12.          On January 5, 1983, the Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the OAS, addressed a note to the Chairman of the IACHR in which he considered at length the procedure that the Commission had proposed in its note of November 22, 1982, as well as the recommendations that were put forth at that time. The letter reads as follows:    

Mr. Chairman:    

I have the honor to address Your Excellency to refer to your letter dated November 22 last, received in this Mission of Nicaragua to the OAS, which makes reference to the conversation 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 Rights (IACHR)”, at which the need to work by stages was discussed, for which purpose the Special Commission would submit to the Government of Nicaragua for its consideration some aspects of those stages, aimed at reaching a friendly settlement of the situation of some sectors of Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin.

Allow me to point out in this regard that conversation was preceded by one held in San Jose, Costa Rica, among the Chairman of the National Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Nicaragua, Dr. Leonte Herdocia, Your Excellency, and His Excellency, Mr. Cesar Sepulveda, from last September 27 to 29. Those conversations had been held after those held in Washington, last August, with the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR, upon submittal of the Proposal Document of the government of Nicaragua, aimed at a friendly settlement according to the terms of Article 48, subparagraph 1,f of the American Convention on Human Rights.

On both occasions, and in particular on that in San Jose, Costa Rica, extensive contact was made with delegates from the UNHCR and the ICRC, and those conversations were a continuation of what had been initiated by the Government of Nicaragua, as stated in a cable addressed to this Honorable Commission on last June 15, which reported the activities of the UNHCR to the Commission, the former having already made contact with the Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin residing in Mocoron. At the same time, we have recently provided a special airplane to the International Committee of the Red Cross so that it may visit the Tasba Pri settlements for three days. On the basis of a special agreement with Mr. Philippe Sargisson, Regional Delegate of the UNHCR, reached at a meeting held with Dr. Herdocia on December 9, in San Jose Costa Rica, it was decided to transfer tot he International Committee of the Red Cross all of the matters relating to communications between Tasba Pri and Mocoron. Delegates of the ICRC left precisely on the 17^th of the same month for Honduras, headed by Mr. Francois Musy.

With respect to the reiteration of the concepts set forth in your letter of last September 28, which I understand is dated September 20, since we have received no letter dated September 28, with respect to the need for my government to include in the proceedings for a friendly settlement, everything concerning “observance of the human rights of Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin”, I am pleased to inform you that the Proposal Document submitted by the Government of Nicaragua to the IACHR last August 24 contains a copy of the text of the cables sent on last June 15, signed by the Acting Minister, Mr. Victor Hugo Tinoco, which reports on implementation on each and every one of the recommendations made by the IACHR, and which also appear in the same text, from pages 10 to 17, of the Proposal Document of the Government of Nicaragua.

It is, therefore, surprising that Your Excellency should again refer to the recommendations, which have already been implemented, and in the context of which I would like to comment on the terms of your communication:

The two-month period that is given to the Government of Nicaragua to “make known in writing all of the issues in which it considers that the Commission could intervene to facilitate a friendly settlement”, allow me to recall that page 17 of the Proposal Document indicates three basic ideas on this point, which obviously can and should be elaborated that the Commission considers most advisable to facilitate its mediating role, since in the numerous conversations that have taken place, although no rigid mechanisms are established some parameters have been set forth, and we understand that the Commission has some concrete ideas which could be added to the procedure to be carried out by stages.

In this respect, allow me to suggest that one or several members of the Special commission should make personal and direct contact with the competent officials of the Government of Honduras, and that they should visit the Mocoron camps so that they may effectively help the work being done by the UNHCR and the ICRC, thus making a real contribution to international peace and tranquility in the area.

Second, Your Excellency adds that “once this document has been received from the Government of Nicaragua the Commission would contact all of the Miskito leaders within or outside of Nicaragua, to whom it has access, in order to determine their opinions with respect to that document, and their willingness to cooperate with the Commission in achieving a friendly settlement.”

In this regard, allow me to again point out to Your Excellency that p.17, subparagraph C of the Proposal document of the Government of Nicaragua states the following: “After repatriation, and under the observation of the IACHR, the Indian communities will democratically elect their delegates, who will deal at the negotiating table with delegates of the Government of Nicaragua in seeking solutions.

Finally, Your Excellency states that “should these prior stage be implemented, the Commission would sponsor a meeting between representatives of the Government of Nicaragua and representative leaders of the Miskito people, so that they may discuss the basis that would allow for a definitive solution with respect to all existing difficulties. The Commission, of course, offers its services to assist the parties to that meeting, if they so desire.”

In this respect, allow me to inform you that this is precisely the objective pursued by the Government of Nicaragua, in requesting the Commission to assume the role of mediator in a friendly settlement, and election procedures were discussed with Your Excellency and with His Excellency Mr. Cesar Sepulveda, as well as Mr. Sargisson of the UNHCR.

Finally, Your Excellency adds that “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 liberty of all the Miskito leaders who attend the meeting, even if there are formal charges against some of them.”

With respect to the foregoing and to the content of your note to which I reply, the impression is given that the Proposal Document submitted by the Government of Nicaragua on last August 24 has not been fully evaluated, and ideas that have already been definitively agreed upon are repeated, although a further element that is unacceptable has been added, since the Government of Nicaragua is required to provide security and liberty to all those who attend that meeting, even if there are formal charges against some of them, a requirement which by its very nature violates the legal system of the State and places the Executive Branch in the position of impeding, should it comply, the exercise of an autonomous and independent Judiciary. In this situation, allow me once again to recall the democratic election procedure suggested on page 17, subparagraph C, of the Proposal Document of the National Government.

Apart from the foregoing consideration, my Government, which has consistently expressed it conciliatory position, reiterates of the Honorable Commission its firm hope that a member of the Commission will visit Nicaragua as soon as possible, with full provision of all necessary facilities, so that the IACHR may carry out its mandate as mediator in a friendly settlement, and interview our Government Junta, to prepare a document for signature, since it is clear that verbal agreements hat had been reached are not reflected in your kind letter to which I reply.

The representative appointed to visit Nicaragua could discuss with our authorities the terms of the agreement, which the National Government would be pleased to sign with the IACHR. The discussion could also clarify any matter having to do with the mediating role that the Commission has agreed to assume, for the effective completion of which the Government of Nicaragua reiterates its fullest cooperation, in the certainty that the final settlement of this matter will be not only an effective contribution to international peace and security, but will also be an example to the world of what can be achieved in a framework of cordial relations and through a fruitful dialogue between the State and the highest regional authority in matters relating to the protection and promotion of human rights.

Finally, and as stated by the Foreign Minister of Nicaragua, Father Miguel D’Escoto, in a note of December 16 1982, addressed to the Executive Secretary, the presence in Nicaragua of a Delegate of the IACHR could and should provide the information necessary to assess the painful atmosphere of violence unleashed from Honduras in an undeclared war by elements of the National Guard of the genocidal dictator Somoza, with the support of sectors of the Honduran Army and Government, and as is internationally known, also with the support of the current administration of the United States of America.

My Government believes that the suffering undergone by our people because of the violence launched against it should be taken into account in the evaluation of the formula for a friendly settlement, to which I have referred throughout this note.

The situation of Nicaragua, Mr. Chairman, is far from being a normal situation; even the press in the United States has publicized situations relating to this undeclared war, which has cost so much Nicaraguan blood, due to the irresponsibility of a bellicose regime, which does not leave our people in peace and which impedes the exercise of the people’s inalienable right to self determination.

I enclose, to form part of the procedure as a whole, a list of Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin who were released last December, and I will inform you in a timely fashion of further releases granted due to pardons, which is under study by the National Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, for a decision under the terms of the Amnesty Law.

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

(s) Edgard Parrales

Ambassador

13.              On April 15, 1983, the IACHR which was meeting at its 59^th session, addressed the Ambassador, Permanent Representative to the OAS, through its Chairman, advising him that before the Commission adopted a final decision on this matter, it would be advisable to have more complete information, especially with respect to the following points: 1. Who, apart from the Government of Nicaragua, should be considered a party to the dispute? 2. What was the framework of the dispute? And 3. To what extent had the Government of Nicaragua complied with the recommendations set forth previously by the IACHR? IN turn, the Commission appointed the Executive Secretary and the Secretariat staff chosen by him to travel to Honduras and Nicaragua in order to make whatever assessments they deemed appropriate. The Government of Nicaragua gave its agreement for the Executive Secretary to travel to that country.    

14.              In the course of its 60^th (special) session, held in June, 1983, the Commission extensively and carefully analyzed the events that had taken place in Nicaragua since November, 1982, with respect to the Miskito population, in order to determine if it was still advisable and feasible to reach a settlement of this matter on the basis of respect for human rights. It also reiterated its request to the Government of Nicaragua to provide further information on certain pertinent pints, chiefly in connection with compliance with the previous recommendations of the IACHR.

In the note addressed by the Chairman at the IACHR, Mr. Cesar Sepulveda to the Foreign Minister, Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, stated:

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at its 60^th (special) session, held in Washington, has continued consideration of the subject of seeking a friendly settlement to the difficulties between the Government of Nicaragua and a group of Nicaraguans of Miskito origin.

The results of the observations made during the visit of the special delegation of the IACHR, which with Your Excellency’s Government consent was recently made to your country, and an extensive and careful study of the events that took place since November of 1982, have led the Commission to decide that, in order to determine if it is still advisable and feasible to seek a settlement of the matter based on respect for human rights, it would be necessary to have further information from your government on certain relevant points.

For that purpose, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights would be grateful if the distinguished Government of Your Excellency would inform it, as fully as possible, on how it has complied with the Commission’s previous recommendations, as they appear in its reports of June 26, 1982 and the note of November 22 of the same year, addressed by my predecessor, Dr. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, to the Ambassador Permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the OAS.

In particular, for the purposes indicated in the above paragraph, the Commission would like to know if the investigation has been concluded of the alleged violations of the right to life of Miskito citizens as a result of the events that took place in the Coco River region at the end of 1981< if previously detained Miskitos are still being released; if the trials now underway in the Supreme Court have been expedited, and if therefore, other Miskitos have already been released.

In general, the Commission is interested in knowing if further actions have been undertaken to create the conditions that would improve the difficult relations of the government with a considerable sector of Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin. The Commission is of the view that implementation of the above mentioned recommendation would make it possible to attain the desired friendly settlement of this dispute.

In order to be able to resolve the question of the participation of the Commission in the friendly settlement as requested, the Commission has decide to grant Your Excellency’s Government until September 16, 1983 to submit this important information.

The Commission hopes to receive the full cooperation of the Government of Nicaragua on the matters discussed in this communication which would allow it to satisfactory carry out the mission that has been entrusted to it.

Accept Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

César Sepulveda

Chairman

15.              On September 16, 1983, the Government of Nicaragua replied to this communication from the IACHR. The note, signed by the Foreign Minister and addressed to the Chairman of the Commission, reviews the process of friendly settlement, and then states the viewpoints of the Nicaraguan Government with respect to implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. With respect to the recommendation that it investigate the alleged violations of the right to life of the of Miskito citizens as a result of the events that took place in the region of the Coco River at the end of 1981, the note merely indicates that enclosed is “the report of the military investigation of the Leimus case, which contains the plan known under the name of Red Christmas, by means of which the armed Somocista counterrevolution attempted to invade Nicaragua from Honduras in the border area of Zelaya Norte, to seize part of our territory and declare it a liberated zone (seizure of the territory of Nicaragua), and to set up a provisional government that would immediately request the recognition of the governments in the region as well as military support.”

That action, adds the Government of Nicaragua:

Would be accompanied by an attempt to sow confusion through propaganda disseminated by a broadcast that is transmitted from Honduras in the Miskito language: many Miskitos, misled, left for that country, manipulated by the former agent of the Somocista security guard Steadman Fagoth Muller, who urged them to invade our territory in support of the Somocista bands that attacked the border populations, which were poorly armed and trained.

It also states that:

The deaths that occurred in Leimus were the consequence of the fierce attacks directed by the counterrevolutionary units that tried to take the town, and finding a group of 14 detainees, accused of collaboration with the counterrevolution, they took advantage of the confusion that prevailed at the time to flee toward the river under crossfire.

And that:

Also enclosed is the judgment of the Judge Advocate’s Office of the Sandinista Armed Forces, which investigated the events that took place at the end of December 1981, which led to a report dated April 2, 1983.

With reference to the matter of the decisions on appeal before the Supreme Court for nullification of the criminal proceedings, the note indicates that it encloses:

A certification of the sentences handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice, and which is in response to the recommendation made by the Commission in its document of June 26, which states> “to declare null and void the decisions made by judge Casaya in the cases of the Miskito Indians accused of counterrevolutionary activities, and to retry the accused with full guarantees of their right to due process. To demonstrate the seriousness of the National Reconstruction Government, we explained in the Proposal Document for a Friendly Settlement that at that time we could not implement this recommendation because of the obligation to respect the autonomy of the judiciary, and that in accordance with our laws, the Supreme Court of Justice may only annul sentences when the Court’s decisions are brought before it through the special remedy of annulment in criminal matters, which is exactly what took place in a large number of cases.”

The note also states that:

Orders for releases and pardons have in fact continued to be given. First, allow me to recall Note Nº 023/83/M/OAS of January 5, 1983, which our ambassador to the Organization of American States sent to your distinguished predecessor, Dr. Marcos Gerardo Monroy Cabra, which enclosed a list of Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin who had been released in December, 1982.

The note adds tat release orders for 45 citizens, whose names are included, were subsequently given on August 2, 1983.

Finally, with respect to the wish of the Commission to know if further actions have been undertaken to establish conditions favorable to a friendly settlement, the note of the Foreign Minister states that the following measures seek to attain that purpose:

Creation of a system of minimum-security work farms, where Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin who are under investigation or awaiting trial are housed. This newly established system was observed by Dr.Edmundo Vargas Carreño, Executive Secretary of the IACHR, and Dr. Christina Cerna, during their recent visit last June to Nicaragua. The special conditions of nearly complete liberty enjoyed by the Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin, accompanied in many cases by their own families who have voluntarily come from the Atlantic coast, and where they receive wages that they never received before for their productive labor, is fully valid only for the Nicaraguans of Indian origin, whatever the charge against them although there are some other detainees who are subject to the same regime.

The Government of Nicaragua has accepted as valid interlocutors the same persons suggested by the IACHR: Bishop John Wilson, Ministers Norman Bent and Fernando Colomer and the members of the Christian Committee for Peace on the Atlantic Coast, Rev. Sandoval Herrera, Minister of the Moravian Church, Rev Francisco Baker of the Catholic Church and Rev. Victor Ordoñez of the Anglican Church.

Furthermore, the Government of Nicaragua has encouraged the Miskito and Sumo leaders to participate in the meeting of the working groups of the UN Commission on Human Rights on Indigenous Peoples, and in fact several delegations have attended such meetings, the last held in Geneva from August 8 onward. The delegation was made up of Oscar Hodgson, Hazel Lau, both Miskitos, and Murphy Almendarez (Sumo). In this regard, I enclose the working document distributed by the International Indian Treaty Council, a nongovernmental organization and advisory body to ECOSOC, category II, which has visited Nicaragua three times.

Moreover, the Junta of the Government of National Reconstruction has approved a special budget for the establishment of an office that will function as a Subcommittee on Human Rights in Puerto Cabezas, with Steps are already underway to set up the office with an attorney, a recently graduated law student and the necessary administrative staff, in addition to vehicles for their transportation.

Allow me also to recall that when Dr. Edmundo Vargas Carreño visited Nicaragua, he was given a report of the CNPPDH, lists of detainees and other documents, and he was introduced to 5 people who were found alive and who had allegedly died in the unfortunate events of “Red Christmas”, which documents we believe should be studied.

Before closing, allow me to state to Your Excellency that the individuals who were not granted the remedy of annulment because the deadline for appeal had expired, may still exercise the right to bring a special review remedy, and the attorneys who submitted the remedy past the deadline are being submitted to an inquiry initiated by the Supreme Court of Justice.

My government, Mr. Chairman, believes that the measures adopted and the recommendations implemented give the IACHR ample margin to reach the desired friendly settlement. To this effect, the Commission will receive the full cooperation of the Government of Nicaragua in satisfactorily carrying out the mission that has been entrusted to it, although it considers it to be of greater interest to sponsor a dialogue with Honduran authorities in order to allow the Commission, the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross to obtain facilities in Honduran territory to investigate in depth the true feeling of the Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin who are now there, and who according to our reports would very much like to return voluntarily, since it is well known that there is a number of persons who have been kidnapped and forced to move to Honduras by counterrevolutionary bands that operate in the region.

The note of September 16, 1983, signed by the Foreign Minister, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, concludes by stating:

We understand the complexity of the problem, but we also understand that any effort that is carried out to seek the desired friendly settlement will be one of the most valuable achievements of this distinguished body.

16.              As stated above,[14] the Commission studied this material at length at its 61^st session, and before terminating its activities as a mediator in the friendly settlement, it decided to put a concrete proposal to the Government of Nicaragua, which represented “the last effort that the Commission can make after more than a year of active participation…”. The note of September 30, 1983, addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, reads as follows:

Excellency:

I have the honor to address Your Excellency on behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in reference to your note of last September 16, in which your distinguished government has been kind enough to report to this Commission concerning implementation of the recommendations made by the Commission in its document of June 26, 1982 and in the communication of November 22 of the same year, with respect to the search for a peaceful settlement to some problems that concern Nicaraguan citizen of Miskito origin.

At its 61^st session, the Commission carefully studied this last communication from Your Excellency’s government, and has taken due note of the measures adopted and of those proposed for the future with respect to the liberty and other rights of those Miskitos who currently do not enjoy the exercise of such freedoms and rights. Unquestionably, the Commission considers those measures positive, and expresses its gratitude to the Government of Nicaragua for having taken into account some of the recommendations previously set forth by the Commission.

Nevertheless, at the same time, the Commission cannot fail to state that this partial implementation of its recommendations is not sufficient to create the necessary atmosphere of détente that is required in order to overcome the serious difficulties that the Government of Nicaragua still has with a large group of Nicaraguans of Miskito origin.

In light of this, and so that the Commission may effectively carry out the task of mediator in a peaceful settlement, entrusted to it by the Commission to address Your Excellency in order to set forth the following proposal:

1.                  The Commission considers it indispensable that a pardon or amnesty be declared that covers all Nicaraguan Indians charged with the commission of crimes against public order and security or any related crime, and who are currently in prison, either serving sentence at the order of a competent judge or court, at the order of the Office of the Attorney General, or detained for purposes of investigation for State security reasons; or who have been released, and are in or outside of Nicaragua, against whom charges have been brought.

2.                  Once all of the Miskitos who are currently held prisoner are released, a conference should be held between representatives of the Government of Nicaragua and persons representing the broadest possible groups of the various communities of Nicaraguans of Miskito origin, so that, with the presence of representatives of the IACHR and other interested international organizations, that conference can discuss and seek to settle their differences so that the Nicaraguan of Miskito origin may exercise the rights set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights.

3.                  The agenda of that conference should include the following topics, although this is not necessarily an exhaustive list:

a.       The appropriate means and conditions to allow the Miskito, Sumu, and Rama peoples to participate in the dialogue with the Government of Nicaragua that would be initiated at this Conference, through existing or those to be established, if those peoples so desire;

b.       Participation of the Miskitos and other ethnic groups in national decisions that may concern their interests, as well as in the administration of the Atlantic coast region;

c.       Procedure and mechanisms for granting compensation to the close relatives (parents, children and spouses) of those who died as a result of the conflict, as well as to those who have been physically impaired for the same reason;

d.       Ways to guarantee that the Miskitos and other Indian peoples may exercise the right to assembly and association, and the right to freedom of expression and information;

e.       Ways to guarantee that the Miskitos and other Indian peoples of the Atlantic coast region may exercise the right to transit, residence and movement in that region and in the rest of the country;

f.        Establishment of mechanisms to allow the Miskitos who wish to do so to return to the Coco River region, when the emergency is over;

g.       Mechanisms that’s would allow the repatriation or voluntary resettlement of any Miskito now in Nicaragua to the refugee camps in Honduras, or from those camps to Nicaragua for purposes of family reunification;

h.       Improvement of communications between the Miskitos who reside in Nicaragua and those who have taken refuge in Honduras, for which it will be desirable to have the cooperation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High commissioner for Refugees in the course of the conference;

i.        Establishment of procedures and mechanisms to compensate the Miskitos for the loss of their homes, crops, livestock or other belongings when they were evacuated from their villages;

j.        Study of a solution to the problem of the Indian’ ancestral lands that would take into account both the aspirations of the Indians and the economic interests and territorial unity of the Republic;

k.       Study of means to promote and guarantee respect for the cultural identity of the Indian peoples of the Atlantic coast region.

4.       The above-mentioned conference would be organized as follow:

a.       It would be held in a place chosen by the Government of Nicaragua;

b.       It would be held as soon as possible, but not later than during the first quarter of 1984;

c.       The Government of Nicaragua would be represented by the highest level officials;

d.       The following institutions and persons would act as counterpart to the Government of Nicaragua:

i.         A representative of the Moravian Church of Nicaragua;

ii.        A member of the Catholic clergy, appointed by the Apostolic Administrator of Puerto Cabezas;

iii.       An Indian clergyman to represent the Anglican Church;

iv.       A representative of the various Tasba Pri settlement;

v.       A member of the Council of Elders, representing the Miskitos who have taken refuge in Honduras;

vi.       A leader in representation of Misurasata.

In addition to these six people that would represent the institutions that have been mentioned, the Commission considers that the participation in the above-mentioned conference for the following three Miskito leaders, who have maintained an ongoing concern in the matter, would be useful: Rev. Fernando Colomer, Mr. Norman Bent and Mr. Armstrong Wiggins.

e.       Through its appointed representatives, the Commission would participate in the conference under the terms of the mission that it is carrying out as mediator in the friendly settlement.

f.        The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross would participate in the conference as observers.

g.       The Executive Secretariat of the IACHR would act as Technical Secretariat of the Conference.

h.       At the conclusion of the conference, a report would be drawn up of its decision, which would be implemented by the Government of Nicaragua through its legal system; but until they are so implemented, they should be carried out in good faith.

5.                  It is the view of the Commission that in order for this proposal to be effective, the release of all Miskitos held prisoner for reasons of public order should be effected by November 15, 1983, and the Government of Nicaragua should inform the Commission by that date as to whether or not it accepts this proposal, and it should indicate the place and date of the conference, which in any case, as stated, should take place no later that during the first quarter of 1984.

The Commission, in view of the terms set forth in the communication of Your Excellency of last September 16 and of the repeated intentions expressed by high-ranking officials of the Government of Nicaragua to reach a friendly settlement with the Nicaraguans of Miskito origin with whom it has difficulties and differences, harbors the hope that the Government of Your Excellency will express its agreement with the proposal set forth in this note.

This proposal represents the last effort that the Commission can make after over a year of active attempts to bring about the desired friendly settlement. For that reason, should the Government of Your Excellency not accept this proposal, the Commission would have no alternative, under the terms of the pertinent norms of the American Convention on Human Rights, but to consider terminated its participation as mediator in the friendly settlement, and to publish the report that it is preparing on the situation of human rights of the Miskito Indians of Nicaragua.

While awaiting a prompt and favorable reply, I take this occasion to reiterate the assurances of my highest consideration.

(s)               Cesar Sepulveda

Chairman

17.              The Government of Nicaragua, in a lengthy communication dated November 14, 1983, addressed by the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Victor H. Tinoco, to the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Cesar Sepulveda, stated, in sum, that the serious crisis that affected the Central American region and Nicaragua in particular impeded it from immediately or in the short term implementing some of the recommendations made by the IACHR. In particular, the Nicaraguan Government stated that it was impossible to establish a deadline for the issuance of an amnesty decree for Indians detained for security reasons a measure which it conditioned upon “cessation of aggression” and the impossibility of accepting participation in the conference proposed by the Commission of “those person who act as leaders in the aggression against the Nicaraguan people”.

The pertinent parts of that communication are as follows:

The Government of National Reconstruction is pleased to note that the measures that it has adopted within the framework of the procedures for a Friendly Settlement with respect to matters concerning the minority ethnic groups in Nicaragua, have merited from the Commission “…its gratitude to the Government of Nicaragua for having taken into account some of the recommendations that it had set forward…” In addition, my Government is pleased to note that “the Commission considers those measures to be positive”.

Nevertheless, my Government must bring to the attention of the Commission the serious crisis that affects the Central American region and Nicaragua in particular, which is a fundamental and insuperable factor that impedes immediate implementation or implementation in the short term of some of its recommendations.

Your Excellency is certainly not unaware of the aggression against my country as a result of the policy of the US Administration which, through so-called “convert operations”, has led, armed, financed and trained mercenary groups that are composed mostly of former members of the genocidal Somocista guard, for the purposes of destabilizing and destroying the Sandinista People’s Revolution. For that purpose, the US Government uses Honduran territory as a base and refuge for such armed bands, with the open complicity, if not direct participation, of some civilian authorities and the Army of Honduras.

Within this context, my country is involved in a war which, while not officially declared by the US Government, has brought tragic consequences including the assassination of more than 786 Nicaraguan in this year alone, the genocide committed against the populations of such towns as Pantasma the attack on Puerto Cabezas, Puerto Benjamin Zeledon, the customs post of Peñas Blancas and El Espino and other civilian, economic and productive targets, with a high cost in human lives and the loss of over $103 million. The scope of these criminal actions became apparent to the international community with the despicable and inhumane attack on Port Corinto, carried out on October 10, 1983, by groups armed and trained by members of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which endangered the lives of over 30,000 persons, and forced an immediate evacuation of the inhabitants of the port.

At the same time, I wish to point out to Your Excellency that the real dangers that threaten peace in Central America have been recognized by the international community with alarmed concern. As Your Excellency will recall, Resolution 530 of the Security Council of the United Nations of May 19 of this year deals with the problem in Central American with specific reference to the potential conflict of incalculable proportions that may erupt between the states of Honduras and Nicaragua, on whose borders some of the events under the consideration of the Commission took place, and which made an appeal to the concerned countries to lend their full support to the efforts made by the Contadora Group. Given the dangers that it poses for regional and world peace and security, the Central American problem that was included on the agenda of the Thirty-eighth General Assembly of the United nations, which approved, by consensus, a resolution which points out the seriousness of “the attacks launched from abroad and directed against strategic installations in Nicaragua, such as airports and seaports, energy depots and other targets, the destruction of which would seriously affect the economic life of the country and endanger dense population areas” With special attention, allow me to remind Your Excellency of the resolution issued by the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which states in one of its paragraphs its concern “…over the numerous fatal incursions of armed groups from a neighboring country sustained by an external force…” and the condemnation of “…these events that seriously affect the right to self determination of the Nicaraguan people…”.

Under these circumstances, it would be a serious misreading of history to require implementation of certain recommendations by a precise date, since the conditions under which my country lives as a result of aggression are not only worsening, but the risks of direct or indirect intervention in Nicaragua by the US Government are becoming greater. As Your Excellency knows, my government has repeatedly denounced the plans of the US Administration to create the conditions that would allow open aggression against my country. The recent invasion of Grenada by US troops, the presence of warships along our coast, and the reactivation of the Central American Defense Council (CONDECA), are factors that heighten the apprehension of my government with respect to an imminent invasion.

At this historic time for Central America, the central concern of my government lies almost exclusively in seeking peace and in preparing for defense against the aggressions suffered daily by the people of Nicaragua. Your Excellency will understand that, in the face of the strong possibility of intervention in Nicaragua, the primordial and fundamental obligation of our officials is to safeguard the lives of thousands of Nicaraguans.

In the framework of the background that I have sketched for Your Excellency, I wish to inform you that I have very carefully studied the interesting proposals that you put forth in your above-mentioned note, some of which are unquestionably a notable effort on the part of this eminent body to bring about the desired friendly settlement. Nevertheless, the tragic circumstances of my country do not appear to have been taken into consideration in the formulation of some of the proposals.

Having made the foregoing observations of a general nature, I believe it advisable to proceed with a study of the concrete proposals put forth by the Commission, in the spirit that moves my government to seek commonly-agreed-upon formulas to support the noble mission entrusted to the IACHR.

With respect to the first proposal, supplemented with the deadline contained in point 5, on the need to decree “a pardon or amnesty that would cover all Indians…” that “should be effected by November 15, 1983,” allow me to recall that in a note of September 16 of this year, the Foreign Minister of Nicaragua, Miguel D’Escoto, informed the Commission that he was authorized “… to state to Your Excellency that this Amnesty Decree will be issued by the Government of Nicaragua when the new aggressive escalation has ended, and the more concrete fruit of the noble and renewed efforts of the Contadora Group, to which my government has given its full support”, are to be seen. As Your Excellency has been able to ascertain, the escalation in aggression against Nicaragua has not only increased noticeably, but the dangers of a regional conflagration seriously threaten international peace and security. Under these circumstances, the Government of Nicaragua reiterates its full political with to grant a pardon or amnesty, but one which can be subject to no other condition than termination of the aggression against my country.

I have already reported to the Chairman the various measures adopted by my country in order to bring about the release of numerous detainees of Miskito origin, the most important of which I summarize below:

a.      In Note Nº 023/83 MPN/OAS of January 5, 1983, our Ambassador to the OAS reported to the Commission that 59 prisoners had been released.

b.       In the above-mentioned note of September 16 of this year, the Commission was advised of the release of 45 detainees, and the note enclosed the Draft General Amnesty Decree for all Nicaraguans of Miskito, Sumo, Criollo or Rama origin, without exception. This same note also enclosed certification of the sentences handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice in which several court decisions were nullified, to the benefit of over 100 defendants.

c.      In a note of September 26 of this year, our Ambassador to the OAS reported to the Commission that a pardon had been granted to 18 Miskitos on the basis of the decision of the National Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and that a Resolution on 24 detainees listed in the decision is pending in the Council of State.

                   In addition, my government is studying the possibility of applying temporary measures to some Miskitos, which would consist of “house arrest” with authorization to work, in accordance with Decree Nº 1230 which amends the Ley de Gracia.

                   With respect to the proposals contained in paragraphs 2-4 and the last part of 5, I bring to Your Excellency’s attention the strong interest of my government, indicated to the Commission in topic 4, subparagraph c of the Proposal Document for a Friendly Settlement of the Government of National Reconstruction, in holding conversations with representative groups of the Indian communities. In a note of September 16 of this year, information was transmitted to Your Excellency to the effect that the Government of Nicaragua accepted as valid interlocutors “Bishop John Wilson, Pastors Norman Bent and Fernando Colomer and the members of the Christian Committee for Peace in the Atlantic Coast, Rev. Sandoval Herrera, Pastor of the Moravian Church, Rev. Francisco Baker of the Catholic Church, and Rev. Víctor Ordóñez of the Anglican Church.” My government accepts the proposal to include a representative of the various Tasba Pri settlements; however, it categorically rejects the presence of a 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 and instruments of the barbaric US aggression against my country. My government considers the attendance of the UNHCR and the ICRC in the scheduled conversations to be very positive, as is that of the distinguished Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its capacity as mediator in the friendly settlement procedure.

                   For its part, the Government of Nicaragua urges the Commission to make new efforts with the Honduran authorities so that the Nicaraguans who involuntarily remain in that territory may return to Nicaragua with the full guarantees of the Government of National Reconstruction.

                   Mr. Chairman, although my government accepts most of the proposals put forward in your above-mentioned note, I wish to reiterate our fundamental objections, which can be summarized under two headings:

a.       The impossibility of establishing a deadline for approval of the Amnesty Decree, which will definitively depend upon the cessation of aggression against my country, a factor that lies outside the good will so often demonstrated by my government, and

b.       The impossibility of including in the conference those persons who act as leaders of the aggression against the Nicaraguan people.

                   My government deeply regrets that the Honorable Inter-American Commission refers in its above-mentioned note to the possibility of “…terminating its activities as mediator in a friendly settlement procedure and publishing the Report that it is preparing on the situation of human rights of the Miskito Indians of Nicaragua.”

          Subsequently, in the note of November 14, 1983, the Government of Nicaragua put forth several considerations with respect to the procedure that the Commission should apply in this matter, in accordance with its interpretation of articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

          The note signed by the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs ends by pointing out:

                   In ratifying the full political will of my government to maintain an ongoing and fruitful dialogue with the Honorable Commission, I wish to underline the historic importance of the friendly settlement procedure for the matters connected with the ethnic minorities in Nicaragua, since the challenges and difficulties posed by the complexity of the problems require the most disinterested and renewed efforts in search of appropriate mechanisms, that take into account the aggression and imminent intervention in my country, with a view to reaching a friendly settlement which unquestionably will give enlightenment to other processes of ethnic understanding in Latin America.

          18.          In view of the terms of the above-cited note of the Government of Nicaragua and in conformity with the decisions adopted at its 61^st regular session, the Commission had no alternative but to terminate its activities as mediator in seeking a friendly settlement to this matter. This was stated by the Chairman of the Commission, César Sepúlveda, in a note of November 29, 1983, addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, in which he states that the circumstances invoked by the Government of Nicaragua “… lead the IACHR to the necessary conclusion that at this time there is no possibility of carrying out its task. All of the parties involved in the conflict are affected in some way by these dramatic circumstances, and it is not possible to reconcile them at this time. For that reason, the Commission has instructed me, in light of this situation, to terminate its activities as mediator in the friendly settlement procedure.” The note of the Chairman of the IACHR adds:

                   Finally, the Commission wishes to place on the record the continuing efforts that it made since accepting the honorable mission that the Government of Nicaragua entrusted to it to act as mediator in a friendly settlement procedure, and regrets that circumstances beyond its control and beyond the control of the Republic of Nicaragua have prevented it from attaining its desired goal.

                   Of course, the Commission states its continued willingness, once the present circumstances have been overcome, for the Government of Nicaragua to turn to it, if it so desires, to contribute to the solution of the pending problems in the area of human rights that affect that Republic.15