By the Central American University
The armed forces' rejection of the Truth Commission report [an international inquiry into human rights violations during El Salvador's civil war] has brought the nation to the brink of a constitutional crisis, since it openly contradicts the commitment made by the president of the republic and commander in chief of the army to comply with the report's recommendations. The speech made by the armed forces [on national radio and television] was aggressive, provocative and intended to strike fear. The armed forces have changed very little, and appear indisposed to change in the immediate future.
The Truth Commission report does not fail to acknowledge the constitutional role of the armed forces during the war, as the latter claim. The report does not reject the legitimate right of the state to defend itself from "Communist aggression," in the favourite words of the military. What it totally rejects is the concept that such a right implies summary and extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances and torture. The state, even in times of war, has the duty to guarantee the lives of its citizens.
The executive branch, therefore, was obligated to prevent the illegal and arbitrary use of force. The judicial branch was obligated to investigate violations and punish those responsible. The legislative branch was obligated to oversee and legislate in order to protect the interests of the people who elected it. But none of this was done. The three branches of the state failed both constitutionally and politically.
According to the report, none of the three branches was able to control the overwhelming military domination of society. The judicial system became weaker as it became imprisoned by intimidation, and the groundwork was laid for corruption. Since the judicial branch never enjoyed true institutional independence from the other two powers, its ineffectiveness grew [and] enhanced the tragedy that was El Salvador. Political alliances, often opportunist, weakened even further what civilian control existed over the military and police.
At the same time, what the report called a vicious circle was established, in which some individuals were immune from any governmental or political checks. These individuals held in their hands the true power of the state, expressed in its most primitive terms, while the state powers failed to carry out their true functions as public entities.
This is the only way to explain the death squads, the disappearances, the attacks on opposition political and church figures. What is ironic, said the report, is that this web of corruption, timidity and weakness on the part of the judicial branch and its investigative organs paralysed the judicial system.
Furthermore, it is untrue that the individuals and institutions named in the report did not have the opportunity to explain or defend d forces claim.
In a prefatory note, the commission makes it clear that the minister of defense failed to reply to many of the questions asked of him, adducing a lack of files. Throughout the report we see evidence that military officers failed to respond to the commission's requests to appear in order to provide their versions of the incidents in which they were implicated.
The report, therefore, cannot be brushed aside with the argument of bias and prejudice. The armed forces' objections, and those of the Supreme Court, could have been presented while the commissioners were carrying out their work. Why did the officers and magistrates not demand an opportunity to defend themselves at the time?
Just like the military high command, the Supreme Court has failed to respond to the most important charge. Its rejection of the report is based on certain specific cases, omitting others such as the massacre of San Francisco Guajoyo and the murders of the FDR [Revolutionary Democratic Front] leaders, cases which illustrated perfectly the passivity of the judicial system.
The report stresses the notorious weaknesses of the judicial system, especially in cases of crimes committed with the support of the state apparatus. Therefore, the only credible way for the Supreme Court to respond to the charges is to engage in effective reforms of the judicial system along the lines set by the peace accords, the independent UN human rights expert and the recommendations of the Truth Commission.
The aspect of the Truth Commission report which stood out the most was the cases in which the names of those responsible appear. However, the most important part of the report is the revelation of the structure which permitted these systematic human rights violations.
In this sense, the report clearly points out the institutional failure of the Salvadoran state. The problem does not reside in the names or the cases themselves, but rather in the social and state structures which led to those massive and systematic violations.