EAAF05 7ElSalv p92-113 rev · BACKGROUND A fter twelve years of civil war in which an estimated 75,000 people died, on January 16, 1992 the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front

BACKGROUND

A fter twelve years of civil war in which anestimated 75,000 people died, on January 16, 1992 the Farabundo Martí National

Liberation Front (FMLN) and the SalvadoranGovernment signed a Peace Agreement mediated bythe United Nations.1 The agreement included theestablishment of a UN Commission on the Truth toinvestigate gross human rights violations by thearmed forces and the guerrillas.

The Truth Commission conducted its investigationduring 1992 and published its findings on March 15,1993. The report included recommendations such asremoving human rights perpetrators named in thereport from government positions and precludingthem to run for any public position for ten years;providing reparations to victims and their families;implementing judicial and institutional reforms; andcreating monuments and holidays to commemoratethe victims. The Truth Commission did notrecommend prosecution of the perpetrators named inthe report, nor did it submit its data and testimoniesto the courts.2 The reasoning for this was that theTruth Commission found the structure of the judicialsystem to be “weakened as it fell victim tointimidation and the foundations were laid for itscorruption,” as it was still under the direction ofindividuals who had instigated and perpetuatedhuman rights abuses.3 Instead of using the current,corrupt system to try the crimes, the reportrecommended overturning the old system, beginning

92 • E A A F 2 0 0 5 A N N U A L R E P O R T

EL SALVADORAt the request of Tutela Legal, the

Legal Office of the Archbishop of San

Salvador, EAAF worked on two

massacre sites from the civil war: La

Quesera, Usulután and new sites at El

Mozote, Morazán.

E A A F 2 0 0 5 A N N U A L R E P O R T • 93

EL SALVADOR

Memorial service in 2004 honoring the victims of La Quesera massacre. Photo by EAAF.

with the “voluntary resignation” of the SupremeCourt Justices, and the appointment of newmagistrates.

Five days after the Truth Commission released itsreport on March 20, 1993, the Legislative Assemblyof El Salvador passed a general amnesty — Legislativedecree 486 — for all those involved in human rightsviolations.4 The decree gave a broad, absolute andunconditional amnesty to everyone who hadparticipated in political crimes, common crimesrelated to political crimes or in common crimesperpetrated after January 1, 1980 and before January1, 1992 by more than 20 people.5 Torture, forceddisappearances and extra judicial executions werecovered by the general amnesty.6 The Amnesty decreealso required that persons already sentenced forcrimes covered by the Truth Commission could be

released immediately, cases under process could bedismissed, and people protected by the amnesty wereprotected from civil charges as well.7

The amnesty law closed the possibility to bringperpetrators to trial and halted all investigations intohuman rights violations. Thus, as in many othercountries, a blanket amnesty law was applied beforea complete judicial investigation could establishwhat happened and who was responsible. Severalpetitions challenging the constitutionality of theamnesty law were submitted to the Salvadorancourts, but none succeeded.8

The most recent challenge to the amnesty law wasin 2002 by lawyers representing six Jesuits, theirhousekeeper and her daughter, who wereassassinated in 1989 by members of the Atlacatl


EAAF team member Sofía Egaña interviews survivors of the massacre of la Quesera. Photo by EAAF.

Battalion inside the compound of CatholicUniversity in San Salvador. Some of the authors ofthe crime were sentenced at the time but were laterreleased under the amnesty law. The Supreme Courtlater ruled that the amnesty was constitutional, butthat it should be applied on a case-by-cases basis;grave human rights violations would not be coveredby the amnesty. However, to date, no judge haslifted the amnesty law for any human rights case.Moreover, most cases from the war are not beinginvestigated by judges or prosecutors.

Another challenge to the amnesty law came inNovember 2002, when the Human RightsOmbudsman, Ms. Beatrice de Carrillo, recommendedthat Congress repeal the law so that the authors of the1989 Catholic University murders could be tried.While recommendations from the Ombudsman’soffice are not binding, release of this report resultedin threats against Ms. Carrillo and her staff that werereported to the Inter-American Commission onHuman Rights.9

At the international level, in several cases brought tothe Inter-American Commission on Human Rightsat the Organization of American States, theCommission declared that the application of ElSalvador’s amnesty law to grave human rightsviolations counters several regional and internationalConventions signed by El Salvador. The Commissionasserted that El Salvador was denying its citizens dueprocess and appropriate judicial protection byapplying amnesty in these cases.10

Other cases challenging the amnesty have beenbrought before US courts. In early 1980, under acourt-order, the bodies of four American nuns werefound and exhumed from a clandestine grave in ElSalvador. The women included three Catholic nunsand a lay missionary who had been abducted, raped,and murdered. The investigation led to the trial andsentencing of five Salvadoran National Guardsmen tothirty years in prison in 1984. Three of the men wereparoled in 1998.11

In 1998, the US-based NGO, Human Rights First(HRF) (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human

Rights), obtained first-hand accounts from theconvicted National Guardsmen that they acted onorders of more senior military officials.12 A group ofSalvadoran torture survivors, with the help of probono law firms working with HRF, brought the headof the National Guard, Carlos Eugenio VidesCasanova, and the Minister of Defense, JoséGuillermo García, both residing in Florida USA, totrial on civil charges under the 1991 Torture VictimProtection Act.13 On November 3, 2000, the Juryreturned a verdict in favor of the defendants, allegingthat the generals did not have effective control overtheir own military at the time.14 This ruling wasappealed and the case ended successfully on July 23,2002 when the jury in West Palm Beach, Floridafound the generals liable for torture and other humanrights abuses, and ordered them to pay $54.6 millionin damages to the three plaintiffs.15 However, onFebruary 28, 2005 the 11th US Circuit Court ofAppeals in Atlanta overturned the verdict, declaringthat the victims’ claims did not meet a 10-yearstatue-of-limitations rule. The victims intend toappeal the court’s reversal of the claim.16

In a third case, on September 17, 2003 the USnonprofit Center for Justice and Accountabilityfiled federal charges in Fresno, California, againstformer Air Force officer Alvaro Rafael Saravia, whoserved as a top aid to a reported Salvadoran deathsquad leader and founding member of the Arenaparty, Roberto D’Aubuisson. D’Aubuisson alsoallegedly organized the 1980 assassination ofleading human rights figure, Archbishop OscarArnulfo Romero.17 Saravia had been protected fromprosecution by the Salvadoran amnesty law. OnAugust 25, 2004 the trial began in California. Thename of the plaintiff, one of Archbishop Romero’srelatives, was withheld for security reasons. Saraviawas accused of providing money, weapons andlogistical help on the day of the assassination,including providing transportation and paying theassassin. Salvadoran and American experts testifiedabout the assassination and its impact on Salvadoransociety. Judge Wanger ruled that Saravia was clearlyresponsible for organizing the assassination, callingit a crime against humanity because of its plannedintent to terrorize the civilian population. The


EL SALVADOR

judge concluded that the assassination was theperfect example of an extra-judicial execution, andits investigation, “the antithesis of due process.”Reportedly, after the judge stepped down, people inthe courtroom began weeping and chanting“Monseñor Romero: Presente!”18

On March 7, 2005, the Organization of AmericanStates (OAS) announced the reopening of theinvestigation into the El Mozote massacre based onnew forensic evidence. (See the “El Mozote” sectionbelow for more information.)

EAAF 2004 Work

At the request of Tutela Legal, the legal office of theArchbishop of San Salvador, EAAF carried outforensic investigations on the massacres of El Mozoteand La Quesera during 2004. The first mission tookplace between April 20 and May 10, 2004. EAAFconducted the preliminary investigation of LaQuesera, including gathering background and ante-mortem information about possible victims. Thesecond mission, from October 23 to December 17,2004, included the recovery and analysis of evidencefrom La Quesera and El Mozote. In both cases, TutelaLegal is serving as the legal representative for thevictims and their family members. No one has beenprosecuted in either case.

EAAF also partnered with forensic doctors from theNational Legal Medicine Institute, particularly fromthe Santa Tecla and San Miguel branches.Additionally, as part of the training activities of thismission, EAAF worked in conjunction with a formermember of Amani Trust based in Zimbabwe, Dr.William Legg, who collaborated on the forensic workat El Mozote.

El Mozote, El Mozote MassacreLast Forensic Mission

From December 6 to 16, 1981, Salvadoran armedforces began a major offensive, “Operation Rescue,”in the province of Morazán, located in the

northeastern region of the country. Led by the eliteUS-trained and equipped Atlacatl counter-insurgency battalion, the operation aimed toeliminate or force guerilla troops from the area,destroy their radio station, and purge any supportfor them among the civilian population. Accordingto witnesses and survivors, after severalconfrontations in hamlets near El Mozote, FMLNtroops left the area on December 9. The army thenestablished a base camp in El Mozote and proceededto kill groups of men, women, and children, burnthe houses and crops, and kill all of the livestock inthe hamlet.

Over the next few days, army troops conductedsimilar daytime attacks on the nearby hamlets of LaJoya, Jocote Amarillo, Ranchería, Los Toriles, andCerro Pando. In each village, the troops massacredthe residents they encountered, burned their housesand fields, and slaughtered the livestock. The armyremained in the area for two weeks.

Each evening, when the troops withdrew to theirtemporary camps at El Mozote, the survivingresidents returned to the massacre sites under thecover of darkness to bury as many of the victims aspossible, in common graves close to where thebodies were found. Because returning to the siteswas so dangerous, they could not bury many of thebodies, and many victims were left where they hadbeen killed.

According to an investigation conducted by TutelaLegal and expanded by EAAF, the Salvadoran armyallegedly killed approximately 811 civilians in thesix neighboring hamlets during this operation. Basedon information gathered in interviews with survivingrelatives, over 40 percent of the reported victims werechildren under the age of ten.19

Most of the survivors escaped across the Honduranborder to United Nations refugee camps, whileothers joined the FMLN or took refuge in otherregions of El Salvador. The villages remainedlargely abandoned until 1989, when survivorsbegan to return. El Mozote remained deserted untilat least 1994.


On October 26, 1990, survivors represented byTutela Legal opened criminal proceedings at a courtin San Francisco Gotera, Morazán to investigate andprosecute those responsible for the massacre. Also, in1992, the mandate of the UN Truth Commission —created as part of the Peace Agreement — includedthe capacity to investigate major crimes, includingordering exhumations and conducting a thoroughinvestigation of the El Mozote massacre, one of theemblematic cases from the civil war.

In 1991 and 1992, at the request of Tutela Legal, asexpert witnesses to the local court case and technicalconsultants for the United Nations TruthCommission, EAAF conducted an initial assessmentof the case and the exhumation and analysis ofevidence from one site of the El Mozote Massacre.

Released in March 1993, the UN Truth Commissionreport, citing evidence from this initial forensic workat El Mozote, concluded that government forces wereresponsible for the massacre of several hundredcivilians, mostly women and children, who werevictims of an intentional mass extra-judicialexecution.20 However, because of the passage of theamnesty law that followed the release of the TruthCommission report, the work on El Mozote massacrewas halted for six years. In 1999, Tutela Legalsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court for theresumption of exhumations on humanitarian groundsto return the remains to the families of the victims.To date, EAAF has conducted forensic investigationsrelated to the El Mozote case in 1999, 2000, 2001,2002, 2003 and a final one in 2004 under the samecourt where the process began in 1990.


EL SALVADOR

(Left) Guerrilla operating zone, “the red zone,” in 1981 map. (Right) Army operation into guerrilla zone in 1981 map, in which theEl Mozote massacre occurred. Map illustrations courtesy of Mike Reagan, www.new-work.com.

Forensic Investigation of the EL MOZOTE Case

Under the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities ofthe Second Court of the First Instance of SanFrancisco de Gotera in the Department of Morazán,EAAF began the last forensic phase for the El Mozotemassacre on October 21, 2004. EAAF excavated twosites labeled MZ5 and MZ6, corresponding to theinterior of two homes and the adjacent area.

At the end of the work at MZ5, EAAF recovered 36concentrations of bone fragments. The remains werevery fragmented and in many cases showed signs ofcombustion. In the laboratory, EAAF established thata minimum of three individuals were found in therecovered bone fragments:

n One adult of undetermined sex, with teethmissing postmortem.

n One mature adult of undetermined sex.

n One child with deciduous teeth (0 to 12 years of age).

In addition, EAAF recovered a total of 64 pieces ofballistic evidence from site MZ5, 63 of whichcorrespond to cartridge cases and one tip of aprojectile. EAAF also recovered 20 coins.

In the interior of site MZ6, the team recovered 4 concentrations of bone fragments from remains thatwere not human and 5 pieces of ballistic evidence.

Forensic Conclusions on the El Mozote Massacre

In total, EAAF recovered the remains of a minimum of282 individuals from the hamlets of El Mozote, JocoteAmarillo, Rancheria, Los Toriles, Cerro Pando, and LaJoya, where the massacre took place. Of the 282


January 1982. These New York Times and Washington Post articles were the first reports in the international press about ElMozote massacre (the New York Times article was written by journalist Raymond Bonner and photojournalist Susan Meiselas,and the Washington Post article was written by Alma Guillermoprieto). Despite the reports, the Salvadorean and US governmentsdenied that the massacre had occurred.

individuals, 40 corresponded to females, 26corresponded to males and 216 were of undeterminedsex. The team was unable to estimate the sex of somany individuals because many of them were children;sex determination based on bones is quite uncertain inchildren, as sexual skeletal dimorphism starts mostlyin adolescence. Also, many remains were highlyincomplete and fragmented. The team concluded that209 were between the ages of 0 to 12; 11 were betweenthe ages of 13 to 20; 36 were between the ages of 21 to40; 20 were between the ages of 41 to 50; 5 were of theage 51 or over and 1 was of undetermined age.Additionally, EAAF could not estimate the age of 14individuals but confirmed that they were adults.

The team found the remains in mass graves andinside houses. The houses acted as sepultures becausethe roofs and adobe walls collapsed over the humanremains when the houses were set on fire. Some sitesin La Joya contain the remains of approximately 40individuals who were not exhumed to respect thewishes of the surviving relatives, citing Evangelicalreligious principles and preferring to leave theirloved ones where they died. In a few cases, membersof the same families differed on whether to exhumethe remains of their relatives; in these cases, EAAFdecided not to exhume the remains.

Some burial sites were initially marked by TutelaLegal and EAAF in 1992 according to indicationsfrom witnesses and people who helped bury bodiesduring the massacre. However, these markings werewashed away in Hurricane Mitch in 1993 or had beendisturbed by agriculture practices. By the timeinvestigations of the massacre resumed in 1999, theremains buried in these sites were no longerretrievable. Some of the burial sites were so shallowthat only circles of stones indicating the place wherethe remains had once been were left by the time theteam was able to investigate them.

Fire set by soldiers after the massacres severelydamaged or destroyed many of the remains of thepeople who had died inside the houses, resulting inthe recovery of only very fragmented human bones.In many cases, only the Minimum Number ofIndividuals could be estimated. In other cases, the

team was unable to find the sites indicated byrelatives and survivors of the massacre because ofchanges to the land over the years.

As described above, the bodies of many of the peoplekilled in the fields around the six hamlets in the ElMozote massacre were left where they died. Over thelast 10 years, people have moved back and rebuilt ElMozote, Cerro Pando, and some areas of La Joya andJocote Amarillo, while Rancheria and Los Torileshave become mostly agricultural places. In most ofthese hamlets, the remnants of burned houses canstill be found among the weeds.

The communities in northern Morazán built amonument in El Mozote’s new plaza, a metalsculpture of a man, a woman and two children with awall behind it that has the names of all the victims ofthe massacre. Most of the recovered remains werereburied there after their forensic examination. Aplaque underneath reads: “They did not die, they arewith us, with you and with all humanity.”

Re-opening of the El Mozote Case by theOrganization of American States

In 2005, the Organization of American States (OAS)decided to reopen the investigation into whether theSalvadoran government was complicit and approvedthe El Mozote massacre. This decision came in March2005 when the Center for Justice and InternationalLaw (CEJIL) and Tutela Legal presented a petitionbefore the Inter-American Commission on HumanRights (IACHR), part of the OAS, with additionalforensic information. The case was originally at theOAS, but was shelved by the IACHR in 2000.Initially, the IACHR rejected the petition because of aseries of arguments the Salvadoran governmentpresented. CEJIL and Tutela Legal responded bysending additional observations and urging theIACHR to admit the report of admissibility in orderfor proceedings to begin before the Inter-AmericanCourt.21 The IACHR then decided to compile andreview the new forensic evidence collected by EAAFand determine whether the Salvadoran governmentwas aware of the massacre and permitted it.22


EL SALVADOR


Human Remains and non-biological evidence from El Mozote 5 site, listed from left to right: cranium fragments; key; molarteeth from dental prosthesis; ballistic evidence, mostly cartridge cases; miscellaneous bone fragments; sunglasses;


miscellaneous bone fragments; miscellaneous dental pieces; fragments of a skull, jaw and teeth; coins which helped EAAFdetermine the date of the massacre. Photos by EAAF.


Table 1. MINIMAL NUMBER OF EL MOZOTE VICTIMS RECOVERED, DISTRIBUTED BY SEX AND AGE

YEAR OF REPORT AGE GROUP MALE FEMALE UNDETERMINED TOTALS

1992 0-12 - - 136 136

13-20 - - - -

21-40 - 6 - 6

41-50 - - - -

51+ 1 - - 1

Und. Adult - - - -

1992 TOTALS 1 6 136 143

2000 0-12 - - 23 23

13-20 - - - -

21-40 - 11 - 14

41-50 3 - - -

51+ - - - -

Und. Adult - - - -

2000 TOTALS 3 11 23 37

2002 0-12 6 4 2 12

13-20 1 1 - 2

21-40 2 - - 2

41-50 - 3 - 3

51+ 2 1 - 3

Und. Adult - - - -

2002 TOTALS 11 9 2 22

2003 0-12 3 1 21 25

13-20 - 1 6 7

21-40 6 4 12 22

41-50 1 2 - 3

51+ - 1 - 1

Und. Adult - - - -

2003 TOTALS 10 9 39 58

2004 0-12 - - 13 13

13-20 - 1 1 2

21-40 1 4 1 6

41-50 - - - -

51+ - - - -

Und. Adult - - 1 1

2004 TOTALS 1 5 16 22

1992-2004 TOTALS

Total MNI under age 13 9 5 195 209

Total MNI age 13 - 20 1 3 7 11

Total MNI age 21 and over 16 32 14 62

TOTAL MNI 26 40 216 282

BACKGROUND

During 2004, at therequest of Tutela Legal,EAAF conducted two

trips to investigate the mas-sacre of La Quesera. The mas-sacre reportedly took placefrom October 20 to 24, 1981 inthe Bajo Lempa river region ofthe Department of Usulután.Based on testimonies of wit-nesses and relatives of victims,EAAF visited and documentedeach site where the victimswere allegedly buried. The BajoLempa region extends from thevillages of San Marcos Lempa toSan Agustín and includes the hamlets of Las Delicias,Valle el Salitre, Las Crucitas, La Quesera, Hoja de Sal,El Caulotal, Linares, Nombre de Dios, Filon,Montañitas, Piletas, Berlín, Puente Cuscatlán, TresCalles, El Jícaro, La Loma, Valle Nuevo, Corosal, LasHojas, Las Hornillas, La Unión, Bolívar, El Cedro, LaCeibita, El Sitio, and Valle los Ayala.

According to testimonies, the Bajo Lempa region wasincluded in “scorched earth” military operationsstarting at the end of the 1970s, in which soldiersrazed people’s homes, crops and animals and murderedmany of the inhabitants. The Bajo Lempa region wasalso an area of high guerrilla presence and activity. Inresponse to the military operations the villagersorganized themselves, fleeing their homes and crossingfrom one side of the Lempa River to the other shoreevery time they saw the army approaching. Accordingto witnesses, these “invasions” occurred every 15 to 30days and varied in magnitude.

According to oral testimonies and local newspapersources, the army operation at the end of October 1981

followed the destruction of the Golden Bridge (Puentede Oro) by guerrillas on October 16, 1981. The bridgespanned the Lempa River and was an important meansof communication in El Salvador. In response, the armycarried out a massive attack that included dropping firebombs from helicopters and artillery mortars as variousbattalions entered the zone. Reportedly, approximately1,000 people were displaced and took refuge on theother side of the river or in caves; between 350 to 500people, mainly women and children, died.23 The attackaffected several villages and hamlets in the jurisdictionsof Berlín, San Agustín and Jiquilisco, all within thedepartment of Usulután.

During the four-day massacre, the army capturedpeople in groups and reportedly assassinated them withfirearms and knives. They also allegedly bombed therafts villagers were using to cross the river, resulting inthe drowning and sweeping of bodies down the river bythe current. According to testimonies from survivors,some of the women were kept alive to cook for thesoldiers during the attack; then, reportedly, they weresystematically raped and murdered.


EL SALVADOR

The Massacre of La QueseraDEPARTMENT OF USULUTÁN

Golden bridge, Puente de Oro, shortly after it was blown up by the guerrillas inOctober 1981. This bridge spanned the Lempa River and was an important means ofcommunication in El Salvador. In response to its destruction the army carried out amassive attack, which resulted in the killing of between 350 to 500 people, mainlywomen and children, known as the La Quesera massacre.

The army occupied the area for four days. Once theyleft, survivors returned to their hamlets in search ofrelatives and their belongings. Witnesses reportedseeing a large number of bodies lying on the ground.Many of the bodies were in pieces and/or in an advancedstate of decomposition. In some cases, two to threeweeks passed before burial, during which the bodieswere exposed to open air and animals. Villagers buriedthe bodies in individual or mass graves wherever theywere found, sometimes without having been identified.Since the victims were scattered everywhere as a resultof the attack, many of the victims were not from thearea where they died and the people who buried themdid not necessarily know who they were.

Investigation of the Massacre of La Quesera, Bajo Lempa, Usulután

First Mission: Preliminary Investigation

From April 20 until May 10, 2004, EAAF membersSofía Egaña and Silvana Turner made a preliminarytrip to El Salvador at the request of Tutela Legal.During this mission, EAAF analyzed testimoniestaken by Tutela Legal in 1992, 2002 and 2004,including information from the victims’ relatives,survivors, and those who buried the bodies. EAAF re-interviewed many of these witnesses to expand thetestimony and obtain specific information about thegrave locations. The team also located new witnesseswho offered more information which eitherconfirmed or corrected data. In addition, EAAFvisited ten possible burial sites.

Activities and information from the preliminaryinvestigation:

n EAAF gathered 74 testimonies from relatives,survivors and those who buried the dead.

n EAAF compiled a database containing the names of376 possible victims from the La Quesera massacre.Because the testimonies vary in their certitude whenincluding people who died in this massacre or inothers that occurred in dates close to this one, EAAFdivided the list of victims to reflect levels of certainty.Thus, from the total of 376 victims, 129 have beenconfirmed as victims of this massacre; 67 individuals

most likely died in this massacre; and 150 individualsprobably died in this massacre but require moreresearch to confirm. EAAF compiled this list basedon testimonies taken by Tutela Legal and interviewscarried out by EAAF in the first mission. Thisdatabase includes sex, age, kinship between victims,place and date of death, physical characteristics of theperson when alive (ante-mortem data), and otherinformation relevant to the case.

n The team visited ten burial sites in differentvillages in the jurisdictions of Berlín, San Agustínand Jiquilisco within the department of Usulután.

n At these sites, EAAF identified 14 possible graves,6 of which reportedly were individual graves and 8were mass graves. Three additional single gravesprobably do not correspond to the massacre underinvestigation but to people who died in other armyoperations in the area at approximately the sametime. One of the single graves exhumed by the teamis located next to these three; EAAF decided toexhume this grave in order to recover the remainsfor a family that may be searching for them.

n 78 victims were reportedly buried in the 14 graves, 23of which corresponded to individuals whose identitiesare presumed based on information provided by peoplewho buried the remains and recognized them.

Second Mission: Forensic Investigation

From October 23 to December 17, 2004, EAAFmembers Sofía Egaña, Silvana Turner and MercedesDoretti conducted the second mission to El Salvadorat the request of Tutela Legal to conduct exhumationsand analysis on the remains of the victims of LaQuesera massacre, following up the preliminary trip.Again, the team worked with forensic doctors andodontologists from the Institute of Legal Medicine atSanta Tecla and San Miguel.

EAAF conducted the laboratory work from November8 to December 17, 2004 under the judicial authorityof the Justices of the Peace in San Agustin andJiquilisco in the Department of Usulután.

Applying forensic archaeology techniques, EAAF


located and excavated ten sites throughout thejurisdictions of San Agustin and Jiquilisco. The teamrecovered a minimum number of 40 individualsdistributed in the following burial sites:

JURISDICTION OF SAN AGUSTIN

1. Loma de Pajaro – Site 1 – Grave 1 (LP1-1):three individuals of undetermined sex. Amongthem, one young adult (21 to 40 years old) andtwo children (6 to 8 years old).

Loma de Pajaro – Site 1 – Grave 2 (LP1 – 2):five individuals. Among them, one female youngadult (21 to 40 years old) and four of undeter-mined sex: one sub-adult (15 to 18 years old), oneadult (over 21 years old), one child (4 to 5 yearsold) and another child (7 to 12 years old).

2. Loma del Pajaro – Site 2 – Grave 1 (LP2-1):three individuals. Among them, one femaleyoung adult (20 to 30 years old), one child (5 to7 years old) of undetermined sex; and one infantof undetermined sex (2 to 3 years old).

3. El Mostacero – Site 1 (MS1): two children ofundetermined sex, younger than 12 years old.

4. Las Vegas del Rio Chiquito – Site 1 (RC1):three individuals, consisting of two females, oneadult (28 to 40 years old) and the other sub-adult(12 to 16 years old); and one child of undeterminedsex (4 to 7 years old).

5. La Carbonera – Site 1 (CR1): six individuals.Among them: one female adult (20 to 45 yearsold), one male adult (20 to 45 years old), twochildren (5 to 7 years old) of undetermined sex and


Family members of victims being interviewed by EAAF before the excavations at La Quesera. Photo by EAAF.

two infants of undetermined sex, one with anestimated age of 3 to 7 years old and the otherbetween 2 1/2 and 5 1/2 years old.

6. El Filon: No human remains were recovered.

7. Hoja de Sal: No human remains were recovered.

Laboratory Work

EAAF packaged and shipped all of the recoveredhuman remains to the laboratory at the Institute ofLegal Medicine in Santa Tecla, where they were x-rayed, washed and reconstructed. In the analysis ofeach individual, the team sought to determine the sexand age at the time of death, the height, laterality(the hand they used to work or write), odontologicalcharacteristics, fractures or lesions that could havehappened during their life (ante-mortem), at the

moment of their death (peri-mortem), and/ or aftertheir death (post-mortem).

In the case of graves where skeletal remains were mixedand incomplete, and corresponded to more than oneindividual (such as in the cases of MS1-1, LP1-1 andLP1-2), the team proceeded by first creating aninventory of each bone fragment. Second, EAAFestimated a minimum number of individuals presentamong the total of remains. The team then tried toassociate bones based on morphology, color, age group,sex, articulation among other features. We tried to dothis with larger bones or partially incomplete skeletons.

Totals for San Agustin:

n 5 females, 1 male and 16 of undetermined sex.

n 7 adults, 2 sub-adults, 13 children under 12 yearsof age.


Table 2. DISTRIBUTION BY SEX AND AGE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTION OF SAN AGUSTIN

SITE GRAVE Skeletons/ MALE FEM. UNDT AGE RANGEAnatomical Sections

1 LP1 1 Teeth and anatomical section 2 X 24 – 35 years

2 LP1 1 Teeth X 6 – 8 years

3 LP1 1 Teeth X 6 – 8 years

4 LP1 2 Pelvic bones X 20 – 40 years

5 LP1 2 Pelvic bone X Adult

6 LP1 2 Pelvic bone X 15 – 18 years

7 LP1 2 Pelvic bones X 4 – 6 years

8 LP1 2 Lower limb X 7 – 12 years

9 LP2 1 Skeleton 1 X 20 – 30 years



12 RC1 1 Skeleton 1 X 3 1/2 years – 5 1/2

13 RC1 1 Skeleton 2 X 12 – 16 years

14 RC1 1 Skeleton 3 X 26 – 40 years

15 MS 1 Skull /long bones X 6 – 12 years

16 MS 1 Skull long bones X 6 – 12 years

17 CR1 1 Skeleton 1 X 20 – 45 years



20 CR1 1 Teeth X 5 – 7 years

21 CR1 1 Teeth X 3 years

22 CR1 1 Teeth X 2 1/2 years – 5 1/2

JURISDICTION OF JIQUILISCO

1. Santa Clara – Site 1 – Grave 1 (SC1-1): one individual, adult female (30 to 45 years old).

2. La Loma – Site 1 – Grave 1 (LM1-1): two maleindividuals. One adult (35 to 45 years old) and theother sub-adult (13 to 17 years old).

La Loma – Site 1 – Grave 2 (LM 1-2): 16 individuals. Among them:

n Five males: four young adults and one sub-adult.

n Nine females: two adults, one young adult, foursub-adults and two children.

n One individual of undetermined sex: child of 4 to 7 years old.

Totals for Jiquilisco:

n 9 females, 8 males and 1 of undetermined sex.

n 4 adults, 5 young adults, 7 sub-adults and 2 children.

Total for Jurisdiction of San Agustin: 22

individuals

Total for Jurisdiction of Jiquilisco: 18 individuals

Total for both Jurisdictions: 40 individuals

Identifications

The information obtained from the laboratoryanalysis was compared with the physicalcharacteristics of the victims. EAAF collected this


EL SALVADOR

EAAF team member, Sofia Egaña, holds up a woman’s slip associated with the remains from the La Quesera massacre.Photo by EAAF.

information (ante-mortem data) during thepreliminary investigation of interviews with familymembers or friends.

Unfortunately, in several cases the excavated sites onlycontained concentrations of incomplete andfragmented human bones collected by people whoburied them weeks after the events. These remains,representing approximately slightly less than half ofthe recovered individuals, often have few elementsneeded to identify them (such as mandible or maxillarbones with particular odontological characteristicsand restorations) that enable the team to makeadvances or conclusions about specific identifications.

Also, as is often the case, the ante-morteminformation of these victims was insufficient to reacha positive identification. Most of the victims nevervisited a doctor or a dentist; if they did, no recordswere left.

In addition, 16 of the 40 individuals recoveredcorresponded to children under 12 years of age,which presents particular challenges.

Difficulties with the Identification ofChildren’s Skeletal Remains

The bad state of preservation of many of the recoveredremains, being highly eroded, incomplete, fragmentedand/or mixed with each other, was even more apparentin the children’s remains. Most children remains aremore fragile than adult ones.

It is always difficult to positively identify children ofsimilar ages in a mass grave from skeletal evidence alone.They generally do not have identification features intheir teeth or bones that differentiate them from oneanother. Therefore, available pre-mortem data tends tobe very general, such as sex and age. Furthermore,relatives often provide an approximate age of children,not an exact one; most birth certificates were lost duringthe war. At the same time, age ranges obtained throughanalysis of dental and bone development are alwaysestimates that include a range to take into account thewide variation in the physical development of children.For example, we can estimate that the age of a child was5 years old at time of death, plus or minus 18 months.Thus, when there are several children within a close age


Table 3. DISTRIBUTION BY SEX AND AGE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTION OF JIQUILISCO

SITE GRAVE SKELETON MALE FEM. UNDT AGE RANGE

1 Santa Clara 1 01 X 30 – 45 years

2 La Loma 1 01 X 35 – 55 years









11 La Loma 2 08 X 24 – 32 years

12 La Loma 2 09 X 17 – 21 years

13 La Loma 2 10 X 35 – 45 years

14 La Loma 2 11 X 11 – 15 years

15 La Loma 2 12 X 13 – 17 years

16 La Loma 2 13 X 9 -13 years

17 La Loma 2 14 X 25 – 35 years

18 La Loma 2 15 X 15 – 19 years

range of each other, there are often several children aspossible candidates for the same skeleton. (This problemis also present in identifying adults, but there are otherphysical characteristics in adults that can be examined,allowing investigators to differentiate between them.)All of these issues need to be taken into account whenattempting to specifically identify a single child buriedin a mass grave or a group of children around the sameage buried in a cluster of graves.

Determining sex from bone remains is also morechallenging with children. Most indicators of sex arelocated in the skull and pelvis. While it is possible todetermine sex from these with high accuracy, sexualdimorphism does not develop clearly until puberty. Onlya few sexual traits are present in the bones of children,and they are difficult to interpret with accuracy.

In some cases, these problems can be solved throughDNA analysis. A new DNA laboratory at the LegalMedical Institute could have worked on this type ofanalysis. Because a high number of people among thevictims were related to each other and the most directrelatives were also killed, the genetic analysis would bemore complicated than usual.

Tentative Identifications

EAAF reached thirty-one tentative identifications; eachcase had a different level of certainty, which was basedon ante-mortem information. Because the militaryoperation involved several nearby hamlets and peoplewere fleeing for several days from town to town and insome cases dying outside of their villages, it waspossible that many of the mass graves contained


La Loma 2 site, which contained the remains of 15 victims who reportedly died as a result of mortar fire. EAAF foundmortar fragments among the remains of the victims. Photo by EAAF.

remains of unidentified people buried with members ofa family of known identity. Thus, the graves could notbe seen as a closed list of people, such as passengersfrom a plane crash. For most cases, without strong ante-mortem information and the lack of DNA analysis, itwas hard for the team to reach a positive identification.However, the tentative identification in 31 of the casesand circumstantial evidence are sufficient for a judge toissue death certificates for victims of this massacre.

EAAF wrote a detailed report about each individualfor the judges, surviving families and Tutela Legal.

Ballistic Evidence

All of the ballistic evidence was recovered from sitesLP1, LM1and LM2. This consisted of thirty-four piecesof ballistic evidence: 1 point of a bullet from site LP1;32 pieces consistent with splinters of an explosiveartifact and one point of a bullet from LM1 and LM2.

EAAF photographed, weighed and measured the piecesbefore transferring them to the National police foranalysis following a court order.

Personal Effects and Dating Evidence

The team recovered clothes and personal effects suchas bags, cosmetics, rings, a cross, documents, and hairties, among other items, from the sites. The clothingthat the individuals were wearing at the time of theirdeath was described in each case, along withadditional clothing that was found either with themor in the grave, but not directly associated with anyparticular skeleton. The fact that the team found extraclothing, folded in small piles next to the remains, isconsistent with people fleeing, carrying extra clothingwith them, as indicated by witnesses.

The investigators also recovered coins dated no laterthan 1981, consistent with the date of the massacre.


Human remains found in the Jurisdiction of San Agustin. In Loma del Pajaro, site 1, grave 2, the remains of five individualswere recovered. Photo by EAAF.


EL SALVADOR

Laboratory work for La Quesera, from left to right: EAAF team member, Sofia Egaña, labeling clothing found with remains;set of children’s teeth; fragments of bones presumably broken from a blast explosion; reconstructed child’s mandibula;possible fragment from an explosive artifact, mortar or rocket. Photos by EAAF.

Information about Cause of Death

In all of the sites, the exhumed human remains werefound without soft tissue and were completelyskeletonized. In principle, this implies that EAAF willnot be able to observe peri-mortem trauma (lesionsthat occur around the time of death) that only affectedsoft tissue, without leaving any traces on the bones.

Thus, we can only infer the soft tissue peri-mortemtrauma (lesions produced around the time of death)and their possible level of lethality, based on the peri-mortem lesions observed on the bones. For example,when observing the entrance and/or exit of a gunshotwound to the skull, it is legitimate to believe thatthere is a high possibility that the shot produced alethal wound to the brain. We can infer similarpossibilities when observing peri-mortem wounds inthe bones of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis regions.These conclusions about the mortality of the woundsare even more probable in situations that the team isoften investigating, in which there was no immediatemedical attention around the time of death.24

In most of the excavated burial sites the remainsrecovered were in a bad state of preservation; theywere very fragmented due to peri-mortem traumaand post-mortem damage, suffering erosion, andaffected by roots and other environmental elements.

The peri-mortem trauma observed in the remains wasconsistent with gunshot wounds and other highvelocity peri-mortem wounds. In these last cases, theremains were often found in association withfragments (splinters) of explosive artifacts. When theteam observed gunshot wounds and /or high velocitywounds, the cause of death was established by one ormore of the following findings:

n Peri-mortem fractures observed in the bones thatoccurred around the moment of death and wereproduced by firearms and/or possible explosiveartifacts.

n Presence of green or orange imprints on thesurface of the bones resulting from the oxidationof the copper that may correspond to the copper-jacketed bullets.

n Discovery of fragments of projectiles and/ormetallic splinters encrusted in the affected bonesthat can be either directly observed(macroscopically) or seen through x-rays.

n Discovery of projectile fragments or splintersfrom explosive artifacts found during theexcavation associated with the skeletons.

In the majority of the cases where peri-mortemwounds were found in complete or almost competeskeletons, the number of gunshot and/ or explosivewounds along with the location of the wound inlethal areas of the remains were sufficient to establishthe cause of death in the individuals.

In some cases, the level of post-mortem erosion ofthe remains made it impossible to draw definitiveconclusions about the peri-mortem wounds. Theremains may originally have had other peri-mortemwounds besides those described by EAAF, but theirdiagnostic is no longer possible due to post-mortem damage.

Blast Injuries

The remains from the two graves at the La Loma sitedeserve special mention. The majority of theseremains showed abundant peri-mortem traumaconsistent with wounds produced by a high velocityforce, based on the type of fractures observed. This isconsistent with the discovery of thirty-two splintersfrom explosive artifacts found in both graves. Grave 2contained the remains of 16 individuals that,according to witnesses, were hiding in a ravine whenan explosive artifact (a mortar or a rocket) reportedlyexploded when hitting a tree right above them.

Typically, blast wounds are classified into four types: 1. Primary blast injuries: caused by a suddenchange in environmental pressure called the “blastwave,” occuring at the detonation (the high speedchemical decomposition of an explosive into gas) ofthe explosive. The wave propagates radially from thesite of the detonation. The wounds result directlyfrom the actual explosion. They typically affect thelungs, the middle ear (area containing organs), the


bowels, central nervous system, and thecardiovascular system. 2. Secondary blast injuries:

fragments of the shell of the explosive artifact orobjects near the explosion are energized by it and actas secondary projectiles. Based on how fast thesefragements travel and their shape, they can producesuperficial skin wounds or penetrating andpotentially lethal wounds, particularly whenpenetrating the head, heart, major blood vessels, andother vital organs. 3. Terciary blast injuries:

produced by the “blast wind,” these injuries arecaused by thrusting the victims against stationeryobjects. They typically produce blunt force traumainjuries. 4. Quaternary blast injuries: thedetonation also releases a large amount of heat-producing “flash burns” and other thermal injuriesresulting from fires started by the blast. Any of theseblast injuries can affect the musculoskeletal system.25

Most peri-mortem injuries observed at La Loma graveseem to be consistent with primary and secondaryblast injuries. EAAF provided a detailed reportcontaining the information about the possible causeof death of each individual in the laboratory report.

ENDNOTES1. “El Salvador – Monument to Memory and Truth – Dignifying the

victims of armed conflict.” Amnesty International. December 12, 2003.AI Index – AMR 29/011/2003 12. www.web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr290112003. Amnesty International reports that:“Although no reliable data exists regarding the total number of victimsof human rights violations during the armed conflict, it is estimated thatat least 75,000 people were tortured, subjected to extrajudicial killings,or simply disappeared.”

2. “El Salvador: The United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador.”Program on Negotiation of Harvard Law School, Search for CommonGround, and the European Centre for Common Ground, TruthCommissions Project, 2001. www.truthcommission.org/commission.php?cid=2&case_x=0&lang=en.

3. From Madness to Hope.” United Nations Truth Commission Report.March 1993.

4. A previous Amnesty Law was passed by the Legislative Assembly in May1993- Amnesty and Civilian Rehabilitation Law- and provided anamnesty to: 1) all perpetrators of political crimes, or common crimesconnected to political ones, were not in jail, and voluntarily presentthemselves; 2) people who were in jail sentenced to less than four yearsfor political or common connected to the political; 3) or to the onesbeing processed at the time of the amnesty for these kind of crimes.

5. IACHR Informe 136/99. Caso 10.488. Ignacio Ellacuría SJ; SegundoMontes SJ; Armando López SJ; Ignacio Martín Baró SJ; Joaquín Lópezy López SJ; Juan Ramón Moreno SJ; Julia Elba Ramos; y CelinaMariceth Ramos. El Salvador, IACHR Informe 136/99. Caso 10.488. 22de diciembre de 1999.

6. “Monsignur Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdamez” Report Nº 37/00 Case11.481.” Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, April 1999.Report Nº 37/00 Case 11.481, April 13, 2000. www.cidh.oas.org/annu-alrep/99eng/Merits/ElSalvador11.481.htm.

7. Ibid.

8. “The Mauricio Garcia Prieto case could air…” CEJIL 11/16/01.www.cejil.org/comunicados.cfm?id=263.

9. Mora, José Eduardo, “El Salvador: The Fight for Justice in 1989 Killingsof Priests,” Interpress Service. November 18, 2002. The Ombudsman’soffice is an independent government office created as a result of thepeace accords.

10. “Lucio Parada Cea y otros, El Salvador”, Inter-American Commission onHuman Rights (IACHR), Report 1/99, Case 10.480. 01/27/99. paraph.104-116. Conventions cited include the American Convention on HumanRights, the Inter-American Convention on Torture, the Inter-AmericanConvention against Forced Disappearance, the Inter-American CourtDoctrine, and Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions. In another casebrought before the IACHR, involving the disappearance of sisters, seven-year old Ernestina and three-year old Erlinda Serrano Cruz, it reportedagain that the application of the Amnesty Law violated the government’sinternational responsibilities. On June 2nd, 1982 seven-year-oldErnestina Serrano Cruz and her three-year-old sister Erlinda were cap-tured by members of the Atlacatl Battalion during military operationscarried out in the municipality of San Antonio de la Cruz, Department ofChalatenango. They were last seen while being transported in an ArmedForces helicopter heading to the city of Chalatenango and, according tothe version provided by the military, the children would have been deliv-ered to Red Cross personnel. To date, the whereabouts of the childrenremains unknown. “Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, El Salvador,”Report 31/01. Case 12.132 February 23, 2001. www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Admissible/ElSalvador12.132.htm.

11. “Salvadoran guardsmen convicted in ‘80 killing of nuns get parole.”CNN News. August 16, 2004. www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9807/22/salvador.nuns/.

12. “The Case of Four American Churchwomen,” Human Rights First August16, 2004. www.humanrightsfirst.org/archives/arc_ijp/lac/nuns/nuns.htm.

13. Torture Victim Protection Act. HR 2092. Passed in 1991 by the Houseand Senate, the purpose of the act is: “To carry out obligations of theUnited States under the United Nations Charter and other internationalagreements pertaining to the protection of human rights by establishinga civil action for recovery of damages from an individual who engages intorture or extrajudicial killing.”

14. “The Case of Four American Churchwomen.” Human Rights First.August 16, 2004. www.humanrightsfirst.org/archives/arc_ijp/lac/nuns/nuns.htm.

15. “El Salvador: Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova and Jose GuillermoGarcia,” The Center For Justice and Accountability. www.cja.org/cases/romagoza.shtml.

16. “U.S. Court Reverses $54M Verdict Against Salvadoran Generals Convictedof Torture,” Democracy Now. March 2, 2005. www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/154213&mode=thread&tid=25.

17. “Modesto Man Accused in ‘80 Slaying of Bishop,” San Francisco Chronicle,September 17, 2003.

18. “El Salvador: Alvaro Rafael Saravia.” Center for Justice andAccountability. www.cja.org/cases/romero.shtml.

19. “From Madness to Hope,” United Nations Truth Commission Report,March 1993; and “El Massacre en El Mozote,” Tutela Legal, 1990.

20. “From Madness to Hope,” United Nations Truth Commission Report,March 1993, p. 114-119.

21. Center for Justice and International Law. www.cejil.org.22. “OAS to Reopen Inquiry Into Massacre in El Salvador in 1981.”

The New York Times. March 8, 2005.23. Tutela Legal del Arzobispado, El Salvador.24. Bellamy, R. Penetrating Trauma in War, at Penetrating Trauma,

chapter 12, pp129-141.25. See Singer,P. Cohen, J.D., Stein,M. Conventional terrorism and critical

care, Crit Care Med 2005, Vol 33. No. 1 ( suppl), pages S61-S65.Kluger, Y, Peleg; K., Daniel-Aharosnon, Limor; Mayo,A. The IsraeliTrauam Group. The Special Injury Pattern in Yerrorism Bombings.American Collegue of Surgeons, 2004; Hyada, R., Harris, R., Cameron, D.B. Blast Injury ResearchClinicalOrthopaedics and related research, Number 422, pp97-108, 2004Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; andKluger, Y, Kashuk J: Mayo A. Terror Bombings mechanism,Consequences and Implications. Scandinavian Journal of surgery, SJS.


EL SALVADOR

Documents

EAAF05 7ElSalv p92-113 rev · BACKGROUND A fter twelve years of civil war in which an estimated 75,000 people died, on January 16, 1992 the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front