FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is this case all about?

In September 2003, CJA and its co-counsel, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP, filed suit against Alvaro Rafael Saravia, who was living in Modesto, California, for the key role he allegedly played in organizing the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. Archbishop Romero was killed by a sniper’s bullet on March 24, 1980, as he was celebrating mass at the Chapel of Divine Providence in San Salvador. The suit was filed on behalf of a relative of Archbishop Romero. Saravia was the right-hand man of reputed death squad leader Roberto D’Aubuisson, and several independent investigations have concluded that he had a primary role in organizing the assassination. The complaint alleges that Saravia obtained weapons, vehicles and other materials for the assassination, ordered his personal driver to transport the assassin to and from the chapel where Romero was shot, and paid the assassin after the assassination had been carried out. The U.N. Truth Commission and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights both concluded, after separate investigations, that Saravia was actively involved in planning and carrying out the assassination.

Who was Archbishop Romero?

Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdamez was a momentous figure in the struggle for human rights during a period of severe repression in El Salvador in the late 1970s. Romero became the leading voice for victims of government repression and for the poor through his weekly radio homilies, broadcast throughout the country, which captivated Salvadoran audiences and called for an end to military repression. Romero regularly denounced human rights abuses being committed by the Salvadoran armed forces and death squads and was viewed by the Salvadoran far right as a threat to its political agenda.

The day before his assassination, Romero addressed his homily to government soldiers and pleaded: “In the name of God, in the name of these suffering people whose cries rise to heaven more loudly each day, I implore you, I beg you, I order you: Stop the repression.” Romero has become one of the most revered figures in the struggle of poor Latin Americans for human rights and dignity. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 and is currently being considered by the Vatican for canonization as a saint.

Who is Alvaro Saravia?

Alvaro Saravia is a Salvadoran citizen and a former Captain in the Salvadoran Air Force. At the time the suit was filed he was a resident of the city of Modesto in the Central Valley of California. In 1979, Saravia left the Salvadoran military, and from that time worked closely with reputed death squad leader Roberto D’Aubuisson. D’Aubuisson, in conjunction with elements of the Salvadoran armed forces and far right Salvadoran civilians in El Salvador, Guatemala and the United States founded the far right political movement Frente Amplio Nacional (“FAN”) and the far right political party Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (“ARENA”). D’Aubuisson organized death squads, paramilitary organizations composed of civilians and military figures, that systematically carried out politically-motivated assassinations and other human rights abuses in El Salvador.

Saravia has lived in the United States since at least 1987 when he was jailed for 14 months on immigration and extradition charges. Salvadoran prosecutors sought his extradition for his role in the Romero assassination but the Salvadoran Supreme Court later withdrew the extradition request in a decision denounced as dubious and politically motivated by the U.N. Truth Commission, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and many human rights organizations. Saravia was released from federal prison on bond in 1988 following the Salvadoran Court’s decision and has since lived in California and Florida. Amnesty International and other groups have denounced Saravia’s presence in the United States.

Why will Saravia not be at the trial?

We served the complaint on Saravia at his home address in Modesto and the court has found that this service was proper. However, Saravia has gone underground. He has not responded to any of our pleadings or otherwise defended the case. For that reason we do not expect Saravia to participate in the hearing. This lawsuit has unquestionably disrupted his life.

What outcome do you expect?

We expect that the judge will find Saravia legally liable for the murder of Archbishop Romero. We have made two claims against Saravia – for extrajudicial killing and crimes against humanity. We expect that the judge will find Saravia liable on both counts and assess both compensatory and punitive damages against him. CJA also hopes that the evidence produced at trial will lead to his arrest, and eventual deportation, by the immigration service.

Didn't the U.N. Truth Commission for El Salvador issue a report in 1993 that named some of the people involved in the assassination of Archbishop Romero? What will this proceeding accomplish that the Truth Commission didn’t?

The Truth Commission investigated the Romero assassination and concluded that several members of Roberto D’Aubuisson’s death squad, including Saravia, organized and supervised the killing. Specifically the Truth Commission found that:

· D'Aubuisson gave the order to assassinate Archbishop Romero;

· Saravia, together with others, was actively involved in planning and carrying out the assassination and paying the assassin;

· Amado Antonio Garay, Saravia’s driver, was assigned to drive the gunman to the Chapel; and

· The Salvadoran Supreme Court played an active role in preventing Saravia’s extradition, thereby ensuring impunity for those who planned the assassination.

While the Truth Commission was groundbreaking in uncovering information about the assassination, this case will go far beyond the Truth Commission by holding a member of the conspiracy legally responsible. This proceeding provides the opportunity for a relative of Archbishop Romero to pursue Saravia’s assets. Additionally, the Truth Commission kept the names of its witnesses secret and did not publish their testimony. In this case CJA will present testimony of several witnesses in open court.

Who will participate as witnesses and what do you expect them to say?

New Evidence

· Judge Atilio Ramirez Amaya, the judge assigned to investigate the assassination in 1980, will testify about the results of his investigation, the involvement of the Salvadoran military in the assassination and the dangers to which he was subjected.

· Ambassador Robert White, U.S. ambassador to El Salvador at the time of the assassination, will testify about his interactions with Archbishop Romero, his perspective on the assassination and the involvement of the Salvadoran military.

· Terry Karl, the Gildred Professor of Latin American Studies at Stanford University, will testify about new facts regarding the assassination and the political and historical context in which the assassination occurred, including its role in the outbreak of civil war.

· Two witnesses whose identities will be disclosed at the hearing.

Archbishop Romero’s Life and Impact of the Assassination

· Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Detroit, will testify about Archbishop Romero’s life from the perspective of the Catholic Church in the United States and the international movement for human rights.

· The Reverend Canon William L. Wipfler, former Director of the Human Rights Office of the National Council of Churches, will testify about Archbishop Romero’s life from the perspective of non-Catholic Christian communities in the United States and the international movement for human rights.

· The Reverend John Fife, co-founder of the Sanctuary Movement in the United States, will testify about the importance of Archbishop Romero to religious figures in the United States and refugees fleeing the violence in El Salvador.

· Naomi Roht-Arriaza, professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, will testify about the significance of the assassination as a major setback to the cause of human rights in El Salvador and elsewhere.

· Maria Julia Hernandez, the founding director of the human rights office of the Archdiocese of San Salvador, will testify about her close work with Archbishop Romero and her involvement in the human rights struggle in a time of great repression.

· Father Jon Cortina, a Jesuit priest and the director of Pro Busqueda, an organization that helps reunify families torn apart by the Salvadoran civil war, will testify about his relationship with Archbishop Romero and the theological significance of Romero’s life and death.

· Francisco Acosta Arevalo, co-founder of the Monseñor Oscar Romero University in Chalatenango, El Salvador, will testify about his interaction with Archbishop Romero and the impact of the assassination on the Salvadoran diaspora.

· Esther del Carmen Chavez Mancia, organizer for the American Friends Service Committee, will testify about the impact of the assassination on the Christian base communities.

Why will the plaintiff not be at the trial?

The plaintiff will not be at the trial for reasons of security. Because of the impunity that persists in El Salvador, the plaintiff may be in danger if the plaintiff’s identity is revealed. Due to these security concerns, we filed the case with the plaintiff listed simply as J. Doe. The plaintiff will, however, submit a written declaration to the court under seal.

What is the legal basis of the suit?

The Alien Tort Claims Act, adopted in 1789, gives survivors of abuses which were committed anywhere in the world “in violation of the law of nations” the right to bring lawsuits in U.S. Federal court against perpetrators who come to the United States. Since 1980, the law has been used successfully in cases involving torture, extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and arbitrary detention. It was recently upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. The Torture Victim Protection Act, passed in 1991 and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, gives similar rights to U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike to bring claims for torture and extrajudicial killing committed in foreign countries and “under the actual or apparent authority . . . of any foreign nation.” Under both laws, the perpetrator must be served with the lawsuit in the United States in order for the court to have jurisdiction.

How does this trial relate to the case against the two Salvadoran former Ministers of Defense, who were ordered to pay $54 million to survivors of torture by forces under their command and control?

In July 2002, CJA won a major victory against two Salvadoran former Ministers of Defense on behalf of three Salvadorans who were tortured at different times from 1979-1983. CJA has already had some success in pursuing their assets, although actual collection must wait until the appeal in the case is decided. While this case has a different plaintiff and defendant and concerns different facts, there are many common threads between this trial and the one against the generals. The torture endured by the plaintiffs in that case was part of the same pattern of repression being carried out by the Salvadoran security forces and their death squads. The abuses at issue in both cases were crimes against humanity and demonstrated the military’s strategy to attack the civilian population of El Salvador indiscriminately. Like the generals, Saravia has lived in the United States for many years. These cases demonstrate that there are many perpetrators of human rights abuses living freely in the United States. CJA brings these cases to ensure that the United States does not remain a safe haven for torturers and murderers.

Also, human rights groups in El Salvador with which we are working have told us that we truly can have a significant impact on changing the culture of impunity in El Salvador – but only if we bring several cases and demonstrate our resolve to continue to bring to justice those most responsible for the abuses. Only then will those who hold power in El Salvador seriously consider the possibility of bringing them to justice in their own country.

Why wasn't the case filed in El Salvador?

A 1993 amnesty law prevents Saravia – and all others responsible for human rights atrocities committed before 1992 - from being tried in El Salvador. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has criticized the amnesty law for providing blanket immunity and preventing a meaningful investigation of the Romero assassination and other crimes.

What is CJA?

The Center for Justice & Accountability is a non-profit international human rights organization based in San Francisco that works to hold torturers and other human rights abusers accountable. CJA tracks down human rights violators who live, visit or keep assets in the U.S. and brings civil lawsuits against them on behalf of their victims. CJA was founded in 1998 with initial support from Amnesty International USA and the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. CJA is now completely independent. CJA receives substantial pro bono support from law firms, lawyers, professors and private investigators around the country.

Who is the legal team?

The legal team includes attorneys from both CJA and the law firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, which is headquartered in San Francisco. The Heller Ehrman team includes partner Nico van Aelstyn and associate Russell Cohen. The CJA team includes litigation director Matt Eisenbrandt, international attorney Almudena Bernabeu and senior legal adviser Patty Blum. All members of the legal team are representing the plaintiff without charge.

How did Saravia enter the U.S. to begin with?

As many as 1,000 foreign-born torturers and other human rights abusers live in the United States and many more visit each year. Saravia is only one of many Salvadoran perpetrators in this country. We believe Saravia entered the United States with a non-immigrant visa and subsequently overstayed the visa. Saravia was detained in Miami in 1987 when Salvadoran prosecutors sought his extradition for his role in the Romero assassination. The Salvadoran Supreme Court later withdrew the extradition request in a decision denounced as dubious and politically motivated by the U.N. Truth Commission, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and many human rights organizations. Saravia was released from federal prison on bond in 1988 following the Salvadoran court’s decision and has since lived in California and Florida. Amnesty International and other groups have denounced Saravia’s presence here.

If Saravia is found liable, what can happen to him?

If Saravia is found liable, as we expect he will be, he will be legally obligated to pay the plaintiff whatever amount of damages the court assesses. The plaintiff will have the right to take possession of any of Saravia’s assets until the full amount of the judgment is paid off. Unfortunately a finding of liability in this case will not result in jail time for Saravia. We hope, however, that he will be detained by immigration authorities and deported.

Can you give examples of other, similar trials?

The first civil lawsuit brought against a foreign-born human rights abuser for crimes committed outside the U.S. against non-U.S. citizens was Filartiga v. Peña-Irala. In 1976, the family of a young man who had been killed in Paraguay in police custody saw the Paraguayan police chief walking the streets of Manhattan. They called the immigration service which arrested him for overstaying his visitor's visa. The family sued him, and in 1980, the U.S. court in New York upheld their claims, opening the way for other cases using the Alien Tort Claims Act.

One of the most publicized cases in recent years was the suit against former Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos. After he was voted out of power, he found safe haven in Hawaii. Eventually, a U.S. court ordered his estate to pay nearly $2 billion to his victims.

In addition to the verdict against the Salvadoran generals, CJA has also won multi-million dollar judgments against a Bosnian Serb soldier who tortured four Bosnian Muslims and against a Chilean intelligence officer who was involved in the Caravan of Death during the Pinochet regime. Information about these cases, including the complaints and judgments, can be found on CJA's website: www.cja.org.

Are the plaintiffs ever able to gain possession of the defendants’ assets?

In the case against Marcos, the plaintiffs were able to recover $1 million. The rest of the assets were claimed by the democratically-elected Philippine government led by Corazon Aquino. CJA has collected $270,000 from one of the two Salvadoran generals, and we are close to securing nearly $1 million from another defendant. These are the only recoveries obtained to date. CJA has placed a high priority on finding and collecting the defendants’ assets.

Why a civil suit? Why not a criminal prosecution?

Only the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has the authority to initiate criminal prosecutions. The DOJ does not believe that it has the authority to bring criminal charges in this case. The U.S. law that gives jurisdiction to U.S. courts to hear criminal cases of torture wherever committed only addresses torture and only entered into force in November 1994. The DOJ maintains, therefore, that it can only prosecute criminal acts committed after November 1994.

To date, the DOJ has not brought any criminal prosecutions of torturers under the 1994 law. The DOJ tried to bring its first prosecution in March 2000, pursuant to a tip from CJA, when a Peruvian security agent believed to have tortured people in Peru in 1996-97 visited the U.S. However, the FBI released the man after the State Department gave its opinion - which was widely criticized - that the Peruvian had diplomatic immunity.