L.      Later developments

1.          On August 24, 1982 the Government of Nicaragua replied to the Commission on the report that had been submitted to it by the IACHR. In the reply, the Nicaraguan Government analyzed the conclusions and recommendations put forward by the Commission, and proposed that it assume the role of mediator in order to reach a friendly settlement, in conformity with Article 48-1(f) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Government of Nicaragua indicated the procedure that should be followed for the purpose.

          The proposal of the Government of Nicaragua was considered by the Commission at its (special) 57^th session, which was held in September in San José, Costa Rica.[9]

2.          Although at that and all subsequent sessions up to the adoption of this report, the subject of human rights of the Nicaraguans of Miskito origin was principally considered in the context of the process of reaching a friendly settlement which the Commission has undertaken, the Commission also continued to be concerned with the general situation of the Miskito Indians, and it received all information concerning new events which were taking place in the northern zone of the Department of Zelaya, and adopted the measures at its disposal.

3.          Among the events that took place following the adoption of the Report on June 26, 1982, note should be taken of the harassment by government authorities and soldiers of the Sandinista Army of the Miskito towns and villages; the frequent skirmishes between the Sandinista Army and armed insurgent groups generally comprising or supported by Miskitos that took place in the northern part of the Department of Zelaya, particularly in locations near Puerto Cabezas, and which led to dozen of deaths; the November 4, 1982 declaration of the territory of 24 municipalities in the Departments of Chinandega, Madriz, Nueva Segovia, Jinotega and Zelaya, adjacent to the border zone with Honduras, as a military emergency zone; the consolidation of the Tasba Pri settlements; the relocation in November and December of 1982 of approximately 4,000 Miskitos from their villages in the Coco River and the Bokay River zone, in the Department of Jinotega, to settlements located in the interior of the same department; the accident on December 9, 1982, which took place in the course of the relocation of several Miskito children to these new settlements, and which claimed the lives of 75 of them and of 9 of their mothers, when the helicopter transporting them accident ally crashed; the increase in the number of detentions of Miskitos, and the subsequent release of some of them; the transfer of nearly 400 Miskitos, prisoners to Managua, first to the Zona Franca prison and then to the Granja del Régimen Abierto (minimal security work farm); the flight to Honduras of hundreds of Nicaraguan Miskitos; the claim of disappearances of Miskitos; and the sentences handed down on September 16, 1983 by the Supreme Court of Nicaragua, which by nullifying the criminal proceedings overturned the sentences that had been given by the Court of Appeals of Bluefields and dismissed the charges against the accused.

These facts, which were not included in the previous report, were given special consideration by the IACHR, and they are considered Part II of this Report.

4.          At sessions held following the adoption of the Report on June 26, 1982, the Commission received the testimony of several individuals and of representatives of institutions concerned with the situation of the Miskitos. Thus, at its (special) 57^th session, held in San Jose, Costa Rica in September 1982, the Commission received the testimony of Mr. Rafael Zelaya Herrera, representing Misurasata, who insisted on the preconditions that the Government of Nicaragua should establish to make possible mediation between the Miskito people and the Government. Among these preconditions, Mr. Zelaya Herrera insisted on the release of all imprisoned Miskitos and on “an end to the massacre of the Miskito Indians.”

5.          At its 58^th session, held in November of 1982, the Commission gave a special hearing to Dr. Leonte Herdocia, National Commissioner for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and to Ambassador Edgard Parrales, permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the OAS. In addition, in another interview it spoke with Reverend Fernando Colomer, Superintendent of the Moravian Church of Nicaragua, who submitted a document titled “Considerations with respect to Peace and Reconciliation in Nicaragua: An Indian Proposal”. In the course of this session, the Commission also gave a hearing to Mr. Tillet Mullins and four other members of the Council of Elders, all of whom are currently exiled in Honduras. The group’s spokesman, Mr. Wyciffe Diego, stated on its behalf that 15,000 Miskitos had left Nicaragua for Honduras due to repression and terror and that they were opposed to the repatriation of Miskitos from Honduras to Nicaragua. The Council of Elders also submitted several documents summarizing their viewpoints to the Commission.

6.          At its 59^th session, held in April 1983, the Commission received Mr. Armstrong Wiggins of the Indian Law Resource Center. According to Mr. Wiggins, the procedure to reach a friendly settlement has failed because the human rights situation of the Miskito peoples according to him, had led to the machine-gunning of 4300 Miskitos by the Nicaraguan Air Force as they tried to reach the border with Honduras after abandoning one of the relocation camps. He said that hundreds of Miskitos had been killed or wounded in confrontations with the army, that others had been arbitrarily arrested and interrogated and that perhaps over 600 were currently imprisoned, accused of counterrevolutionary activities. Mr. Wiggins added that the entire region was still under military occupation, and that Indian leaders had been replaced by officers of the Sandinista Government and Security Forces, while access to the northeast region of Nicaragua was closed off and the Government insisted that all of the problems arose from an external imperialistic conspiracy. As a result, Mr. Wiggings added that the mediating role of the Commission should be terminated, and without prejudice to subsequent renewal of the process, the report should be published now.

In the course of that session, the Commission also interviewed Mrs. Margarita Wilde of the Moravian Church of the United States, who had been to Nicaragua the previous month. She stated that the role of the Commission had been very positive and that it would be regrettable if no progress were made in the search for a friendly settlement. Mrs. Wilde added that the Commission still had much to do, either on its own or in cooperation with the ICRC and the UNCHR, in contributing to improving the circumstances under which the Miskitos live. Mrs. Wilde added three matters of particular concern to her: 1. The fact that some 60-70 persons had disappeared, of whom the Moravian Church has a list; 2. The fact that the cases of the accused Miskitos are currently at a standstill in the Supreme Court of Justice; and 3. That the rules of due process have not been followed in these cases. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mrs. Wilde replied that the only institutions that at this time genuinely united the Miskitos in Nicaragua is the Moravian Church, which nevertheless does not wish to assume a role of political representation.

7.          At its 59^th session, the IACHR decided to authorize the Executive Secretary and whatever staff members he might appoint to travel to Honduras and to Nicaragua in order to gather reports and update the information in the possession of the Commission.

8.          As a result of this decision, a lawyer from the Secretariat, Dr. Guillermo Fernández de Soto and a staff member Mrs. Dafne Murgia traveled to Honduras, and interviewed Honduran authorities and staff members of the UNHCR in Tegucigalpa; they also held several meetings with representatives of the refugee Miskito communities in Mocoron and other settlements in the Gracias a Dios Department. At these meetings, the refugees expressed their desire to remain permanently in Honduras and not to return to Nicaragua.

9.          On June 7, 1983, Dr. Edmundo Vargas Carreño, Executive Secretary of the Commission, and Dr. Christina Cerna traveled to Nicaragua and interviewed senior officials of the Government of National Reconstruction, including a member of the Government Junta, Dr. Rafael Córdoba Rivas; the President of the Supreme Court, Dr. Roberto Arguello Hurtado; the Minister of Foreign Relations, Miguel D’Escoto; the Minister Secretary General of North Atlantic Zone, Commander William Ramirez and the National Commissioner for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Dr. Leonte Herdocia. They also held several meetings with the defense attorneys for the Miskitos, with the Representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Moravian clergymen, and representatives of other institutions such as the Permanent Commission on Human Rights of Nicaragua.

They also visited the penitentiaries where the Miskitos are detained, both in Managua and in Puerto Cabezas; they toured the towns of Slilma Lila and Yulu and two of the Tasba Pri settlements, on which occasions they obtained testimony from various Miskito inhabitants, with the assistance of the Moravian pastor, Fernando Colomer, who served as interpreter.

10.          At its 60^th session, held in June of 1983, the Commission studied the status of the dispute in the light of the events that had taken place in recent months. In addition, it discussed who could be considered as a party to the dispute in addition to the Government of Nicaragua; and it evaluated the compliance of the Government of Nicaragua with the previous recommendations of the Commission.

11.          At is 61^st session, held in September of 1983, the Commission received testimony from representatives of the Council of Elders, headed by Messrs. Mullins and Diego and also from the US anthropologist, Bernard considered that the partial compliance by the Government of Nicaragua with the previous recommendations set forth by the Commission were insufficient to establish an atmosphere of détente between the Government and a large part of the population of Miskito origin to reach the necessary friendly settlement. For that reason, the Commission decided to adopt this report in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, the Commission wished to make one last effort with the Government of Nicaragua before concluding its participation as the mediator in a friendly settlement and for that purpose it submitted to the Government a concrete proposal aimed at obtaining a settlement.[10] Should the proposal not be accepted by the Government of Nicaragua within the deadline indicated by the Commission, it would proceed to terminate the friendly settlement procedure and publish this report, after meeting the requirements and time periods established in Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

M.          The problem of determining the parties to the controversy

1.          In light of Article 48 1.f of the American Convention on Human Rights, one of the most important problems that arose in this matter has been to determine who should be considered the other party to the dispute in addition to the Government of Nicaragua. In this respect, it should be pointed out that there have been changes in the viewpoints of those who initially submitted a complaint to the Commission; furthermore, the problem at this time involves new aspects due to the position taken by the Government of Nicaragua. This has produced a situation that merits further analysis.

2.          On January 28 of 1982, the Commission received a “Charge of genocide by Sandinismo of the Indian of Misurasata”, dated January 15 of 1982 and addressed to various other international organizations, unsigned and with no address, but with the stamp of the Coordinator General of Misurasata. Once it had been confirmed that the charge was that presented by the Coordinator General of Misurasata, Mr. Brooklyn Rivera, with whom the Commission had contact, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts to the Government of Nicaragua on February 24 of 1982. Subsequently, by men of a written presentation dated April 8 of 1982, Brooklyn Rivera reiterated his earlier charge, explained the origins of the dispute of the Indian peoples of the Atlantic Coast with the Government of Nicaragua and proposed a negotiated solution that would give the Indians title to heir lands and autonomy within the State of Nicaragua.

3.          In February of 1982, Mr. Steadman Fagoth, Former representative of Misurasata on the Council of State, came to he Commission’s offices and gave an oral presentation on the events that took place in the surroundings of the Coco River late in 1981. Mr. Fagoth later submitted to the IACHR, at its 55^th session, a written statement dated January 7 of 1982, in which he brought serious charges against the Government of Nicaragua.[11]

4.          Mr. Armstrong Wiggins, who has acted as coordinator of the regional leadership of Misurasata on the Atlantic Coast in 1980 and the early months of 1981, also came to the Commission’s offices in February, and gave background information on the events that took place on the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua. Mr. Wiggins subsequently came to the Commission when it was holding its 55^th regular session, representing the Us Indian Law Resource Center, at which time he expressed the viewpoint of that institution with respect to the Nicaraguan Government’s behavior towards the Miskitos.[12] In addition, on May 19 of 1982, the Indian Law Resource Center formally requested the Commission to considerate a party to this matter.

5.          In the course of its 55^th regular session, the Commission also received the testimony of Reverend Grahan J. Rights, representing the Moravian Church of the United States, and he requested that the Commission investigate the events that took place in late 1981 and early 1982 on the Government of Nicaragua and the Miskito Indians.

6.          The position of the original claimants changed as further events took place and evolved in Nicaragua.

7.          At this time, Misurasata is deeply divided between the faction headed by Steadman Fagoth and that directed by Brooklyn Rivera. To some extent, this division reflects the differences which exist at a broader political level among the groups that oppose the Sandinista Government. Thus, while Fagoth, in close coordination with the Nicaraguan Democratic Front (FDN), has taken up arms against the Government of Nicaragua, Brooklyn Rivera, in Costa Rica, has united with Alfonso Robelo, Fernando Chamorro and Eden Pastora in the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE).

8.          According to the information available to the Commission, it is clear that a considerable number of the Miskitos who have taken refuge in Honduras give their unconditional support to Fagoth and consider him to be predestined to lead the Indian rebellion to topple the Sandinist regime. For that reason, the refugee Miskitos in Honduras consider Brooklyn Rivera and those who follow him as traitors who have encouraged “Divisionism in our national liberation movement, who prejudice and seek to destabilize our MISURASATA Organization which is made up and organized from within and without Nicaragua”. The MISURASATA faction led by Brooklyn Rivera on the other hand, in addition to the support of the leaders in Costa Rica, appears to have greater international recognition, especially from Indian organizations such as the Indian Law Resource Center.

9.          With respect to this dispute, Misurasat (Costa Rica), led by Brooklyn Rivera, has been relatively cooperative with the Commission. Initially, Brooklyn Rivera suggested that the Commission assumes a mediating role; however, with the passage of time, this position has gradually been abandoned and at this time its position is that the Commission publish its Special Report on the situation of the Miskitos in Nicaragua. Thus, in a letter dated April 30 of 1983, Brooklyn Rivera stated the following to the Executive Secretary of the Commission:

We wonder when we will see some firm resolution on the part of the IACHR against the FSLN regime, concerning their continuous violations of the human rights of the Indians. It is clearly not just to continue to allow the commanders who use pretext and calumnies to freely continue to commit atrocities against the humble Indians. It is time that the IACHR publicly admit that the commanders are not interested in a friendly settlement with the Indians, and that it publish its report on the situation of the human rights of the Indians in Nicaragua.

10.          On the other hand, Misurasata (Honduras), which is now called Misura, and headed by Steadman Fagoth, has been harshly critical of the Commission, and has attributed base motives to it. Thus, in an interview that appeared in Diario Las Americas on October 20, 1982, Fagoth stated “The IACHR does not enjoy either the trust or the esteem of the Indian populace… and the IACHR the IACHR will try to find a ghost representative of the Indians to use in the mass communications media in order to divide the refugee populations, but we can confidently state that Indian unity is indestructible.” Later, the Political Committee of Misura, through one of its spokesmen, stated to the Diario La Tribuna of Tegucigalpa, on May 4 of 1983, that: “We recognize no authority in the measures taken by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the OAS because it has conspired with the genocidal Sandinista Regime to force our people to return to Nicaragua and be completely exterminated.”

11.          The position of the Indian Law Resource Center, stated by its most authoritative spokesman in this mater, Mr. Armstrong Wiggins, has been similar to that maintained by Misurasata (Costa Rica) headed by Mr. Brooklyn Rivera, i.e., in the course of the last few months they have been in close contact with the IACHR, and at present are urging it to abandon its mediating role and publish its report. Thus, Mr. Armstrong Wiggins, in his testimony to the Commission on April 12 of 1983, stated:

We believe that it is time for the Commission to declare that it will no longer continue to act as mediator. The Commission should openly declare that its efforts to promote a friendly settlement have not been successful, and the Commission should invite other institutions, including governments and human rights organizations, to investigate the situation of human rights in Indian territory in Nicaragua.

12.          The position of the Moravian Church, both in the United States and in Nicaragua, as stated through authorized spokesmen, continues to be that the Commission should continue to play a mediating role, despite the difficulties encountered. Thus, Mrs. Margaret Wilde, in her testimony to the IACHR on April 12 of 1983, reaffirmed the view of the Moravian Church of the United States that the role of the Commission as mediator has been very positive and that it should continue that role. During a visit to Nicaragua, the Executive Secretary and Dr. Cerna spoke at length with religious authorities of the Moravian Church, such as Bishop John Wilson, Reverend Fernando Colomer, and Pastor Santos Cleban, and were given the impression that they saw the Commission as an important instrument for promoting the observance of human rights, and for that reason it should not abandon its presence in Nicaragua and its relations with the Government.

13.          The viewpoint of the Government of Nicaragua is that Misurasata cannot be considered a party to this dispute, as it is an organization that has been disbanded and whose principal leaders are currently in exile, and who have taken up arms against the Government.

14.          As early as December of 1981, Mr. William Ramirez declared that the Government of Nicaragua was “obliged to withdraw official recognition of Misurasata both because its claims had reached the point of violating national sovereignty and because it had undergone an objective distancing from its bases.”

15.          The Government of Nicaragua, in its proposal Document to the Commission of August 24, 1982, later responded to the recommendation of the IACHR that Misurasata or another Indian organization be allowed to operate in Nicaragua, in the following terms:

The Government of Nicaragua maintains a position of respect for international agreements signed with respect to human rights, for which reason it guarantees the right of assembly of Nicaraguans, obviously including Indian Nicaraguans. Within this framework, there is already an association of Sumos and organizational structures are being established for Criollos, Ladinos, Ramas and Miskitos. With respect to the return to Nicaragua of the leaders of the disbanded Misurasata organization, the Government of National Reconstruction states for the record that there is no persecution in Nicaragua of leaders for membership in any organization, and it assures all Nicaraguans residing abroad that they may return, with full guarantees.

16.          Nevertheless, the Government of Nicaragua later stated that it would not allow the leaders of Misurasata to return because of serious criminal charges pending against them. In a note of January 5, 1983, the Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the OAS, gave the following reply to the Commission’s recommendation that it allow these leaders to return so that they could participate in the process of a friendly settlement:

An unacceptable element has been added, as the Government of Nicaragua is required to provide security and liberty to all those who attend such a meeting even when there are formal charges against some of them. This requirement by its very nature violates the juridical structure of the State and places the Executive Branch in the position of impeding, should it accept the requirement, the exercise of an autonomous stand independent judiciary.

17.          The same position was subsequently reiterated in a note dated November 14 of 1983, in which, in reply to the recommendation of the Commission to hold a Conference with the participation of representatives of the broadest possible sectors of the various communities of Miskito origin, the Government of Nicaragua expressly rejected “the presence of any representative of the Council of Elders, of Mr. Armstrong Wiggins and of the counterrevolutionary Misurasata Organization, guilty of numerous crimes against the people of Nicaragua an instruments of barbarous North American aggression.”

18.          Thus, the Government of Nicaragua does not allow either of the factions that comprise Misurasata to be considered a party to this dispute: neither that headed by Brooklyn Rivera nor that led by Steadman Fagoth.

19.          Who then would be acceptable to the Government of Nicaragua to be a party to the dispute? With which representative sector of the Miskito population could the Government of Nicaragua have a dialogue to seek a settlement to their difficulties? The reply that the Government has given is that contained in the proposal document of August 24, 1982, according to which, once the Miskitos who are now in Honduras are repatriated, under the observance of the IACHR, “the Indian communities would democratically elect the delegates that would meet at the table in conversations with the delegates of the Government of Nicaragua to seek solutions.”

20.          In the view of the Commission, at this time the proposal of the Nicaraguan Government cannot be implemented. As the IACHR or the staff members of its Secretariat have has opportunity to note on two occasions, at this time the condition do not obtain that would allow the refugee Miskitos in Honduras to return to Nicaragua, and thus participate in the election of the representatives who would negotiate with the government. On the other hand, even in the hypothetical case that such a return took place, those Miskitos would only represent part of the Miskito population, whose problems and difficulties, as will be seen throughout this report, go beyond the mere question of the return of the refugees to Nicaragua.

21.          In view of the above situation, there would be no institution or agency that could truly represent all of the Miskitos, within and outside Nicaragua, and act on their behalf with respect to the matters that concern them.

Under these circumstances, and taking into account the importance of reaching a friendly settlement that can meet the aspirations and interests of those concerned, the Commission considers that although the status of party in this matter cannot be strictly assumed by representatives of a single organization, it is possible to try to obtain the participation of Miskitos to represent their various communities.

22.      On this point, the Commission notes the following:

a.       There is no organization in Nicaragua, which at this time represent all of the ethnic groups. The Commission has observed, however, that the religious groups that are active on the Atlantic Coast maintain close contact with the Miskito people of that region. Of these religious groups, clearly the most numerous and important is the Moravian Church, although the Catholic and Anglican Churches also maintain a small but relatively important presence in the region. Therefore, the Commission considers, first, that there is a possibility that the religious groups, especially the Moravian Church, could assume representation of the interests of the Miskitos.

b.       A second group whose interest should be represented in negotiations aimed at achieving a friendly settlement is that of the Miskitos who have been moved from their traditional villages and relocated in new settlements. Of these new settlements, those of Tasba Pri appear to be the largest, and according to information provided by the Government, they have already elected their own representative.

c.       The largest group of Nicaraguans of Miskito origin outside of Nicaragua is that which has taken refuge in various parts of the Gracias a Dios Department in Honduras. The most representative institution that these Miskitos have is apparently the Council of Elders.

d.       It is also necessary to bear in mind that a group of Miskito leaders who continue to claim representation of the Misurasata Organization are refugees in Costa Rica and have assumed an important role in this matter.

e.       Furthermore, the Commission cannot overlook the existence of the Indian Law Resource Center, Which formally requested to be considered a party to this dispute, and which through its representative, the Miskito Nicaraguan leader Armstrong Wiggins, has participated actively in this matter.

The Commission considers that the organizations, agencies and persons mentioned above could have acted as counterpart to the Government of Nicaragua in seeking a friendly settlement, as the Commission proposed to the Government of Nicaragua.[13] Unfortunately, the Government of Nicaragua’s failure to accept any of these organizations and persons has meant that it has not been possible to reach a friendly settlement to the dispute.

N.     Attempt to reach a friendly settlement

1.          The American Convention on Human Rights, in Article 48 1.f, provides that the Commission, when it receives a petition alleging violation of any of the rights protected under that Convention shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for the human rights recognized in the above-mentioned Convention.

2.          In its report of June 26, 1982, the Commission held that not only because of the binding nature of this rule of the Convention, but also and especially because of the very nature of the matter, the Commission was convinced that in the interest of the Government of Nicaragua itself and that of the claimant, Misurasata, the best solution would have been a friendly settlement, arising as a result of negotiations between the authorities of the Government of National Reconstruction of Nicaragua and the Misurasata Organization, with the assistance of the Commission.

3.          Mr. Brooklyn Rivera himself, Coordinator General of Misurasata, expressly came to the Commission’s headquarters to insist that the Commission play a mediating role in this case that would allow, through an arrangement between the Nicaraguan Government and Misurasata, for satisfaction of the claims and interest of the Miskitos that gave rise to the charges that led to this report. Likewise, in oral or written presentations, organizations such as the Moravian Church of the United States and the Indian Law Research Center, encouraged the Commission to play that role in contributing to a friendly settlement between the Government and the Indian communities concerned, based on respect for human rights.

4.          However the Commission understood that the Minister of the Interior Commander Tomas Borge, did not accept that initiative in the course of the interview that it held with him on May 3, 1982, when the Commission discussed with him the need to seek a friendly settlement; to this is added the fact that the Misurasata Organization had been dissolved and its chief leaders detained and later forced to leave Nicaraguan territory. All of this led the Commission to consider in this report that, at least at that time, conditions did not obtain for it to assist the parties to the dispute. At the same time, the Commission insisted that it remained at the disposal of the parties when the circumstances were such that a friendly settlement of the matter was possible.

5.          Despite the foregoing, the Government of Nicaragua, in its reply of August 24, 1982 to the IACHR report, requested the Commission to assume the role of mediator in a friendly settlement bestowed on it in Article 48 1,f of the American Convention on Human Rights. In that document, the Nicaraguan Government, after studying the conclusions and recommendations contained in the commission’s Report of June 26, 1982, proposed the following procedure for a peaceful settlement:

a.       The IACHR will contact the National Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in order to obtain information on its steps, opinions and recommendations with respect of the investigation of the alleged violations of the rights to life.

b.       The IACHR will facilitate the repatriation of the Nicaraguans of Miskito origin located in Honduras and involved with these events, through the operation of a commission composed of the IACHR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua, which Commission shall be chaired by the IACHR.

c.       After repatriation, and under the observation of the IACHR, the Indian communities will democratically elect the delegates who would meet at the table in conversations with the delegates of the Government of Nicaragua to seek solutions.

6.          On September 20, 1982, the Commission, which was meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica to hold its 57^th (special) session, considered the proposal made by the Government of Nicaragua and decided to accept its petition that the Commission place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. The text of the note of the Commission reads as follows:

Excellency:

I have the honor to address Your Excellency with respect to the Proposal Document of the Government of Nicaragua to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, dated August 24 of 1982, in which the Commission is requested “to assume its role as mediator in seeking a friendly settlement in accordance with the American Convention on Human Rights and the Commission’s own Statute and Regulations” with respect to the difficulties that have arisen between the Government of Nicaragua and citizens of that country of Miskito origin.

At its 57^th (special) session held in the same city, the Commission has carefully studied that document and accepts the petition contained in it to place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights, in accordance with Article 48.1.f. of the American Convention on Human Rights. Of course, the Commission will act with the authority and discretion necessary to carry out that task within the limits established in its Statute and Regulations.

To carry out this task, the Commission has appointed a Special Commission made up of the Chairman, Dr. Marco G. Monroy Cabra; First Vice Chairman, Mr. Cesar Sepulveda and former Chairman, Tom J. Farer. The Special Commission expects to meet as soon as possible with Nicaraguan authorities in order to discuss with them the procedure other specifics regarding the search for a friendly settlement to all of the matters that involve the observance and respect for the human rights of the Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin, in an attempt to reconcile the interests of the parties concerned.

In addition, that Special Commission will contact the representative leaders of the Nicaraguan Miskito communities and the representatives of international agencies that can contribute to the solution of some of the problems that led to the establishment of this Commission.

Naturally, the Commission reserves its discretion to terminate its function should it consider that it is not possible to obtain a friendly settlement.

Finally, I wish to advise Your Excellency that the Commission considers that to be effective in the mediating role that it will assume, the Government of Nicaragua must adopt measures that will make it possible to overcome the difficult relations it has with a considerable sector of the Miskito population. In this regard, the Commission trusts that Your Excellency’s Government will be able to comply with such recommendations contained in its Preliminary Report of June 26, 1982, as may be implemented immediately.

I take this opportunity to give Your Excellency the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(s) Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

Chairman

7.          On September 27, 1982, the Government of Nicaragua indicated its satisfaction at the Commission’s acceptance of its proposal and at the same time expressed a willingness to discuss procedure and other details of the matter.

8.          On September 28 of that year, the Chairman of the IACHR sent a cable, and the Executive Secretary sent a letter advising the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of the agreement that had been reached with the Government of Nicaragua, and asked it for its support and assistance. In a cable dated October 25, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed its willingness to cooperate with the IACHR in its mediating role on the matter of the Miskito refugees in Honduras.

9.          In addition, on October 5, 1982, the Executive Secretary of the Commission, at its direction, advised the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Honduras of the agreement that the Commission had reached with the Government of Nicaragua. It requested the Ministry, insofar as possible and as deemed appropriate by the Government of Honduras, to provide the assistance and facilities that would be necessary in order to carry out the mission it accepted. The Government of Honduras, in a note dated October 19, 1982, and addressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Executive Secretary of the Commission, stated it willingness to lend to the IACHR any cooperation requested, although it specified that the Commission should also seek the consent of the Miskito population that had taken refuge in Honduras, which group the Government of Honduras views as “the other party to the dispute.”

10.          On November 18, 1982, the Special Committee of the IACHR met with Dr. Leonte Herdocia and with Ambassador Edgard Parrales to analyze the problems bearing on the participation of the Commission in seeking the proposed friendly settlement. As a result of these conversations, the Chairman of the IACHR addressed the Permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the OAS, in a note dated November 22, 1982, to clearly set forth how the IACHR understand its mediating role and what the applicable procedure in this matter should be; adopted by the Government and which could contribute to establishing the necessary conditions to allow the Commission to carry out its mediating role. That note reads as follows:

Excellency:

I have the honor to address Your Excellency with respect to the conversations held on November 18 last between representatives of the Government of Nicaragua and members of the Special Commission of the Inter-American Commission on Human Right (IACHR), during which some of the problems related to the participation of the IACHR in a friendly settlement of the difficulties between the Government of Nicaragua and the citizens of that country of Miskito origin were discussed.

After I reported to the Commission on those conversations, the Commission instructed me to set forth to the distinguished Government of Your Excellency the Commission’s understanding of its mediating role and of what the applicable procedure in this matter should be.

Naturally, the Commission wishes to reiterate, as it indicated in its note of last September 28 addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, that its participation as a mediator in the friendly settlement must include all matters that concern the observance of the human rights of the Nicaraguan citizen of Miskito origin.

Likewise, the Commission wishes to reiterate its viewpoint that, in order to be effective as a mediator, it would be advisable for the Government of Nicaragua to adopt as soon as possible some measures to improve the difficult relations that it has with a considerable sector of the Miskito population.

In this regard, the Commission would be grateful if the Government of Your Excellency implemented the recommendations contained in its report of June 26, 1982, and which may be applied immediately. In particular, the Commission considers that the following measures could contribute effectively to creating the proper conditions that would allow the Commission to assume its role:

1.      To pardon or give amnesty, as the case may be, to all Miskito who have been detained or convicted of alleged counterrevolutionary activities;

2.      To permit the return to the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua of all the clergymen who serve the Miskito population.

3.      To facilitate an exchange of information through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, between the Miskitos residing in Tasba Pri and those in Mocoron, in order to contribute to family reunification and voluntary repatriation; and

4.      To explicitly state that the relocation of the Miskitos to Tasba Pri was a temporary measure and that once the emergency is over, those who wish to return to their lands in the Coco River region may do so, with the cooperation and help of the Government.

I would now like to refer to the procedure that should be followed in this complex and difficult matter. In this regard, the Commission would like to suggest to the Government of Your Excellency a procedure with three stages, as indicated below.

First, the Commission hopes that the Government of Nicaragua will inform it in writing in the course of the coming months of all the issues in which it considers that the Commission could intervene to facilitate a friendly settlement. At the same time, the Government of Nicaragua should report in that same document on how it has implemented the recommendations set forth above.

Second, once that document has been received from the Government of Nicaragua, the Commission will contact all of the Miskito leaders, either within or outside of Nicaragua, to whom it has had access in order to determine their opinions on the above-mentioned document and their willingness to cooperate with the Commission in achieving a friendly settlement with respect to all the difficulties they have with the Government of Nicaragua.

Finally, once these stages have been completed, the Commission would sponsor a meeting between representatives of the Government of Nicaragua and representative leaders of the Miskito people, at which they may discuss the basis of a definitive solution with respect to all existing difficulties. The Commission, of course, offers its services to assist the parties at that meeting should they so desire.

Should that meeting be held in Nicaraguan territory, the Commission would naturally require that the Government of Nicaragua give its solemn commitment to guarantee the security and liberty of all the Miskito leaders who attend the meeting, even if there are formal charges against some of them.

I should also like to advise Your Excellency that the Commission has already established contact with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whose cooperation it has requested in solving some of the various matters which will involve it. The request was explicitly accepted by the high Commissioner in the case that there is a voluntary repatriation of the Miskitos who have taken refute in Honduras.

Finally, I should like to advise Your Excellency that the Commission considers that it might be useful to have an agreement between the Government of Nicaragua and the Commission, in which it shall be agreed that the Commission shall have all facilities and authority in Nicaraguan territory that may be necessary to carry out its task.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

Chairman

11.          On December 16, 1982, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua addressed a note to the Executive Secretary of the Commission in which he sets forth several considerations with respect to the participation of the IACHR as a mediator in the friendly settlement. In this note, the Foreign Minister particularly referred to the actions of the Chairman of the IACHR, Mr. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, in the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the twelfth regular General Assembly of the OAS. At the instruction of the Commission, the Executive Secretary replied to that note in a letter of April 15, 1983, which states that the Commission vigorously rejects the serious and unjustified accusations that call into question the impartiality with which the Chairman had acted, and informed him that in order not to interrupt the achievement of a friendly settlement, Dr. Monroy Cabra had decided to no longer be a member of the Special Commission on this matter.