The Trial Begins:

The Center for Justice & Accountability (CJA), along with co-counsel from the Tennessee law firm Bass, Berry & Sims, represent five individuals who have sued former El Salvadoran commander Nicolas Carranza for torture, extrajudicial killing, and crimes against humanity. The case is being tried by Matt Eisenbrandt, Litigation Director for CJA, Professor Carolyn Patty Blum, Senior Legal Advisor for CJA, and David Esquivel of Bass, Berry & Sims. CJA’s international attorney Almudena Bernabeu is also a member of the legal team.

The case is preceded by two others brought by CJA (Doe v. Saravia and Romagoza et. al. v. Garcia and Vides Casanova) involving human rights abuses committed during El Salvador’s brutal military repression and civil war in the 1980s.

In the present case, Chavez v. Carranza, the defendant, Colonel Nicolas Carranza, was the Vice-Minister of Defense of El Salvador from October, 1979 through January, 1981 and then Director of the Treasury Police, from May 1983 through May 1984. This is the first case in which a U.S. jury is being asked to deliver a verdict holding a Salvadoran commander liable for crimes against humanity—widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population. This case, unlike its predecessors, is also unique in that the jury will have to address the question of the connection between the plain-clothed “escuadrones de la muerte,” or death squads, and the Salvadoran Security Forces with whom they often worked in concert.

On November 1, 2005, shortly after 9 a.m., opening statements in the trial began in the U.S. Federal District courtroom of Judge Jon P. McCalla in Memphis, Tennessee, in front of a jury of six women and three men ranging in age from 27 to 67.

Plaintiffs Opening Statement:

Plaintiffs’ counsel David Esquivel introduced each of the five plaintiffs to the jury and outlined their claims for torture, extrajudicial killing, and crimes against humanity. He then explained to the jury how each of these cases were linked to Col. Nicolas Carranza, a U.S. citizen who has been living in Memphis for the past twenty years.

Carranza served as the operational commander of the Salvadoran military during his 1979-1981 tenure as Vice Minister of Defense. During this period over 10,000 civilians were killed, predominantly by government forces. He emphasized that Carranza failed to prevent human rights abuses by the military or to punish those responsible for such abuses and that in none of the plaintiffs’ cases had any person ever been charged or convicted for these horrific crimes. Carranza, he argued, had essentially provided a “green light” for his subordinates to commit mass terror.

In 1983, Carranza was appointed Director of the Treasury Police, a division of the Salvadoran security forces notorious for the systematic use of torture and wrongful imprisonment of countless civilians, including plaintiff Daniel Alvarado.

Defendant Carranza’s Opening Statement:

Counsel for the defendant, Robert Fargarson, then set forth a brief overview of Carranza’s defense. He described Carranza as living an “exemplary life in Memphis,” first working in real estate and then as a security guard and head of security at the Brooks Museum of Memphis, TN until his retirement.

Defense counsel described the 1979-80 period in El Salvador as a “very turbulent time,” one in which Marxist-Leninist communists, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, he claimed, had taken root. He also noted that “indoctrinated groups” such as the FPL and FMLN sought to overthrow the Salvadoran government with weaponry provided by Cuba, Russia and Angola. It was against this backdrop of civil war, unrest, and disorder, that Col. Carranza was appointed Vice Minister of Defense.

In this position, according to defense counsel, Col. Carranza was completely subordinate to Minister of Defense Jose Guillermo Garcia, who had sole power and issued all orders. Defense counsel then briefly noted Col. Carranza’s later positions as head of ANTEL, the Salvadoran telecommunications company, and as Director of the Treasury Police, where he was appointed specifically to improve the security force’s bad reputation.

Defense counsel concluded his opening argument by emphasizing that the U.S. government was supporting the Salvadoran military’s fight against communism. He stated that Col. Carranza had been paid by some, unnamed U.S. government entity and that the U.S. would not have paid him if had been the “savage, insensitive as the plaintiffs claim.”

Testimony from Plaintiffs:

Cecilia Santos

Cecilia Santos testified that as a 27-year old woman, she went shopping at a mall for a birthday gift. She was falsely accused of planting a bomb and taken to the National Police headquarters by civilian-clothed men, where she was tortured and sexually violated. Ms. Santos then was transferred to a women’s prison where she remained as a political prisoner for the next three years.

Erlinda Franco

Erlinda Franco is the widow of Manuel Franco, one of the six leaders of the Democratic Revolutionary Front (FDR), a broad political coalition seeking peaceful change and democracy in El Salvador. Franco, and the other leaders of the FDR, were abducted from a Catholic high school by plain-clothed men, as the school was surrounded by military forces. His body, along with the others, was found the following day lying on the side of a road outside San Salvador with the unmistakable marks of torture and four gunshot wounds.

Francisco Calderon

Francisco Calderon testified that his father, a school teacher and active member of the 22,000 member teachers union, ANDES, was gunned down in their home. Francisco Calderon lay on the floor right next to his father as he was killed.

Ana Patricia Chavez

The jury heard from Ana Patricia Chavez, whose mother, a member of the Christian Democratic political party, was beaten and killed by civilian-clothed men who stormed their house early one Sunday morning. The men then proceeded to gun down Ms. Chavez’s father and husband.

Daniel Alvarado

Finally, Daniel Alvarado took the witness stand. He described how in 1983, he was a university student active in student politics. While attending a soccer game, Alvarado was abducted by plain-clothed men and taken to Treasury Police headquarters. There Treasury Police officers, under the guidance of the head of the intelligence section chief, brutally tortured Alvarado. He was forced to sign a confession to a crime he didn’t commit—the murder of U.S. military advisor Lt. Col. Albert Schaufelberger. Mr. Alvarado was paraded before a press conference where he was forced to publicly confess to the murder and then spent the next two-and-a-half years in jail as a political prisoner. He fled to Sweden where he was granted asylum.

The jury listened to each of the plaintiffs as they testified about the torture they had experienced and the murders of their beloved relatives. The jury also heard from an eyewitness to the abduction of one of the FDR leaders who described seeing military vehicles outside the school where the FDR leaders were meeting and from which they were abducted.

Expert Witness Testimony:

Ambassador Robert White

The plaintiffs called Ambassador Robert White, U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador from 1980-81. He described El Salvador during his time there as a country with one of the longest-standing military dictatorships in the region and where the percentage of landless individuals was one of the highest in the world. In contrast to the defendant’s opening argument, Ambassador White stressed that El Salvador was not overrun by armed communist militants trained in Cuba or Nicaragua in 1979; rather that the number of armed guerrillas was less than 500. Instead, hundreds of thousands of people attempted to peacefully demonstrate and demand democratic change and were brutally repressed by the military-controlled government.

White told the jury about the coup in October 1979, staged by a group of idealistic, younger military officers who were intent on pushing out the prior repressive military regime and insuring a purge of the Salvadoran military and security forces of human rights abusers. He noted, however, that the military-civilian junta that came to power was ultimately unsuccessful because real power never passed from the cabal of Col. Carranza, Gen. Garcia and others who may have wanted the “stamp of reform” on their actions, but, in fact, never intended to allow civilians to govern the country.

Refuting the defense’s claim that Carranza was merely an administrative aide to Minister of Defense Garcia, Ambassador White described Col. Carranza as the “operational commander” of the Salvadoran military and security forces, while Gen. Garcia served as the “public relations man.” He noted that the two were “inseparable” and that he specifically requested Carranza’s presence at meetings about curbing security force abuses because his commitment to stopping such abuses was required for any change to occur.

Colonel Jose Luis Garcia

Professor and Colonel Jose Luis Garcia, a retired colonel from the Argentine army testified as an expert on Salvadoran military structure, laws, and regulations. During his testimony, several military codes and conventions that applied to the Salvadoran military during Col. Carranza’s tenure as Vice-Minister of Defense and as Director of the Treasury Police were entered into evidence. When asked to describe the duties of a commander, Garcia reported that the primary duties are to maintain discipline and issue orders to his subordinates while maintaining strict compliance with national and international laws. He drew specifically on articles outlined in the Salvadoran Organic Law of National Defense and emphasized a superior’s responsibility for violations and abuses committed by his subordinates.

Garcia also explained that El Salvador was bound by the London and Tokyo Treaties and the Geneva Conventions that prohibited governments from committing crimes against humanity with regards to internal conflict as well as stating a commander’s obligation to ensure that his subordinates do not interfere with the life of the civilian population.

Professor Terry Karl

The final testimony came from Professor Terry Karl who is a political scientist at Stanford University and expert on El Salvador. She offered expert testimony on the military's widespread and systematic campaign of terror conducted against the civilian population, Col. Carranza's control over and knowledge of subordinates under his command committing human rights abuses, as well as his failure to take the reasonable and necessary steps to prevent or punish these abuses.

Prof. Karl referenced numerous declassified cables, legal documents, and newspaper articles to single out Col. Carranza as one of the chief power actors in El Salvador's dictatorial regime. Professor Karl also outlined Carranza's role as a military hardliner in the link between the security forces and the death squads, and described in detail several massacres and crimes committed by the military and security forces during the time the defendant was Vice Minister of Defense and Director of the Treasury Police. Several US Embassy cables confirmed that Carranza was aware of human rights abuses committed by the Treasury Police while he was its director.

Prof. Karl also testified about a series of declassified cables detailing Col. Carranza’s specific awareness of Plaintiff Alvarado's capture and incarceration in the Treasury Police Headquarters. During her testimony, a segment from the NBC Nightly News was shown to the jury which detailed how U.S. government officials had determined that Alvarado had been tortured and forced to sign a false confession. Prof. Karl explained how US pressure to investigate this crime resulted in Carranza's removal from the Treasury Police. Professor Karl ended her testimony by outlining the numerous measures Carranza failed to take to punish and prevent these abuses and highlighted the fact that not a single officer from 1980 through 1984 was ever held accountable for human rights abuses.

Defendant’s Witnesses

Leonel Mejia

Mr. Leonel Mejia, a Salvadoran businessman, testified that he has known Carranza since 1975. He told the jury that his company donated thirty beds and mattresses to Carranza, when he was Director of the Treasury Police, to help improve the conditions for the prisoners.

Alejandro Dagoberto Marroquin

Mr. Marroquin, another Salvadoran businessman, testified that he has known Carranza since 1974. He told the jury that his construction company donated paint to Carranza, when he was Director of the Treasury Police, in order to upgrade the cells in the Treasury Police.in

Jose Antonio Araujo

Jose Antonio Araujo was called as an expert witness on Salvadoran military law. Araujo declared that his educational background included some studies in agronomical engineering, theology, and a law degree from the Military University of El Salvador. Upon graduation in 1998, Araujo served as professor and academic administrator of that university, which offered studies in military law and criminal procedure, although Araujo never specified the actual courses he himself had taught. When asked to refer to Article 26 of the Organic Law, Araujo testified that in his expert opinion this article did not confer on the Vice Minister of Defense direct command responsibility. He stated that, instead, the Vice-Minister’s role was administrative in nature. However, he did testify that as director of the Treasury Police, Carranza would have had command responsibility over that unit.

On cross examination, plaintiff's counsel, David Esquivel, drew Araujo’s attention to Article 26 of the Organic Law, specifically the Vice Minister's duty to ensure discipline among members of the armed forces. After a series of questions, Araujo conceded that Carranza's duties did extend to the security forces. He also testified that although Carranza mainly served as a link between the Minister and the head of the General Staff, this did not eliminate his independent responsibility to ensure discipline. Plaintiff's counsel then directed Araujo's attention to the Military Code of Justice, specifically Article 186. Araujo conceded that the article gave Carranza authority to discipline those who committed abuse, and that as Vice Minister, he was one of only two people who had the legal authority to terminate employment of military personnel.

Julio Romero Talavera

Mr. Romero, a 56-year old Costa Rican citizen, explained to the jury that he used to be a commercial and private pilot in Latin America. On a flight from Nicaragua to rescue several wounded guerillas in El Salvador, Mr. Romero was captured by the Salvadoran Air Force and held for over four years in various prisons of the Air Force, Army and Security Forces. The majority of that time was spent at the Treasury Police Headquarters. When Mr. Romero learned that Col. Carranza had become the new director of the Treasury Police, he notified the director of his situation. He said that after meeting with Carranza, his situation improved tremendously. Mr. Romero told the jury that he believes that Carranza "saved his life" by transferring him from solitary confinement into a special room in the Treasury Police public jail area and then to the Santa Ana prison before his eventual transfer to the prison at Mariona. In 1985, he was released in a prisoner exchange engineered by the Duarte government in which Duarte’s daughter, abducted by the FMLN, was exchanged for twenty-four prisoners, including Romero.

On cross-examination, Mr. Romero told of his horrific experiences of torture. After his capture by the Air Force, he was held by the Army. He was then transferred to the National Guard Headquarters where was tortured. He was tortured again at the National Police Headquarters and again on his transfer to the Treasury Police Headquarters. He described how the physical torture he experienced there paled in comparison to the state of pure terror he felt at this point. He then spent over two years in solitary confinement in the Treasury Police Headquarters with periodic harassing visits from the Treasury Police Director Francisco Moran. He explained that he was charged with sedition and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison; he described the lawyer he was assigned as a "dummy," as in a puppet of the military tribunal that sentenced him.

Colonel Nicolas Carranza

Colonel Carranza began his testimony Wednesday in the late afternoon. He spent the rest of the day and the following morning telling the jury about his work experience as a security guard at the Memphis Brooks Museum and personal background since his arrival to the United States in the mid 80's. He then described his military training and experience in El Salvador.

Defendant’s counsel, Bob Fargarson, next turned to his position as Vice Minister of Defense and questioned him about his legally imposed duties under Salvadoran law. Carranza explained that his duties under Article 26 of the Organic Law were restricted to an advisory or administrative nature, and that in everything he was subordinate to Minister of Defense Garcia, who was the only one who had power to issue direct orders.

With respect to the FDR murders, Carranza relied on a cable from Ambassador White that recounted a meeting he attended with the Ambassador and others in which her personally proposed an investigation into the crimes. He stated that he did not take any further action as that would be beyond his stipulated, assigned duties. Carranza also stated that he did not know of the plaintiffs’ claimed abuse while he was Vice Minister of Defense.

After moving from the Ministry of Defense through management positions in the state run telecommunication and energy companies, Carranza returned to military service as director of the Treasury Police. Carranza testified that he was involved in the efforts to improve the image of the institution, by inspecting the headquarters, visiting Treasury Police outposts as well as obtaining paint and bed donations to improve the living conditions of the prisoners. The defendant declared that he did not know of plaintiff Alvarado's torture. He stated that if Alvarado had told him about it, he would have come to his aid as he had done for Julio Romero. He also declared that he removed the subdirector after he failed to comply with his order to report on what had happened to Alvarado. Throughout his testimony Carranza stated that the allegations against him were the product of communist propaganda and noted that in the end the subversive FPL group had actually claimed responsibility for the Schaufelberger murder.

Counsel for the plaintiffs David Esquivel cross examined Carranza. He first elicited agreement from him about the importance of subordination and discipline as the principal teachings of his military education and career. He also determined that his specialty as a military officer was in tactics and operations. Although Carranza admitted that he was aware of the many allegations of abuses by the military during his time as Vice Minister, he declared that they were not specific enough to warrant investigation.

Carranza continued to assert that amidst the widespread accusations of abuse, his role was limited to proposing investigations and that he had no power to follow up on them himself. Referring to the FDR murders, plaintiff's counsel referenced a cable from Ambassador White reporting on a conversation that US military attache Brian Bosch had with mid-level Salvadoran military officers expressing approval of the FDR killings. Carranza was at the meeting and endorsed this position.

Esquivel continued by questioning Carranza about his responsibility to discipline subordinates, according to Article 186 of the Military Code of Justice. Although the article itself gives the Vice Minister clear power to take disciplinary measures, Carranza insisted that such power had to be understood within the context of the subordination principle, which meant that he as Vice Minister could only have taken such action under the authorization of the Minister of Defense.

After conceding that he had command authority over the army as Vice Minister of Defense, Carranza refused to accept personal responsibility for the Sumpul massacre, in which the Army participated, and argued that command authority was shared with others.

As plaintiff's counsel questioned Carranza on his role as the director of the Treasury Police, Carranza continued to declare that he did not recall any one being prosecuted for torture or extrajudicial killings. Esquivel brought up how US pressure resulted in Carranza's removal from the Treasury Police, and that the replacement director disbanded the intelligence unit as one of his first actions to clean up the department.

On a number of occasions, Carranza’s testimony deviated from statements he had made at his deposition. Col. Carranza kept referring to his deposition testimony as a mistake.

Carranza acknowledged the existence of death squads but insisted that they were composed of elements from the left and right and denied any military involvement in them. As Esquivel went over each of the plaintiff's claims, Carranza agreed that nothing could justify the abuse they suffered, and declared that his heart went out to the plaintiffs for what they had gone through. He further stated that he understands their desire to seek redress, but that they were wrong to pursue him as the one responsible. But Esquivel made sure that Carranza stated unequivocally on the record that torture and extrajudicial killing were not justified in any circumstances.

On redirect counsel for the defendant Fargarson referred to Carranza's deposition in which he recalled the names of a few officers who had been prosecuted and convicted for committing abuses. He also asked Carranza to confirm that as Vice Minister of Defense he had no power to issue any orders without going through Garcia, and that he had no operational or tactical command over any units.

At the end of the trial day, Judge McCalla discussed jury instructions with Carolyn Patty Blum and Bruce Brooke. Blum wanted to clarify some wording in the command responsibility instruction regarding the element of knowledge. The plaintiffs prevailed in obtaining the wording suggested in their initial proposals; the draft instructions were revised to conform to the prevailing international and domestic standards. Brooke raised several additional concerns, most of which did not result in changes to the instructions.

The only remaining witness for the defendant was his wife, Norma Carranza.