|
|
|
EL
SALVADOR
Year after year the IACHR has been submitting reports to the OAS
General Assembly on the state of human rights in El Salvador and has
been closely monitoring the most significant events affecting human
rights in that Republic, especially with effect from 1978 when, as a
result of an on-site observation that year, it prepared a special report
on the Situation on Human Rights in El Salvador.
During the period covered by this report, the Commission has
noted a significant change in the relations of the Government of El
Salvador with it. Communications with the IACHR that were virtually
suspended by the Salvadoran authorities have been reestablished, and
replies have begun to be received to requests for information made by
the Executive Secretariat of the Commission concerning reports alleging
violations of human rights by the Armed and Security Forces of El
Salvador. The Government of El Salvador has also begun to cooperate with
the Commission in investigating the cases submitted to it and has even
granted its consent for a Special Commission of the IACHR to visit the
country in order to investigate on the spot the status of 33 cases in
which the requested information had not been supplied; in addition, the
Government authorized the Special Commission to investigate on the spot
Case 9621 relating to the status of 521 political male and female
prisoners who are at present incarcerated in the La Esperanza prison in
the Canton of San Luis de Mariona (males) and in the Center for the
Rehabilitation of Women in Ilopango, alleged victims of violations to
their right to freedom and personal integrity and to the judicial
guarantees of due process and prompt administration of justice.
There is a consensus—and this has been repeatedly stated by the
IACHR in its earlier reports—that the principal problem confronting El
Salvador is the internal, fratricidal war that has already caused so
many deaths, so much destruction, and multiple violations of the human
rights of its population, and which has resulted in the prolongation
year after year of a state of emergency that entail the suspension of
constitutional rights. In this context the Commission deems it advisable
to mention first the efforts that have been made and continue to be made
to return the country to peace and social harmony through discussions
between the forces involved in the conflict. The first round of these
conversations took place on October 15, 1984 in the city of La Palma,
and the second round of conversations was held on November 30 of the
same year in Ayaguayo; the third was in preparation, as on earlier
occasions, with the mediation of the Catholic Church through Monsignor
Arturo Rivera y Damas, the Archbishop of San Salvador. As on earlier
occasions, and in spite of the difficulties which have emerged, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights endorses the hopes expressed
by the Salvadoran people who yearn for peace, justice, and the full
observance of human rights, and it hopes that the efforts to ensure it
will not be discontinued or frustrated.
Therefore the state of human rights is deeply affected by the
state of war in El Salvador. However, the Commission notes that
substantial progress has been made in the observation of human rights
during the period covered by this report. There has been a considerable
reduction in the number of forced disappearances of persons and of the
activities of death squads, as well as a decrease in the indiscriminate
bombardments of civilian population uninvolved in the conflict, which
has brought with it a reduction in the number of deaths among the
civilian population. This has made it possible for a large number of
displaced persons to return to El Salvador.
In addition, the Commission has found that San Salvador, the
capital city is almost completely peaceful and now appears to be almost
free of acts of violence such as the appearance on the streets of
mutilated bodies, as noted by the Commission in earlier reports.
The Commission has also been informed by the Government of the
compulsory report the Security Forces must send at the time they arrest
a person to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Legal
Protection Agency of the Archbishopric, and the Government Commission on
Human Rights. This measure parallels the increased supervision the
humanitarian and human rights institution can now exercise over the
behavior of security agencies and the treatment of prisoners held
incommunicado under Decree Law 50, who can now be regularly visited from
the eighth day of their detention onwards in order to verify that they
are still alive, report to their family members on their arrest,
ascertain whether they have been mistreated or tortured and directly
report to the authorities on such events.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights deems it fitting to
acknowledge and highlight the enormous importance of the role in the
defense and protection of human rights and the humanization of the
conflict and respect for international norms of humanitarian law that
has been, and is being played, by the Catholic Church of El Salvador and
the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Despite the changes during the period covered by this report, the
Commission must also refer to other facts that seriously affect the
observation of human rights. They are:
With respect to the right to life, the figures supplied to the
Commission by reliable sources show that, despite what is stated above,
the result of violence and of the war in a single period of six months
between January and June 1986 were as follows:
Deaths in the civilian population attributed to the Armed Forces
36
Deaths in the civilian population during military operations
2
Deaths in the civilian population caused by bombardments
3
Deaths in the civilian population caused by mines
36
Arrested and subsequently missing
52
Deaths caused by death squads
24
With respect to what are called indiscriminate bombardments of
the non-combatant civil population, about 4,000 government troops,
supported by the Air Force, launched a special counterinsurgency
operation known as “Operation Fénix” in February 1986. It was
carried out in the immediate neighborhood of the Guazapo Volcano, about
40 kilometers to the north of San Salvador, in an area that is very
sensitive because of its proximity to the capital city and is considered
to be a redoubt of the guerrillas of the Farabundo Martí for National
Liberation Front (FMLN). Because of it, the Commission received numerous
communications denouncing further bombardments and indiscriminate
military attacks against the civilian population.
In this regard, the Catholic Church issued a public statement
through Father Jesús Delgado who, speaking on behalf of the Archbishop
of San Salvador, Monsignor Arturo Rivera y Damas, stated in his sermon
on Sunday February 23, in the Cathedral, that the Church had evidence,
in the case of “Operation Fénix”, that the insurgents had
endeavored to return the displaced farmers to their farms those who had
been forced to emigrate by government forces because they were suspected
of cooperating with the guerrillas, despite the announcement that a
military operation would be carried out and that their families had
informed the priest who visited them that they had received those orders
from the FMLN and had been pressured to resist the army offensive. In
the same sermon, which was widely commented on in the Salvadoran press,
the representative of the Archbishop stated that the Army was complying
with the appeals of the Church to respect the civil rights of the
displaced families and had permitted officials of the International
Committee of the Red Cross to visit and assist them.
With respect to military operations in combat areas, which entail
bombardments by the Armed Forces against the infrastructure of the
civilian population living in a disrupted area or controlled by
guerrillas whom it supports or aids, the Commission has received
contradictory versions; but in the opinion of the Commission, the fact
that the civilian population is suffering the effects of the war, and
worse still, that it expects to be used or manipulated by either of the
contending groups is extremely delicate and to be condemned.
The Commission cannot fail to refer as well to the serious and
painful problem of horrible deaths and amputations caused by the
explosion of mines sown both by the Army and by the guerrillas in the
fields and on the roads in the areas in dispute, with complete disregard
for the lives and personal safety of the civilian population living in
those areas. As a result of this extremely irrational strategy, hundreds
of Salvadoran citizens have been killed and thousands have been
mutilated for life. The victims include soldiers and guerrillas and even
innocent children of the rural population of El Salvador. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is of the opinion that the
humanization of the conflict in this area would be a major advance.
With respect to the right to personal freedom, the right to
personal integrity and the judicial guarantees of due process and of
prompt administration of justice, which were the subject of special
consideration during the on-site observation carried out by the Special
Commission of the IACHR last August, the Commission cannot at present
make any useful judgment on the findings. That will be done when its
investigations are concluded. It is only fair to emphasize that they are
being carried out with the full cooperation of the political, military,
and security authorities of El Salvador.
Nevertheless, with respect to the way in which Decree Law 50 is
affecting some of these rights, which has been dealt with in various
studies and analysis of different segments of Salvadoran society, the
Commission would like to offer some judgments on that legislative
measure which is having a negative impact.
In the view of the Commission, the period for investigation by
public security institutions, which has been increased to 15 days,
pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 2, is a harmful abuse of the human
rights of the persons held for trial, especially if account is taken of
the fact that the provisional detention may be based solely on the
evidence presented by the public security bodies and that the judge is
not required to check that evidence until 15 days after provisional
detention has been ordered.
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 16 of the above-mentioned Decree
Law 50, the accused may appoint a lawyer only when he receives
notification of the provisional arrest order which means in practice
that he will not have any legal counsel during the period of
administrative arrest and of the faster period for investigations set by
the military examining magistrate, which periods could be extended up to
90 days. This lack of legal advice during the first part of the trial,
in which decisive evidence may be produced against the person accused,
could seriously affect the right to defense.
Accordingly, the Commission deems it advisable for the Government
of El Salvador to revise the text of the above-mentioned Decree 50 to
make it consistent with the guarantees inherent in due process, which El
Salvador is internationally required to respect.
With respect to the situation of human rights institutions during
the period covered by this report and even since 1984, the Commission
has received information that neither the Legal Aid Office nor the new
Office of Legal Protection of the Archbishop of San Salvador—which
earlier had been subject to harassment—have been attacked or
prosecuted during the period.
However, the Commission has also been informed that in early
June, human rights activists of the El Salvador human rights commission
and the Mothers organizations “Marianella García Villas” and
“Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero” began to be arrested and were
accused of being influenced or manipulated by the Democratic
Revolutionary Front (FDR) of issuing misinformation about matters
relating to human rights, and of protecting members of the guerrilla
forces. During the early weeks of May 1986, the offices of those groups
were subject to supervision and attacks. The Armed Forces organized
military search operations in the area, when on May 8 María Teresa Tula
de Canales, an activist of the “Monsignor Oscar Romero” Mothers
Committee, was arrested. It is alleged that when interrogated she had
been forced to disclose the names of other members of her group. After
two days in captivity she was released in a park in San Salvador. Twelve
days later she was again arrested by individuals in civilian clothes and
kept incommunicado in the main barracks of the Treasury Police,
transferred to the Ilopango prison and again released at the end of
September.
During the second half of May, nine activists, officials and
employees of the Human Rights Commission, the Mothers Committee and of
another group of family members were arrested. Some are still detained
and at the disposal of the military courts and others have been
released.
Two of the persons who were arrested, well-known members of the
Human Rights Commission, announced their resignation from this human
rights group from the premises of the Treasury Police and publicly
accused their colleagues of using their organization as a cover for the
insurgent FMLN. Similarly, Janeth Alfaro accused other human rights
groups of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Subsequently, other
prisoners stated that they had been forced to back up the statements of
Janeth Alfaro and her sister.
Although the findings of the on-site observation carried out by
the Special Commission of the IACHR in El Salvador do not appear in this
report, since they are part of the investigation under way on cases that
are still being processed. It should be emphasized that that observation
was possible because of the positive change of attitude on the part of
the Government of El Salvador concerning the Commission, since in the
past that Government had failed to cooperate with the Commission and to
provide it with information on cases brought to its attention.
The activities of the Special Commission during its visit to El
Salvador are dealt with in the second chapter of this report. In any
event, the Commission would like to state that, as a result of the
visit, the Government of El Salvador has undertaken to investigate and
provide information on all the files awaiting a reply and have given
assurances that it will continue to cooperate with the work of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
To sum up, during the period covered by this report, the
Commission has found that significant progress has been made in El
Salvador in the observance of human rights, although there are
undoubtedly important restrictions and limitations on the full exercise
of those rights.
The right to life continues to be that most affected primarily,
although not exclusively, because of the armed conflict that has been
going on in El Salvador for years. In that regard, the Commission must again express its hope that the discussions between the Government and the insurgent groups will lead to a solution that will not involve the use of force. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the depth of the problems to be solved and the sharp antagonisms that still affect the Salvadoran society will demand long and continuing efforts if peace is to be achieved.
In the last years, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
has given special attention to the situation of human rights in
Guatemala given the serious violations which have occurred and the
generalized violence in the country. As a result, the Commission has
processed hundreds of complaints in which serious violations of human
rights have been alleged, particularly in reference to the right to
life, and has published three special reports on the situation of human
rights in Guatemala: the first one (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.53 doc.21, rev.2),
approved on October 13, 1981, refers to the situation of human rights in
that country up to that date; the second (OEA/Ser.L/II.61, doc.47),
approved on October 5, 1983, is dedicated to the situation of those
rights starting on March 23, 1982, date of the “coup d'etat” from
which General Efraín Ríos Montt emerged as President, to August 8,
1983, date on which he was overthrown by General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores;
and the third (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66 doc.16), approved on April 9, 1986,
refers to the period of General Mejía Víctores Government up to
January 16, 1986, date on which his administration ended.
On final approval of the third special report, the Commission
reiterated to the new Government of Guatemala the recommendations made
in its previous reports on the need to investigate and sanction, with
full force of the law, those responsible for illegal executions, forced
disappearances of individuals, arbitrary arrests, tortures and other
offenses against human rights.
In the present section about Guatemala, the Commission will refer
to the democratically elected Government headed since January 14, 1986
by Lic. Vinicio
Cerezo Arévalo.
The immediate precedents
set on reestablishing democracy in Guatemala were: the convocation of
the electoral process in which the National Constituent Assembly was
elected on July 1, and established on August 1, 1984; the approval, by
that Assembly, of the new Constitution of Guatemala on May 31, 1985; the
approval of the new Electoral Law on June 3 of the same year; the
convocation of presidential, legislative and municipal elections on the
following day; and the holding of general elections, which first and
second rounds are set for November 3 and December 3, 1985; respectively.
In the final stage of the elections held, the Supreme Electoral
Tribunal determined that Vinicio Cerezo Arévalo, the candidate of the
Christian Democratic Party, was the winner with a total of 1,133,517
votes, equivalent to 68.37 per cent of the participating voters.
In accordance with the preestablished political chronogram, on
January 14 of this year the new President assumed his functions, the
National Constituent Assembly ceased to exist, the new Congress was
established, the 330 elected Mayors throughout the country took office
and the new Constitution came into force.
On assuming his new functions, President Vinicio Cerezo, whose
mandate will last 5 years, from 1986 to 1991, stated that his efforts
would be directed towards strengthening peace in Central America,
reestablishing respect for human rights and rebuilding the country's
ailing economy. He also stated he needed time to make specific decisions
about the various problems the national was faced with; that once the
democratic process was consolidated he would try to start talks with the
Guatemalan guerrillas; that the civil defense force would be converted
from a paramilitary organization into a civil force in which
participation would be voluntary; that his Government would reduce
surveillance in small towns; that those who wished to abandon the
“Development Poles” could do so freely; that he expected the
voluntary return of those Guatemalans living in Mexico, to whom he
offered protection and security; and that he did not foresee massive
trials of the military or former officials but that he would not only
not oppose the Supreme Court, but support it, should it decide to
investigate the participation of military officers in abuses of human
rights; that he considered it counterproductive to purge the military of
men who had governed Guatemala during the last three decades because all
sectors had been involved in the struggle and if a military officer were
to be investigated then the military would require that the guerilla
also be prosecuted, so it was his Government's opinion that it was
better to leave all that behind, without dismissing the possibility of
adopting, in the future, severe sanctions against those involved in
violent acts.
On January 13, just a day before the military Government handed
over the reins of power to President Cerezo, sixteen decrees were
issued. Among them were decrees creating the National Security Council
and the Secretariat for National Intelligence and Security and enacting
a new amnesty law for all those responsible or accused of having
committed political and related crimes between March 23, 1982 and
January 14, 1985. These decrees were published in the official gazette
precisely on January 14.
The new amnesty decree, geared to create a climate of social
peace and to avoid difficulties to the new administration's actions,
according to those who sponsor it, also introduces a new juridical
principle which, in the opinion of the Commission, could hinder and
render inefficient the actions taken by the judicial entity in charge of
investigating and, if such is the case, sanctioning, the authors of
subversive and anti-subversive terrorist acts which took place in
Guatemala during recent years, and the most serious legacy of which is
the large number of persons abducted, illegally detained, tortured,
assassinated and disappeared.
Three weeks after taking office, President Vinicio Cerezo ordered
the dissolution of the secret police, called Departamento de
Investigaciones Técnicas (DIT), the Department of Technical
Investigations comprised of approximately 640 officers. This entity had
been originally established during Jorge Ubico's mandate (1931-1944)
under the name of Judicial Police. The agents, members of this security
force, who belonged to Guatemala's army, were detained in army barracks
in order to be investigated and interrogated on charges of having taken
part in numerous abductions and assassinations and of having committed
other crimes.
Aside from reorganizing the security forces and suspending the
activities of the secret police (DIT), the Congress on February 20
approved a set of modifications presented by the Executive branch, in
draft form, to the law regulating the operation of the
Inter-institutional Coordinating Offices which have become the
“Departmental Councils of Development”. As a result, the military
commanding officers no longer control the Interinstitutional
Coordinating Offices in the counties of Guatemala. These Councils are
now presided over by the county governors, and their membership includes
the mayors, the Commander or Chief of the corresponding military zone
and three representatives of the private sector. All of them come under
the authority of the President who presides over the National Council on
Development.
The so-called Development Poles, which have been the subject of
severe criticism by the Commission in its previous reports, have also
been placed under civilian administration and are presently under the
responsibility of the Minister of Urban and Rural Development.
It is worth mentioning, among other positive aspects, the
decision taken by the new Government to withdraw the reservation made,
on ratifying the American Convention, to Article 4,4 which establishes
that: “In no case shall capital punishment be inflicted for political
offenses or related common crimes.” A previous government, based on
the fact that the previous Guatemalan Constitution in Article 54 only
excluded capital punishment for political crimes but not for related
political crimes, had formulated that reservation to the Convention.
Considering that such provision is not included in the text of the new
Constitution, in force since January 14 of this year, the Government
presided over by Mr. Cerezo proceeded to withdraw the said reservation.
Also worthy of mention is the creation of the Central Registry
for the Control of Detainees, which can be consulted by anybody seeking
information about the detention of any individual; the promotion of
activities by political, labor union and cooperative organizations; the
reorganization of the judiciary in order to restore its independence and
autonomy; and the promotion and teaching of human rights throughout the
country.
Furthermore, the Commission wishes to express its deep
satisfaction for the fact that, in compliance with the mandate contained
in the new Guatemala Constitution the Congress has established the
Commission on Human Rights, comprised of one member of each of the
political parties represented in it, and that a bill to regulate the
operation of that Commission, as well as to set out the functions of an
Attorney General for Human Rights, has been prepared. Undoubtedly, the
latter constitutes the step prior to the designation of that magistrate.
Although Cerezo's Administration has been harshly criticized and
besieged for not having tried those high military officials to whom
violations of human rights were attributed, and for not investigating
in-depth each and every one of the cases of disappeared persons, there
is no doubt that during the first seven months of its administration a
noticeable change has occurred in the human rights situation in
Guatemala.
Aside from the above-mentioned measures initially taken by the
Government, when President Cerezo took office the number of political
assassinations, abductions, disappeared, raids and searches of private
dwellings, population flights, bombings and attacks on Indian and
peasant populations dramatically decreased, as well as the activities of
the death squads. This is a major change in Guatemala, especially taking
into account the violence that has plagued the country for so many years
and the natural political limitations inherent in a country where
representative democracy has just been established and where the armed
forces still have a great degree of actual power.
As to Guatemala's problem of the disappeared which came about
before the present Government assumed power, the Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo
(GAM – Mutual Assistance Group), one of the most critical of President
Cerezo, demanded an investigation as to the fate of the disappeared,
asking to be informed about “what happened to our beloved ones” and
requesting the establishment of the Investigative Committee which should
have started to function before last June 30, according to Governmental
promises. President Cerezo, for his part, makes the GAM responsible for
having frustrated this plan and for rendering him powerless due to the
Group's presentation of 1,267 habeas corpus petitions, both
individual and collective, to the Courts on May 30—one month before
the previously mentioned date. Thus, President Cerezo argues, the
Judiciary is competent to conduct the investigation while the Executive
has no jurisdiction to intervene until the Supreme Court completes its
investigation.
As far as the disappeared are concerned, cases which in the past
were one of the Commission's main concerns as regards Guatemala, the
Commission notes that even though its numbers have been obviously
reduced during the months since President Cerezo has been in office,
this horrendous practice has not entirely been stopped. Thus, in April
of 1986, peasants Bartolo Joaquín Coché, Barnabé Pop Sinaí, Miguel
Ulario, Cándido Ulario Morales, Cándido, Macario Coché Díaz,
Salvador Coché Petzeya and Pablo Coché Quicarín, according to reports
received by the Commission, were abducted in the Rio Bravo municipal
area, Suchitepequez Department, by men armed with machine guns who
traveled in two pick-ups, one blue and one white. According to the
complaint, the peasants were placed on top of the cars and taken to an
unknown place while the arms were aimed at them. This took place at the
San Basilio farm in Río Bravo. On April 11, 1986, the armed men
abducted Joaquñin Coché and on the 12th they abducted the
rest. On April 15, Cándido Ulario Martínez, Macario Coché Díaz,
Salvador Coché Petzey, Bernabé Sinay and Pablo Coché Quicarín turned
up alive. Although the conditions under which they were freed have been
impossible to establish, it is known that all five presented evidence of
having been beaten and having been deprived of food for three days. It
is also known that their feet and hands were tied and that they were
gagged. But the whereabouts of Bartolo Joaquín Coché and Miguel Ulario
have not been ascertained as yet.
The Commission is also concerned about the constant attacks to
which this fragile new democracy is subject. Recently, the Chief of
National Police was compelled to resign under criticism, made public by
the Army's Commander in Chief to the Minister of the Interior, for the
way in which he managed the civil security forces. He accused him of
failing to control and reduce the wave of common crimes being committed
in Guatemala and denounced the ineffectiveness of the Government, which
since it dissolved the secret police and created the Unidad de
Investigaciones Criminales (Criminal Investigation Unit) has not been
able to stop the wave of assaults, thefts and assassinations which,
according to data presented to the Commission, has resulted in 700
deaths since President Cerezo took office, although only 40 of them
might be attributed to political causes.
President Cerezo's Government has been faced with a series of
labor complaints, including a hospital strike which has completely
prevented 1,300 physicians from working, and public unrest in Indian
towns and even in Guatemala refugee camps on the border with Mexico, all
of which negatively affects the normalization of the country.
The Commission notes that despite the progress made by President
Cerezo's Administration there are still problems which affect the full
observance of human rights, mainly caused by widespread violence, which
the President has not been able to control.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommends that
efforts to consolidate and strengthen democratic and representative
institutions be continued, as well as those designed to promote respect
and protection of the essential rights of the human being. The Commission also supports and endorses the important work being done at present by the Courts in order to investigate, through the Investigating Judge especially appointed by the Supreme Court, the cases of disappeared persons presented by GAM. This task should have the most complete and firm cooperation of both public and private institutions, a concept that is consistent with the Commission's recommendation at a past regular meeting (OEA/Ser.L/II.67) held on April 9, 1986, which is included in the present Annual Report.
In its Annual Report for 1984-1985, the Commission stated that it
had accepted the Haitian Government's invitation to conduct an on-site
observation of the human rights situation in that country. The
Commission sent a member of its Secretariat to Haiti from December 3-15,
1985 to prepare the visit of the Commission, which had been scheduled to
take place during the week January 27-31, 1986.
In light of the growing unrest in Haiti, the Government
indefinitely postponed the Commission's visit on January 14, 1986. On
February 7, 1986 the Duvalier regime collapsed as Duvalier and his
family fled the country.
As affirmed in the 1984-1985 Annual Report, Jean Claude Duvalier
did not give the Haitian people hope for the democratization of his
regime.
On November 28, 1985, the fifth anniversary of the expulsion of a
number of prominent and popular critics of the President-for-life,
political demonstrations against the Duvalier regime erupted in
Gonaives. These demonstrations were swiftly and harshly repressed
resulting in the death of four youths.
The Haitian people, shocked at the killings of these youths, took
to the streets and called for a change of government. On January 31,
1986 Larry Speakes, the White House spokesman, en route to Texas,
mistakenly announced that Duvalier had fled the country and the Haitian
government had fallen. President-for-life Duvalier denied the
announcement of his departure and imposed a thirty-day state of siege,
which permitted the police to arrest protesting youths and hold them
without charges. The protests continued in spite of the state of siege
and the popular determination was manifest that they would continue
until Duvalier left.
At that time reports to the Commission indicated that the
Volunteers for National Security, known as the “Tontons Macoutes”
had been given license do detain, and in many cases kill, and that
hundreds of persons had been arrested throughout the country. The
Commission received further reports on a mass grave outside of
Port-au-Prince containing piles of charred human remains.
On February 7, 1986 Duvalier fled Haiti leaving behind a
catastrophic economic situation, in part reportedly due to his having
amassed a personal fortune estimate at US$400-900 million. A six-man
National Governing Council (CNG) assumed power on February 10, 1986, and
publicly committed itself to the restoration of human rights and public
liberties. The Council was comprised of four military men and two
civilians, and except for one civilian, Gerardo Gourgue, persons
connected with the former regime predominated on the Council. How this
Council was constituted is a matter of controversy and has not been
satisfactorily explained to the Haitian people.
On February 13-14, 1986 the OAS Permanent Council considered the
events that had been occurring in Haiti and passed a Resolution stating
that the OAS “is prepared to cooperate” in any way that will lead
“to strengthening the essential principles of representative
democracy” and “to authorize the Secretary General to provide to the
Haitian people the fullest possible assistance of a humanitarian
nature.”
The National Governing Council is the only governmental body in
Haiti today. The Haitian Parliament, which had emerged from the February
1984 legislative elections, branded as fraudulent, was disbanded on
February 9, 1984.
On March 20, 1986, Gérard Gourgue, the only member of the
Council who had actively opposed Duvalier, resigned protesting the
Council's failure to satisfy the popular demands of the Haitian people
for change, and because the Council had allowed Col. Albert Pierre, the
head of Duvalier's secret police, and other infamous torturers and
persons responsible for human rights violations to escape into exile.
Consequently, Lt. Gen. Namphy also dismissed those persons most closely
identified with Duvalier. The new Council consists of three persons: Lt.
Gen. Namply, Col. William Regala and Jacques François.
In June the protests against the Council continued, growing in
intensity and violence as the people called for the dissolution of the
junta and a purge of all the duvalierists in the Government. The
duvalierists elements were blamed for the failure of the Government to
halt human rights abuses by the security forces, and for failing to
bring to trial corrupt officials and military officers responsible for
past abuses. Lt. Gen. Namphy on June 5, 1986 urged the population to
restore calm stating that the riots had pushed Haiti to the brink of
civil war. Namphy blamed unidentified politicians with “negative
ideologies” for the unrest. The opposition demonstrations continued
throughout Haiti despite Namphy's call for calm, and more than 25
persons were wounded by bullets and a 16 year old girl was killed.
As the crisis threatened the survival of the CNG, on June 7, Lt.
Gen. Namphy announced that on February 7, 1988—2 years to the date
following Duvalier's flight—the Council would turn over power to a
government to be “freely elected” in 1987.
The long awaited political and electoral timetable provides for a
political parties law (July 1986) which in fact was issued on July 30,
1986, the election of a Constituent Assembly (October 1986), referendum
on the Constitution (February 1987), electoral law (March 1987), local
and municipal elections (July 1987), presidential and legislative
elections (November 1987), establishment of the legislative bodies
(January 1988) and searing-in of the new President (February 7, 1988).
A matter of special importance during the period covered by this
report is that relating to the situation of the former members of the
Volunteers for National Security “Tontons Macoutes.”
On January 31, 1986, Jean Claude Duvalier declared a 30-day state
of siege in a desperate final attempt to maintain himself in power. The
CNG kept Duvalier's state of siege in force, as well as a 2 p.m. to 6
a.m. curfew.
In spite of the curfew, following Duvalier's flight, people took
to the streets in celebration, which turned into a rampage of violence,
and explosions as the people sought revenge on the hated “Tonton
Macoutes”, the personal militia of the Duvalier dictatorship. The
Commission received information that an angry mob cornered one Macoute
and stoned him to death, others were reportedly hacked with machetes and
beheaded, or burned on the street.
An issue of continuing concern to the Commission is the ONG's
inability to disarm the militia. On February 9, 1986, Lt. Gen. Namphy
disbanded the “Volunteers for National Security” (“Tonton
Macoutes”) as an institution, and ordered them to surrender their arms
to government officials. Some 5,000 weapons were confiscated and there
are reportedly still 10,000 unaccounted for. The Commission has received
reports that some Macoutes took refuge along the Dominican border and
are waiting for the right moment to return.
The Commission has received reports from a Haitian human rights
organization on the unwillingness of the new authorities to take action
against continuing abuses by former Macoutes.
Also, the Commission has been informed that peaceful
demonstrators have been short, killed or wounded by security forces
during recent protests and these human rights violations have gone
uninvestigated despite widespread calls for such investigations.
Another issue which the Commission has followed closely is that
of the trials of former duvalierist officials.
The first serious crisis for the CNG resulted when the new
Government sought to ignore these demands and granted official
permission to Col. Albert Pierre to travel to political exile in Brazil.
Col. Pierre, who had a reputation for exceptional brutality as head of
Duvalier's political police, was allowed to depart for Brazil on
February 23, 1986 provoking a wave of violence in the capital during 48
hours. On March 25, following Gourgue's bitter resignation and the
continuing protest demonstrations, the CNG requested the extradition of
Col. Albert Pierre from the Brazilian authorities. This request is being
studied by the Brazilian Supreme Court. The
Commission notes that the CNG, having begun to detain persons accused of
notorious human rights violations during the previous regime, confronted
the difficult problem of bringing these persons to trial affording them
all the guarantees of due process. Without a reform of the judiciary,
and in light of the popular demands that these trials be public, the
Commission recognizes that disturbances and irregularities were
inevitable in the conduct of these trials.
On Monday, May 5, 1986, the trial of Lt. Col. Samuel Jeremie
opened, the first criminal trial against a high-ranking official of the
Duvalier regime, and the first public criminal trial in three decades.
Lt. Col. Jeremie, aged 52, was accused of murder, breach of army
discipline and “cruelty” stemming from two incidents in which at
least four Haitians were killed and five wounded. He pleaded not guilty.
On May 31, Lt. Col. Jeremie was found guilty of torture and
assassination and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Luc Desir, former head of the political police was tried next and
found guilty of illegal arrests, kidnappings, torture and the killing of
two persons in 1965. His trial lasted one and a half days, ending at
4:20 a.m. with the imposition of the death penalty.
The third trial, of Eduard Paul lasted only 24 hours (but without
stop). Paul was charged with complicity in murder, and was given a
sentence of 9 years (which was reduced to 3 years given the mitigating
factor of the defendant's advanced age).
The Commission notes with concern that persons have not been
brought to trial for killings which have occurred since February 7,
1986. On March 19, 1986 it was reported to the Commission that five
civilians were shot dead by the Army's elite shock troops, the Leopards,
and two days later two more shooting deaths occurred during peaceful
demonstrations. On Saturday, April 26, six more civilians were killed
and 48 wounded, many seriously, by the security forces at a
commemoration ceremony of political opponents to the Duvalier regime who
had been imprisoned at Fort Dimanche. The Commission finds no evidence
that these acts imputed to the security forces have been investigated.
As regards the right to personal freedom, the Commission has been
informed that only persons accused of human rights abuses during the
Duvalier regime are currently in detention.
On February 7, 1986, 26 political prisoners were released only
hours after Duvalier's flight. On March 5, 1986 the Minister of Justice,
Gérard Gourgue declared a general amnesty at the National Penitentiary
to apply to 237 common prisoners, due to the deplorable conditions in
which these prisoners had been held and the fact that 158 (of the 237)
had never been tried.
On May 10, 1986 the new Minister of Justice, François Latortue
declared that all political prisoners had been freed and that persons
still missing should be considered dead.
As regards religious freedom under the new Government, the
Commission notes that attacks on Voodoo adherents are related to the
fact that many Voodoo priests were “Tonton Macoutes”. The Commission
has received information that nearly 100 priests and priestesses of
Haitian Voodoo have been hacked, burned or otherwise put to death by
mobs since February. Again, the Commission finds no evidence that these
killings have been investigated by the new authorities.
The Commission concludes that the National Governing Council, at
least for the moment, has managed to quell the on-going protest
demonstrations that have plagued this Government since it assumed power
having now announced the long-awaited timetable for transition to a
democratically elected government. Underlying problems remain, however,
in that the Council's acts have no juridical basis. The Council proposes
to function as a government for a two-year period without the creation
of the other branches of government. It proposes to pass laws without
the benefit of a legislature and to try persons accused of crimes under
the Duvalier regime without an independent judiciary. Unless the
transition process is democratized and allows greater participation of
the general populace, it is foreseeable that such protests will resume. Lastly, the Commission wishes to acknowledge the fact that on July 29, 1986, the National Governing Council invited the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to visit Haiti in order to evaluate the human rights situation. The Commission has accepted the invitation and will arrange a mutually convenient date with the Government for the visit. As a result of this visit and its continuing to monitor the unfolding events, the Commission expects to be in a better position to inform the seventeenth regular session of the General Assembly about the human rights situation in Haiti.
[
Table of Contents | Previous
| Next ] |
