The verdict heralded a major victory in the worldwide fight against impunity for human rights violations. Most significantly, the case was one of the first Alien Tort Statute cases in which defendant commanders, fully contesting the allegations and testifying in their own defense, were held liable for human rights violations exclusively under the doctrine of command responsibility.
Another case in which the plaintiffs relied solely on the doctrine of command responsibility, Ford v. Garcia, was brought in the same courtroom against the same two generals by families of the four United States churchwomen who were raped and murdered by members of the Salvadoran National Guard in 1980. In November 2000, a jury rendered a verdict in the Ford case that the generals could not be held liable for the crimes, apparently because the jury was not satisfied that the two generals had "effective control" over their subordinates. (See a prior post on the Ford case here). Both cases are the subject of a PBS film, Justice & the Generals.
The Romagoza plaintiffs managed to recover a couple hundred thousand dollars from an investment account held in Vides Casanova's name. The rest of their judgment, however, remains unexecuted as no other assets have been found. Thanks to Florida homestead laws and other legal barriers, General Garcia has never paid a penny of the judgment against him.
Garcia may not be enjoying his Florida retirement for long.
The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta (right), and Anthony V. Mangione, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Investigations, Miami Field Office (ICE), recently unsealed a two-count indictment against Garcia. Unfortunately, Garcia is not being charged with torture under 18 U.S.C. § 2340, a statutory provision enacted in the wake of the United States' ratification of the Torture Convention, but well after the civil war in El Salvador. Rather, Al Capone-style, the Indictment charges Garcia with
► using a passport procured by false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), and
► making a materially false statement to a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).
According to the press release accompanying the indictment:
The defendant used an El Salvadoran passport at Miami International Airport on July 7, 2006 in an attempt to enter the United States. The defendant had obtained the passport after falsely telling the Government of El Salvador that he had lost his previously issued passport. In fact, however, his prior passport had not been lost, but had been seized by United States immigration authorities.
In addition, the Indictment alleges that on the same day, July 7, 2006, the defendant falsely stated to United States immigration authorities at Miami International Airport that he had obtained the second El Salvadoran passport after his attorney had told him that his first passport, which had been seized by U.S. immigration authorities, had been lost by those authorities. According to the defendant, his attorney had told him that because the immigration authorities had lost the passport they had seized from him, it was permissible for him to obtain a new passport to travel to El Salvador. The Indictment alleges that the defendant knew this statement was false.
The case will be heard by U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Seitz. The charges carry maximum penalties of ten years’ imprisonment (using a passport procured by false statement) and five years’ imprisonment (making a materially false statement to a federal officer).