Human rights violations stemming from the "War on Drugs" in Bolivia
|
From the Drugtext Library
Andean Information Network Bjorn Petterson "I was at home, and people came to tell me that something happened, that there was a problem. They told me, 'someone is wounded on the highway. Please do something, go and see'. I went and found a man spread out on the ground. I asked what had happened. The wife of the wounded man told me that her husband sold coca leaves. The man had a run in with the Leopards [the UMOPAR antinarcotics troops]. The Leopards took away his coca and grabbed the man. They refused to give back his coca and they hit him. "His wife asked them to release him, but they took him and her away in a truck, hitting the man when he asked to be released. His wife said that in the truck they hit him so much that they broke his arm and his leg. His wife was screaming and at last they brought him to a clinic. The Leopards told the doctor at the clinic that the man had been in a traffic accident. The doctor said that the man was in serious condition and that they should take him to Cochabamba. This scared the Leopards and they decided just to leave him on the highway, with his wife screaming. I arrived and we arranged for a car to take us to Cochabarnba. But the man died on the way." Anonymous testimony of Mr. Castro's death in the Chapare, June 1992
Executive Summary The US financed "war on drugs" in Bolivia has not only failed in its intention to diminish the flow of cocaine into the United States, it has also negatively impacted the human rights situation in the country. This report describes gross human rights violations which result from the "war on drugs" in Bolivia focusing on the period from 1990-93. The ten case studies documented in the report illustrate the most common type of violations, and identify their perpetrators. The US created and financed antinarcotics police in Bolivia, the Mobile Rural Patrol Unit (Unidad Movil de Patrullaje Rural, UMOPAR) which is administered by the Special Antinarcotics Force Fuerza Especial de Lucha contra el Narcotrafico, FELCN) is guilty of murder, torture and consistent maltreatment of the population in the coca growing areas. These human rights violations are carried out in a climate of total impunity. In addition, the population's fear of the repressive antinarcotics legislation, Law 1008, is systematically used by the antinarcotics police to intimidate innocent citizens. The design of the Law reflects an intention to stem drug trafficking at the cost of decreased respect for human rights. The Law has almost exclusively been applied to the poor, hence, very few major drug dealers have been apprehended. Consequently, Law 1008 has compromised human rights without reducing large scale drug trafficking. The obligatory appeals process governing acquittals under Law 1008 requires that all cases pertaining to drug trafficking, even the case of a detainee acquitted after an initial trial, pass through a three level judicial process. Because of the severe delays within the Bolivian judicial system, this process often taxes four to five years, while the accused is forced to remain in jail as no provisional liberty is permitted under Law 1008. The Bolivian judicial system is incapable of absorbing the current sharp increase of legal cases associated with Law 1008. As a result, the three month deadline for processing cases under Law 1008 is never adhered to. With little or no legal training, the antinarcotics police not only arrest and remit detainees to the courts, but also prepare the legal documents used in the trial as preconstituted proof. These often incomplete and erroneous documents form the basis for sentences as long as twenty-five years. This provision in Law 1008 gives the antinarcotics police additional powers beyond those granted under the procedures governing other Bolivian laws. Considering their coercive and legal powers, it is not surprising that the human rights violations perpetrated by the antinarcotics police go unchallenged. This report also describes how the Bolivian context, characterized by corruption and insufficient judicial and penitentiary infrastructure, aggravates the "war on drugs" negative impact on Bolivia's human rights situation. Corruption has increased because the draconian Law 1008 has provided the antinarcotics police and judicial officials with an effective tool for extracting bribes from detainees. The frequent practice of bribery has created a pattern in which the rich are seldom tried, while those who cannot afford to pay bribes end up in Jail. The severe overcrowding of jails aggravated by Law 1008 provides another example of Law 1008's inappropriateness within the Bolivian context. Bolivian prisons, some hosting almost ten times more inmates than they were designed for, seriously infringe on prisoners' human rights: hygienic conditions, food availability and medical attention are all very poor. Introduction During the first half of the 1980's, the amount of coca grown in Bolivia for use in the production of cocaine mushroomed. (1) The rapid growth in cocaine consumption in the industrialized countries, particularly the United States, occurred as Bolivia faced a growing debt crisis and the collapse of tin mining, which had been the country's primary expor since 1900. This economic crisis was further aggravated by increased population pressure and long-standing government neglect of indigenous peasant agriculture. The result was, flood of peasants and the urban poor to the coca growing regions, as coca offered the most viable alternative for thousands of virtually destitute Bolivians. While coca has offered; means of survival, few of the growers and small scale transporters have become wealthy Precarious living conditions, illiteracy and generalized poverty remain the norm in the coca growing regions. The US response to the coca/cocaine boom in the Andes and to its domestic drug problem has been to launch the so-called "war on drugs". The main focus of this policy has been or coercive measures, aimed at stopping the flow of drugs into the United States. In line with this policy, the US approved the Andean Initiative in 1989, which included dramatic increases in US military and police assistance to Bolivia. With the election of President Clinton, some reductions have occurred in the amount of funding sent to the Andean countries, but the policy focus has not changed substantially to date. The "war on drugs" in Bolivia is primarily conducted by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the US funded and trained Bolivian antinarcotics police force, Mobile Rural Patrol Unit (UMOPAR). Since the United States created the UMOPAR in 1983, the militarization of the coca/cocaine issue and the principal coca growing region, the Chapare, has markedly increased. This police force, which in 1984 launched a failed coup attempt, has since been responsible for imposing a climate of violence and disrespect for human rights in the region. The coca growers, organized into five union federations, have frequently protested these repressive antinarcotics activities, which has led to bloody confrontations between unarmed peasants and the UMOPAR. In one of these clashes, on May 27, 1987, five peasants were killed by UMOPAR troops in Parotani, Cochabamba. In Villa Tunari, on June 27, 1988, UMOPAR troops opened fire on protesters, killing twelve, while DEA forces circled above in a helicopter. In 1988, controversial antinarcotics legislation, Law 1008, was implemented, which has aggravated the human rights violations committed by antinarcotics forces. This report will examine these violations, as well as the negative impact that Law 1008 has had on human rights. The 1993 US State Department's human rights report on Bolivia acknowledges accusations against UMOPAR of invading privacy and illegally confiscating property, but dismisses allegations of more serious violations as "not substantiated". In this report, we present documented cases of gross human rights violations perpetrated by the UMOPAR, which indicates the incompleteness of the State Department's assessment of the human rights situation in the coca growing regions. The Antinarcotics Forces' Violations of Human Rights The case studies which follow demonstrate that the UMOPAR routinely beat up, torture and kill people in a climate of total impunity. Their cars and trucks have no license plates, their uniforms bear no names and during operations their faces are often painted to avoid identification. This investigation has not discovered any legal cases against members of this corps for violations of human rights, despite the extensive testimony of witnesses. (2) Not even in a case where public prosecutor Walter Rocha Maranez reportedly witnessed the severe beating of a detainee were any legal measures taken. The gross violations of human rights committed by the UMOPAR include spontaneous acts of violence as well as systematic and elaborate forms of torture. The victims in this report have been shot, submerged under water, beaten while suspended in the air, burned with cigarettes, forcibly injected with unknown substances, tortured with electric shocks, severely beaten and repeatedly threatened with death. Most of the human rights violations reported here have occurred during interrogation, but gross violations have also been committed against people neither accused of any crime nor arrested. These victims have most commonly challenged the perpetrator's authority or verbally denounced previous actions. If these grave violations of human rights can go unpunished, it is not surprising that minor violations of human rights are daily occurrences in the coca growing areas. This type of violation by UMOPAR has also been reported by leaders of non-coca growing indigenous groups living in areas adjacent to regions where coca is cultivated. Illegal arrests, illegal searches of homes and properties, destruction of property, theft, physical maltreatment and general intimidation and harassment through take overs of entire villages are part of the modus operandi of the UMOPAR. Our research has shown that DEA agents are also guilty of these infractions of human rights. The authors of this report witnessed a dramatic nightly house search while on a fact finding trip to Ivirgarzama, Chapare on June 4, 1993. Without presenting a search warrant, several UMOPAR officers barged into a private home. A few nights before, the next door neighbor had experienced the same intrusion. This type of night search occurs regularly and search warrants are never shown. Coca union leader Valentin Gutierrez recounts how: "One night while I was away at a union meeting they [UMOPAR] came in through the window, terrifying my wife who was here with our two small children. They rifled through our possessions, verbally threatening her the whole time. Finally they left, with a radio and about US 100". Cash and valuable objects are often confiscated with the excuse of having been acquired through drug trafficking. They, of course, never reach the coffers of the State through a formal confiscation process, but end up directly in the officers' pockets. The mayor of Ivirgarzama, Daniel Ramos, claims that in his community the mere possession of cash, has in practical terms become illegal. "The UMOPAR set up road blocks wherever it pleases them...and at those road blocks everyone is searched. Everyone has to get out of their vehicles, to have their pockets searched. If they find as much as Bs. 50 (US$11), they take it." (3). However there are other ways for members of the antinarcotics forces to acquire wealth. In half of the case studies documented here, the detainee has been offered to buy his freedom for amounts ranging from US $500 to 3,000. This practice has been described as very generalized. In the testimony of Mr. Monje (Case # 3), he recalls how the UMOPAR commanders and the public prosecutor worked closely to systematically collect large sums of money from each detainee they released. Bribery and extortion within the Bolivian police forces are not new phenomena, but Law 1008 has served to aggravate these problems. A peasant, innocent or guilty, who is picked up by the UMOPAR is aware that s/he will spend at least two to three years in jail if remitted to the Court of Controlled Substances, therefore s/he makes every effort to come up with the money demanded to obtain release. The fear of arrest under Law 1008 has turned the law into a weapon in the hands of the antinarcotics police, contributing to the climate of impunity that allows for gross, as well as minor, human rights violations. Arresting large number of people, innocent or guilty, is in the interest of the narcotics forces. Not only as a pool of potential bribe payers, but also to boost their performance statistics. There is a strong international pressure on Bolivia to show concrete results in the "war on drugs", especially in the field of law enforcement. This pressure is passed down through the ranks, to the field operating units of UMOPAR, whose performance is measured strictly quantitatively (i.e. the number of arrests). The ambitious officer or unit is therefore motivated to arrest large number of people - not necessarily the right people. This is often achieved through raids on entire towns, followed by numerous arbitrary arrests in public establishments as well as in private homes. Case study #3 describes the arrest of 266 people in a single raid. The large number of arrests is enhanced by the use of paid The violations perpetrated by the antinarcotics forces are frequently denounced by representatives of the coca growers. In August, 1992, a number of human rights denunciations presented by the coca federations led to the formation of an Interinstitutional Commission, assigned to investigate the alleged abuses. The members of the Commission represented the government, the Special Antinarcotics Forces, the coca growers, the Roman Catholic Church, the press and the Permanent Assembly of Human Rights. No consensus was reached between the members of the Commission regarding the veracity of the denunciations presented, and no report was issued. Several members claimed their investigative efforts had been impeded by the Special Antinarcotics Forces. The Impact of Law 1008 on Human Rights In July 1988, under strong US and international pressure, the Bolivian parliament approved a new antinarcotics law, Law 10o8, regulating coca and controlled substances. As Law 1008 has had, and continues to have a detrimental impact on human rights, it is important to highlight and publicly reject the most harmful provisions and consequences of the Law. Human rights were never considered in the Law's formulation. Juan Carlos Duran, Minister of the Interior when Law 1008 was approved in the Bolivian Congress, defended its passage by saying, "We put human rights on a balance scale to see if drug trafficking caused more harm to the country than adhering to an orthodox [legal] procedure. We broke the rules and tried to find an efficient mechanism that would really battle drug trafficking" The orientation was militaristic: Duran compares the congressional deputies who approved the Law to "generals under attack, forced to choose a strategy for war". (4) However, the weight of the Law has never fallen on the big scale drug traffickers. On the contrary, the extremely severe procedures and penalties affect a totally different population: the poor. Gustavo Blacutt, lawyer and advisor to the Bolivian Congressional Commission on Drugs, found that 99.35% of the inmates held under Law 1008 are indigent, and more than 88% use public defenders. (5) The important drug traffickers are seldom caught, and if they are, they have the financial resources to pay off the antinarcotics police before they are turned over to the courts. Most of the human rights violations caused by Law 1008 stem from the legal provisions of the Law, and others result from the Bolivian context in which the Law has been implemented. The Bolivian legal experts and the foreign legal advisers who designed the Law, did not consider the context in which it would be implemented. As a result, the Law has fed widespread corruption, been applied inappropriately and has created an extreme retardation of justice. Widespread corruption is deeply entrenched in Bolivian society, and it is not surprising that a law which allows for an arbitrary application of justice has contributed to increased corruption not only of the antinarcotics forces but also of the entire judicial system. According to an ex-UMOPAR office who spoke anonymously, the practice of bribery is common even at higher levels of the judicial system, including several of the prosecutors in the Superior Court. The application of the Law at the local level reflects its inappropriateness for Bolivian conditions. The criminal reports which form the basis for court decisions are prepared by antinarcotics officers with very little or no legal training. This reality was not foreseen by promoters of the Law. Minister of Interior Juan Carlos Duran commented that the Law would require specialized people to enforce it. In reality, these "specialized people" are poorly trained antinarcotics police, or when they are unavailable, local civil servants. Law 1008, in contradiction to most constitutions, including the Bolivian, presumes guiltuntil innocence is proven. Rather than establishing criminal activity or intent, the antinarcotics forces require a detainee to prove his/her innocence. This contributes to the poor standards of investigative work proceeding arrests. If drugs or precursors used in manufacturing cocaine are found on a public bus, for example, the antinarcotics police often arrest the person or persons sitting closest to the substance, without carrying out any criminal investigation (securing finger prints, interrogating passengers and driver, etc.). A very poorly substantiated criminal report is then prepared, which has the status of preconstituted proof. On the basis of this report, the detainee is formally arrested and incarcerated in a district jail while awaiting trail. Before the case is brought to trail and the arrested is acquitted or sentenced, many months or even years go by. This retardation of justice is a general deficiency of the Bolivian judicial system, but is particularly severe under Law 1008. An innocent person, victim of an arbitrary arrest under Law 1008, might be acquitted after a trial that often lasts a year, but is not released. Article 121 of Law 1008 requires the prosecutor to appeal the acquittal and the case then goes to a second trial in the Superior Court. Meanwhile the acquitted detainee has to remain in jail as the Law permits no provisional liberty. When the Superior Court finally hands down the sentence after a trail that can last up to a year, the case is automatically referred to the Supreme Court in Sucre, even if the acquittal has been confirmed. In the Supreme Court, the case goes through a lengthy third and final trial while the detinee remains incarcerated. A gross disparity exists between the legal deadlines set under Law 1008 which require that a case take approximately three months (see chart below) and the actual average time a detainee has to spend in jail, which can be up to five years. The penalties set under Law 1008 for exceeding the required time frame are never applied. According to Vigilant Judge, Tomas Molina Cespedes, the delays are so extreme that only 7% of the current prison population in Cochabarnba, over 50% of whom are imprisoned under Law 1008, has been brought to trial. Obviously, not all those arrested under Law 1008 are innocent. Many low-income people are arrested for transporting drugs or chemical substances used in the production of cocaine. Others are charged with stamping coca leaf into the paste which is later used in cocaine manufacture. The sentences for these crimes under Law 1008 are disproportional to the sentences given for other crimes under the Bolivian Penal Code. For example, for trafficking in chemicals used in the manufacture of cocaine, the penalty is ten to twenty-five years of non-reducible prison time. In addition, a high fine is levied, which in the case of the poor who are unable to pay, is often converted into additional jail time. The case of Aldo Choque Alcons (Case#4), convicted of trafficking in chemical additives for manufacturing cocaine and sentenced to eighty-three years (twenty-five years plus fine), clearly illustrates the unconscionable severity of the penalties under Law 1008. In comparison, the maximum penalty for homicide in Bolivia is ten years. The penalties under Law 1008 have been set this high despite a UN recommendation that no legislation should include penalties longer than fifteen years. Not only the innocently accused are victims under Law 1008. The entire population's freedom of speech is violated through Article 79, which criminalizes defending or justifying a crime under Law 1008. Anyone publicly defending for example the cultivation of coca anywhere in the country, or defending someone accused under the Law (e.g. the authors of this document) can be sentence to two to five years in prison. Prison Conditions In the department of Cochabamba, where the principal coca growing region is located, there are three prison facilities, all in the city of Cochabamba. The largest facility, San Sebastian prison for men, is in an approximately one hundred year old stone building which was originally designed for sixty prisoners but currently holds over five hundred. Despite this nine-fold increase of the prison population, there has been no expansion of the 900m2 (9687 square feet) prison. Very few prisoners have their own cell and many live in the crowded courtyard. The majority of the previously existing cells have been divided and subdivided into tiny sleeping spaces which are bought and sold. A larger space, perhaps two by two meters, costs US $300-800, a luxury for most prisoners. Most sleep wherever they can find floor space. There is also a shortage of toilet and shower facilities. Five hundred prisoners share three toilets and four showers, all of which are extremely run down and dirty. Neither food, beverages nor cooking facilities are provided by the prison authorities. Prisoners are dependent on the often scarce resources of friends and family to feed themselves. Entrepreneurial inmates with access to funds have set up small kitchen stands where food is sold to those who can afford it. According to the US State Department's 1993 human rights report, prisoners die in Bolivian jails every year, partly due to malnutrition. The medical attention is just as precarious. Article 74 of Law 1008 explicitly states that no one accused of a crime under the Law may leave the prison, even to be interned in a hospital. The prison's medical facility is therefore the only resource for those detained under Law 1008. A doctor visits the prison eight hours a week. At other times, the resident paramedic attends to the prisoners without basic medical supplies. The only medicine available is from a donation of expired medicines. In the other two prison facilities in Cochabamba, San Sebastian Prison for Women and San Antonio Prison, the conditions are similar to those found in San Sebastian. According to Vigilant Judge Tomas Molina Cespedes, the courtyard in San Antonio is overbuilt, blocking sunlight and causing skin problems and anxiety among the prisoners. References 1. The coca leaf has been sacred in the Andes for millennia. The leaf is present in every ritual in Andean culture from birth to death. It is frequently used to diminish hunger and exhaustion, as well as in native medicine to heal a wide variety of ailments. The coca leaf is legal in Bolivia and its use is widespread. Case Studies Case One.
Current Status On December 31, 1992, Sergio Molina was acquitted because of inadequate proof. Despite this acquittal, Molina is being held in the San Sebastian prison in Cochabamba, awaiting a decision in the second trial in the Superior Court. The case will then be transferred to the Supreme Court in Sucre for review before it is finally sent to Cochabamba. where, if the prisoner has been acquitted in the second and third trials, he can be released. Facts of the Case Sergio Molina was arrested on December 7, 1991 in an UMPIRE sweep while sleeping in a friend's house close to the village of Villa 14 de Septiembre, in the region of the Chapare. UMOPAR police, their faces painted and covered with scarves, entered the house and arrested him between 5: 5:30 a.m. Immediately after his arrest, Captain Gonzalo Cuellar Justiano, a graduate of the US military school, School of the Americas, began beating him, asking questions about his reasons for visiting the area. This took place in the presence of the prosecutor in Chimore, Walter Rocha Martinez. Covered with blood, the victim was handcuffed, blindfolded and locked in a van for half an hour. He was then taken into the woods, some three kilometers from Villa 14 de Septiembre, where he and 16 more detainees were beaten while being questioned. At 4:3S5:00 p.m., he was taken to the UMOPAR compound in Chimore where he was kept incommunicado for 17 days. 6. School of the Americas has trained more than 56,000 Latin American soldiers in combat andcounterinsurgency skills. A large number of the school's graduates have been implicated in gross human rights violations, which enhances the United States' responsibility for the human Rights situation in Bolivia and in other Latin American countries. After approximately twenty days he was asked to make a statement. When he denied the accusations of involvement in drug trafficking presented by an informant, Molina was beaten repeatedly with a club, including blows to the head. Afterwards he was thrown in a cell without receiving any medical attention. One night, Captain Cuellar and a lieutenant took Molina out on the compound's runway, where he once again was beaten badly. The next day when his mother came to see him, he was incapable of getting up from the cell floor. The nine detainees under arrest from the Villa 14 de Septiembre sweep were told they would be set free if they each paid Captain Cuellar $ US 3,000. Three were freed after paying the bribe, but the rest had no access to the funds demanded. Their cases were consequently remitted to the Court of Controlled Substances in Cochabamba. Malign was then violently forced by Captain Cuellar to sign a personal declaration, that would later be used as proof against him. He was never allowed to read the declaration. Prosecutor Walter Rocha Martinez, who was present, told him they did not have time for him to read it. On January 23, 1991, forty-seven days after being arrested in Villa 14 de Septiembre, Molina was transferred to the San Sebastian Jail in Cochabamba. Comments The central dispute in this case turns on Article 116 of Law 1008, which states that the reports of the Special Antinarcotics Forces have the status of preconstituted proof. None of the defendants were apprehended while committing a crime, and no physical evidence of involvement in drug trafficking was found on any of them. The existence of a signed declaration confessing involvement in drug trafficking is sufficient, under Ley 1008, to convict them. However, in the first trial, the judges who acquitted the defendants relied on other elements of Bolivia's penal code which require a more narrow definition of proof. This case illustrates the danger to the human rights of defendants in granting the reports of the Special Antinarcotics Forces with the status of preconstituted proof. There is an incentive for the police to use torture and/or psychological pressure to extract confessions, knowing that these confessions may serve, on their own, to convict the defendant. As the onus is on the defendant to prove any irregularity in the declaration procedure, such actions by the police are further protected from scrutiny and prosecution. Case Two
Current Status Escobar has spent four years and six months in the San Sebastian jail in Cochabamba. He was acquitted in his first and second trials. His final acquittal in the Supreme Court in Sucre was recommended by the Attorney General of Bolivia on July 23, 1992. Despite this recommendation, in August of 1993 the Supreme Court judges sentenced him to six and a half years in prison. Escobar has now applied for conditional liberty, which would bring his sentence down to four years and four months. This is less than he has already served. Conditional liberty would therefore lead to his release. Facts of the Case Escobar was arrested in a Cochabamba taxi with 160 kilos of sulfuric acid, which is used in the manufacture of cocaine. He had been asked by a woman named Dona Chela to deliver boxes containing the acid, but claims that he was unaware of their contents. The antinarcotics officers who arrested Escobar wore civilian clothing, and for this reasan he thought that they were thugs and tried to escape when they first approached him. The officers shot at Escobar when he tried to escape. They caught him, forced him to lie on the ground and hit him with a revolver. A shot went off, and the bullet entered his lung. The officers then took Escobar to a clinic where the bullet was extracted. The officers continued to hold Escobar in Cochabamba, trying to force him to confess to trading in sulfuric acid. He continued to maintain his innocence. In one interrogation session, antinarcotics officers blew the powder used in tear gas into Escobar's eyes. As a result of this torture, Escobar's optical nerves atrophied and he is now almost blind in both eyes. Comments As in Case #1, torture was used during interrogation to force a confession. In this case, there is circumstantial evidence (i.e. the boxes of sulfuric acid) but nothing more. The flagrant torture of the suspect, including blinding him with a poisonous powder, again demonstrates the level of impunity enjoyed by the Special Antinarcotics Forces. This case illustrates the great retardation of justice in the Bolivian penal system, especially as it is aggravated by the requirements for three trials imposed by Law 1008. The denial of provisional liberty has kept a twice acquitted man in jail for almost five years. Case Three
Current Status Monje was acquitted of all charges and freed in November, 1993. Facts of the Case Willis Monje was detained in a sweep by members of the DEA and UMOPAR on November 7, 1990 in Isinuta, Chapare. Two hundred and forty people, including children and elderly people, were arrested and taken to a detention center. The first day they were arrested they were forced to spend on their knees without food. Those who complained were beaten with sticks by UMOPAR officers. Monje asked to speak to Colonel Vargas (another School of the Americas graduate), UMOPAR commander in Chimore, to find out why he had been detained, and was subsequently beaten and kicked by the guards. At 3 PM, ten heavily armed DEA officers appeared on the scene. In Monje's lengthy and detailed denunciation, filed with the Permanent Assembly of Human Rights in Cochabamba, he frequently mentions the humiliating and inhumane treatment he received by the DEA agents. At nightfall (he prisoners were taken, tightly manacled, to the prison in Chimore, Chapare. During the transfer they were stepped on by the DEA agents. They arrived at Chimore early in the morning and were crammed into tiny cells. The number of detainees had grown to 266 persons, all forced to sleep on the cement floor of the cells. They were not permitted to use sanitary facilities until the fourth day of their detention. Monje was held incommunicado in these conditions for two months and five days. During this time individuals were taken away for three to five day periods and tortured. Monje cites that one prisoner, Edmundo Choque Fuentes, was tortured so badly that he could not walk. Monje was interrogated about involvement both in a guerrilla group and in drug trafficking. Along with other prisoners he was photographed and forced to sign documents. UMOPAR Captain Alfredo Saavedra Loredo paraded the prisoner in front of a tortured detainee, forcing him to identify suspects. He then pulled several prisoners out of the crowd, and beat them with the assistance of other officers. Monje was among a group of sixteen prisoners singled out and later taken away for interrogation, threatened with death, and tortured. Over a period of various weeks, Monje was blindfolded, suspended in the air, and severely beaten until he fainted. His nose was fractured, he was bruised all over his body, burned with cigarettes and shot in the leg. He was forcibly injected with an unknown substance during one interrogation and was tortured with electric shocks. In his denunciation of the officials who abused him, Monje noted that many of his co-detainees managed to leave by paying bribes to UMOPAR officials. He was finally sent to Cochabamba, where he was formally charged with delinquent association and confabulation, and passed through the three-tier judicial process mandated by Law 1008. He was acquitted in the first trial on May 19, 1991 and finally released in November, 1992, a little more than two years after his arrest. He has deep psychological and physical wounds as a result of his experience. Comments Bolivian law mandates that a prisoner can only be held for forty-eight hours by the police before he/she is charged and the case transferred to the judicial system. In Article 97 of Ley 1008, this precept is restated, but then weakened: the forty-eight hour requirement need not be met if it will restrict the work of the Special Antinarcotics Forces. In this case, the defendant was held incommunicado and subjected to severe torture for more than two months. Monje mentions in his denunciation that his experience in the jails of Chimore and Cochabamba constitutes the unknown reality of a widely publicized and "successful" UMOPAR raid, named "Together We Will Win." He also states that only three of the 266 people arrested in the sweep were legally processed. Case Four
Current Status Aldo Choque has been sentenced to eighty-three years in prison (twenty-five years plus fine) for trafficking in chemical inputs for cocaine production. His sentence was given in the third and final trial in the Supreme Court, but a petition for revision has been approved. Meanwhile, Aldo Choque is spending his fifth year in jail. Facts of the case Aldo Choque was riding in a jeep in Oruro which was pulled over by customs agents in March, 1989. The jeep was searched for evidence of controlled substances but the agents found nothing. Choque was held on the side of the road along with the driver of the jeep and his assistant. Shortly after, customs officer intercepted a truck containing substances used to manufacture drugs. Although he had not been in the truck, a case against Choque was filed. In the first trial, both customs agents and members of the Special Antinarcotics Force testified that Choque had no relationship with the people detained in the truck carrying goods for the manufacture of drugs. Choque was consequently acquitted. I-However, in the second trial in the Superior Court, Judge Walter Molina Ayala reversed the acquittal claiming that Choque had been the truck driver's assistant, and convicted Choque of drug trafficking. Choque was given the highest sentence possible, amounting to eighty-three years, including additional time because he was unable to pay the assigned fines. The conviction and sentence ordered in the second trial by the Superior Court were ratified in the Supreme Court in Sucre. Comments As this case shows, Ley 1008 and the climate of intimidation generated by the "war on drugs" are provoking and legitimizing gross abuses of judicial procedure and discretion. The defendant's restricted rights under Law 1008, and the inflexibility of its judicial process makes people vulnerable even to the most obvious judicial mistakes. Several lawyers and one Superior court prosecutor, Mr. Dulio Parra, made reference to a general pressure on the prosecutors to be hard on defendants accused under Law 1008. Such pressure appears to have influenced this ruling. Case Five
Current Status Garcia has been acquitted in the first trial and in the Superior Court in Cochabamba. He is now waiting for his case to go to the third judicial trial, the Supreme Court in Sucre. He has been detained for nineteen months. Facts of the Case On March 24, 1992 DEA and UMOPAR personnel entered Icoya, Chapare in helicopters. Early on the morning of the 25th, they pulled over a Toyota truck, used for public transportation, and captured a passenger carrying a walkie-talkie. Freddy Garcia, who was sitting in the back of the truck, was taken into custody, along with the man with the walkie-talkie and three other passengers. Five other passengers ran away. Searching the vehicle the agents found two firearms, including one M-16 rifle, and 106 kilograms of cocaine. In his declaration, the man with the walkie-talkie admitted that he and the men who had escaped were responsible for transporting both the cocaine and the rifles. The four other detainees, including Garcia, claimed total ignorance of the contents and mission of the truck; their claims were supported by the man who confessed to transporting the rifles and cocaine Comments Because under Law 1008 provisional liberty cannot be granted, Garcia, an innocent bystander, who took a ride on the wrong truck without knowing it, has spent nineteen months in jail. He will continue in prison until his final acquittal is handed down. Case Six
Facts of the Case On May 12, 1992, Emilio Flores Corpos left his home in the area of Upper San Pedro (five km. from Eterazama) to sell his coca at the local market. On his way back, he spent the night at his sister's house, in San Pedro. The next morning, about 6:30-7:0() a.m., Elores and his sister were walking on the main road when an UMOPAR vehicle passed them, came to a sudden stop and reversed towards them. Knowing that many young men had been arbitrarily arrested by UMOPAR, Flores's sister encouraged him to hide in the woods. Flores followed her advice but was ordered to halt by an UMOPAR officer. Flores stopped and began to turn around when he was shot three times by the UMOPAR officer. The officer was reprimanded by a DEA agent riding in the UMOPAR vehicle. Flores was then dragged along the ground to the UMOPAR vehicle and taken to the UMOPAR compound in Cllilllore. It is uncertain if he was still alive at this point. The same day, a group of people, including the Secretary General of the Special Federation of Farmers from the Tropical Region of Cochabamba, Nestor Bravo, traveled to the compound in Chimore to find out if Flores was alive or dead, and in the case of death, claim the body. At the UMOPAR compound, no one admitted having shot or brought in Emilio Flores Corpos. The next day, however, the body of Emilio Flores Corpos was found left on the road, close to where he was shot. The body was left in a US-style body-bag. It was found by the local population, and brought to a medical examiner, who examined the body in the presence of family members and leaders of the coca growers' unions. The medical report states that Flores was shot in the foot, the knee and upper arm. The shot through the Arm penetrated the upper body, causing a huge wound. Photos of this wound indicate the possible use of ammunition designed to explode after impact. The angle of the shots, as described in the medical report, exclude the possibility that Flores was shot in the back while fleeing. All the bullets hit him from the side. Comments This case again demonstrates the impunity with which UMOPAR officers operate. No one has been formally accused or disciplined for this murder, despite the existence of a witness and a detailed medical report. The DEA agent's failure to denounce the murder indicates a willingness to cover up crimes committed by the UMOPAR. Case Seven
Current Status Salustiano Vallejos was acquitted in his first trial on June 22, 1992. This acquittal was subsequently confirmed by the Superior Court on August 27, 1993. The Superior Court's decision will now be evaluated by the Supreme Court in Sucre. Meanwhile, Vallejos has to remain in jail. Facts of the Case On February 3, 1993, Salustiano Vallejos, who had temporarily registered his van for passenger service with the public transportation system, was driving down the road at dusk when a man carrying a bundle waved him down. The man got in and told Salustiano he was going to Entre Rios. Three hundred meters past the gas station outside Ivirgarzama, UMOPAR officers with flashlights forced Vallejos to pull over. As the van came to a stop, the passenger jumped out and ran off into the woods, leaving his bundle behind. The UMOPAR officers ran after the fleeing passenger but soon gave up the chase. They then searched Vallejos' van, where they found the passenger's bundle which contained drugs. Vallejos explained that he did not know the passenger and that he had nothing to do with the drugs. The UMOPAR officers forced Vallejos into their van and took him to a little house in the area of Senda 7, where Corporal German Castaneta Yujra beat and interrogated him about the man and where he was taking him. Vallejos was severely beaten with pieces of wood on his buttocks, legs and hands. He was then taken to the UMOPAR station in Ivirgarzama. From there he was brought to the UMOPAR compound in Chimore where he was held for two days. In Chimore, the same corporal who had beaten him on the day of his arrest aimed a machine gun at him, in order to force Vallejos, who is illiterate, to use his thumb print as signature on a statement regarding his arrest. According to Vallejos, this was witnessed by the local prosecutor, David Baptista V. Vallejos claims that the part of the statement read to him was accurate and that other sections, which were never read to him, contained untrue and compromising statements. These included the claim that the Bs. 200 that he carried when arrested was payment for transporting the drug trafficker and his goods to the village of Rio Blanco. During his detention in Chimore, Vallejos' wife was informed by UMOPAR officers and other detainees that her husband would be freed if he paid a bribe of US $2500. Salustiano managed to come up with the requested amount, but his wife ran off with the money, leaving him in jail. Comments This case illustrates a common pattern of abuse by the antinarcotics police. The arrest of a suspect is seldom preceded by a thorough criminal investigation, but more frequently, evidence is collected by torture during interrogation and the manipulation of the detainee's personal statement. Case Eight
Facts of the Case On June 24, 1991, Jose Luis Claros and Alicia Rivera Garcia were celebrating a local holiday at a bar/restaurant called Pascana, in Chimore. About 4-5 a.m. Claros, somewhat drunk, asked to join a group of men sitting at another table. These men turned out to be UMOPAR officers. Instead of inviting Claros to join them, they began to beat him up. Claros managed to escape but was followed by the UMOPAR officers and was shot in the head outside the locale by one of the policemen. Despite his head injury, the officers continued to beat him, reportedly trying to kill him. Claros was seriously injured but survived after receiving medical attention. A medical report was issued and x-rays were taken. Comments This case clearly illustrates the climate of total impunity that exists in the Chapare coca growing region. UMOPAR officers know that their power stretches far beyond the law, and apparently enjoy such entrenched impunity that not even the exeistence of witnesses impede them from committing atrocious crimes. Case Nine
Current Status Mary Cuellar Rocha has been incarcerated in San Sebastian Prison for Women in Cochabamba since August 11, 1993. Her trial in the Court of Controlled Substances is currently under way, but the legal deadlines are not being adhered to. Facts of the Case On July 21, 1993 Cuellar was waiting for a truck to take her from the Vueltadero crossroads to Montero when she was approached by an unknown woman, who offered her US $ 20 to transport a bunch of bananas to Montero. Cuellar agreed to take the bananas to Montero. At the check point in Bulo Bulo UMOPAR officers searched the truck that Cuellar was riding in and discovered cocaine hidden inside the bananas transported by Cuellar. She was taken to the UMOPAR post in Bulo Bulo, where she was locked up overnight. The next day she was taken to the UMOPAR compound in Chimore, where she was kept for twenty days. Finally, a declaration was written up which she was told to sign, without being given a chance to read it. When the officers found out she could neither read nor write, they had her sign it with her thumb print, informing her that her signature would lead to her release. The declaration states that it was prepared in the presence of a lawyer and a public prosecutor, which is disputed by Cuellar. The declaration she signed is considered preconstituted proof under Law 1008 and could lead to twenty-five years in prison. When she was transferred to Cochabamba, her work tools (some food staples and kitchen supplies) were taken away from her. Comments The case of Mary Cuellar Rocha demonstrates the vulnerability of the general public to arrest under Law 1008. People with a low level of formal education and scarce resources are particularly vulnerable, and comprise 99% of the prison population in San Sebastian jail in Cochabamba. Cuellar did not have the financial resources to contract a lawyer who could have informed her of her right to be released or have her case transferred to the Courts within forty-eight hours. Neither did anyone ensure that the declaration had been read to her, or that she understood what it was for, before she placed her thumb mark on it. Case Ten
Facts of the Case Edrnundo Munoz was celebrating his birthday in a drinking establishment with family members and other coca growers' union leaders from his area. At 2 a.m., Munoz approached a man who works at a Cllapare road check, asking him why they were destroying roads. His question was overheard by army officer Pabel Saavedra, who yelled at him and started punching him in the face and kicking him. Saavedra then ordered his officers to take Munoz and two of his male companions out side. The three men were beaten and kicked in the street. Saavedra shot his gun twice, but no one was hit. Officers beat and kicked Munoz's pregnant wife and stepped on his four year old son. Saavedra then ordered that the three men be taken away. The three were detained at the military post in Ichoa and beaten with clubs by army officer Lucio Nava. A local civil servant, Dario Mendoza, appeared and denounced the detention of the three men, obtaining the freedom of one of Munoz's companions. Once Mendoza left, Saavedra ordered that the other two be killed. They were stripped and submerged in water and tortured until they fainted. The following morning they were freed at 8 a.m. The next day, medical examiners found Munoz to suffering from: multiple wounds, bruises, lacerations, a concussion, loss of memory, a severely damaged eye, traumatized testicles and depression. Comments When the crimes committed against Munoz and his companions go unpunished, they contribute to the sense of vulnerability and insecurity that prevails among the population in the coca growing areas. Army officer Saavedra did not hesitate to publicly beat up, arrest, and then later torture an innocent representative of the community, demonstrating that he had no fear of any legal action being taken against him. Appendix 1 Interview with Vigilant Judge Dr. Tomas Molina Cespedes (Ombudsman for the inmates) Question: Could you begin by characterizing Ley 1008 and the impact it has had on human rights in Bolivia? There are many aspects of Ley 1008 that are both unconstitutional and that threaten human rights; one of these is the prohibition of provisional liberty. In the Bolivian penal system, the The Constitution in Article 16 states that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As a consequence of this constitutional principle, any accused person must be treated as if he were innocent until his trial is concluded. However, Ley 1008, in open contradiction of the Constitution, presumes the guilt of the accused, as a result of which, those who are accused under this law spend long years in jail waiting for their judicial process to be concluded in the Supreme Court in Sucre. It is taking between three or four years for a controlled substances case to run its course; the accused spend these years in Jail. This is the reason for the current overcrowding in Bolivian jails. There is no space to put new prisoners. Even in the United States, which is, let us say, the leader in the drug war, the biggest criminals have the right to provisional liberty. Why? Because the US Constitution protects this right. However, in Bolivia this liberty is denied those tried for controlled substances infractions. This restriction violates our constitution, which states that all people are equal under the law. In this context there is a flagrant inequality. Why? Because for some there is provisional liberty and for those processed under Law 1008, this right does not exist. It is a grave attack on the human rights of prisoners to keep them in jail while their case is processed, an abuse that is aggravated by the retardation of justice that exists, and that cannot be denied, in Bolivia. The non-negotiable and non-postponable deadlines [for the completion of phases of the judicial process that are mandated under Ley 1008, which demand rapid processing, are not respected. Nobody respects them! A case processed in accord with the deadlines [that are mandated in Ley 1008] would not last more than four or five months. However, cases are lasting for three to four years. In the Supreme Court, where the retardation of justice is at its worst, Ley 1008 dictates that a case must be processed in twenty-three days. Ley 1008 states that once a case has arrived at the Court in Sucre, the Attorney General of the republic has eight days to make its case and the tribunal of the Supreme Court has fifteen days to resolve the case. But cases that under law must only be considered twenty-three days at the Supreme Court level stay there for years. One case comes to mind. It is the case of Ricardo Escobar Calizaya, currently held in San Sebastian prison in Cochabamba (Case 2). He is a man who was cruelly tortured by the police in order to force a confession. They shot him in the lung; he was between life and death. They blew a powder in his eyes and as a result he now has only partial vision; the man is almost blind. He was declared innocent in the first and second instance. He is innocent; his case has been sent [to the Supreme Court] in Sucre... In total, the case has been in Sucre for two years and five months. We are talking about an innocent man. [Before that] the case was in Cochabamba for two years, then two and a half years in the Supreme Court. This man has already been acquitted but has spent four and a half years in the San Sebastian prison. Question: Do you have exact details about this miscarriage of justice? Molina: Of course! What happened was that the police tortured him in order to extract a confession. They shot him in the back; it's only luck that he didn't die. After this they blew a powder, the powder that is used to make tear gas, into his eyes. Then the man screamed. And after that they put him in jail. Since he wasn't attended by a doctor, he lost the sight in one of his eyes, and is about to lose the sight in the other. Question: And who is guilty? Molina: The Special Antinarcotics Force Ricardo Escobar Calizaya is a poor man. Since he is a poor and an innocent man, they let him sell ice creams at the prison gate. In this way he lives and can do something for his children. Ricardo Escobar is a victim, first of the Special Antinarcotics Force, and second, of the Bolivian judicial system that functions so slowly and that disregards the judicial deadlines established by law. Ley 1008 prohibits judges from authorizing provisional liberty. Cases [under Ley 1008] are transmitted in courts that have three judges; instead of one judge, there are three judges, right? And the law prevents the three judges from authorizing provisional liberty. However, the true drug traffickers obtain their liberty in the police station. The result is that the law permits the police to grant provisional liberty, but not the judges. What happens? First, the Special Antinarcotics Force captures [the suspect] ... Then the accused spends long days in prison cells run by the police, by the Special Force. The law says that they can only be held in this way for forty-eight hours. However, they spend three or four months as prisoners in the Chapare. And if they have caught twenty people, they take declarations, make financial arrangements with the true criminals, whom they then release, and pass on to "justice" the poor people, the campesinos, those who cannot buy their liberty. For this reason, if you go to the jail, everyone there is a campesino, they are all poor. And it's not by chance. All of them! 98% are poor because the true criminals were set free by the police. [The poor people] arrive at the tribunal and they don't obtain provisional liberty. The police take advantage of this situation. They benefit from the fact that provisional liberty does not exist; they say to the accused, "if you go to the tribunal, even though you are innocent, you have to spend four years in jail." This serves as an instrument of intimidation, right? Because if this accused knew that he could obtain liberty in the tribunal, he wouldn't have to be intimidated by the police. So he is between a rock and a hard place, and he feels obligated to give money so that he can leave because he knows that (once his case reaches the courts) he wont be able to. So, the real corruption is in the Special Antinarcotics Force. Another point that attacks human rights is the confiscation of goods [under Ley 1008]. A universal principle is inscribed in Article 16 of the constitution which says: "No one will endure a penalty Without beforehand having been heard and judged by a legal tribunal." What does this mean? That the goods of an accused person can only be confiscated by the tribunal, after he has been judged, after it has been proved that he committed a crime. then the goods are confiscated, goods that pertain to drug trafficking. But the reality is that the Special Antinarcotics Force; in the first phase of the process, detains the [alleged] criminals, confiscates their goods, and disposes of them. For example, [the Special Force] goes to the airport, does an analysis of the small airplanes. Then, they say that they have found some substance. In this same moment they confiscate the airplane and deliver it to the Air Force, forever. It is the tribunal who should deliver [the airplane]. The case has not arrived at the tribunal, but nevertheless the police have already confiscated vehicles and other goods. The correct thing for them to do is to hold the goods and deliver them to the tribunal so that the tribunal can hold them in a safe place until the trial is over and what to do with the goods has been decided. The vehicles that are seized in the Chapare by the Special Force become their vehicles. Question: Can you explain why after an accused has been acquitted in the first trial, the judge has to appeal the absolution. The case must pass through three levels. Molina: Obligatorily. After the sentence is given, the defendant can appeal. But if he doesn't appeal, the case must still proceed [to two] higher levels, in consultation with the Superior Court. Then the Superior Court pronounces on the case, and the case must pass to the Supreme Court. The case then must move up until it reaches the Supreme Court in Sucre, and then must return from Sucre to the Superior Court before the person declared innocent can be freed. In Sucre there are thousands of cases, thousands and the ministers don't facilitate the process, as I told you they don't respect the deadlines; and as they don't respect the deadlines they are not in a position to obligate the judges of the Republic to respect the deadlines. There's another thing, too. In Sucre there are only three ministers in the Sala Penal. The structure of the Supreme Court responds to the needs that existed a century ago, when the Court was created. Now with the growth of drug trafficking, they should create more Salas Penales. There should be ten ministers working there to avoid more retardation [of justice]. The retardation of justice has its origins in the judicial structure; and also in the bad will of the ministers. Question: And how in your capacity as Vigilant Judge, would you describe the condition in the jails? Molina: The jails of Cochabamba are an offense to humanity. They are the most frightening that one can see. In the old San Sebastian jail, in 900 square meters there are 502 prisoners. Some of the 502 prisoners live in the jail with their wives. They have visitors every day, and there are also security personnel. In all, there are about 600 people there every day; for all of them there are only three latrines and two showers. There is no cafeteria in this jail. Each one has to prepare food in his cell, as he can. There is no place to play sports, no library, no meeting rooms, nothing. It's a frightening thing. And in the San Antonio jail [also in Cochabamba], the situation is worse. Why? There is no sun. It's a closed barn. And there couldn't be a better punishment for a human being than to deprive him of the sun. The prisoners fight because of lack of sun and the anxiety of being detained. They have skin problems. It's an intolerable situation. The fight against drug trafficking can't prosper while they don't construct modern penitentiaries that respond to actual needs. The San Sebastian prison was constructed more than a century ago. It was built when Cochabamba had a population of 20,000 p [Cochabamba's current population is about 400,000]. I want to bring up a last point. The great retardation in judicial process that exists is expressed in this statistic: for every hundred prisoners, ninety-three are detained preventively. Only 7% have been tried, when it should be the reverse. There are people who have been sentenced preventively for five, six, seven years, while their trial is processed. And this situation is owed to the structure of our judicial system. Acknowledgment The authors of this report would like to thank AIN members Linda Farthing, Cathy Breen and Tammy Campbell for providing information and insightful comments on the report. Cheryl Hoffman and Stephanie Howards proofread meticulously. In addition, the staff of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights in Cochabamba, headed by director Victor Gutierrez, contributed greatly by making human rights documents available. Finally, without the collaboration of the victims of human rights violations, most of them coca growers, this report could not have been produced. Andean Information Network The Andean Information Network is a volunteer group composed primarily of foreigners living in Bolivia, who are concerned about the effects of present US Andean policy. Our aim is to promote just and effective solutions to the cocaine problem for the peoples of both the Andes and the US We work by: monitoring US-backed military and police activities, and human rights violations stemming from these activities; educating the public in northern countries about the effects of these policies; Assisting networks in the US, Canada ;and Europe actively working to change current policies; and organizing delegations to coca-growing regions. The AIN Subcommittee on Human Rights researched and produced this report from May to October 1993 Funding for this report has been provided by: SNV (Dutch Technical and Social Cooperation Service) and Action Aid (United Kingdom) Andean Information Network can be contacted at the following address: AIN, Casilla 48170, Cochabamba, Bolivia |
Text Size:
Current Size: 100%
Support TNI
Subscribe
Upcoming events
-
Het vrijhandelsverdrag met Colombia
May 2012
Amsterdam, Netherlands
-
EU crisis: Another way is possible
June 2012
Amsterdam, Netherlands
-
Global Land Grabbing Colloquium
June 2012
Den Haag, Netherlands
-
Hoe schoon is gas?
June 2012
Amsterdam, Netherlands
