|
PART
THREE CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
With respect to the claim of Misurasata and of other Indian
organizations, according to which the ethnic groups of Nicaragua have a
number of rights that go beyond those granted to all Nicaraguan
citizens, which in particular include the right to self-determination
(political autonomy), their cultural identity and the use of their own
language and religion, the Commission believes that in the current
status of international law the claim is supported only with respect to
the preservation of their culture, practice of their religion and the
use of their own language, but it does not include the right to
self-determination or political autonomy.
2.
Forces in opposition to the Nicaraguan Government crossed the
Coco River from Honduras and occupied the town of San Carlos, on the
bank of that river in December 1981, where they set up an ambush,
mutilated and killed six Nicaraguan soldiers. The Government of
Nicaragua denounced this incident as part of a massive uprising planned
to begin in the villages along the Coco River during Christmas week,
1981. In turn, forces of the Nicaraguan Sandinista Army killed Miskitos
during these border confrontations, and the Commission has sufficient
information to hold that the Government of Nicaragua illegally killed a
considerable number of Miskitos in Leimus, in retaliation for the
killings in San Carlos, in violation of Article 4 of the American
Convention on Human Rights.
3.
On December 28, 1981, the Government of Nicaragua decided to
relocate 42 villages along the Coco River to five settlements located
approximately 60 kilometers south of the river, on the Rosita-Puerto
Cabezas Road, which was called “Tasba Pri” (Free Land, in the
Miskito language). The up-river villages, from Leimus to Raití, had to
be evacuated on foot under difficult and harsh circumstances because
there were no roads passable by vehicles. The down-river villages from
Leimus to the Atlantic coast were relocated in trucks and many were
allowed to take some belongings with them. In the period between January
1 and February 20, 1982, the relocation of approximately 8,500 people
was effected. Approximately half of the Rio Coco region population fled
to Honduras, fearing that their lives were in danger. Despite the fact
that the relocation and resettlement of the Miskitos in Tasba Pri was
carried out in an atmosphere of fear and severe conflict, the Commission
is not in a position to state that there was loss of life during the
relocation, with which the Government had been initially accused.
4.
The relocation in Tasba Pri of some Miskitos, and the flight to
Honduras of others, uprooted the Miskitos from the banks of the Coco
River, where they had lived from time immemorial, resulting in the
division of numerous towns and entire families, the destruction of their
homes, the loss of their livestock and in some cases, all of their
belongings. The Miskito structure of authority was undermined and later
dissolved de facto as a result of the repression of the
Misurasata leaders, who were accused of “counterrevolutionary”
activities. Later, as Nicaragua began to receive greater threats to its
external security and as the conflict in the Atlantic zone intensified,
the Miskito villages were increasingly harassed, and the deprivation or
limitations on the liberty of the Miskitos became more frequent,
culminating on November 4, 1982, with the establishment of a military
emergency zone which affected 24 municipalities along the border with
Honduras, several of which were almost entirely inhabited by Miskitos.
5.
Hundreds of Miskitos have been arbitrarily detained without any
formalities and under vague accusations of carrying out
“counterrevolutionary activities”; many of these detentions have
been followed by prolonged periods of incommunicado imprisonment and in
some cases the Commission has verified that illegal torture and abuse
took place. Although according to information provided by the
Government, most of the detained Miskitos are currently are currently in
the Minimal Security Work Farm, near Managua, which provides
considerably better prison conditions than any other Nicaraguan prison,
the fact of being separated from their families has contributed to the
dispersal of these Miskitos. In addition, the Commission has taken due
note of the information provided by the Government on three occasions,
that 49, 45 and 18 Miskitos, respectively, were released, although the
Commission is unaware of the motive for their detention or whether they
were duly tried.1
6.
The trial of the Miskitos who were arrested at the end of 1981
and early in 1982 as a result of the incidents of San Carlos and three
other nearby towns, was initially carried out without regard to the
universally applicable norms of due process. On September 16, 1983, the
Supreme Court of Nicaragua, by nullification of the criminal
proceedings, annulled the second instance convictions of 59 of the 105
Miskitos who had previously been convicted by the Bluefields Court of
Appeals.
7.
The Commission has received complaints according to which nearly
70 Miskitos who had been detained have now disappeared. Although the
Commission admits the possibility that some of them may, after their
release, have changed names or even sought refuge in Honduras, the
recorded circumstances of their detention, the lack of notification of
their families, and the absence of a list with the names of all detained
Miskitos and their place of detention confirm the concern that the
Commission has maintained with respect to this serious problem.
8.
The Commission regrets the tragic accident in which 75 Miskito
children and 9 mothers died in December, 1982, upon the burning of the
helicopter that was transporting them to new settlements in the
Department of Jinotega, which fell to the ground and caught fire.
Nevertheless, at the same time, it cannot fail to express its concern at
the lack of information provided by the Government with respect to this
additional compulsory relocation of a significant number of Miskitos.
9.
The Commission considers that at this time it is not possible to
effect a voluntary repatriation of the Nicaraguan Miskitos in Honduras,
which does not preclude the possibility of adopting certain partial
measures that would contribute to reunification, or at least
communication within Miskito families.
10.
The Commission considers that, in general, the Miskitos of the
Atlantic region of Nicaragua are in a situation of inevitable economic
dependence on the Government, as they have been deprived of their
traditional means of subsistence and as they have not reached agreement
with respect to their claims to their ancestral lands. The Commission
recognizes the efforts of the Government of Nicaragua to provide
services with respect to health, education and welfare, both in the new
settlements and in the northern towns of the Department of Zelaya
inhabited by Miskitos (although until now it has not been possible to
solve problems of adequate food supply). Nevertheless, the Commission
considers that the greatest obstacles that still confront the Miskito
population are due to their lack of participation in the decisions that
concern them, resulting from the mutual distrust between that people and
the government, all of which exacerbates existing tensions and
difficulties.
11.
The Commission acknowledges that an overall solution to the
difficulties of the Government of Nicaragua with a considerable number
of Nicaraguans of Miskito origin to some extent will depend on the
achievement of peace throughout Central America, and in particular on an
agreement between Honduras and Nicaragua which guarantees peace along
the border, thus avoiding detentions that have prevailed until now in
these border zones. In that sense, the Commission can only urge the
so-called Contadora Group to continue to make its valuable and important
contribution to the achievement of peace. At the same time, it is
confident that the governments concerned, including that of the United
States of America, will conduct themselves in a way compatible with the
above-mentioned purpose of establishing a stable and lasting peace in
this region. B.
Proposals and Recommendations
In accordance with Article 50, paragraph 3 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Commission proposed to the Government of
Nicaragua the following recommendations and proposals:
1.
To declare a pardon or amnesty to cover all Indian Nicaraguans
who have been accused of committing crimes against public order and
security or any other connected crime and who are currently in prison,
either carrying out a sentence at the order of a competent judge or
court, at the order of the Office of the General Attorney, or detained
for purposes of investigation for state security; or who are at liberty,
within or outside of Nicaragua, and against whom charges have been
brought.
2.
Once all of the Miskitos who are now imprisoned are released, a
conference should be held in the first quarter of 1984 by the
representatives of the Government of Nicaragua and persons representing
the broadest possible sectors of the various Nicaraguan communities of
Miskito origin so that, in the presence of representatives of the IACHR
and other concerned international organizations, that conference may
discuss and seek solutions to their differences, so that Nicaraguans of
Miskito origin may enjoy the rights established in the American
Convention on Human Rights.
3.
The agenda of that Conference should include the following
subjects, although this is not necessarily a complete list: a. The appropriate means and conditions to allow the Miskito, sumo,
and Rama peoples to participate in the dialogue with the Government of
Nicaragua that would be initiated at this Conference, through existing
organizations or those to be established, if those peoples so desire; b. Participation of the Miskitos and other ethnic groups in national
decisions that concern their interests, as well as in the administration
of the Atlantic coast region; c. Procedure and mechanisms for granting of compensation to the
close relatives (parents, children and spouses) of those who died as a
result of the conflict, as well as for those who have been physically
impaired for the same reason; d. Ways to guarantee that the Miskitos and other Indian peoples may
exercise the right to assembly and association, and to freedom of
expression and information; e. Ways to guarantee that the Miskitos and other Indian peoples of
the Atlantic coast region may exercise the right to residence and
movement in that region and in the rest of the country; f. Establishment of mechanisms to allow the Miskitos who wish to do
so to return to the Coco River region, when the emergency is over; g. Mechanisms that would allow the repatriation or voluntary
resettlement of any Miskito now in Nicaragua to the refugee camps in
Honduras, or from those camps to Nicaragua for purposes of family
reunification; h. Improvement of communications between the Miskitos who reside in Nicaragua and those who have taken refuge in Honduras, for which it will be desirable to have the cooperation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the course of the conference; i. Establishment of procedures and mechanisms to compensate the
Miskitos for the loss of their homes, crops, livestock or other
belongings when they were evacuated from their villages; j. Study of a solution to the problem of the Indians’ ancestral
lands that would take into account both the aspirations of the Indians
and the economic interests and territorial unity of the Republic; k. Study of means to promote and guarantee respect for the cultural
identity of the Indian peoples of the Atlantic coast region.2
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] 1
On December 1, 1983 the Government of Nicaragua decreed a
general amnesty for the Miskitos, however a small number remained in
detention because they were not included in this measure. 2
On April 28, 1984, the Government of Nicaragua communicated
to the IACHR that it accepted, in principle, the idea of holding a
conference, such as the one that had been proposed, nevertheless
such a conference could not be held immediately, due to the
conditions prevailing in the country, and rejecting the
participation at the conference of persons accused of activities
against the security of the State. |