V. The mechanisms of impunity

With respect to the 77 cases of arbitrary executions that have been recorded in this Report, correspond 62 judicial trials that have been filed or opened (or that should have been opened) as part of the investigation of the facts. Of these cases, 41 were initiated and filed in court under the effect of the penal procedures foreseen in the Code of Penal Procedure established in the year 1890, whereas 21 of these penal causes were initiated under the procedures of the Criminal Trial Code of 1998. 

Criminal sanctions were imposed and complied with in only three penal trials. Coincidentally, in each of the cases, a hired gunman was found to be the only person responsible for the deed, without any determination or investigation of liability in the degrees of co-author, instigator or accomplice.

In the remaining cases, the result of the judicial intervention was impunity. The exemption from punishment was consolidated in a constant and uniform manner. Regardless of the different nuances and disparities of the judicial procedures for the settlement, discharge or quitclaimance of the causes brought to trial, the common denominator of the impunity was the lack of due diligence of the jurisdictional agency. Said lack of due diligence is observable as regards the investigation of facts, production of evidence and following through the stages of the judicial proceeding in a decisive manner, so that trials be concluded and produce results within a reasonable time.

In none of the causes of action filed in court was there an adequate investigation of all those liable for the events or actual occurrences. The production of evidence, as is obligatory in cases involving arbitrary executions, was never carried out in accordance with international law. Only in four cases was an autopsy of the deceased performed under the supervision of an accredited coroner or forensic doctor, and a complete appraisal by a ballistics expert was carried out in only two of the cases. A similar lack of due diligence was likewise observed with respect to other investigative methods, such as the interrogation of witnesses and the inspection of the sites of the crimes.

When there is an absence of fundamental proofs and direct evidence that have been uncovered during the investigation of arbitrary executions, it is not possible to ascertain the truth, nor to marshal powers of conviction sufficient to serve as the foundation for firm penal sentences. The grave omissions in the duty of investigation that were committed systematically by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office and the Judicial branch of government are the determining factors for the failure to completely clarify the true facts regarding what has taken place. Likewise, these omissions have resulted in the failure to punish the perpetrators, as well as those responsible for issuing orders and facilitating the means for carrying out each of the arbitrary executions.

With respect to the full and effective reparation of the victims, only in one case have the family members of the deceased received a pension paid as compensation by the State, yet this fails to fully compensate for all the injury and damage suffered, according to international law. Other measures of reparation, such as satisfaction, public disclosure of the truth and public apology were never applied in an official way.