The following notes have been edited to correct errors and to add explanations and updates. Parenthetical notes and remarks from the original are enclosed in parentheses. Present day [2022] updates are italicized and enclosed in square brackets.
Tuesday, 15 October 1991 - 4:10 PM - Fr. Rafael Sivatte at the UCA
We are seated once more in the library of the Monsignor Romero Center on the campus of the Central American University. As I look around, I note that the machine-gunned volumes which had last year been exhibited open on chairs along the one wall are now in glass covered display cases lining the same wall. The scorched and mutilated portrait of Archbishop Romero, glass stalactites still appended to its frame, is also enclosed and glass covered once again. These are mute reminders of the night of slaughter which took place here nearly two years ago.
George introduces our group to Father Sivatte, who greets us graciously. We have asked him specifically to speak about the recently concluded trial of those accused of murdering the six Jesuits and their two housekeepers.
"I am delighted to be able to receive you. I am Vice Rector of the University and Assistant to the director of the Monsignor Romero Pastoral Center. I also give classes in Old Testament and in theology, and I assist Father Sobrino [Father Jon Sobrino, who had escaped the massacre two years before because he was out of the country at the time.] in editing "Letters to the Churches," a bi-weekly journal published by the University. I have been here two years since they killed my associates.
"My judgment of the outcome of the trial is that throughout the whole process there was an attempt on the part of the High Command, including President Cristiani, and also on the part of some officials of the United States Embassy, to cover up the truth. The result of the cover-up was that even though everyone knew that the people who were being judged were guilty, there was no tangible proof, even though everyone was convinced of the facts.
"I believe sincerely that they have not gotten to the full truth of the matter. I believe that five members of the jury had been ‘prepared.’ It was a very odd verdict, especially what they said about Mendoza. I was at the trial. Never during the trial did anyone say that he had a gun. So why was he the one convicted of killing the young woman?
"Perhaps he was condemned because he was in charge of the unit and gave the supplemental order to kill the two women when the only orders had been to kill the Jesuits. So in this way they could say that they have convicted the intellectual authors of the crime. But they never touched the Atlacatl Battalion members.
"While we were waiting for the verdict, the Spanish ambassador said that he heard Atlacatl Battalion members outside. Their whole defense was to provoke fear in the jury. Moakley says there is no proof of this, but it can be supposed. [John Joseph "Joe" Moakley was a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts who headed the commission investigating the massacre. The report of the commission is credited with having helped to end U.S. aid to the Salvadoran military.]
"So we think that it is at bottom an unjust verdict, even though it is true that they convicted the person who gave the direct orders. But the people who killed in cold blood are free to go around on the streets, and they are armed. It is a step toward justice, but a very small step.
"It is also true that four days ago we had the trial of the ‘death well.’ The assassins confessed but said that what they did was in obedience to superior orders. This is not part of the Salvadoran constitution, but they are using this defense successfully here. We have also recently had the trial of the assassin of Herbert Anaya. In this case the person who was convicted was obviously framed. They are doing this in all trials where it is necessary to convict someone. In his homily Archbishop Rivera said that this latest verdict is false. The Human Rights Commission (of which Anaya was head before his slaying) has asked that this person be freed. He is not the guilty one.”
Question: During the trial, was Benevides asked directly if he had been given orders?
"The judge asked this, but there has been a conspiracy of silence. Benevides has never admitted that he gave any order or received any order. He was condemned because he was in charge of the area that night. President Cristiani gave the eight names of the men put on trial, so not to convict any of them would be to call Cristiani a liar."
Question: We have heard that the judge hears all of the testimony, but the jury hears only a summary. Is this true?
"This is a problem. The jury only hears a statement read, which is very boring. The jury has no idea what is the full range of arguments. In the Jesuit case the read testimony took more than twenty-four hours. Then each side had six hours to present its case. There were not arguments on the evidence. The government's defense was to attack internationals, and ask the jury if they were going to convict Salvadorans of killing internationals who come in and disturb the country.
"One of the things the defense said to the jury was to point out all the terrible things which have happened to the woman who was a witness. The implication was that similar things could happen to the jury. While we were waiting for the verdict, which took five hours of deliberation, I could tell that people were very afraid.
"Linares was there at the whole trial, looking straight at Benevides. Everyone knows that he can move troops anywhere. There was much fear.
"The trial began Thursday morning. They were in session for eighteen hours, with six-hour breaks at night. The verdict was given Saturday evening."
Question: What about the documents requested from the U. S. State Department? Was there any cooperation?
"In the end they gave a few documents, with most of the text blocked out. We know that there are over 200 documents relevant to the case, but we saw only about twenty. They would say things like, 'Colonel Benevides ...' then a whole blank paragraph '... went for coffee.'
"The judge was able to call witnesses in El Salvador. For those in the United States, questioning was done by letter through the U.S. Department of Justice. Letters were sent to ten witnesses. Counsel for the Jesuits asked to be present when they were giving their testimony, but the Departments of State and Justice said no. The Jesuits protested this decision.
"As an example of the inadequacy of this method of questioning, no one pressed Buckland when he changed his testimony and said that he had never said anything about Benevides' planning the killings fifteen days before the assassinations. [U.S. Major Eric Buckland, who issued two contradictory statements in interviews with the Moakley Commission.]
"There are two problems with the justice system here. The judge has no police to enforce his actions. And the process of trials, as I explained, means that the jury does not hear the discussion.
"The Jesuits believe that the investigation must continue. Today in an article in 'Diario de Hoy' a threat appeared against our provincial because he is again asking for an investigation to find the intellectual authors of the killings."
Question: Do you see a power struggle in the far right given D'Aubuisson's diagnosis of terminal cancer?
"Yes, I would say so. There is also a struggle within the military, because there are some officers who say that army actions are not acceptable. But they all defend each other. It is clear that there is division within the ARENA party. Sometimes there is talk of a coup against Cristiani because he has had to accept things in the negotiations which the hard line in the military and in ARENA does not want. An example is the agreement to include the FMLN in the new National Police. Cristiani had to accept this or the negotiations would have broken down."
Question: What do you think of the effectiveness of ONUSAL ?
"I think that by their presence ONUSAL may find many human rights violations, but I don't think they have much power. I go to Morazan all the time. The ONUSAL people there spend more time in the army base than in the communities. I think that they will be deceived. The army has many means of propaganda. COPREFA (the army's press organization) is an example.
“We had a meeting with ONUSAL and said that it is very important that they go out into the communities, because the people won't come into such a threatening space. The only thing that will work is if they will go out into the villages. I think that in one year they won't be able to verify anything. They will be the object of great pressure from the government.
"Everyone in their own way is trying to build a relationship with ONUSAL. On 12 October there was a great reception at the Spanish Embassy and representatives of ONUSAL were there. They do need to be everywhere, but if they are moving on the level of the embassies ... (he shrugs.)
"I went out to San Miguel. The FMLN had closed the road for two and a half hours. Two cars ahead of us were ONUSAL. They had stopped with all the other cars. We went straight up to the FMLN commander, and when ONUSAL saw that, they followed us. But ONUSAL has a sub-mission right in San Miguel. You would think that they should have been there much earlier."
Question: Military reform looks good on paper. Can it really happen?
"I see this as very difficult. If the U.S. stops military aid, the military will reform. As long as they get aid, they won't reform. This is an army of sixty to seventy thousand. At the beginning of the war it was ten thousand. Now they are very well trained, in Fort Benning. [The School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, was notorious for training troops from a number of Latin American countries that went on to commit atrocities. Those of us in the Peace Movement frequently referred to it as The School of Assassins.] How can we convince them that their role is to defend the country? As long as they get aid, they won't be convinced.
Question: Will Moakley's mandate be ended?
"It is important that Moakley continue on this case in search of the intellectual authors."
Question: Where do you get your support? Will you share a bit of your spiritual journey with us?
"I was a Bible professor in Barcelona and came here quite by chance. I had contact with some migrant workers who converted me to a different world. As a Jesuit my life had been easy. But this experience with the migrants and my Bible study converted me to the God who cares for the poor. For a while I continued in Spain. Then someone called me to Bolivia. I was there for two years, then expelled for attending a political rally.
"After I returned to Spain, Father Sobrino came and asked me to come to help in El Salvador. Living with the Jesuits who were killed little by little opened my eyes. Now I am a parish priest with a community of displaced out near Illopango. The poor and the martyrs have shown me how to read the Bible through the eyes of the poor.
"I studied in Rome and Jerusalem, and had all the technical skills. But what I lacked was the ability to read the Bible in the context in which it was written, in an occupied country. I learned that here."
Father Sivatte closes the discussion and leads us through the hallway and out to the rear of the building, into the yard where the murders had taken place. Sally remarks to him that the rose bushes have grown considerably since last year when we were here. At this he brightens and says that he thought he had recognized some of us, but since he had met with hundreds of international visitors in the past year, he wasn't sure. It is evident that our return means a lot to him. This is a theme which we hear repeatedly. Many groups come once, return home, and are never heard from again. The consistency of regular visits such as Project Via Crucis has established is essential in building trust and confidence between us and our Salvadoran sisters and brothers. The message is not lost on me. I know now that, if God wills, I will return again in 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment