Murder of Union Leader José Gilberto Soto
December 22, 2004
The Ombudsman’s Office has completed its inquiry into the investigations carried out by the National Civilian Police (PNC) and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which led to the arrest and criminal investigation of Rosa Elba Zelaya (mother-in-law of Gilberto Soto) for masterminding the crime, and of the accused perpetrators, Santos Sánchez and Herber Joel Gómez, who Zelaya allegedly paid to carry out the killing. The Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office (PDDH) is currently preparing the final draft of its findings, which will be announced sometime this week. However, the findings have been the cause of great concern within this Office, due to the substantial irregularities and violations of due process that arose during the official inquiries, and we will therefore issue a public statement at the last press conference of 2004. The results of the inquiry performed by this Office in the case of José Gilberto Soto, which include direct investigations such as reviewing the case records, are as follows: Since the second week of November, 2004, under various pretexts, police and prosecuting authorities have avoided direct inquiry by this Ombudsman’s Office regarding the details of the investigation, after which they suddenly presented the alleged perpetrators and authors of the crime before the media. Direct interviews with the alleged perpetrators conducted by the PDDH uncovered accusations that they had been held in isolation for several hours and taken to remote locations, where they were subjected to illegal interrogations and physical and psychological torture. The torture reportedly consisted of acts resulting in no immediate physical injury, presumably in order to avoid accountability by security forces, in addition to asphyxiation, sexual abuse and serious death threats. Such acts were allegedly performed by members of DECO, the Elite Organized Crime Unit of the PNC. The Public Prosecutor’s Office fully endorsed the police actions and did not conduct an investigation of the alleged torture of the detainees. One of the defendants filed charges of torture before the Third Magistrate of Usulután at a hearing on December 8, 2004. Like the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Judge did not order legal medical evaluations of the defendants. In view of the foregoing, the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office, pursuant to Article 10 of its Special Law, ordered medical evaluations of two of the defendants by the Legal Medical Institute [Instituto de Medicina Legal]. The resulting medical reports established that signs of violence were present on the wrists and extremities [of the defendants]. One of the detainees showed physical signs of having been the victim of sexual assault. This Office has obtained sufficient evidence to presume that at least one of the witnesses who received preferential treatment in exchange for their testimony, which has been the basis for the accusations against the defendants, could also have been the victim of illegal acts of coercion such as those described above. All of the information supporting the charges against the defendants was obtained from “secret or confidential informants”, that is, based on sources whose authenticity or mere existence can not be verified. They are faceless “witnesses” or “informants”, against whom no defense can be established, and who cannot be cross examined, but on whose testimony the allegations of guilt against those under investigation have been built. DECO and the Public Prosecutor’s Office base the facts related to the planning and organization of the murder, as well as the identities of the mastermind and perpetrators of the crime, on information derived from “confidential sources”. Therefore, these investigations are based on illegitimate evidence that violates the rights to due process both from a legal and a human rights perspective. There are no records showing that the chain of custody of material evidence has been adequately protected and preserved. It is also clear that, in practice, the chain of custody did not include legal supervision and protection, which greatly affects the credibility of forensic evidence. Authorities went so far as to identify Mario Jaime Ortiz, who was allegedly carrying an illegal firearm, as a perpetrator of the murder. However, the records do not contain any information linking Mr. Ortiz to this case, and he was subsequently released by the Third Magistrates Court of Usulután; these events lead us to presume that this was a publicity stunt aimed at showing the capture of all three hit men that committed the murder of Gilberto Soto. The theory that the union activities of José Gilberto Soto may have been the motive for the homicide was never investigated by police or prosecution authorities in charge of the case. Issued in San Salvador on December 20, 2004.Beatrice Alamanni de CarrilloHuman Rights Ombudswoman
Murder of Union Leader José Gilberto Soto