BEATIFICATION OF ARCHBISHOP ROMERO,
MAY 23, 2015
|
||
|
|
||
The University
of Washington Center for Human Rights (UW CHR) has filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with potential ramifications for the
investigation of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. The complaint filed in federal court in Washington State alleges that the CIA failed to
properly respond to the UW CHR’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for
the declassification of documents regarding the alleged involvement of retired
Salvadoran Colonel Sigifredo Ochoa Pérez in war crimes, including the El
Calabozo massacre on August 22, 1982; the Santa Cruz Massacre of November 14,
1981; as well as Ochoa Pérez’ questionable links to the Romero assassination on
March 24, 1980.
Ochoa Pérez, a
retired legislator and diplomat, has dismissed reports of his alleged
responsibility for the Santa Cruz massacre as vague and therefore false. With respect to the Romero assassination,
Ochoa Pérez is not typically included among the participants in the plot to
assassinate Romero. For example, Ochoa
is not named in the 1993 U.N. Truth Commission Report on the assassination; nor in the 2000 OAS Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights investigation report; nor in a 2004 U.S. federal court adjudication regarding the case.
Ochoa Pérez
was, however, personally and ideologically close to those accused of
perpetrating the crime. Ochoa Pérez was
a member of “la tandona”—the 1966
military academy graduating class that also includes Maj. Roberto D’Aubuisson,
the accused mastermind of the Romero assassination, and Col. Guillermo Alfredo
Benavides, convicted for the 1989 massacre of the Jesuit staff at the Central
American University in San Salvador.
The UW CHR
complaint makes passing reference to “at least one document,” declassified by
the CIA, “in which Col. Ochoa is alleged
to have been connected to the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero.” [Complaint at ¶10.] The reference is to an October 1980 memo
which reports that “Lt. Col. Julio
Agustín Trujillo, former commander of the telecommunications garrison and a
leading supporter of Colonel Adolfo Majano of the Revolutionary Governing Junta
(JRG) said on 3 October 1980 that Subsecretary of Defense, Colonel Nicolás
Carranza, has told several military officers that one of those responsible for
the murder of Archbishop Romero is Lt. Col. Sigrido [sic] Ochoa.
Trujillo found this information to be completely credible.”
There is some
confusion relating to names. A second
declassified CIA document dated March 1983 reports that the suspect listed in
the 1980 memo “may be identifiable with
one Ltc. Sigfredo (Ochoa) Trujillo”—a different maternal last name than
Ochoa Pérez (in Spanish name
conventions, the names of the father and the mother are customarily used). Additionally, the documents are inconsistent
as to the spelling of the subject’s first name (Sigrido, Sigfredo, Sigifredo,
etc.), and hard to follow as to the man’s military rank at various points in
time.
Additionally, there is a history of false accusations in the Romero case, often motivated by politics. At one point, the D’Aubuisson camp produced a falsified videotaped confession suggesting an imprisoned man was responsible for the crime. It is conceivable that Ochoa was falsely accused by people with an axe to grind: Ochoa himself turned states’ evidence and testified against Benavides in the Jesuit case. Perhaps, such doubts will only be clarified if all the relevant documents are released, though the documents principally sought appear to relate to the other massacres and not to the Romero assassination.
Additionally, there is a history of false accusations in the Romero case, often motivated by politics. At one point, the D’Aubuisson camp produced a falsified videotaped confession suggesting an imprisoned man was responsible for the crime. It is conceivable that Ochoa was falsely accused by people with an axe to grind: Ochoa himself turned states’ evidence and testified against Benavides in the Jesuit case. Perhaps, such doubts will only be clarified if all the relevant documents are released, though the documents principally sought appear to relate to the other massacres and not to the Romero assassination.
The UW CHR complaint
attaches an August 10, 2015 sworn statement by Lord Rowan Williams, the former
Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding Archbishop Romero, whom he characterizes as
“a moral leader of exceptional stature,
and an outspoken critic of the widespread violent crimes perpetrated by the
then government against its own people.”
He notes that Romero was recently beatified by the Church. “To be
declared a martyr means that someone is recognized as having given their life
in defense of the Christian faith,” Williams writes. “Echoing
Mgr. Romero's call to the government of El Salvador to act transparently and
ethically, I would make the same plea to the US government,” he says, urging
the release of the documents.
“In addition to its legal obligations under
FOIA, the U.S. government has a moral responsibility to support the cause of
truth and justice in El Salvador, especially given the extent to which the U.S.
supported the Salvadoran military during the country’s civil war,” UW CHR
Director Angelina Snodgrass Godoy said in a statement released to the press.
In recent comments, the auxiliary bishop of San Salvador, Msgr. Gregorio Rosa Chavez, appealed for a reinvigorated investigation of the case Romero. “There is a very large deficit with respect to Archbishop Romero, they (justice) have abandoned the request that the case be investigated seriously,” the bishop lamented.
In recent comments, the auxiliary bishop of San Salvador, Msgr. Gregorio Rosa Chavez, appealed for a reinvigorated investigation of the case Romero. “There is a very large deficit with respect to Archbishop Romero, they (justice) have abandoned the request that the case be investigated seriously,” the bishop lamented.
No comments:
Post a Comment