Romagoza Arce is one of the first cases in which a jury in a fully contested trial found perpetrators liable for human rights abuses solely under the doctrine of command responsibility. The command responsibility doctrine, used in the Nuremberg trials after World War II, provides that commanders may be held responsible for abuses committed by their subordinates if the commanders knew or should have known that abuses were taking place, and failed to take all reasonable measures to prevent the abuses or punish the perpetrators.

In July 2006, with the judgment final, Defendant Vides Casanova was forced to relinquish over $300,000 of his own funds. This collection represents one of the first human rights cases in U.S. history in which survivors have recovered money from those found responsible for abuses.  Almost all of the proceeds have been donated to charity by our heroic clients.

Peter Stern of Morrison & Foerster LLP and James K. Green were pro bono co-counsel on the case. Substantial pro bono support has also been provided by the International Human Rights Clinic at Boalt Hall School of Law, Stanford Professor Terry Karl, CJA Legal Advisory Council members Carolyn Patty Blum and Beth van Schaack, and Susan Shawn Roberts.

In 1980 alone over 10,000 civilians were killed by government and paramilitary forces in El Salvador.  In the twelve year civil war that followed it has been estimated that 65,000 more people died.  During this period Salvadoran Armed Forces committed grave human rights abuses including arbitrary detention, forced disappearance, torture and murder to control the civilian population and intimidate and eliminate perceived and/or actual opponents of the Salvadoran government.

In 1992, as part of the negotiated peace, the two warring factions, the government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front ("FMLN") agreed to the establishment of a "Truth Commission," appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to investigate the serious abuses committed during the war.  The Truth Commission Report found that the Salvadoran government was responsible for the overwhelming majority of the abuses.

On March 20, 1993, five days after the Truth Commission report was released, the Salvadoran Legislative Assembly, dominated by the extremist ARENA part, adopted a blanket amnesty law that protects all military and guerilla forces from being prosecuted for human rights abuses committed during the war.  The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has strongly criticized the amnesty law and stated that it violates international law.  Thousands of Salvadoran survivors and human rights advocates have struggled to repeal the amnesty law in an effort to fulfill the recommendations of the UN Truth Commission and the desire of the Salvadoran people for justice.  CJA’s U.S.-based litigation against high-ranking Salvadoran commanders has emerged as a central component of this struggle. 

Romagoza Arce et al v. Garcia and Vides Casanova

CJA has been working on Salvadoran human rights litigation since our founding in 1998.   CJA researched and created a “wanted list” of Salvadoran human rights violators named in the findings of the UN-sponsored Truth Commission and reported to be in the U.S.  In May 1999, CJA filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Florida for torture and other grave human rights violations against two of the most notorious individuals on the list - General Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova (the Director-General of the Salvadoran National Guard from 1979-1983 who then became Minister of Defense) and General Jose Guillermo Garcia (Minister of Defense from 1979-1983).

Our clients were three Salvadorans: Juan Romagoza, a doctor who was abducted, detained, and brutally tortured by the Salvadoran National Guard in late 1980 in the Guard’s National Headquarters; Neris Gonzalez, a Church lay worker who was abducted, detained, tortured and raped by National Guardsmen in late 1979; and Carlos Mauricio, a professor at the University of El Salvador who was dragged from his classroom, detained and tortured by the National Police in their National Headquarters in 1983.

CJA worked closely with Human Rights First, which brought a similar case (Ford v. Garcia) against the same two generals on behalf of four U.S. churchwomen who were tortured and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard in 1980. A jury heard that case in October 2000, and rendered a verdict that the generals could not be held liable for the crimes, presumably on the theory that they did not have “effective control” over their subordinates. The plaintiffs appealed and in April 2002 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a new trial was not warranted and affirmed the U.S. Federal Court's decision in Ford v. Garcia.

The Verdict

On July 23, 2002, following a four week trial, a federal jury in the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach returned a verdict of $54.6 million against two Salvadoran generals, living in Florida since 1989, for their responsibility for the torture of Juan Romagoza, Neris Gonzalez and Carlos Mauricio in the early 1980s. Read the statement CJA released to the Salvadoran media after the verdict.

The verdict was a landmark victory for human rights litigation. It was one of the first cases in which a jury in a fully contested trial found perpetrators liable for human rights abuses solely under the doctrine of command responsibility. The doctrine allows military commanders and other superiors to be held responsible for abuses committed by subordinates under their effective control, if the commanders knew or should have known the abuses were taking place, and failed to take all reasonable measures to prevent the abuses or punish the perpetrators.

The Appeal

In February 2005 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned CJA’s victory in the case. The Court ruled that the 10-year statute of limitations could not be suspended either because the defendants were absent from the U.S. or due to the widespread violence in El Salvador during the civil war.

In April 2005, the legal team filed a petition for rehearing by the panel of 3 judges who ruled on the appeal as well as a rehearing by all 12 judges of the 11th Circuit but the Court denied the petition

However, in June 2005, the 11th Circuit issued a letter acknowledging factual errors in its prior ruling and asking the parties to submit briefs concerning whether the case against General Vides Casanova was in fact filed in a timely manner. Vides Casanova left power in El Salvador in May 1989, and CJA filed the case against him just under 10 years later, in May 1999. Click here to read the 11th Circuit's letter.

On August 5, 2005, the 11th Circuit vacated its prior ruling which had overturned the verdict. Click here to read the 11th Circuit’s vacation ruling.

Then, on January 5, 2006, the 11th Circuit issued a new ruling upholding the verdict in its entirety, meaning that the jury’s determination that the generals are responsible for the torture of CJA’s clients remains valid. Click here to read the 11th Circuit’s latest ruling.

The court’s opinion reached two important conclusions. First, it held that "Congress clearly intends that courts toll the statute of limitations so long as the defendants remain outside the reach of the United States courts or the courts of other, similarly fair legal systems." Both defendants came to the US in 1989. Two of the three plaintiffs filed in 1999, a little less than 10 years after the defendants arrived. The court found that their claims were therefore timely. As to the third plaintiff, Carlos Mauricio, the court held that "exceptional circumstances" allowed for the tolling of the statute of limitations until the end of the civil war in El Salvador in 1992. Specifically, the court said:

Justice may also require tolling where both the plaintiff and the defendant reside in the United States but where the situation in the home state nonetheless remains such that the fair administration of justice would be impossible, even in United States courts. Absent regime change, those in power may wish to protect their former leaders against charges of human rights abuses. The quest for domestic and international legitimacy and power may provide regimes with the incentive to intimidate witnesses, to suppress evidence, and to commit additional human rights abuses against those who speak out against the regime. Such circumstances exemplify “extraordinary circumstances” and may require equitable tolling so long as the perpetrating regime remains in power.

Asset Collection

In July 2006, with the judgment final, General Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova was forced to relinquish over $300,000 of his own funds. This collection represents one of the first human rights cases in U.S. history in which survivors have recovered money from those found responsible for abuses.  Almost all of the proceeds have been donated to charity by our heroic clients.

CJA and Florida attorney Dave Gorman began the collection effort in 2003, deposing both Garcia and Vides Casanova about their assets. In addition to the initial collection, CJA continues to pursue collection of approximately $140,000 that we allege Vides Casanova fraudulently transferred after the filing of the suit in order to keep the money beyond the reach of the plaintiffs.