75 YEARS ISN'T LIFE IN EL SALVADOR (BUT IT'S SURE

UNCLAS SAN SALVADOR 000444 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL ES KCRM KJUS SUBJECT: 75 YEARS ISN'T LIFE IN EL SALVADOR (BUT IT'S SURE A LONG TIME) ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: The Salvadoran Supreme Court ruled this week that a 2001 law which increased the maximum criminal penalty to 75 years imprisonment was consistent with the Salvadoran Constitution. Opponents of the law argued that a 75 year sentence was the equivalent of life imprisonment and therefore unconstitutional and have promised to look for other ways to overturn the law. The ruling may also impact U.S. efforts to extradite Salvadorans to face trial in the United States. End Summary. ¶2. (U) On April 7, the Constitutional Chamber of the Salvadoran Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 2001 legal reform that increased the maximum prison sentence under Salvadoran law from 35 to 75 years. The justices ruled that a 75 year sentence did not amount to life imprisonment, which is expressly forbidden under Article 27 of El Salvador's constitution. The justices based their decision in part on the possibility of early release on parole in certain cases. ¶3. (U) The Supreme Court's ruling stems from five cases in which sentencing judges from the municipalities of Usulutan, Chalatenango, and Santa Ana refused to apply penalties under article 45 of the criminal code on the basis that lengthy prison sentences effectively amounted to life imprisonment, which they viewed as unconstitutional. ¶4. (U) Both the Office of the Salvadoran Ombudsman for the Protection of Human Rights (PDDH) and the Human Rights Institute of the University of Central America (IDHUCA) have strongly opposed the 2001 law on the basis that a 75 year sentence is tantamount to a life sentence. The PDDH has also alleged that a 75-year sentence is a violation of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Punishment. Both IDHUCA and the PDDH have announced that they are examining ways to challenge this ruling or take the case to an international body, though it is unclear exactly how they would do so. ¶5. (U) The judiciary in El Salvador is also notoriously inconsistent and insubordinate, and, despite this ruling, several members of the judiciary have indicated that they are considering ignoring the ruling and refusing to impose lengthy sentences. ¶6. (U) COMMENT: Though it is early to speculate, this ruling could impact current U.S. efforts to extradite Salvadoran nationals to face trial in the United States. While upholding lengthy sentences, the ruling also reaffirms the unconstitutionality of life sentences. This ruling makes it increasingly unlikely that El Salvador would allow extradition of its nationals in capital cases or in cases where life sentences could be imposed without corresponding assurances from U.S. authorities regarding sentencing. End Comment. BUTLER