|
1.
On August 24, 1982 the Government of Nicaragua replied to the
Commission on the report that had been submitted to it by the IACHR. In
the reply, the Nicaraguan Government analyzed the conclusions and
recommendations put forward by the Commission, and proposed that it
assume the role of mediator in order to reach a friendly settlement, in
conformity with Article 48-1(f) of the American Convention on Human
Rights. The Government of Nicaragua indicated the procedure that should
be followed for the purpose.
The proposal of the Government of Nicaragua was considered by the
Commission at its (special) 57th session, which was held in
September in San José, Costa Rica.[9] 2.
Although at that and all subsequent sessions up to the adoption
of this report, the subject of human rights of the Nicaraguans of
Miskito origin was principally considered in the context of the process
of reaching a friendly settlement which the Commission has undertaken,
the Commission also continued to be concerned with the general situation
of the Miskito Indians, and it received all information concerning new
events which were taking place in the northern zone of the Department of
Zelaya, and adopted the measures at its disposal. 3.
Among the events that took place following the adoption of the
Report on June 26, 1982, note should be taken of the harassment by
government authorities and soldiers of the Sandinista Army of the
Miskito towns and villages; the frequent skirmishes between the
Sandinista Army and armed insurgent groups generally comprising or
supported by Miskitos that took place in the northern part of the
Department of Zelaya, particularly in locations near Puerto Cabezas, and
which led to dozen of deaths; the November 4, 1982 declaration of the
territory of 24 municipalities in the Departments of Chinandega, Madriz,
Nueva Segovia, Jinotega and Zelaya, adjacent to the border zone with
Honduras, as a military emergency zone; the consolidation of the Tasba
Pri settlements; the relocation in November and December of 1982 of
approximately 4,000 Miskitos from their villages in the Coco River and
the Bokay River zone, in the Department of Jinotega, to settlements
located in the interior of the same department; the accident on December
9, 1982, which took place in the course of the relocation of several
Miskito children to these new settlements, and which claimed the lives
of 75 of them and of 9 of their mothers, when the helicopter
transporting them accident ally crashed; the increase in the number of
detentions of Miskitos, and the subsequent release of some of them; the
transfer of nearly 400 Miskitos, prisoners to Managua, first to the Zona
Franca prison and then to the Granja del Régimen Abierto (minimal
security work farm); the flight to Honduras of hundreds of Nicaraguan
Miskitos; the claim of disappearances of Miskitos; and the sentences
handed down on September 16, 1983 by the Supreme Court of Nicaragua,
which by nullifying the criminal proceedings overturned the sentences
that had been given by the Court of Appeals of Bluefields and dismissed
the charges against the accused. These
facts, which were not included in the previous report, were given
special consideration by the IACHR, and they are considered Part II of
this Report. 4.
At sessions held following the adoption of the Report on June 26,
1982, the Commission received the testimony of several individuals and
of representatives of institutions concerned with the situation of the
Miskitos. Thus, at its (special) 57th session, held in San
Jose, Costa Rica in September 1982, the Commission received the
testimony of Mr. Rafael Zelaya Herrera, representing Misurasata, who
insisted on the preconditions that the Government of Nicaragua should
establish to make possible mediation between the Miskito people and the
Government. Among these preconditions, Mr. Zelaya Herrera insisted on
the release of all imprisoned Miskitos and on “an end to the massacre
of the Miskito Indians.” 5.
At its 58th session, held in November of 1982, the
Commission gave a special hearing to Dr. Leonte Herdocia, National
Commissioner for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and to
Ambassador Edgard Parrales, permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the
OAS. In addition, in another interview it spoke with Reverend Fernando
Colomer, Superintendent of the Moravian Church of Nicaragua, who
submitted a document titled “Considerations with respect to Peace and
Reconciliation in Nicaragua: An Indian Proposal”. In the course of
this session, the Commission also gave a hearing to Mr. Tillet Mullins
and four other members of the Council of Elders, all of whom are
currently exiled in Honduras. The group’s spokesman, Mr. Wyciffe
Diego, stated on its behalf that 15,000 Miskitos had left Nicaragua for
Honduras due to repression and terror and that they were opposed to the
repatriation of Miskitos from Honduras to Nicaragua. The Council of
Elders also submitted several documents summarizing their viewpoints to
the Commission. 6.
At its 59th session, held in April 1983, the
Commission received Mr. Armstrong Wiggins of the Indian Law Resource
Center. According to Mr. Wiggins, the procedure to reach a friendly
settlement has failed because the human rights situation of the Miskito
peoples according to him, had led to the machine-gunning of 4300
Miskitos by the Nicaraguan Air Force as they tried to reach the border
with Honduras after abandoning one of the relocation camps. He said that
hundreds of Miskitos had been killed or wounded in confrontations with
the army, that others had been arbitrarily arrested and interrogated and
that perhaps over 600 were currently imprisoned, accused of
counterrevolutionary activities. Mr. Wiggins added that the entire
region was still under military occupation, and that Indian leaders had
been replaced by officers of the Sandinista Government and Security
Forces, while access to the northeast region of Nicaragua was closed off
and the Government insisted that all of the problems arose from an
external imperialistic conspiracy. As a result, Mr. Wiggings added that
the mediating role of the Commission should be terminated, and without
prejudice to subsequent renewal of the process, the report should be
published now. In
the course of that session, the Commission also interviewed Mrs.
Margarita Wilde of the Moravian Church of the United States, who had
been to Nicaragua the previous month. She stated that the role of the
Commission had been very positive and that it would be regrettable if no
progress were made in the search for a friendly settlement. Mrs. Wilde
added that the Commission still had much to do, either on its own or in
cooperation with the ICRC and the UNCHR, in contributing to improving
the circumstances under which the Miskitos live. Mrs. Wilde added three
matters of particular concern to her: 1. The fact that some 60-70
persons had disappeared, of whom the Moravian Church has a list; 2. The
fact that the cases of the accused Miskitos are currently at a
standstill in the Supreme Court of Justice; and 3. That the rules of due
process have not been followed in these cases. In response to a question
from the Chairman, Mrs. Wilde replied that the only institutions that at
this time genuinely united the Miskitos in Nicaragua is the Moravian
Church, which nevertheless does not wish to assume a role of political
representation. 7.
At its 59th session, the IACHR decided to authorize
the Executive Secretary and whatever staff members he might appoint to
travel to Honduras and to Nicaragua in order to gather reports and
update the information in the possession of the Commission. 8.
As a result of this decision, a lawyer from the Secretariat, Dr.
Guillermo Fernández de Soto and a staff member Mrs. Dafne Murgia
traveled to Honduras, and interviewed Honduran authorities and staff
members of the UNHCR in Tegucigalpa; they also held several meetings
with representatives of the refugee Miskito communities in Mocoron and
other settlements in the Gracias a Dios Department. At these meetings,
the refugees expressed their desire to remain permanently in Honduras
and not to return to Nicaragua. 9.
On June 7, 1983, Dr. Edmundo Vargas Carreño, Executive Secretary
of the Commission, and Dr. Christina Cerna traveled to Nicaragua and
interviewed senior officials of the Government of National
Reconstruction, including a member of the Government Junta, Dr. Rafael Córdoba
Rivas; the President of the Supreme Court, Dr. Roberto Arguello Hurtado;
the Minister of Foreign Relations, Miguel D’Escoto; the Minister
Secretary General of North Atlantic Zone, Commander William Ramirez and
the National Commissioner for the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights, Dr. Leonte Herdocia. They also held several meetings with the
defense attorneys for the Miskitos, with the Representative of the
International Committee of the Red Cross, Moravian clergymen, and
representatives of other institutions such as the Permanent Commission
on Human Rights of Nicaragua. They
also visited the penitentiaries where the Miskitos are detained, both in
Managua and in Puerto Cabezas; they toured the towns of Slilma Lila and
Yulu and two of the Tasba Pri settlements, on which occasions they
obtained testimony from various Miskito inhabitants, with the assistance
of the Moravian pastor, Fernando Colomer, who served as interpreter. 10.
At its 60th session, held in June of 1983, the
Commission studied the status of the dispute in the light of the events
that had taken place in recent months. In addition, it discussed who
could be considered as a party to the dispute in addition to the
Government of Nicaragua; and it evaluated the compliance of the
Government of Nicaragua with the previous recommendations of the
Commission. 11.
At is 61st session, held in September of 1983, the
Commission received testimony from representatives of the Council of
Elders, headed by Messrs. Mullins and Diego and also from the US
anthropologist, Bernard considered that the partial compliance by the
Government of Nicaragua with the previous recommendations set forth by
the Commission were insufficient to establish an atmosphere of détente
between the Government and a large part of the population of Miskito
origin to reach the necessary friendly settlement. For that reason, the
Commission decided to adopt this report in accordance with Article 50 of
the American Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, the Commission
wished to make one last effort with the Government of Nicaragua before
concluding its participation as the mediator in a friendly settlement
and for that purpose it submitted to the Government a concrete proposal
aimed at obtaining a settlement.[10]
Should the proposal not be accepted by the Government of Nicaragua
within the deadline indicated by the Commission, it would proceed to
terminate the friendly settlement procedure and publish this report,
after meeting the requirements and time periods established in Articles
50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights. M.
The problem of determining the parties to the controversy 1.
In light of Article 48 1.f of the American Convention on Human
Rights, one of the most important problems that arose in this matter has
been to determine who should be considered the other party to the
dispute in addition to the Government of Nicaragua. In this respect, it
should be pointed out that there have been changes in the viewpoints of
those who initially submitted a complaint to the Commission;
furthermore, the problem at this time involves new aspects due to the
position taken by the Government of Nicaragua. This has produced a
situation that merits further analysis. 2.
On January 28 of 1982, the Commission received a “Charge of
genocide by Sandinismo of the Indian of Misurasata”, dated January 15
of 1982 and addressed to various other international organizations,
unsigned and with no address, but with the stamp of the Coordinator
General of Misurasata. Once it had been confirmed that the charge was
that presented by the Coordinator General of Misurasata, Mr. Brooklyn
Rivera, with whom the Commission had contact, the Commission transmitted
the pertinent parts to the Government of Nicaragua on February 24 of
1982. Subsequently, by men of a written presentation dated April 8 of
1982, Brooklyn Rivera reiterated his earlier charge, explained the
origins of the dispute of the Indian peoples of the Atlantic Coast with
the Government of Nicaragua and proposed a negotiated solution that
would give the Indians title to heir lands and autonomy within the State
of Nicaragua. 3.
In February of 1982, Mr. Steadman Fagoth, Former representative
of Misurasata on the Council of State, came to he Commission’s offices
and gave an oral presentation on the events that took place in the
surroundings of the Coco River late in 1981. Mr. Fagoth later submitted
to the IACHR, at its 55th session, a written statement dated
January 7 of 1982, in which he brought serious charges against the
Government of Nicaragua.[11] 4.
Mr. Armstrong Wiggins, who has acted as coordinator of the
regional leadership of Misurasata on the Atlantic Coast in 1980 and the
early months of 1981, also came to the Commission’s offices in
February, and gave background information on the events that took place
on the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua. Mr. Wiggins subsequently came to the
Commission when it was holding its 55th regular session,
representing the Us Indian Law Resource Center, at which time he
expressed the viewpoint of that institution with respect to the
Nicaraguan Government’s behavior towards the Miskitos.[12]
In addition, on May 19 of 1982, the Indian Law Resource Center formally
requested the Commission to considerate a party to this matter. 5.
In the course of its 55th regular session, the
Commission also received the testimony of Reverend Grahan J. Rights,
representing the Moravian Church of the United States, and he requested
that the Commission investigate the events that took place in late 1981
and early 1982 on the Government of Nicaragua and the Miskito Indians. 6.
The position of the original claimants changed as further events
took place and evolved in Nicaragua. 7.
At this time, Misurasata is deeply divided between the faction
headed by Steadman Fagoth and that directed by Brooklyn Rivera. To some
extent, this division reflects the differences which exist at a broader
political level among the groups that oppose the Sandinista Government.
Thus, while Fagoth, in close coordination with the Nicaraguan Democratic
Front (FDN), has taken up arms against the Government of Nicaragua,
Brooklyn Rivera, in Costa Rica, has united with Alfonso Robelo, Fernando
Chamorro and Eden Pastora in the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance
(ARDE). 8.
According to the information available to the Commission, it is
clear that a considerable number of the Miskitos who have taken refuge
in Honduras give their unconditional support to Fagoth and consider him
to be predestined to lead the Indian rebellion to topple the Sandinist
regime. For that reason, the refugee Miskitos in Honduras consider
Brooklyn Rivera and those who follow him as traitors who have encouraged
“Divisionism in our national liberation movement, who prejudice and
seek to destabilize our MISURASATA Organization which is made up and
organized from within and without Nicaragua”. The MISURASATA faction
led by Brooklyn Rivera on the other hand, in addition to the support of
the leaders in Costa Rica, appears to have greater international
recognition, especially from Indian organizations such as the Indian Law
Resource Center. 9.
With respect to this dispute, Misurasat (Costa Rica), led by
Brooklyn Rivera, has been relatively cooperative with the Commission.
Initially, Brooklyn Rivera suggested that the Commission assumes a
mediating role; however, with the passage of time, this position has
gradually been abandoned and at this time its position is that the
Commission publish its Special Report on the situation of the Miskitos
in Nicaragua. Thus, in a letter dated April 30 of 1983, Brooklyn Rivera
stated the following to the Executive Secretary of the Commission: We
wonder when we will see some firm resolution on the part of the IACHR
against the FSLN regime, concerning their continuous violations of the
human rights of the Indians. It is clearly not just to continue to allow
the commanders who use pretext and calumnies to freely continue to
commit atrocities against the humble Indians. It is time that the IACHR
publicly admit that the commanders are not interested in a friendly
settlement with the Indians, and that it publish its report on the
situation of the human rights of the Indians in Nicaragua. 10.
On the other hand, Misurasata (Honduras), which is now called
Misura, and headed by Steadman Fagoth, has been harshly critical of the
Commission, and has attributed base motives to it. Thus, in an interview
that appeared in Diario Las Americas on October 20, 1982, Fagoth
stated “The IACHR does not enjoy either the trust or the esteem of the
Indian populace… and the IACHR the IACHR will try to find a ghost
representative of the Indians to use in the mass communications media in
order to divide the refugee populations, but we can confidently state
that Indian unity is indestructible.” Later, the Political Committee
of Misura, through one of its spokesmen, stated to the Diario La
Tribuna of Tegucigalpa, on May 4 of 1983, that: “We recognize no
authority in the measures taken by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights of the OAS because it has conspired with the genocidal
Sandinista Regime to force our people to return to Nicaragua and be
completely exterminated.” 11.
The position of the Indian Law Resource Center, stated by its
most authoritative spokesman in this mater, Mr. Armstrong Wiggins, has
been similar to that maintained by Misurasata (Costa Rica) headed by Mr.
Brooklyn Rivera, i.e., in the course of the last few months they have
been in close contact with the IACHR, and at present are urging it to
abandon its mediating role and publish its report. Thus, Mr. Armstrong
Wiggins, in his testimony to the Commission on April 12 of 1983, stated: We
believe that it is time for the Commission to declare that it will no
longer continue to act as mediator. The Commission should openly declare
that its efforts to promote a friendly settlement have not been
successful, and the Commission should invite other institutions,
including governments and human rights organizations, to investigate the
situation of human rights in Indian territory in Nicaragua. 12.
The position of the Moravian Church, both in the United States
and in Nicaragua, as stated through authorized spokesmen, continues to
be that the Commission should continue to play a mediating role, despite
the difficulties encountered. Thus, Mrs. Margaret Wilde, in her
testimony to the IACHR on April 12 of 1983, reaffirmed the view of the
Moravian Church of the United States that the role of the Commission as
mediator has been very positive and that it should continue that role.
During a visit to Nicaragua, the Executive Secretary and Dr. Cerna spoke
at length with religious authorities of the Moravian Church, such as
Bishop John Wilson, Reverend Fernando Colomer, and Pastor Santos Cleban,
and were given the impression that they saw the Commission as an
important instrument for promoting the observance of human rights, and
for that reason it should not abandon its presence in Nicaragua and its
relations with the Government. 13.
The viewpoint of the Government of Nicaragua is that Misurasata
cannot be considered a party to this dispute, as it is an organization
that has been disbanded and whose principal leaders are currently in
exile, and who have taken up arms against the Government. 14.
As early as December of 1981, Mr. William Ramirez declared that
the Government of Nicaragua was “obliged to withdraw official
recognition of Misurasata both because its claims had reached the point
of violating national sovereignty and because it had undergone an
objective distancing from its bases.” 15.
The Government of Nicaragua, in its proposal Document to the
Commission of August 24, 1982, later responded to the recommendation of
the IACHR that Misurasata or another Indian organization be allowed to
operate in Nicaragua, in the following terms: The
Government of Nicaragua maintains a position of respect for
international agreements signed with respect to human rights, for which
reason it guarantees the right of assembly of Nicaraguans, obviously
including Indian Nicaraguans. Within this framework, there is already an
association of Sumos and organizational structures are being established
for Criollos, Ladinos, Ramas and Miskitos. With respect to the return to
Nicaragua of the leaders of the disbanded Misurasata organization, the
Government of National Reconstruction states for the record that there
is no persecution in Nicaragua of leaders for membership in any
organization, and it assures all Nicaraguans residing abroad that they
may return, with full guarantees. 16.
Nevertheless, the Government of Nicaragua later stated that it
would not allow the leaders of Misurasata to return because of serious
criminal charges pending against them. In a note of January 5, 1983, the
Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Nicaragua to the OAS, gave the
following reply to the Commission’s recommendation that it allow these
leaders to return so that they could participate in the process of a
friendly settlement: An
unacceptable element has been added, as the Government of Nicaragua is
required to provide security and liberty to all those who attend such a
meeting even when there are formal charges against some of them. This
requirement by its very nature violates the juridical structure of the
State and places the Executive Branch in the position of impeding,
should it accept the requirement, the exercise of an autonomous stand
independent judiciary. 17.
The same position was subsequently reiterated in a note dated
November 14 of 1983, in which, in reply to the recommendation of the
Commission to hold a Conference with the participation of
representatives of the broadest possible sectors of the various
communities of Miskito origin, the Government of Nicaragua expressly
rejected “the presence of any representative of the Council of Elders,
of Mr. Armstrong Wiggins and of the counterrevolutionary Misurasata
Organization, guilty of numerous crimes against the people of Nicaragua
an instruments of barbarous North American aggression.” 18.
Thus, the Government of Nicaragua does not allow either of the
factions that comprise Misurasata to be considered a party to this
dispute: neither that headed by Brooklyn Rivera nor that led by Steadman
Fagoth. 19.
Who then would be acceptable to the Government of Nicaragua to be
a party to the dispute? With which representative sector of the Miskito
population could the Government of Nicaragua have a dialogue to seek a
settlement to their difficulties? The reply that the Government has
given is that contained in the proposal document of August 24, 1982,
according to which, once the Miskitos who are now in Honduras are
repatriated, under the observance of the IACHR, “the Indian
communities would democratically elect the delegates that would meet at
the table in conversations with the delegates of the Government of
Nicaragua to seek solutions.” 20.
In the view of the Commission, at this time the proposal of the
Nicaraguan Government cannot be implemented. As the IACHR or the staff
members of its Secretariat have has opportunity to note on two
occasions, at this time the condition do not obtain that would allow the
refugee Miskitos in Honduras to return to Nicaragua, and thus
participate in the election of the representatives who would negotiate
with the government. On the other hand, even in the hypothetical case
that such a return took place, those Miskitos would only represent part
of the Miskito population, whose problems and difficulties, as will be
seen throughout this report, go beyond the mere question of the return
of the refugees to Nicaragua. 21.
In view of the above situation, there would be no institution or
agency that could truly represent all of the Miskitos, within and
outside Nicaragua, and act on their behalf with respect to the matters
that concern them. Under
these circumstances, and taking into account the importance of reaching
a friendly settlement that can meet the aspirations and interests of
those concerned, the Commission considers that although the status of
party in this matter cannot be strictly assumed by representatives of a
single organization, it is possible to try to obtain the participation
of Miskitos to represent their various communities. 22. On this point, the Commission notes the following: a.
There is no organization in Nicaragua, which at this time
represent all of the ethnic groups. The Commission has observed,
however, that the religious groups that are active on the Atlantic Coast
maintain close contact with the Miskito people of that region. Of these
religious groups, clearly the most numerous and important is the
Moravian Church, although the Catholic and Anglican Churches also
maintain a small but relatively important presence in the region.
Therefore, the Commission considers, first, that there is a possibility
that the religious groups, especially the Moravian Church, could assume
representation of the interests of the Miskitos. b.
A second group whose interest should be represented in
negotiations aimed at achieving a friendly settlement is that of the
Miskitos who have been moved from their traditional villages and
relocated in new settlements. Of these new settlements, those of Tasba
Pri appear to be the largest, and according to information provided by
the Government, they have already elected their own representative. c.
The largest group of Nicaraguans of Miskito origin outside of
Nicaragua is that which has taken refuge in various parts of the Gracias
a Dios Department in Honduras. The most representative institution that
these Miskitos have is apparently the Council of Elders. d.
It is also necessary to bear in mind that a group of Miskito
leaders who continue to claim representation of the Misurasata
Organization are refugees in Costa Rica and have assumed an important
role in this matter. e.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot overlook the existence of the
Indian Law Resource Center, Which formally requested to be considered a
party to this dispute, and which through its representative, the Miskito
Nicaraguan leader Armstrong Wiggins, has participated actively in this
matter. The
Commission considers that the organizations, agencies and persons
mentioned above could have acted as counterpart to the Government of
Nicaragua in seeking a friendly settlement, as the Commission proposed
to the Government of Nicaragua.[13]
Unfortunately, the Government of Nicaragua’s failure to accept any of
these organizations and persons has meant that it has not been possible
to reach a friendly settlement to the dispute. N.
Attempt to reach a friendly settlement
1.
The American Convention on Human Rights, in Article 48 1.f,
provides that the Commission, when it receives a petition alleging
violation of any of the rights protected under that Convention shall
place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to
reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for
the human rights recognized in the above-mentioned Convention. 2.
In its report of June 26, 1982, the Commission held that not only
because of the binding nature of this rule of the Convention, but also
and especially because of the very nature of the matter, the Commission
was convinced that in the interest of the Government of Nicaragua itself
and that of the claimant, Misurasata, the best solution would have been
a friendly settlement, arising as a result of negotiations between the
authorities of the Government of National Reconstruction of Nicaragua
and the Misurasata Organization, with the assistance of the Commission. 3.
Mr. Brooklyn Rivera himself, Coordinator General of Misurasata,
expressly came to the Commission’s headquarters to insist that the
Commission play a mediating role in this case that would allow, through
an arrangement between the Nicaraguan Government and Misurasata, for
satisfaction of the claims and interest of the Miskitos that gave rise
to the charges that led to this report. Likewise, in oral or written
presentations, organizations such as the Moravian Church of the United
States and the Indian Law Research Center, encouraged the Commission to
play that role in contributing to a friendly settlement between the
Government and the Indian communities concerned, based on respect for
human rights. 4.
However the Commission understood that the Minister of the
Interior Commander Tomas Borge, did not accept that initiative in the
course of the interview that it held with him on May 3, 1982, when the
Commission discussed with him the need to seek a friendly settlement; to
this is added the fact that the Misurasata Organization had been
dissolved and its chief leaders detained and later forced to leave
Nicaraguan territory. All of this led the Commission to consider in this
report that, at least at that time, conditions did not obtain for it to
assist the parties to the dispute. At the same time, the Commission
insisted that it remained at the disposal of the parties when the
circumstances were such that a friendly settlement of the matter was
possible. 5.
Despite the foregoing, the Government of Nicaragua, in its reply
of August 24, 1982 to the IACHR report, requested the Commission to
assume the role of mediator in a friendly settlement bestowed on it in
Article 48 1,f of the American Convention on Human Rights. In that
document, the Nicaraguan Government, after studying the conclusions and
recommendations contained in the commission’s Report of June 26, 1982,
proposed the following procedure for a peaceful settlement: a.
The IACHR will contact the National Commission for the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights in order to obtain information on its
steps, opinions and recommendations with respect of the investigation of
the alleged violations of the rights to life. b.
The IACHR will facilitate the repatriation of the Nicaraguans of
Miskito origin located in Honduras and involved with these events,
through the operation of a commission composed of the IACHR, the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Governments of Honduras and
Nicaragua, which Commission shall be chaired by the IACHR. c.
After repatriation, and under the observation of the IACHR, the
Indian communities will democratically elect the delegates who would
meet at the table in conversations with the delegates of the Government
of Nicaragua to seek solutions. 6.
On September 20, 1982, the Commission, which was meeting in San
Jose, Costa Rica to hold its 57th (special) session,
considered the proposal made by the Government of Nicaragua and decided
to accept its petition that the Commission place itself at the disposal
of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement.
The text of the note of the Commission reads as follows: Excellency: I
have the honor to address Your Excellency with respect to the Proposal
Document of the Government of Nicaragua to the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, dated August 24 of 1982, in which the Commission is
requested “to assume its role as mediator in seeking a friendly
settlement in accordance with the American Convention on Human Rights
and the Commission’s own Statute and Regulations” with respect to
the difficulties that have arisen between the Government of Nicaragua
and citizens of that country of Miskito origin. At
its 57th (special) session held in the same city, the
Commission has carefully studied that document and accepts the petition
contained in it to place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned
with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis
of respect for human rights, in accordance with Article 48.1.f. of the
American Convention on Human Rights. Of course, the Commission will act
with the authority and discretion necessary to carry out that task
within the limits established in its Statute and Regulations. To
carry out this task, the Commission has appointed a Special Commission
made up of the Chairman, Dr. Marco G. Monroy Cabra; First Vice Chairman,
Mr. Cesar Sepulveda and former Chairman, Tom J. Farer. The Special
Commission expects to meet as soon as possible with Nicaraguan
authorities in order to discuss with them the procedure other specifics
regarding the search for a friendly settlement to all of the matters
that involve the observance and respect for the human rights of the
Nicaraguan citizens of Miskito origin, in an attempt to reconcile the
interests of the parties concerned. In
addition, that Special Commission will contact the representative
leaders of the Nicaraguan Miskito communities and the representatives of
international agencies that can contribute to the solution of some of
the problems that led to the establishment of this Commission. Naturally,
the Commission reserves its discretion to terminate its function should
it consider that it is not possible to obtain a friendly settlement. Finally,
I wish to advise Your Excellency that the Commission considers that to
be effective in the mediating role that it will assume, the Government
of Nicaragua must adopt measures that will make it possible to overcome
the difficult relations it has with a considerable sector of the Miskito
population. In this regard, the Commission trusts that Your
Excellency’s Government will be able to comply with such
recommendations contained in its Preliminary Report of June 26, 1982, as
may be implemented immediately. I
take this opportunity to give Your Excellency the renewed assurances of
my highest consideration. (s) Marco
Gerardo Monroy Cabra Chairman 7.
On September 27, 1982, the Government of Nicaragua indicated its
satisfaction at the Commission’s acceptance of its proposal and at the
same time expressed a willingness to discuss procedure and other details
of the matter. 8.
On September 28 of that year, the Chairman of the IACHR sent a
cable, and the Executive Secretary sent a letter advising the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of the agreement that had been
reached with the Government of Nicaragua, and asked it for its support
and assistance. In a cable dated October 25, the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees expressed its willingness to cooperate with
the IACHR in its mediating role on the matter of the Miskito refugees in
Honduras. 9.
In addition, on October 5, 1982, the Executive Secretary of the
Commission, at its direction, advised the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Honduras of the agreement that the Commission had reached with the
Government of Nicaragua. It requested the Ministry, insofar as possible
and as deemed appropriate by the Government of Honduras, to provide the
assistance and facilities that would be necessary in order to carry out
the mission it accepted. The Government of Honduras, in a note dated
October 19, 1982, and addressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to
the Executive Secretary of the Commission, stated it willingness to lend
to the IACHR any cooperation requested, although it specified that the
Commission should also seek the consent of the Miskito population that
had taken refuge in Honduras, which group the Government of Honduras
views as “the other party to the dispute.” 10.
On November 18, 1982, the Special Committee of the IACHR met with
Dr. Leonte Herdocia and with Ambassador Edgard Parrales to analyze the
problems bearing on the participation of the Commission in seeking the
proposed friendly settlement. As a result of these conversations, the
Chairman of the IACHR addressed the Permanent Representative of
Nicaragua to the OAS, in a note dated November 22, 1982, to clearly set
forth how the IACHR understand its mediating role and what the
applicable procedure in this matter should be; adopted by the Government
and which could contribute to establishing the necessary conditions to
allow the Commission to carry out its mediating role. That note reads as
follows: Excellency: I
have the honor to address Your Excellency with respect to the
conversations held on November 18 last between representatives of the
Government of Nicaragua and members of the Special Commission of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Right (IACHR), during which some of
the problems related to the participation of the IACHR in a friendly
settlement of the difficulties between the Government of Nicaragua and
the citizens of that country of Miskito origin were discussed. After
I reported to the Commission on those conversations, the Commission
instructed me to set forth to the distinguished Government of Your
Excellency the Commission’s understanding of its mediating role and of
what the applicable procedure in this matter should be. Naturally,
the Commission wishes to reiterate, as it indicated in its note of last
September 28 addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
that its participation as a mediator in the friendly settlement must
include all matters that concern the observance of the human rights of
the Nicaraguan citizen of Miskito origin. Likewise,
the Commission wishes to reiterate its viewpoint that, in order to be
effective as a mediator, it would be advisable for the Government of
Nicaragua to adopt as soon as possible some measures to improve the
difficult relations that it has with a considerable sector of the
Miskito population. In
this regard, the Commission would be grateful if the Government of Your
Excellency implemented the recommendations contained in its report of
June 26, 1982, and which may be applied immediately. In particular, the
Commission considers that the following measures could contribute
effectively to creating the proper conditions that would allow the
Commission to assume its role: 1.
To pardon or give amnesty, as the case may be, to all Miskito who
have been detained or convicted of alleged counterrevolutionary
activities; 2.
To permit the return to the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua of all
the clergymen who serve the Miskito population. 3.
To facilitate an exchange of information through the
International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, between the Miskitos residing in Tasba Pri
and those in Mocoron, in order to contribute to family reunification and
voluntary repatriation; and 4.
To explicitly state that the relocation of the Miskitos to Tasba
Pri was a temporary measure and that once the emergency is over, those
who wish to return to their lands in the Coco River region may do so,
with the cooperation and help of the Government. I
would now like to refer to the procedure that should be followed in this
complex and difficult matter. In this regard, the Commission would like
to suggest to the Government of Your Excellency a procedure with three
stages, as indicated below. First,
the Commission hopes that the Government of Nicaragua will inform it in
writing in the course of the coming months of all the issues in which it
considers that the Commission could intervene to facilitate a friendly
settlement. At the same time, the Government of Nicaragua should report
in that same document on how it has implemented the recommendations set
forth above. Second,
once that document has been received from the Government of Nicaragua,
the Commission will contact all of the Miskito leaders, either within or
outside of Nicaragua, to whom it has had access in order to determine
their opinions on the above-mentioned document and their willingness to
cooperate with the Commission in achieving a friendly settlement with
respect to all the difficulties they have with the Government of
Nicaragua. Finally,
once these stages have been completed, the Commission would sponsor a
meeting between representatives of the Government of Nicaragua and
representative leaders of the Miskito people, at which they may discuss
the basis of a definitive solution with respect to all existing
difficulties. The Commission, of course, offers its services to assist
the parties at that meeting should they so desire. Should
that meeting be held in Nicaraguan territory, the Commission would
naturally require that the Government of Nicaragua give its solemn
commitment to guarantee the security and liberty of all the Miskito
leaders who attend the meeting, even if there are formal charges against
some of them. I
should also like to advise Your Excellency that the Commission has
already established contact with the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, whose cooperation it has requested in solving some of the
various matters which will involve it. The request was explicitly
accepted by the high Commissioner in the case that there is a voluntary
repatriation of the Miskitos who have taken refute in Honduras. Finally,
I should like to advise Your Excellency that the Commission considers
that it might be useful to have an agreement between the Government of
Nicaragua and the Commission, in which it shall be agreed that the
Commission shall have all facilities and authority in Nicaraguan
territory that may be necessary to carry out its task. Accept,
Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra Chairman 11.
On December 16, 1982, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua addressed a note to the Executive Secretary of the Commission
in which he sets forth several considerations with respect to the
participation of the IACHR as a mediator in the friendly settlement. In
this note, the Foreign Minister particularly referred to the actions of
the Chairman of the IACHR, Mr. Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra, in the
Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the twelfth regular
General Assembly of the OAS. At the instruction of the Commission, the
Executive Secretary replied to that note in a letter of April 15, 1983,
which states that the Commission vigorously rejects the serious and
unjustified accusations that call into question the impartiality with
which the Chairman had acted, and informed him that in order not to
interrupt the achievement of a friendly settlement, Dr. Monroy Cabra had
decided to no longer be a member of the Special Commission on this
matter.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]
[9]
For organizational purposes, all matters relating to the
process of reaching a friendly settlement will be considered
together in Section N. [10]
The terms of that proposal appear in the note dated September
30 of 1983, which is included in Section N of this report. The reply
of the Government of Nicaragua appears in the note dated November 14
of 1983, which is also included in that section. [11]
See Section F of Part I. [12]
See Section F of Part I. [13]
See the note of the Commission dated September 30, 1983 in
the next section.
|