SUCHITOTO CHARGES DROPPED...OR NOT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SAN SALVADOR 000245 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/16/2017 TAGS: PGOV PREL ES PHUM KCRM SUBJECT: SUCHITOTO CHARGES DROPPED...OR NOT REF: 07 SAN SALVADOR 1485 Classified By: Ambassador Charles L. Glazer, Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) Summary: On February 19, a judge dismissed public disorder charges against 14 defendants who had originally been charged with terrorism in connection with a July 2007 demonstration that turned violent. The case has been a lightning rod for accusations by the opposition FMLN and US-based NGO's that the ARENA government is suppressing free speech and the right of assembly. Earlier this month, the GOES reduced the charges to public disturbance and the trial was expected to begin this month. The dismissal for technical reasons does not necessarily close the case, and some GOES officials claim that the government will appeal and still intends to prosecute the defendants. End summary. -------------- Developments....of a sort -------------- ¶2. (U) On February 19, the Suchitoto Justice of the Peace dismissed the remaining public disorder charges against all of the 14 protesters who had originally been charged in July 2007 under the Salvadoran Anti-Terrorism statute. The judge, however, ordered the protesters to pay monetary damages to compensate the Social Investment Fund for Local Development (FISDL) for damage to their vehicles during the protest. The charges were dismissed by the judge based on the prosecutor's lack of attendance at the hearing. ¶3. (C) Oscar Luna, the Salvadoran Ombudsman for Human Rights has publicly protested the original filing of terrorism charges in this case and applauded the Government's February 12 decision to reduce the charges to public disorder. Luna told Emboffs on February 22 that he was satisfied with the ultimate outcome of the case, and that the GOES would probably not appeal the dismissal. In a later conversation with Poloff, the Ombudsman confirmed that the prosecutor had the right to appeal the case and that he was unsure what the government would decide to do. -------------- How did we get here? -------------- ¶4. (U) On July 2, President Saca and several other high-ranking GOES officials went to Suchitoto for the unveiling of a government plan to de-centralize the country's water system. In anticipation of the event, a number of left-wing organizations along with Suchitoto's FMLN mayor, Juan Javier Martinez, spread the word that the GOES plan was really a plan to privatize the water system. As a result, several dozen protesters converged on Suchitoto to protest the President's visit. The protest turned violent when several protesters blocked roads and set fires in the streets. Protesters also threw stones at several GOES vehicles, allegedly including parts of President Saca's motorcade. Police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets, and a number of protesters were taken into custody. ¶5. (C) Poloff reviewed the case file with the original investigating officials in the regional PNC headquarters in Cojutapeque and confirmed that the 14 protesters were originally detained on public disturbance charges. The prosecutor's office, however, owing to the high profile of the case, transferred the investigation to San Salvador, and the following week the Attorney General's office made the decision to charge the protesters under El Salvador's 2006 Anti-Terrorism law. On July 7, a judge bound the case over for trial, and on July 18 each of the defendants was released on bond pending trial. ¶6. (U) The decision to pursue terrorism charges in this case unleashed a torrent of protest both within El Salvador and from US-based NGO's. The Ombudsman for Human Rights publicly criticized the charges and urged the Attorney General to amend the charges. Letter-writing campaigns and a stream of delegations of Americans affiliated with US NGO's maintained pressure on the GOES and supported a small but vocal movement in support of the protesters who were dubbed the "Suchitoto 13" (Note: Terrorism charges against the 14th defendant had already been dropped). From July 2007 to February 2007, the Office of the Public Prosecutor on several occasions asked for and was granted additional time to complete its investigation. -------------- Where are we really? -------------- ¶7. (C) During conversations Emboffs held over the last several months with high ranking officials in the Attorney General's office and the President's office, it was apparent that the GOES was feeling a great deal of negative pressure for its decision to move forward with a "terrorism" prosecution. At the same time, officials seemed unable to figure out how to resolve the issue and appeared to believe, incorrectly, that the interest in the case would subside over time. The general sense seemed to be that everyone thought the case would ultimately not be prosecuted as terrorism and that the charges would be reduced. ¶8. (U) The prosecutor's failure to appear at the February 19 hearing (which was attended by the Human Rights Ombudsman) has been taken by many as an intentional effort by the public prosecutors office to simply let the case expire. Public statements by NGO's, as well as private statements to Emboffs by the Human Rights Ombudsman, confirm that most feel this case is finally closed. ¶9. (C) Quite a different story emerged in a conversation on February 25 between Poloff and Hernan Cortez, the District Attorney for the Cojutapeque district which includes Suchitoto. Cortez, whose office is directly responsible for prosecuting the case told Poloff that he had "every intention of appealing" the dismissal of the case. He asserted that the prosecutor had been delayed in arriving for the hearing and that it was "highly unusual" for the case to be dismissed rather than having the hearing postponed. He went on to claim that the judge had been intimidated by the presence of the Human Rights Ombudsman (Note: This may be the first time Luna has ever been described as intimidating. End note.) According to Cortez, the GOES has five days from the date of receipt of the judge's official ruling to make its decision on whether or not to appeal. To date, the official notification has not been delivered. -------------- Comment: What's next? -------------- ¶10. (C) By taking terrorism charges off the table, the GOES had diffused much of the tension surrounding this case and reduced much of the unwanted international attention. It was widely expected that at least some of the protesters would be convicted of minor charges and the case would be closed. What looks like a ridiculous misstep by the GOES now has the potential to give the case new life. Not appealing the case makes the government look foolish, but appealing the case at this point could once again serve as a lightning rod for those who accuse the ARENA government of squelching free speech. ¶11. (C) The ball in now firmly in the court of the Salvadoran Attorney General's office. A decision not to appeal the dismissal of this case would almost certainly mean that from a legal perspective, this case would be closed. It is unclear what, if any, impact such a decision would have on the GOES ability to prosecute public disturbance cases going forward. Should the GOES decide to appeal the dismissal, the outcome is by no means assured. The appeal could be denied by El Salvador's notoriously fickle judiciary, or if the appeal were granted, the government might still fail to convict some of the defendants. End Comment. GLAZER