journalist from Radio Charitas, was detained by the police in the
town of Villarica for more than five days. He was not informed of the
reason for his arrest. The manager of the radio station, Rev. Javier
Arancón, a Spanish priest of the Franciscan order—who some weeks
earlier had been warned by the Minister of Education and Worship, Carlos
Ortíz Ramírez, “to change the line of the station and dismiss the
senior broadcaster, Mr. Guillermo Yaluff, if the wanted to stay in
Paraguay”—was detained in Puerto Falcón when he was returning from
Argentina. All his Paraguayan papers were confiscated and he was then
forced to leave the country.
As to the right to residence and movement, the Commission duly
recorded its satisfaction over the amnesty granted in 1983, which
permitted political exiles to return to Paraguay. The Commission notes
that the Government has lifted the restrictions on two out of the three
cases excluded from the amnesty: the President of the Christian Democrat
Party, Luis Alfonso Resck, who returned on April 20, 1986 and has been
living in Paraguay without experiencing any problems, and the writer
Augusto Roa Bastos.
However, despite the repeated requests, the PLRA leader, Domingo
Laino, has still been denied permission to return. At the moment, he is
the only opposition leader against whom this prohibition is maintained.
His wife, Mrs. Rafaela Guanes de Laino continues to be refused her
passport, for no reason. On his fourth attempt to return to Paraguay,
December 23 and 24, 1985, through the Clorinda area, Puerto Falcón,
Laino was again refused entry “on order from above”.
The Commission deplores his forced exile, and the excessive use
of force and the brutal way in which his recent fifth attempt at
re-entry was prohibited recently. The foreign legislators and well-known
figures accompanying him in the place from Montevideo to the
international airport at Asunción on June 24, 1986, were verbally and
physically mistreated.
Freedom of religion and worship continues to be formally
respected and it appears that, with the exception of Father Javier Arancón's
expulsion from the country, no other cases of persecution of priests or
lay officers of the various social and humanitarian institutions have
occurred. However, during the period covered by the present report, a
hardening of relations has been noted between certain official
government sectors and notable members of the Catholic ecclesiastical
hierarchy.
In large part, these difficulties have been due to the support
that, at the end of last year, the Catholic Church gave to the plea by
the top leaders of the “National Accord” to serve as mediator of the
planned “National Dialogue” between the various political and
opinion sectors. The Church also took a more active role in social
issues and in criticizing the corruption and injustice that abounds.
Members of the Paraguayan Catholic hierarchy blamed the
Government for the assaults and aggression of pro-government
paramilitary groups, and for the excesses of the police in repressing
the marches, demonstrations and acts of protest that have been taking
place in the country recently. Monsignor Ismael Rolón, the Archbishop
of Asunción and President of the Paraguayan Episcopal Conference said:
“the Paraguayan people are becoming tired of so many lies and so much
suffering”, and in a communiqué condemned the “indiscriminate use
of violence to stifle the just claims of the people”.
A number of deputies and members of the pro-government sector
used slanderous language and threats against prominent members of the
clergy, accusing them in the government media of being infiltrators,
destabilizing elements and promoters of violence. They went to far as to
describe the Church's mediation efforts in the National Dialogue, led by
Monsignor Jorge Riviera Banks, Secretary of the Episcopal Conference, as
a “fascist proposal”. Lastly, the Commission wishes to note that it has been receiving timely responses from the Government, to its requests for information, and to note the authorization granted during this year to a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations (such as the United Nations, the ILO, Americas Watch and Amnesty International) to carry out investigations in the country; the Commission, therefore, reiterates its request that the Government of Paraguay will officially confirm a date for the planned in loco observation of the IACHR the purpose of which will be to find out the facts about the human rights situation in Paraguay as faithfully and objectively as possible.
The Commission has carried out two on-site observations in
Suriname since 1983 and, as a result, has prepared two special reports
on the situation of human rights in that country. The first report
derived from a complaint lodged with the Commission, which urged it to
investigate the death of fifteen prominent citizens who died at the
hands of the military authorities of Suriname. The investigation in
situ of this case, and the analysis of the state of human rights in
general, were carried out from June 20-24, 1983. Thereafter, the
Commission approved its “Report on the Situation of Human Rights in
Suriname” on October 5, 1983 concluding that high Government officials
were responsible for the death of these 15 persons.
After conducting a second study in loco from June 12 to
17, 1985, the Commission approved its “Second Report on the Situation
of Human Rights in Suriname” on October 2, 1985.
In the latter report, the Commission again reiterated to the
Government of Suriname the fact that despite the recommendation stated
in the first Report to investigate the tragic events of December 8,
1982, the investigation had not been done and the high government
officials responsible for those acts had not been sanctioned.
The Commission again reiterated to the Government of Suriname the
need to establish “as soon as possible a system of representative
democracy, which, as stated by the Commission in several occasions, is
the soundest guarantee for respect of all human rights stated in the
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.”
Since this Report was published, the Commission has continued to
follow the development of events related to human rights in Suriname.
As of October 1985, the Government of Suriname has been taking
several political measures, which might represent steps toward the
country's democratization, which, at present, is absent given the
concentration of power in the hands of the military, especially in the
Military Council headed by Colonel Desiré Bouterse.
In the first place, on November 23, 1985, representatives of the
Government and of the three principal political parties of the
country—NPS (National Party of Suriname), VHP (Progressive Reform
Party) and Kaum Tani Persuatan Indonesia (KTPI)--, reached an agreement
by which those parties would integrate the country's highest political
organ, that is, the Supreme Council (Topberaad).
Subsequently, on February 25, 1986, the Government of Suriname,
by decree A-21, put an end to the state of emergency in force throughout
the country since September 1980. The Commission, which had recommended
such a measure in its 1985 Report, notes this change because it
represents a positive step towards reestablishing the rule of law and
the civil rights of the Surinamese people.
In May 1986 the three principal political parties the NPS, the
KTPI and the VHP accepted the invitation of Colonel Bouterse to
participate in the top deliberating council as agreed to in the November
1985 accord. Their participation was limited to political and
administrative affairs. The political parties continued to demand
general and secret elections before the transitional phase is completed.
On July 16, 1986, Colonel Bouterse named a new government led by
Prime Minister Pretapnaarian Radhakishun, a businessman and member of
the Progressive Reform Party (VHP). The new government under Radhakishun
will remain in office until March 31, 1987, when the transitional phase,
which began with the appointment of Udenhout’s cabinet in 1985, will
end. The Government program presented by the New Prime Minister on July
24 made no specific mention of elections and gave few details on the
planned April 1987 return to civilian rule. According to the program,
further discussions will take place concerning the substance of the
political and administrative order. It does not indicate if the military
will continue to play a preponderant role in the executive branch of the
government.
In an interview given to Agence France Presse on July 23, 1986,
Colonel Bouterse maintained, “I have always been the promoter of the
revolutionary process, and that has a special meaning … The military
must determine how long their Commander should serve the country.” He
promised, “In the next nine months the Constitution will be finished
and the Surinamese people will hold a referendum deciding whether they
want elections.”
In compliance with a United Nations recommendation that the
member countries establish institutions which warrant the protection of
human rights, the Government of Suriname also created the National
Institute for Human Rights by Decree A-18 of March 24, 1986. This
official institution, staffed with personnel with direct links both to
the Government and the military, has among its functions those of
investigating and determining responsibility for violations of human
rights; submitting the results of its investigations to the pertinent
juridical authorities; promoting the teaching of human rights and
adapting national legislation so as to conform it to international human
rights instruments.
It should be pointed out that the Government of Suriname has
recently amended Article 21 of Decree A-11 related to the Basic Statute
of Rights and Duties of the People of Suriname as a prior step towards
its planned accession to the Pact of San José, Costa Rica of 1969.
Furthermore, and in compliance with a program for full transition
to a civilian government expected to take place in April 1987, the
Government of Suriname has pledged that the transition will bring about
a democratic and just society; that the rule of law will be guaranteed;
that the National Assembly will meet its goal of concluding the
transition phase towards a full democracy no later than next April; and
a Constitution and the composition of the organ representative of the
people be established in accordance with the principles of a true
democracy.
However, in spite of this progress, the Commission considers that
the right to freedom of opinion, expression and thought dissemination is
still severely limited in Suriname. Decree No. 310 of May 7, 1984,
mentioned in the Commission's 1983 and 1985 reports, is still in force;
it prohibits importation, transportation, distribution, sale,
possession, production or reproductions of certain written material.
Since June 1986, the Government of Suriname has been considering
a new bill to regulate the freedom of the press. In December 1985 the
group comprising the Surinamese Assembly, with the exception of the
February 25 Movement of Col. Bouterse, spoke out against state control
of the country's media, as proposed in the recently published
“political framework” which is to form the basis of a new
Constitution. These guidelines state that the media must be to a
significant extent State property in order to guarantee the right of
freedom of expression.
On June 12, the authorities arrested Gerad Wessel and Pieter
Storms of the Dutch magazine Nieuwe Revue in the Marowijne
District and held them for two weeks before expelling them from the
country. The two were arrested because they were considered spies but
the Court of Justice found that there was not enough evidence to detain
them. Suriname's Minister of Justice, Judge Funwasi, however, criticized
the Court, revoked its judgment and broadened the charges against the
journalists, accusing them of entering the country under false pretenses
and providing a government opponent with a false passport. On June 28,
the two journalists were expelled.
The Dutch Union of Journalists said that the charges against
Wessel and Storms were unfounded and that they were in Suriname with the
consent of the authorities.
Although the Commission has no knowledge of arrests being made
for political reasons during the period in which this Report has been
written, it does know of a case in which a person was arrested for
possession of reports on human rights of the United Nations and the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Indeed, Dr. Linus Rensch was
arrested with his family on February 3, 1986, at the Zanderij airport in
Suriname after having found in his baggage a copy of the OAS 1985 Report
on Suriname and a UN report on summary executions. Dr. Rensch was taken
to Fort Zeelandia, military police central command, where he was
interrogated. After having remained in detention for one day without
being given anything to eat he was permitted to leave but instructed to
report daily to Major Aalspeer of the Military Intelligence Service.
Although Mr. Rensch was not permitted to leave the country he now lives
abroad.
Since July 22, a group of guerrilleros led by former Army private
Ronnie Brunswijk has been waging armed attacks against military
installations in the Commewigne and Marowigne Districts of Easter
Suriname. In videotapes sent to Holland, Brunswijk claimed his aim was
to restore democracy and pressure the Government to hold elections.
During the heavy fighting along the French Guiana border, the Commission
has received reports of military raids of several Bushnegro villages
such as Moengotapoe and Morakondre with those suspected of assisting the
guerrilleros being rounded up and transported to Surinamese military
barracks. After the guerrilleros' August 23 demands for the release of
the villagers and the withdrawal of the Army from Easter Suriname were
not met by the Government, they renewed their attacks on the frontier
town of Albina. On September 9, the Suriname Army announced that it had
“decided to take the offensive in the battle against the Brunswijk
band”.
Data gathered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
during the last year allows it to take note of certain measures being
taken for the return of civilian and democratic rule in Suriname but
that it still fells short of securing the effective exercise of the
rights and freedoms recognized in the American Declaration of the Rights
and Duties of Man. The Commission hopes that in the next year, according to the goals the Government has committed itself to reach, the State's structure, characterized at present by the concentration of power in the Military Council headed by Colonel Bouterse, will be modified so as to establish an actual democratic government through free, secret and informed elections, that will guarantee the full exercise of human rights.
[
Table of Contents | Previous
| Next ] |
