Display in: French - Spanish
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
- 29. When it last examined this case at its meeting in November 2006, the Committee made the following recommendation [see 343rd Report, para. 648]:
- Deeply regretting the killing of the trade union leader José Gilberto Soto, the Committee emphasizes that it is essential to bring the guilty parties to justice and requests the Government, as a matter of urgency, to keep it informed of the criminal proceedings currently under way. It expects that the plaintiffs will be granted access to all the elements of the case file, that the investigation will be completed and the deficiencies reported by the ICFTU, if proven true, be rectified, without any attempts to obstruct the work of the Human Rights Ombudsman, and that the proceedings will be concluded in the near future.
- 30. In its communication dated 18 January 2007, the Government states, in relation to the case of Mr José Gilberto Soto, that it condemned the crime from the outset and that the relevant investigations have been launched to find the criminals responsible for this deplorable act. To that end, the Government has made available all the necessary resources to conduct a serious, in-depth and impartial investigation with a view to identifying those responsible for the murder of Mr Soto, as well as their motives, and to ensuring that they are tried and duly punished. The Government therefore categorically rejects the assertions of the Salvadorian Inter-Union Committee (CIEL), supported by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), in its communication dated 28 February 2006 [see 343rd Report, paras 638 and 639]. The Government states that it is sending the observations requested in order to repudiate these complaints.
- 31. The complainant bases its complaints on seven conclusions taken from the report of the Human Rights Ombudsperson, Ms Beatrice Alamanni de Carrillo, on Mr Gilberto Soto’s case.
- 32. It must be clarified, in regard to this report, that the investigation carried out by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson presented certain information as fact, due to a lack of communication with those responsible for the case, whereas scientific evidence disapproved it.
- 33. With regard to the management of the crime scene which was open (i.e. people could access it easily as it was in a public area), when the national civil police arrived there were already many local residents and onlookers present. The bicycle and other material evidence were legally seized under article 180 of the Code of Penal Procedure and now fall under police jurisdiction.
- 34. Regarding the alleged sexual abuse of the accused by the agents of the authorities, it should be noted that the defendant, Santos Sánchez Ayala, underwent a physical examination which showed that he had not been subjected to any form of abuse. It was thereby procedurally determined that the defendant, Sánchez Ayala, was lying when he said that he had been sexually abused. In similar circumstances, an examination was also carried out on the defendant, Herbert Ramírez, even though he did not request it at his initial hearing; the result was also negative, showing that he had not suffered the alleged sexual abuse.
- 35. It should be noted that it is a fact that one of the witnesses withdrew during the identity parade of the suspects because the witness’s relatives received threats from one of the direct perpetrators of the crime and from his relatives and members of the same gang (Mara Dieciocho). The intimidation suffered by the witness was revealed at the public hearing at which the witnesses spoke of these threats and the reason for his behaviour.
- 36. With regard to the statement referring to the use of anonymous or confidential sources, it must be made clear that these are used to guide the investigation, through the formulation of hypotheses to be proven by other evidence so that a conclusion to the case can be drawn. We can therefore affirm that the information or circumstances provided by informants about a crime do not constitute proof, but supply information on verified evidence which make the preliminary investigation possible.
- 37. The informer is simply a mediate witness offering information during the trial as an intermediary or infiltrator helping to obtain information. In this case, the movements of the accused were investigated. One of the informants said that Herbert Joel Ramírez Gómez’s firearm (the murder weapon) had been seized. This information was corroborated by the ballistic expert’s evidence, which was established as preliminary evidence by the First Criminal Court of Usulután, and the statement of the informant was thereby confirmed, since the firearm seized from Ramírez Gómez fired the bullets which killed Mr José Gilberto Soto.
- 38. Furthermore, the total secrecy that was imposed on the legal proceedings was because of the actions of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson employees. The support officer of that institution offered to send the witnesses to Canada or Australia if they changed their statements, saying that he could obtain asylum for them and their families. This is proved by the opening of investigations for bribery against the support officer of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson.
- 39. During interviews with the victim’s family members, no pressure was exerted. Furthermore, when Ms María Soto was interviewed, members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters were present; they read the statement before it was signed, a fact which can be corroborated, since the statement is registered with the Court of Justice of Usulután with their signatures affixed.
- 40. It is important to mention that the investigation carried out by the Elite Division against Organized Crime (DECO) of the national civil police was able to establish that the motive for the murder of Mr José Gilberto Soto could be that his wife, Elva Maritza Ortíz Zelaya, who is resident in the United States, wanted to take revenge for being subjected to domestic violence.
- 41. Ms Arely Soto (the victim’s sister) and her husband, Carlos Chacón (the victim’s brother-in-law), confirm this hypothesis in their respective statements given to different police and legal authorities by hinting at the problems between José Gilberto Soto and Elva Maritza Ortíz Zelaya (the victim’s wife). Carlos Chacón states that he listened to a message recorded on the answering machine of one of the victim’s telephones in which the victim’s wife was insulting the victim. He also stated that he overheard a telephone conversation between them in which they were arguing.
- 42. On a judicial level the case is not concluded, however, the final ruling found Herbert Joel Ramírez guilty of the crime. With regard to the two suspects who were acquitted, the public prosecutors on the case expressed their disagreement with the ruling and gave notice of appeal to the high court: the case will now go before the criminal court of the Supreme Court of Justice.
- 43. These observations concur with the reports drafted by the Attorney-General’s Office and the Elite Division against Organized Crime (DECO). It is clear that the motive for the murder of Mr José Gilberto Soto is not connected with any trade union activity, i.e. the motive is not related to his labour activities. For this reason, with all due respect the Government asks the Committee on Freedom of Association to consider this case closed, since the alleged crimes do not constitute a violation of trade union rights.
- 44. The Committee notes the Government’s information and in particular that the (final) legal verdict finds Herbert Joel Ramírez guilty of the murder of the trade union leader, José Gilberto Soto, and that the public prosecutors have given notice of appeal to the high court against the acquittal of the other two suspects. The Committee notes that the Government’s reply states that the police believe the motive for the murder of Mr José Gilberto Soto could be that his wife, Elva Maritza Ortíz Zelaya (who is resident in the United States), wanted to take revenge for being subjected to domestic violence.
- 45. The Committee regrets once again the murder of this trade union official and requests the Government to send it the judgement without delay, as well as any other decision or ruling relating to the high court appeal mentioned by the Government. The Committee invites the complainant organizations to present their comments on the Government’s statements, if they so wish.
