Ever since we initiated our participation in the judicial process followed after the assassination of the Jesuits and their two employees in 1989, we stated that we wanted justice not revenge. More than ten years later, the Central American Province of the Jesuits, and later the UCA, to which the Provincial Priest has delegated the follow-up to the case, we continue saying the same. We are open to request the pardon for those judged (we have done it in the past). However, we believe that it is fundamental for the development of a State of Law, for the respect of human rights, and to restore the victims' dignity, that justice is done. During this time we have been supported by international human rights organizations, the Inter American Commission for Human Rights (CIDH)-to whose recommendations El Salvador is bound by international law- and the doctrine of Pope John Paul II ("Forgiveness, far from excluding the search of truth, demands it…Other essential condition for forgiveness and reconciliation is justice…there is no contradiction between forgiveness and justice…forgiveness does not eliminate nor diminishes the demand to repair, which is part of doing justice", World Journey for Peace, 1997, n.5). The State of El Salvador, through its governments, has always responded with a high dosage of superficiality and cover-up plus a lack of interest on the State of law.

After presenting our claim before the Attorney General of the Republic (FGR), and favored by the previous resolution of the CIDH, we regret receiving another superficial response, filled with contradictions and far from the law. When presented with a serious claim, the FGR should investigate instead of sheltering under the amnesty law to avoid doing it. The possible application of that law to the accused must be decided by a judge and not by the Attorney General. To respond to a petition saying that the Attorney General's Office abstains from doing so is another absolute juridical error. The Attorney General's Office must determine whether the evidence presented in our claim is sufficient or not to open the case, but it cannot and should not abstain. To condition the investigation of the Jesuits murders to a resolution by the Supreme Court of Justice based on an appeal to the amnesty law, implies once again poor knowledge of own functions. In addition, it is a way to avoid the responsibility of investigating and initiating a penal action that borders in the criminal, as could be understood in Art. 311 of the Penal Code.

The FGR document in which our claim is rejected is filled with juridical contradictions and statements that could be laughed at if it was not related to basic rights. In fact, separated only from one page, there are the following statements: "With the death of the Jesuit priests and others, the constitutional dispositions were not violated, broken or altered; on the contrary it was a serious violation of a secondary law and specifically the Punitive Law or Penal Code"(p.12). It follows in the next page: "It is clear and undeniable that when a crime is committed, such as murder, kidnapping, theft, etc., there is violation of constitutional rights whose protection is typified as a crime". Putting aside the poor use of the Spanish language, this kind of statements must worry us all, as they reflect a flagrant lack of knowledge of the Constitution and a clear incapacity to interpret it. Not only there is a resolution against the law, but there are also contradictions that are typical of those who are used to exercise their power arbitrarily.

Far beyond the reaction of the FGR some media have promoted the repetition of arguments against our claim, without taking serious interest in our position. It has been said that the crime is legally extinct because ten years have passed, and that it is not possible to do justice to some and deny it to others, that all the victims are worth the same and therefore, since justice cannot be done to everybody, it is preferable not to do it for anyone, promoting confusion between Christian pardon and legal pardon.

The crime is not legally extinct because it is not an ordinary crime. Its characteristics are those of a war crime, an atrocious crime against humanity ("lesa humanidad"). Even if it was considered an ordinary crime, when the accused enjoy the privileges of State officials, the time of prescription of their crimes starts as of the moment when their privileges cease (Art. 242 of the Constitution). Moreover, the State has been systematically delaying the possibility to prosecute the people we are accusing. It is enough to remember the refusal of the Legislative Assembly to create a commission to investigate, the inability of the judicial system to further the investigation on the mastermind behind the crime, the refusal of the Executive Power to "make their best efforts" to follow the recommendations given by the CIDH. If time has passed, it is not the responsibility of the claimants but the responsibility of the State.

We believe that the ideal of justice is that all cases of violation of fundamental rights could be resolved through judicial means. If due to extraordinary reasons it is not possible to prosecute all cases, it is important to proceed with clarity and determination in those cases where there is reasonable evidence of responsibility. Even more if those cases involved people that had the constitutional obligation to safeguard the life of citizens. Currently, in El Salvador, only a very few cases of murder and kidnapping are prosecuted. To say that we cannot prosecute anybody, because only a very few are, and because most criminals remain unpunished, would be an act of juridical brutality and an attempt against community living.

It is true that all victims have the same dignity. However, the Salvadoran State makes people think that the said same dignity and nothing are identical realities. The Salvadoran State, especially the Executive Power, has not complied with the recommendations made by the Truth Commission to acknowledge and to morally repair war victims. Within such context, it is not possible to contend now with the dignity of the victims, when they have been undervalued systematically over the years. If justice cannot be done to all victims, the fact of doing it in exemplary cases restores the dignity of others.

To say that cases like the Jesuits and their employees, or other similar cases, must be left to divine justice, doing without human justice, is an aberration from the standpoint of life and democratic organization of the people as well as from Christian faith. Since there are clear responsibilities in the commission of a crime, no one can say that doing justice should be left to God, an affirmation trying to eliminate human justice. We are confident that God, and us, through our faith in Him, have forgiven at least many of those who participated in civil war crimes and in the crime that we are following up. We have also forgiven many of the criminals who continue to commit crimes in the present times. However, God's pardon does not exonerate human responsibility to do justice to the victims and procure the criminal's rehabilitation. Such things are done in a democracy through judicial processes. From a religious point of view, it is not possible to renounce to the Christian responsibility to build a more just society in this world, a society capable to restore dignity to the victims and to correct the victimizers.

We pursue with our claim something better for El Salvador. A better country cannot be built on the base of impunity, judicial abstention before crimes, or the political deals to hide errors from the past. We are not opposing granting pardon after justice is done; on the contrary, we have already requested them in previous cases. However, we believe that it is good for El Salvador to overcome the impunity of the past, to acknowledge the rights and dignity of the victims and to build the future on the base of justice. For that reason, we want the prosecution of those serious crimes from the past civil war, following the steps of truth, justice, moral repair of victims, and pardon.

University of Central America "José Simeón Cañas

April 26, 2000