Justice?

Lt. General Rafael Videla, head of the Military Junta in Argentina between 1976 and 1981. On the left, undergoing a trial. On the right, during his time in office (from AFP).

Last Friday Lt. General Rafael Videla, head between 1976 and 1981 of the Military Junta that ruled Argentina until 1983, passed away. He was serving a life-long sentence for the death of 31 political dissents and another 50-year sentence for the theft of at least 400 babies who were born in political detention centers during the military rule. According to the law, he will receive none of the honors deserved to former chiefs of government or military commanders because of his crimes.

Rafael Videla came to power in 1976 when he staged a bloodless coup against Isabel Perón, the widow and successor of Juan Domingo Perón, the populist leader of Argentina. The Junta he headed implemented the so-called Process of National Reorganization, which tried to bring the country back into order after the legacy of the Peróns, including powerful unions and a weak economy. However, he soon prosecuted any kind of political activist, closing as well the Congress, forbidding political parties, and censoring the press. The death toll during his time in office is estimated between 15,000 and 30,000, plus an undetermined number of tortured. He retired in 1981, the military regime falling two years later after the Falklands War failure.

With the restoration of democratic rule, a review of abuses of the military took place. Videla received a life sentence in 1985 for abuses of human rights. In 1990, President Carlos Menem granted him a pardon. He was again detained in 1998, under the charge of the theft of the babies in the detention centers. He was imprisoned again, but was successful in claiming that convicts over 70 years of age had the right of house arrest. However, in 2003 amnesty laws and pardons were nullified, so investigations for torture and execution of political officers began anew. Videla argued that the process was illegal, as he had been trialed for the same crimes back in 1985. In 2010, along with other 30 military, he was convicted for the execution of 31 dissidents. And last year he received the sentence for stealing the babies.

As General Augusto Pinochet and other military leaders in the region, Videla never showed any kind of regret for his actions. Furthermore, he always assumed full responsibility for them. In his view, he was a commander during a civil war against communism and the left, threatening to take over Argentina. He acknowledged cruel things happened, but he understood them as inevitable characteristics of any war, which the country had to go through in order to remain being a republic. Furthermore, he complained that he was a political prisoner of the successors of the leftist groups he defeated during his time in power.

The leader of the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, an association of women investigating the whereabouts of their children and grandchildren who were detained by the military regime, said that they should not be happy about any death, but that Videla’s passing away brings the victims and their relatives some kind of comfort. What is pending, though, is to obtain information about the missing victims of the dictatorship, the detainees of whom there are no records and the babies stolen from the detention centers. Although Videla never avoided his responsibility in those actions, dying in jail for them, the story is not over yet.

Sentenced

Former Guatemalan President Efraín Ríos Montt, after listening to his sentence for genocide (from El País).

On Friday, General Efraín Ríos Montt, former President of Guatemala, was found guilty of genocide committed against Mayan population during his administration in 1982-1983, in the midst of a civil war. Although he declared not having ordered the killings of over 1700 people, the prosecutors determined that as Chief Commander of the Guatemalan Army he was aware of the operation. He was sentenced to 80 years in prison, ordered to begin immediately. Thus, he becomes the first former head of state to be convicted for war crimes and gross human rights violations committed during his tenure. Ríos Montt’s lawyers are preparing a revision of such a sentence.

The process against the General was very cumbersome, and its future was completely uncertain less than a month ago. In mid-April, it was abruptly halted arguing procedural mistakes during the initial phases of the trial which allegedly compromised the legality or reliability of testimonies and evidence collected and presented until that time. If the process would continue, it should restart anew. On May 1, judge Jasmín Barrios announced the process would resume from the point it was left because it would be illegal to completely go over it again. Days after, during which pending evidence was reviewed, she read the sentence.

A key factor in the intermittence of the trial has been Ríos Montt’s defense. By saying that the lawyers were not ready, that they were not under the counsel of the defendant, or that procedures were not followed closely they have succeeded in pausing the process more than one time. It can easily be thought that their strategy was to buy time and, if possible, to diminish the legitimacy of the judge in charge of the trial: what process can be thought of being serious if it stops and continues and stops again? The ultimate objective, to prevent a sentence being dictated against Ríos Montt, was not achieved. But, again, the lawyers have demonstrated notorious ability to push the legal system up to its extremes in order to circumvent or plainly reverse decisions. They could actually find a way to annul the sentence.

The Guatemalan judicial system exhibited a series of weaknesses during the trial that put some doubts on its impartiality (as when Ríos Montt’s trial was suspended in April, very possibly due to pressures from lawyers or other wealthy families linked to the General’s government) or its consistency (as when the trial restarted almost as suddenly as it was interrupted). Nonetheless these quasi theatrical features, it is the first judicial system that dictates a sentence against a living former head of state for genocide and gross human rights violations committed during his tenure. In spite of all its problems, the antecedent is already set.

Mentality for Justice

A thug riding a camel during protests in Tahrir Square on February 2, 2011 (from Al-Jazeera).

On Wednesday, the Appeals Court of Egypt confirmed the acquittal of 24 supporters of Hosni Mubarak who were charged with organizing a strike with camels and horses against protestors in  Tahrir Square on February 2, 2011, during the political turmoil that ended the Mubarak’s rule. The attack left 12 dead and tenths of wounded. The acquittal had been dictated by a court in October last year because, it was alleged, witnesses were unreliable due to political grievances against the defendants and evidence was thus was insufficient. Among the trialed was Fathi Sorour, former speaker of the Lower House along other members of the legislative power who, according to an investigation whose results were released in July 2011, hired thugs and ordered them to attack the crowds, killing demonstrators if necessary. Given that the Appeals Court is at the highest level in the Egyptian judiciary system, its decisions are final.

Hence, no sentences will be dictated for the repression of protestors. From a micro perspective, this amounts to the tragedy of the family’s victims, who not only saw their relatives killed or badly injured, but the perpetrators will not be punished. In addition to having lost the provider of income to the household, it could also be that the families live with fear of some kind of retaliation because the attackers are free in the streets. Justice failed them in providing some sense of security.

From a macro perspective, the Court’s decision further calls into question the scope of changes in Egypt towards democracy. Clearly, an effective and impartial administration of justice is one of the most compelling challenges for any country transiting from an authoritarian rule. Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers must interiorize new ways of understanding the law, and must also master new procedures that, if carried out incorrectly, might result in a whole process being annulled. These issues acquire more relevance when trials are about people related to the outgoing authoritarian regime. Seeing them in jail is a strong symbol for new times.

If the process failed because of incompetence of lawyers to present evidence or to follow all the rules of the process, the lack of a sentence may be more understandable, although a sense of impunity will emerge. But the situation in Egypt is even worse. The argument of the Court was that witnesses were unreliable, in spite of the attacks having been recorded in video and seen all around the world. The problem seems not to be only of justice officers being poorly trained, neither of the prevalence of corruption. The issue is something larger, the persistence of an authoritarian mentality in justice administration, implying that top-level officers cannot be sentenced because they might take revenge, because something is owed to them, or for any other reason. This is a major obstacle Egypt must surpass in order to continue its transition to democracy.

The Persistence of Justice

General Ríos Montt leaving the Court Room after one of the audiences in the trial against him (from Reuters).

On Friday, the trial against the former President of Guatemala, General Efraín Ríos Montt, was suspended. He is charged with genocide and gross violation of human rights due to the repression of the Mayan population during his government in 1982-1983. In particular, there are accusations pointing that over 1700 Mayans were killed and an undetermined number more were raped by the Army while he was in power.

The first steps for the trial were given in November 2011 when a lawyer of the victims filed the case. Prosecutorial immunity for Ríos Montt, granted by virtue of a position in the legislature, prevented him from being processed. Once his tenure was over in 2012, a path that lasted almost one year began in order to amass the required documentation to demonstrate that a trial should effectively take place. As mentioned earlier in this blog, in January 2013 the file was admitted, making it the first time in Latin America that a former President would be trialed in his country for human rights violations committed during his tenure. Finally, the process started in late March.

Expectedly, the defense team of Ríos Montt has tried to prevent the court from beginning its work, and afterwards to delay it. For instance, just before the trial had its first audience one of the General’s lawyers was fired. Ríos Montt asked that the start of the process be postponed for five days, so that the new lawyer could familiarize with the case. The petition was denied. Similarly, later on Ríos Montt’s defendant left the courtroom arguing that the judge in charge of the case, Jasmín Barrios, was being impartial, reason for which the whole process could not be continued. Finally, this Friday a superior Court, following an instruction of the Supreme Court, ordered the annulation the process, taking it back to November 2011, when the file was originally presented. Barrios said she would follow the order, but called it illegal.

Apparently, the reason for the annulation of the trial is that procedural mistakes occurred during its initial phases, arguably compromising the reliability or legal validity of collected testimonies and evidence. However, some analysts have mentioned that the pressure from conservative groups in the country were behind such a decision. A fact is that diverse protests and campaigns were organized publicizing the message that the trial against Ríos Montt would only make old wounds to resurface, instilling a will of revenge and providing a context for the emergence of violence. According to this perspective, wealthy and powerful families, to which retired members of the Army belong, would not want their names to be mentioned in the trial not only because some of the former officers could have been involved in crimes against humanity, but also because they would be trying to cover any other benefit they could have obtained (such as embezzlement) as a result of the government of Ríos Montt for which they could be made accountable. It has been also suggested that the defense of the General, who is 86, is just buying time trying to extend the process as much as possible.

The appealing label of this trial as the first former President in Latin America being processed for abuses against human rights during his government is fading into yet another illustration of the defeat of justice before power and money. The arguments saying that rich families linked to the dictatorship has not been entirely proved. But the surprising decision of the Supreme Court to suspend the trial provides a foundation for many Guatemalans to suspect of some kind of intervention of the rich families into the judicial power.

The future of the trial is still very uncertain. One option is that the instruction of the Supreme Court to nullify the process is deemed illegal, as Barrios suggested, and everything is resumed as if nothing had happened. Another possibility is that the Supreme Court’s instruction is not reviewed. In such a case, the file could be presented again. But it is unclear if all the people that have participated in audiences telling the abuses they and their families suffered are willing to repeat such experience. Not only because of the psychological impact of reliving those memories, but because they have the antecedent that the previous effort was worth nothing.

The suspension of Ríos Montt’s trial has severe implications for the rule of law in a country that still tries to strengthen its democratic institutions. It could show not only that the advancements were weaker than thought, but also that steps are taken to block justice.

Guantánamo Still

Protestors against Guantánamo in front of the White House (from El País).

Yesterday it was informed that a clash between inmates and security forces in the Guantánamo Bay prison occurred. This was a response to the prisoners’ attempts to block security cameras, windows, and other means by which they could be surveilled. “Non-lethal” rounds of ammunition were shot, provoking no “serious injuries” to anyone. Detainees were moved to individual cells, expecting to impede any effort to coordinate further collective actions.

This confrontation happens within the context of a hunger strike that began in February this year in which participate some number between 43 (the official figure) and “the vast majority” (according to the lawyers of some of the detainees) of the 166 prisoners. This began as a protest of the inmates against what they saw as a breach in their privacy when, allegedly, guards entered their cells and seized personal objects, mistreating copies of the Quran in the process. Some detainees have been fed with liquids by force. By individually confining prisoners after yesterday’s clash, it is expected that the hunger strike also loses coordination and can finally be stopped.

Additionally, the fight occurred the day after the Washington Post informed that e-mails used by the defense of detainees had been illegally accessed and used by prosecutors of the prison’s court. For that reason, the trials will be delayed for two months, until security in communications is restored. This builds on other accusations of the government monitoring over prisoners and their lawyers, questioning the legitimacy of the ongoing trials for the detainees.

Needless to say, Guantánamo is one of the heaviest loads of the current U.S. administration. Not only because President Obama has failed to close the prison, as he promised he would do, but also because the continuation of its operations keeps bringing about very serious problems which touch on the commitment of the U.S. to the defense of human rights, the due process, and the rule of law. This further raises the already high concerns on the legitimacy the U.S. has to promote those values abroad. The clash between guards and prisoners of Guantánamo says nothing new. It is just a reminder that the problem is still there, and that not attending it not only maintains it existence, but worsens it.