It's a good time to be an Argentinian human rights violator in Spain. Once upon a time Spain was in the spotlight for its progressive application of international human rights law. In 1998 Pinochet was arrested in London at the request of Spanish judicial authorities, in 2003 Argentine repressor Miguel Cavallo was extradited to Spain from Mexico and in 2005, Argentine captain Adolfo Scilingo was found guilty of committing crimes against humanity. That same year, the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal ruled that Spain had universal jurisdiction over human rights violations.
But the tide has turned, and a new class of conservative judges has taken over the National Audience, Spain's trial chambers. They are associated with fundamentalist currents within the Catholic Church and sometimes espouse Franquist ideologies; Judge Guevara Marcos, the President of the Chamber in charge of the Cavallo trial, for example, is a Catholic fundamentalist close to Opus Dei who was sanctioned by the General Council of the Judicial Power for racist attitudes. These judges are antagonistic to criminal procedures against human rights violators in general, and seem determined to rid Spain of these cases.
Miguel Cavallo was part of Task Force 3.3.2, an inter-force squad charged with kidnapping, torturing and killing suspected "subversives," among others. Later, Cavallo joined the Argentine Foreign Task Force that went to Central America to train others in counter-insurgence and torture techniques. In 2000, Cavallo was located in Mexico and in 2003 he was extradited to Spain. Finally, in February 2005 the instructional phase of the procedures against Cavallo concluded, and the case passed to the trial stage.
Since then, there have been a series of tactics put in place to delay his trial, which had not started by December 2006. In December 2006, moreover, the trial court suddenly decided it did not have jurisdiction over Cavallo, as he had also been indicted by courts in Argentina. This, despite clear language by the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal that Spain enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction to try crimes against humanity. The trial court gave Argentina 40 days to present documentation upon which to base an extradition. This was done in the height of Argentine summer, when courts are on vacation. The Argentine court scrambled to send the documentation on time, but this was not forwarded to the National Audience, and Cavallo was set free.
Cavallo has now stated he will present himself for voluntary extradition. That would be to his advantage, as he then can negotiate the charges on which he will be extradited - and he will not have to face additional charges when he arrives in Argentina. These charges are likely to be limited to the murder of journalist Rodolfo Walsh, and perhaps a few other murders - but will most likely not be for crimes against humanity as such. This will mean he will not have to testify about his involvement in either task force described above. Moreover, Cavallo will be freed in June 2007, when his pre-trial detention ends. It can take several years before a trial in Argentina starts, if at all, so he would be de-facto a free man.
The same may happen with Juan Carlos Fotea, a former counter- intelligence agent and member of the Foreign Task Force that operated in Central America during the 1980s. Despite the fact that Fotea had been indicted numerous times by Garzon as early as 1997, Garzon has suddenly decided that Spain no longer has jurisdiction over Fotea, for similar reasons to those claimed in the Cavallo case. Fotea's case is being appealed. Meanwhile bail has been set and reduced for Fotea, and it's likely that at some point he'll be released on his own recognizance.
The legal strategy being pursued in Spain appears to be designed to minimize the number of the accused and the severity of the charges against them. Trials in Argentina will likely result in the accused being tried on common crimes rather than crimes against humanity (as Scilingo was in Spain). Being tried for a crime such as murder will require a greater level of evidence to convict the accused of a particular crime - rather than demonstrating a particular behavior and/or membership in a criminal organization which led to the commission of crimes - and minimizes the seriousness of the crimes and the potential punishment those accused have to face.
So if you are a Latin American human rights violator, you could do worse than visiting Spain.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2032688.ece
New Zealand cancels arrest warrant for Israeli general
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Published: 02 December 2006
The former head of Israel's army continued unimpeded with a trip to New Zealand yesterday after the country's attorney general rescinded a warrant issued for his arrest to face allegations of war crimes.
Moshe Yaalon, who was chief of staff until June last year, said that he was still in New Zealand despite the warrant for his arrest.
The decision by the Auckland district court on Monday last week was overruled on Thursday by the New Zealand attorney general, Michael Cullen.
General Yaalon told Israel's army radio yesterday: "I am continuing to travel in New Zealand. I did not run away from anywhere and I don't intend to run away."
The petition sought General Yaalon's trial for his part in the assassination in Gaza of a leading Hamas figure, Salah Shehadeh, who was killed by a one-ton bomb dropped by the Israeli air force on his house in 2002. The bomb, which fell in a residential area, killed at least 14 civilians, including seven members of the Mattar family. A surviving member, Ra'ed Mattar, was named as one of the complainants.
The legal move was the latest against senior Israeli security personnel made on behalf of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and their London-based firm of solicitors, Hickman Rose, who said Palestinians were "devastated" by the attorney's decision.
Major General Doron Almog, who recently completed an official military investigation into the conduct of the Lebanon war, flew back to Tel Aviv from London without leaving his aircraft in September last year when he was tipped off that he faced arrest because of a similar type of warrant.
General Yaalon said yesterday: "I know there was an intention to file a suit against me. But I am glad New Zealand is one of the countries that implements the law the right way and does not allow people who want to make propaganda to use [the law] to attack people like us."
Judge Avinash Deobhakta, who granted the original application, said it established a prima facie case against General Yaalon.
In New Zealand the attorney general is required to authorise a prosecution but not the issue of an arrest warrant.
Dr Cullen said that to his knowledge no government officials, MPs or ministers had met General Yaalon, and "there has been no contact at any level" between his office and the Israeli government or its embassy in Canberra.
The former head of Israel's army continued unimpeded with a trip to New Zealand yesterday after the country's attorney general rescinded a warrant issued for his arrest to face allegations of war crimes.
The Israelis are massacring Lebanese civilians - men, women and children, Muslims and Christians alike. They think they can do this with impunity. And they may be right, in the decades since they've started their systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law they haven't been held accountable for their deeds.
But crimes against humanity do not prescribe and memory can be long.
Just look at the situation in Argentina, where the once-mighty military dealers now rot in jail or home detention (as many have gotten too old), once again awaiting trial. Through amnesties and threats of repeated coups, people have not forgotten. And for most people even those prosecutions are not enough. They want them all tried and in jail - and most importantly they want the police and other powerful
Today, once again, I got a message at Proyecto Desaparecidos from a man who just happened to google the name of disappeared friends only to find their pictures in one of the pages we keep. It's been 30 years but he hasn't forgotten and he hasn't forgiven and he'll continue fighting for justice. Like I will. Like many Lebanese and Palestinian and Arab and Latin American and European and perhaps even Asian and African people won't forget and won't forgive. Eventually, both the almighty leaders and the soldier of Israel and America will pay for their crimes.
The judgment against ormer Salvadoran Minister of Defense Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova for the torture of three civilians in El Salvador during the 1980s is now final, and he has been forced to relinquish over $300,000 of his own funds to the victims. What follows is the press release of the Center for Justice and Accountability which represented the plaintiffs.
For Immediate Release
July 10, 2006
Contact: Matt Eisenbrandt
Phone: (415) 544-0444 x 304
meisenbrandt@cja.org
JUDGMENT FINAL AGAINST GENERALS RESPONSIBLE FOR TORTURE IN EL SALVADOR
OVER $300,000 SUCCESSFULLY RECOVERED FROM FORMER MINISTER OF DEFENSE FOUND LIABLE FOR TORTURE OF THREE SALVADORANS
San Francisco, CA: With the judgment against him now final, former Salvadoran Minister of Defense Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova has been forced to relinquish over $300,000 of his own funds for his responsibility in the torture of three civilians in El Salvador during the 1980s. While the amount actually collected is only a small fraction of the damages to which the plaintiffs are entitled, this represents one of the first human rights cases in U.S. history in which victims have recovered money from those found responsible for abuses.
In May 1999, the San Francisco-based Center for Justice & Accountability (CJA) filed a lawsuit against Vides Casanova and another former Minister of Defense, General Jose Guillermo Garcia, under two federal laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). In 2002, after a four week trial, a West Palm Beach jury found the generals responsible for the torture of Juan Romagoza, Neris Gonzalez and Carlos Mauricio, and ordered them to pay significant damages.
The generals filed lengthy appeals. On January 6, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta upheld the verdict against them. The deadline to file an appeal of that decision to the United States Supreme Court has now passed.
Following the verdict in 2002, CJA froze over $300,000 in accounts held by General Vides Casanova. CJA has also presented the court with allegations that Vides Casanova committed fraud by transferring other funds to his relatives after the filing of the case to keep them out of the reach of the victims.
The plaintiffs have stated that, after some of the case expenses are covered, they generously plan to donate most of the money collected from the defendants to support human rights, health, environmental and education projects. They plan to set aside the remainder for treatment related to their torture and to assist family members in need.
Plaintiff Neris Gonzalez said, “Although we are happy that the generals have been punished and made to pay for their crimes, this case was never about money. It was about justice. We had the unique opportunity to show the world, on behalf of all the people of El Salvador, that Generals Garcia and Vides Casanova were responsible for the brutality that we endured. Now the courts of the United States have confirmed that they cannot escape accountability.”
The suit, known as Romagoza v. Garcia, is one of the only cases in which a jury in a fully contested trial has found perpetrators liable for human rights abuses under the law of command responsibility. This principle holds military commanders responsible for abuses committed by subordinates under their control when the commanders knew or should have known that abuses were taking place and failed to take all reasonable measures to prevent the abuses or punish the perpetrators.
CJA’s Litigation Director, Matt Eisenbrandt, stated, “This victory is a landmark for human rights litigation and for El Salvador. The jury’s verdict in 2002 gave confidence to the Salvadoran community, and sent a signal that they do not have to accept the impunity that exists in their country. Without the Romagoza case, we could have never filed other cases – including one involving the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero – that have forced officials to confront the lack of accountability in El Salvador.”
CJA, a non-profit human rights organization that works to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice, was joined as co-counsel by Peter Stern of the Morrison & Foerster law firm, James K. Green, Professor Carolyn Patty Blum, Professor Beth van Schaack and Susan Shawn Roberts. Florida attorneys Dave Gorman and John Thornton have provided assistance in the collection phase of the case.
For more information, please visit CJA’s website at www.cja.org. A copy of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling is available at http://www.cja.org/ca ses/Romagoza_Docs/Romagoza11thCirFinalOpinion.pdf
The following is an op-ed by Canadian writer Erna Paris in response to the Canadian media's reactions to Canada's apology to Chinese-Canadians who were abused in Canada.
---
Apologies have power
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
ERNA PARIS
After Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to Chinese-Canadians last week, a barrage of criticism focused on the prospect of "victims" lining up at the public trough. Most missed the central point: confirmation that human rights still matter in this country.
How many Canadians knew about the punishing head tax imposed on 15,000 Chinese workers brought here to build the CPR? How many knew up to 1,000 of these men died during this back-breaking labour? Or that families were divided because Canada refused to allow wives and children of those who had raised the money to join them? Without formal recognition of injustice, the darker side of a nation's past is unlikely to make it into school history texts, which are the bedrock of the national narrative.
In an ethnically mixed society, social adhesion is threatened without a public acknowledgment that the state, itself, maltreated minorities living within its borders. Although those of us who were not affected by head taxes, residential schools, or wartime internment as "enemy aliens" may spend little time thinking about this "other" history, Canadians who were have not forgotten. The story of maltreatment is passed down from generation to generation, until the survivors, or their progeny, have the courage to demand formal redress. State-instigated human-rights abuses live in a category of their own, as the history of the 20th century makes abundantly clear. Unaddressed, they are increasingly corrosive to the body politic. When addressed, they contribute to healing and, by extension, national unity. It is no surprise an elderly Chinese-Canadian interviewed on the day of the apology declared that she finally felt she was a Canadian.
Pierre Trudeau said he and his government were not responsible for Canada's past, only its future. He was wrong. It matters not one whit whether human rights abuses were carried out yesterday, or decades ago. Those who occupy the seats of power today carry, and are responsible for addressing, yesterday's corrosive legacy, for the unreconciled past inevitably sends long tendrils into the present.
Other countries have also begun to acknowledge that at a time when human rights were undervalued, or not valued at all, their governments committed grave abuses that decades later, threaten national unity. In France, for example, President Jacques Chirac formally apologized for the actions of the collaborationist Vichy regime, which willingly assisted the Nazis in deporting 78,000 Jews to death camps. His courageous acknowledgment ended decades of official myth-making and prevarication that was taught to children as factual history. France also held criminal trials for the German Nazi, Klaus Barbie; the French Nazi, Paul Touvier; and the bureaucratic paper-pusher, Maurice Papon, who signed away thousands of lives with a flourish of his pen. This reversal in policy came about because a few survivors of the deportations never forgot that the country of their birth had betrayed them, and neither did their children. They correctly believed that France would be unable to normalize its present until it was willing to acknowledge what had been carried out in the state's name.
Japan, on the contrary, has never formally apologized to the families of those who survived the Rape of Nanking in 1937, among many other atrocities; in fact, Japan's Prime Minister makes provocative visits to a Shinto shrine where the "souls" of several convicted war criminals are glorified. This unresolved tear in the historical fabric has affected relations between Japan and China.
Canada cannot afford to ignore the state-inspired cruelty of the past. Which is not to deny that reason and balance must reign. More than half a century ago, the fledgling United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- the key word being "universal." These must be the foundational yardstick for assessing claims against the Canadian government.
Official acknowledgments, memorials, museums that tell the truth about the past, and token reparations to surviving victims are symbolic ways of separating the unlovely past from the present. And for promoting unity among the diverse peoples of Canada.
Erna Paris is the author of Long Shadows: Truth, Lies, and History.