1
The case of the Jesuits in El Salvador and Universal Justice
A brief history of the case
The trial that began in Spain against the people who murdered a group of six
Jesuits and two of their collaborators in El Salvador provides an opportunity for
reflection about universal justice and the scope it should have, especially in this
specific case, which has had its highs and lows in the courts. We should begin with a
brief review of what has happened up until now in El Salvador.
After the 1989 assassinations, the Salvadoran government insisted for almost a
month and a half that the Jesuits had been murdered by members of the FMLN
guerrilla group. Even the two members of the Spanish Police, sent at the request of
the Jesuits, said basically the same thing after reviewing the alleged evidence
supporting the hypothesis of the Crime Investigation Commission (a specialized and
militarized corps of the Salvadoran Police). From the beginning, the Archbishop of
San Salvador and the Society of Jesus claimed, with a solid basis of support, that the
murder had been committed by members of the military and that it had been
organized and coordinated by the High Command (Estado Mayor). The position of
the Society of Jesus was very clear from the very beginning and can be summarized in
three words: Truth, justice and forgiveness. Truth, as a basic and fundamental right of
society and essential act of justice. Justice, as the primary act of redress for the
victims. And forgiveness, as a Christian and societal reality, which in a situation of
civil war should become a mechanism for reconciliation.
In early January 1990, the government of El Salvador (GOES) acknowledged
that a group of soldiers had committed the crime and the trial against them began.
This trial, which lasted barely two years, was used by the GOES to protect the
intellectual authors of the massacre, to absolve the perpetrators of the crimes, and to
condemn those who issued the order from the High Command. The Jesuits, for their
part, attempted to use the trial to get to the intellectual authors and to demonstrate that
their motto of truth, justice and forgiveness was in fact a valid path to reconciliation
and that it could be used more broadly and with legal backing once the civil war was
over.
For this reason, after the trial the Society of Jesus requested amnesty for the
two military personnel convicted, and sustained its petition to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States
(OAS) to issue a resolution about the cover-up of the murders by the Salvadoran
State. As a result of the active collaboration between the Truth Commission,
inaugurated after the civil war, and the Society of Jesus, the identity of the intellectual
authors of the crime was discovered. In fact, in 1993 the Commission disclosed the
names of the five military personnel who were the intellectual authors of the killings.
2
American congressman, Joe Moakley, had previously mentioned these same names.
The Truth Commission, however, had a much greater impact when it provided written
and signed witness testimonies that coincided with the names of the culprits and with
the group of accomplices who had covered up the facts. The Armed Forces
emphatically denied the accusations of the Truth Commission and tried to discredit
the Commission. The GOES responded to the Truth Commission report by enacting
an amnesty law in the Legislative Assembly which erased any crime committed
during the war and precluded any investigation of these acts.
The repeated calls by the Jesuits in El Salvador for the Army to recognize that
the crime had been committed by high ranking military personnel and to publicly ask
for forgiveness, was met by media silence. There was no political response to the
petition. In 1999, the IACRH recommended that the Salvadoran government conduct
an investigation consistent with international standards and bring to the intellectual
authors of the crime to trial, disregarding the amnesty law. The President of El
Salvador, Francisco Flores, of the ARENA party, immediately responded by saying
that the IACHR only made recommendations to the governments and that compliance
was voluntary. The Attorney General at the time, Belisario Artiga, told journalists that
he had not read the Commission’s report but that the case would not be opened.
In this context, in 2000 the Society of Jesuits, through the IDHUCA (Human
Rights Institute of the José Simeón Cañas University of Central America, UCA) filed
a case before the courts accusing President Cristiani, General Larios, then ministry of
defense, and the five members of the Army’s High Command mentioned by the Truth
Commission and, previously, by Congressman Joe Moakley of being the intellectual
authors of the crime. After several months of tense negotiation, the Attorney General
had no choice but to reopen the case. A media campaign was then unleashed against
the Jesuits in the country’s major newspapers, which published during an entire week
an average of three pages per day insulting the plaintiffs and defending the accused.
The results of this process were again covered in a mantle of impunity. The
different instance courts then ruled that the accused could not considered as
amnestied, but that the 10-year statute of limitations for this crime had expired, as
established by law. The Society of Jesus turned again to the IACHR, this time
presenting a complaint against the Salvadoran State for denying the families of the
victims access to justice. This case has not yet been accepted by the Commission.
At about the same time, the Human Rights Ombudsman of El Salvador
presented its report on the case of the Jesuits. The Ombudsman again insisted that the
intellectual authors be brought to trial and recommended the repeal of the amnesty
law. The Salvadoran State once again denied this opportunity for justice, being
recommended by one of its own institutions, which was a product of the peace
agreements. Then president of El Salvador, Francisco Flores, frequently defended the
amnesty law by saying that if the doors to local justice were opened “the blood of El
Salvador would once again be spilt”. The peaceful and unarmed victims considered
3
these words to be a clear threat to them, because the blood to which the president
referred was not assumed to be the blood of the generals.
Strong cases and weak cases
This introduction to the case of the Jesuits, which generated so much national
attention, leads us to ask ourselves if this, together with the case of Monsignor
Romero, were truly the most important cases in El Salvador. Although they were
certainly the cases that received the most publicity, we cannot offhandedly confirm
that they were the most serious cases. The massacres committed were, in general,
much more serious, to the extent that they involved the indiscriminate and mass
killing of children, women, and elderly adults who were not a part of the ideological
debate. However, some of the most serious cases did not have the international
dimension of the case of the Jesuits or of Monsignor Romero. Although the mass
killings were more serious crimes they have, in reality, been weak cases, especially in
terms of media coverage.
A significant number of massacres were committed in El Salvador, at different
levels and with a differing quantity of victims. Even after the investigations of the
Truth Commission between 1992 and 1993, new massacres sites continued to appear,
such as the one in La Quesera, with more than 100 victims. The most symbolic of
these is the massacre of El Mozote. In the context of a scorched earth operation
carried out by the Atlacatl Battalion (the military personnel who later killed the
Jesuits belonged to this same battalion), peasant farmers, women and children were
killed, most of them in El Mozote where over 900 people were murdered. A group of
143, mostly children, were locked into a room next to the village church. According
to the international forensic specialists who analyzed the remains, 131 skeletons
belonged to children under 12 years of age, five to adolescents, and seven to adults.
Among the adults was a woman who was nine months pregnant.
Although the case was submitted to the IACHR by the Archbishop of El
Salvador’s Legal Protection Office (Tutela Legal), public media coverage of the case
was less than that of the case of Monsignor Romero or of the Jesuits. The Salvadoran
Army even considers Coronel Domingo Monterrosa to be a hero and continues to
honor him. Coronel Monterrosa was accused by the Truth Commission in 1993 of
being the individual most responsible for the massacre since he was in charge of the
troops who committed the crime. In 2007, President Saca praised Coronel Monterrosa
and publicly received a bust of the mentioned military commander as a gift from the
Minister of Defense. In 2012, during the 20th anniversary of the peace accords,
President Funes travelled to El Mozote and apologized, instructing the military to
review its own history. However, it does not appear that the military is taking the
presidential order seriously when it examines the “heroic” figure of Coronel
Monterrosa, who died during a guerrilla attack after his battalion had perpetrated
several massacres.
4
This is obviously a most serious human rights violation, made possibly even
more grave by the fact that it was carried out in cold blood against such a large
number of children in one same place. The lack of coverage that this case was given
has something to do with the fact that the victims were poor peasant farmers. If not
for the monitoring of this case by the Archbishop’s Legal Protection Office and by
other sectors of the local church, this case would have been completely forgotten. For
this reason, it would be profoundly unjust to disengage cases that have received much
more international attention, such as the cases of Monsignor Romero or the Jesuits,
from these cases. An international justice system that only addresses “famous” media
cases and that is incapable of linking internationally renowned cases to the cases of
those less fortunate will obtain very mediocre results. It is also a kind of
contradiction, because Jesuits such as Romero gave their lives precisely to defend
these simple and anonymous victims, and to prevent others like them from losing
their lives.
The cases we call “strong” cases are, in general, those where we remember
people who gave their lives to serve others. This is why their testimony becomes
universally exemplary. But developed societies, those who generally apply the
principles of international justice, should always maintain the crucial link between
strong and weak or defenseless cases. To do otherwise would be to take center stage,
erase the indifference with which Western society views the brutality that occurs in
remote places, and ignore the developed nations’ share of responsibility, which
remains unpunished, in keeping the world’s marginalized population in conditions of
poverty and oppression.
Universal justice and local justice
In the context of the fight to obtain justice in the case of the Jesuits,
conversations began with the Center for Justice and Accountability, which was
interested in starting a trial in Spain on the basis of the principle of universal
jurisdiction in cases of serious human rights violations. The position of the Society of
Jesuits of Central America was to focus our efforts exclusively within El Salvador.
Although we did not oppose opening the case in Spain, we wanted to make it
perfectly clear that it was not being done at the initiative of the Jesuits. We
collaborated by providing information and even making some recommendations to
the NGOs that came forward as claimants and were asking for help from the
IDHUCA. But we clearly stated that the Society of Jesus had decided to prioritize the
search for justice mechanisms that would benefit all of the victims in El Salvador.
We believe that focusing our struggle within El Salvador, linking the case of
the Jesuits to so many other cases of human rights violations, is an imperative of
justice. In addition, we did not want to appear superior by using international funding
to achieve what ordinary Salvadoran citizens cannot achieve with their own resources.
This position does not seek to discourage or discredit other initiatives to instigate
judicial proceedings in the country of origin of most of the Jesuits who were
5
murdered in El Salvador. On the contrary, we appreciate the initiatives that arise in
the framework of international justice and believe that they support the processes in
our countries, which have weak institutions and high levels of impunity. But we also
believe that all efforts abroad should benefit domestic justice processes and help to
restore the dignity of the victims.
This does not mean that we wish to downplay international justice, which we
believe is crucial for the defense and upholding of human rights as well as for the
development of the doctrine of respect. It is obvious and logical that justice in the
“global village” must also be globalized. In fact, if El Salvador and other countries in
similar conditions had adhered to the International Criminal Court, despite the time
restrictions imposed under the treaty, it would have demonstrated their political will
in cases of possible violations of human rights. However, in El Salvador there is still
too much fear of the justice system, in general, and of universal justice, in particular.
This difference and complementarity between universal and domestic justice
warrants a more in-depth discussion. International justice can resolve some symbolic
cases and, in this perspective, it can contribute to creating new and more favorable
legal conditions and improve public opinion in those countries that have been affected
by human rights violations. The case of Pinochet is the most evident. If he had not
been arrested in England through international justice mechanisms, the Chilean justice
system would have taken much longer to initiate the process that led to the
incarceration of several of those who had violated human rights during the military
dictatorship.
In the particular case of the Jesuits, this complementarity is even more
necessary. Chile has more developed and solid institutions than El Salvador. A trial in
Spain will have no major effects if Salvadoran society does not continue its efforts to
find a formula that will guarantee access to justice and redress for the many crimes
committed and for so many victims that have not received any type of satisfaction. In
fact, the proceedings that began in Spain are already starting to show results. More
and more people are beginning to think and say publicly that after 20 years of peace
the Amnesty Law, which prevented justice from being served at the time, no longer
makes any sense. The Salvadoran Human Rights Ombudsman himself has said so
publicly. And, for the first time in the history of El Salvador, the president has
publicly honored the victims of El Mozote and asked forgiveness for this crime,
which has all the makings of the Nazi policies of mass extermination. Although only
tentative steps have been taken, the opening of the Jesuit case in Spain has contributed
to the possibility for progress within Salvadoran society.
Moving towards due collaboration
International justice is based on the dynamic development of human rights
doctrine and also on the need to support the justice system in those countries where
the legal mechanisms are not working properly. In the movie “Hotel Ruanda”, the
6
leading man tells a journalist that if the local killings were published in the West,
they would stop immediately. The journalist responds by saying that in Europe the
people would watch the news on television, say “how horrible”, and continue with
their dinner. The cases of international justice should not only generate the logical
satisfaction of having done something in the face of the terrible injustices that have
been committed, but should also be a cause for reflection about the international
policies of the developed world that are not even close to complying with their
commitment to donate 0.7% of their GDP for the development of impoverished
countries. The control of the sale of firearms, effective solidarity with human rights
defenders, and the search for fair trade structures, with less protectionism by countries
of own products while they demand free trade from the weakest countries, are all
debts of the justice system with the lives of our peoples.
During the proceedings of the case of the Jesuit killings, we experienced
extraordinary solidarity from individuals of all social and even political groups. But
politics in these countries, especially at the highest spheres of decision-making, was
lukewarm in general, and on occasion clearly cold and favorable to the conservative
governments of El Salvador. One thing was the position taken by Moakley and
another that of Bush. One thing was the opinion of some Spanish politicians and
diplomats, and another that of the Spanish Secretary of State who tried to pressure the
hierarchy of the Society of Jesus into silencing those who continued to fight for
justice in El Salvador. In exchange for silence, he offered to provide more generous
funding for the Jesuits’ development work in Latin America. International justice,
which has to a great extent been able to distance itself from the lukewarm and
frequently egotistical interests of governments, can and should be instrumental in
developed countries for complementing and promoting efforts in our poor countries
with weak institutions. It should also reveal the weaknesses of the governments of the
developed world that frequently leave the victims almost defenseless in the face of
such barbarity and abuse of power.
International assistance should not be reduced, but should be conceived
differently. It is not logical that Spanish justice pursue crimes that have not been
adequately prosecuted in El Salvador, and the Spanish government continues to
prioritize bilateral assistance to governments in the same country where several of
their citizens were killed and the perpetrators remain unpunished. Providing the same
amount of funds that are given to governments, or more, to a civil society that is
committed to making structural changes, may in the long run be more beneficial than
maintaining these special and friendly relations between governments, with the
resulting ambiguity, while the justice system takes another path.
International justice, yes. Humanity is one and the principle of universal
jurisdiction and protection of human rights is a result of the awareness of the common
dignity of all humankind. But those who defend the principle of universal jurisdiction
when defending and upholding human rights must also contribute to the struggle to
raise awareness about the serious human rights violations committed in our countries,
7
reveal the socio-economic causes of these violations, and engage closely with those
who sacrifice or even risk their health or lives every day to defend those who are poor
and forgotten in our great human family. They should also, from their privileged
positions, help to reveal the ambiguities, cowardice, and ethnocentrism that continue
to exist in the developed north and that have caused so much damage to our countries.