IV. Perpetrators and their modus operandi

In fifty-three cases, the aggressors were non-police security guards or hired assassins (i. e., mercenary gunmen), whereas National Police agents committed 22 arbitrary executions, either in the course of official actions (repression of public demonstrations, forcible evictions or during the enforcement of arrest orders), or in criminal attacks perpetuated by off-duty police agents, in conjunction with hired gunmen. Lastly, two victims died while under the custody of the State, due to the lack of medical care, following their detention by authorities on charges of alleged crimes stemming from conflicts over the access to land.

In all the cases of arbitrary executions or killings carried out by armed civilians, it has been verified in an reliable and authoritative manner that the State did not comply with its duty as regards prevention and ensuring of rights, nor with the duty of effective investigation for the purpose of punishing the persons responsible. Sometimes, the State failed to comply with even one of the duties. The actions of these bands of non-police aggressors and hired gunmen were manifestly illegal and in any case what corresponds is that they be persecuted for criminal offences, without any excuse.

However, in spite of the fact that this situation has been denounced in due manner to the public authorities, the criminal acts of these pseudo police or “parapolice” bands continue to meet with impunity, given the lawlessness and general absence of control. No preventive measures have been adopted to forestall their actions or to re-establish public order.

Given the lack of preventive measures and the impunity of the murderers and their instigators, the CODEHUPY sustains that on the part of the State there is an evident tolerance of bands of parapolice agents. The systematic omission of the performance of duties pertaining to the prevention, protection and ensuring of rights, which impedes clarification of individual liability within the realms of penal justice and the protection of victims, is a powerful inducement for the reiteration and continuing of these crimes. Starting from these coincident factors that form a pattern, the CODEHUPY denounces the international responsibility of the State for these arbitrary executions.

As regards the 22 cases of an execution perpetrated by a police agent, in six cases the attacks were committed outside of official functions and in the context of a deliberate criminal action. In the remaining 16 cases, the arbitrary executions took place through the unnecessary, disproportionate or illegal use of firearms, or other means of violence, during the carrying out of official functions.

The situation described herein is favoured by institutional and legal aspects that are deficient.

In the first place, the National Police does not obey a protocol adjusted in accordance with international standards as regards the use of force and firearms for interventions at demonstrations and public assemblies, whether these are licit or prohibited by Paraguayan domestic legislation (such as the closing of roads, or the occupations of property, public buildings or public spaces). The Guidelines for Police Procedures currently in force are very ambiguous and lack precision in all that refers to the use of firearms and prior measures of persuasion. These Guidelines do not conform to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The intervention of agents that are neither specialised nor properly equipped leads to situations in which said agents use their firearms against the multitude, unnecessarily and disproportionately.

In like manner, the National Police does not count with a standard regulatory firearm. Each police agent buys his own firearm and its ammunition from an individual or in the underground market, with no institutional standards for the weapons or the obligation to duly register the same. The police institution does not define the type of firearm or the ammunition that should be utilised, nor does it acquire or register them. The National Police does not maintain any type of system for the provision of firearms, recorded in an official registry, and under the custody of its public agents, to be used in accordance with regulations. Without a registry, it is impossible to determine the origin of bullets shot during the police interventions, in order to effectively verify whether the use of a firearm was both necessary and proportionate.

In addition, police violence is fostered by a legal framework that is unduly restrictive and which was developed with the objective of outlawing or criminalising protests, and establishing unreasonable restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly.