Full opinion text
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WANGER, District Judge. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. [REDACTED] 2. Pursuant to Order of the Court dated September 18, 2003, for good cause shown, Plaintiff has brought this case under the pseudonym J. Doe. 3. [REDACTED] 4. Plaintiff justifiably believes that El Salvador remains an extremely dangerous country and that if his role in bringing this case were widely known, he Tymild be in danger. , > 5. The Plaintiff, justifiably believes that he could not bring this case in the Courts of El Salvador, because no criminal investigation and prosecution were ever completed to identify the perpetrators of the assassination of Archbishop Romero. Further,, based on the grant of amnesty to perpetrators, continuing unreliability of the Courts of El Salvador, including demonstrated hostility to imposing legal responsibility for the assassination of Archbishop Romero, Plaintiff justifiably believes that a-fair-and impartial hearing could not be received in the Courts of El Salvador. 6. The Plaintiff in good faith believes that he and his family, through the present time, may be subject to attacks for his role in this case and would not have brought the case except under the privilege of anonymity. 7. Plaintiff acknowledges that conditions have changed to the extent that his attorneys could meet with witnesses, who testified at trial in the United States, and gathered evidence which, in earlier years before the end of the civil war, was not possible. 8. Defendant Alvaro Rafael Saravia, a Salvadoran citizen, was born on February 16, 1946. Criminal Complaint, U.S. v. Alvaro Rafael Saravia Merino, 87-03598-CIV (S.D.Fla. Nov. 25, 1987), and supporting affidavit of Sharon L. Kegerreis, ¶ 5; Complaint for Extrajudicial Killing and Crimes Against Humanity, filed 9/12/03 (“Complaint”), ¶ 4. Saravia previously served as a captain in the Salvadoran Air Force. In 1979, he was separated from the Salvadoran military, and from that time worked closely with Major Roberto D’Aubuisson. 9. D’Aubuisson, at the direction of and in conjunction with elements of the Salvadoran armed forces and land-owning Salvadoran civilians inside and outside of El Salvador, founded the political movement Frente Amplio Nacional (the “FAN”) and the political party Alianza Republicana Na-cionalista (“ARENA”), and organized “es-cuadrones de la muerte,” or “death squads,” paramilitary organizations composed of military personnel and civilians who systematically carried out politically-motivated assassinations and other human rights abuses in El Salvador. Complaint ¶¶ 4, 11-13. Saravia was an active member of these death squads and held the position of “chief of security” for Robert D’Aubuisson in 1980. Id.; Hr’g. Tr. 8/27/04 (Karl) 89:4-10. 10. Saravia was resident in Modesto, California, in the Fresno Division of the Eastern Judicial District of California at the time this suit was filed. He continues to receive mail at 2401 Manor Oak Drive, Modesto, California 95355, and was served with process there. Proof of Service, filed January 9, 2004. 11. Public records connect Defendant, by his date of birth, to that address, and establish that Defendant is the same Alvaro Rafael Saravia, who was sought to be extradited by the U.S. Government to El Salvador in 1987-1988 to face charges, later dismissed, of his complicity in the assassination of Archbishop Romero. See Declaration of Lecia Smith, and Ex. A, filed 9/2/04 (“Smith Decl.”). These records link Defendant to an earlier Florida address and a Social Security Number issued in Florida in 1985-1986. Id.; see also Supplemental Declaration of Mary Beth Kaufman, filed 9/2/04 (“Kaufman Deck”). 12. On September 12, 2003, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Saravia for violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act (“TVPA”), Pub.L. No. 102-256 (1992) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350, note) for his role in the March 24, 1980 assassination of Archbishop Romero in San Salvador, El Salvador. 13. Substitute service was effected on September 15, 2003, and October 18, 2003, by leaving a copy of the papers with Ines Olsson, the owner of 2401 Manor Oak Drive, Modesto, California 95355, the address at which Saravia was or had been residing and at which he was and is continuing to receive mail. The registered process server who served the Summons, Complaint and related papers, explained the general nature of the papers to Ms. Olsson at the time of personal service. Thereafter the papers were mailed on October 21, 2003, by a registered process server in the United States mail to Saravia at that address. 14. As of January 7, 2004, Defendant held recorded fictitious business names for Alo Fashion, Aquarius Enterprises, in the name of Alvaro Saravia, listing his business address as 2401 Manor Oak Drive, Modesto, California 95353. Personal records showed Defendant’s listing of the same address as his address since at least 1997. 15. In a December 16, 2003, conversation, Ms. Olsson told M.B. Kaufman, a fellow and attorney for the Center for Justice and Accountability, that Alvaro Saravia had moved to Modesto in 1990, after conversations with Ms. Olsson and that Ms. Olsson “knew Mr. Saravia had been in the Air Force in El Salvador.” 16. The Court entered Saravia’s default by Order of the Clerk dated April 13, 2004. 17. Plaintiff applied for default judgment by the Court. In support of the application, Plaintiff filed declarations from numerous witnesses and presented live testimony at an evidentiary hearing held in open court on August 24-27 and September 3, 2004. The witnesses testifying at the hearing included The Reverend Canon William L. Wipfler, Ph.D.; Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton; Amado Antonio Garay; Ambassador Robert White (by videotape deposition); Judge Atilio Ramirez Amaya; Professor Terry Lynn Karl; Maria Julia Hernandez; Father Jon Cortina, S.J.; Esther del Carmen Chavez Mancia; Francisco Acosta Arevalo; Father Walter Guerra; and Professor Naomi Roht-Arria-za. III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: THE ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT IN EL SALVADOR A. COUNTRY BACKGROUND 18. The recent history of El Salvador has been defined by the concentration of the vast majority of land in the hands of a small group of wealthy landowners. This group is colloquially referred to s the “14 families,” signifying that a small number of people hold great wealth and political influence in the country. Hr’g. Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 3:12-25; Ex. 98, March 15, 1993 Report of the United Nations Commission on the Truth in El Salvador (“TC Report”) (Ex. 98), pp. 132-33. 19. Peasants and workers were constantly attacked in order to prevent them from organizing. These attacks culminated in a massacre in 1932 with more than 30,000 killed by military forces aligned with the landowners. This led to the imposition of a military regime that remained in power for more than 50 years, the longest military regime in the history of Latin America. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 2:6-25; TC Report, pp. 132-33. 20. A de facto alliance between the military and the oligarchs strengthened the oligarchs’ grip on power. The military located their barracks on the property of these landowners and thereby controlled peasants and workers by repressing any opportunities for organization. By protecting their land and keeping the workers under control, the military served the landowner’s interests opposing land reform. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 3:18, 4:1-25; TC Report, pp. 132-33. 21. The armed forces of El Salvador included an army and three security forces: the National Guard, the National Police and the Treasury Police. These three forces operated under the orders of the High Command but simultaneously served the landowners. The National Guard was traditionally the body of the security forces with the greatest presence in rural areas. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 16:1-25. B. The Rise of Paramilitary Forces. 22. In 1969 El Salvador went to war against Honduras in a border conflict better known as the “soccer war.” Closing the borders eliminated a “safety valve” for Salvadorans unable to find work on the farms or in factories. This increased the pressure for land reform and the already extensive strength of the military and security forces. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), SA-IS; 6:19-7:21. 23. In response to new attempts by Salvadoran peasants to organize during the sixties and the emergence of some reformists within the military who favored land reform, the security forces created paramilitary groups to operate in rural areas. One of the main paramilitary groups was known as ORDEN. Colonel Jose Alberto Medrano, the former head of the National Guard, was the founder of ORDEN and oversaw more than 80,000 members, mostly civilians, throughout the country. Medrano also created the National Intelligence Agency of El Salvador (ANSESAL). Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 3:18, 17:1-25, 22:1-25, 23:1-25; TC Report, p. 133. 24. By 1979, the security forces and ORDEN had thoroughly consolidated their power, sowing terror among the civilian population. Not only were workers, peasants and priests targeted, teachers, union leaders, doctors, and other professionals were brutally repressed. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 68:1-25; TC Report, p. 133. C. The Emergence of Liberation Theology. 25. During the same time, the Catholic Church underwent a major transformation after a conference of bishops in Medellin, Columbia, S.A., in 1969, at which it was decreed that the church should focus on the needs of the poor. Because the Catholic Church had traditionally been aligned with the oligarchy in El Salvador, this new interpretation of theology, known as “Liberation Theology,” was a significant change. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Cortina), 95:16-25. 26. Priests all over El Salvador began to engage in projects to support poorer communities. The oligarchy and sympathetic military leaders considered Liberation Theology to be a front for Marxism. Starting in at least 1977, priests and lay Catholic workers became targets of repression. The World Anticommunist League and its regional body, the Confederation of Latin American Anti-Communists (CAL), approved resolutions condemning priests and establishing groups to monitor their activities. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 67:1-25, 68:1-25, 69:1-25, 70:1-25, 71:1-25, 72:1-25. 27. On February 22, 1977, Oscar Romero, then bishop of San Miguel, was elevated to Archbishop of San Salvador. At that time he was known for his moderate traditional views. On March 12, 1977, Father Rutilio Grande, a Jesuit priest, was murdered in the town of Aguilares. (Agui-lares provided an example of the implementation of Liberation Theology, where community members, with the help of Father Grande and others, established Christian Base Communities). Father Grande was a close and important friend of Archbishop Romero. After the murder, Romero realized that Father Grande was targeted simply because he wanted to improve the deplorable condition of the poor in El Salvador. The steadily increasing human rights abuses against poor civilians and members of the church changed Romero’s views on the role of the church in El Salvador. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 71:1-73:25; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Cortina), 88:1-89:25. D. Coup and Violent Backlash. 28. In October 1979 a coup was carried out by younger reformist military officers led by Colonel Adolfo Majano. The new Revolutionary Governing Junta promised democracy and land reform, decreed the dismantling of ANSESAL and ORDEN, and briefly jailed some of the most notorious repressive figures in the military. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Karl), 55:21-56:25. 29. The coup resulted in a new period of violence. Various groups vied for control of the repressive apparatus. A core of military officers sought to block any reform. They considered the Junta to be infiltrated by reformers. One of the leaders -of this faction was former Major Roberto D’Aubuisson, who up until 1979 had been third in command of ANSESAL and had secreted away many of the agency’s archives. D’Aubuisson began organizing death squads as early as 1977, but intensified his efforts after the coup. The group of military officers he led performed widespread and brutal abductions and murders throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s. TC Report, p. 133-34. 30. Major D’Aubuisson drew considerable support from wealthy civilians who feared that their lands and business interests would be adversely affected by the reform program announced by the Junta. They were convinced that the country faced a serious threat of Marxist insurrection which they needed to overcome. Some of the richest landowners and businessmen inside and outside the country' offered their estates, homes, vehicles, and bodyguards to help the death squads. They also provided the funds used to organize and maintain the squads, especially those directed by Major D’Aubuisson. TC Report, p. 134. 31. Saravia was “[o]ne of the principal lieutenants of D’Aubuisson” and was widely known to be D’Aubuisson’s “Chief of Security” after both were cashiered from the Salvadoran military. Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Karl), 122:15-17; Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (White), White Dep. 34:4-5. E. Romero’s Increasingly Vocal Criticism. 32. During this time Archbishop Romero showed a profound interest in and sympathy for the needs of poor Salvadorans. He used his position as Archbishop to address the repression in the country. In his weekly Sunday homilies he denounced the human rights abuses occurring throughout El Salvador. Often his homilies were the only public source of information about these abuses, identifying victims of violence and victims who “disappeared.” He explicitly denounced the military and members of the security forces for their repressive actions. His homilies were broadcast throughout the country and millions of Salvadorans listened to them regularly. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Cortina), 98:23-25, 99:20-100:2; Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Guerra), 57:1-58:25. 33. On March 23, 1980, Archbishop Romero delivered his most decisive homily. After weeks of increasing repression, Archbishop Romero declared, “No soldier is obliged to obey an order counter to the law of God.” He continued, “In the name of God, then, and in the name of this suffering people, whose cries rise to heaven each day more tumultuous, I beseech you, I beg you, I order you, in the name of God, stop the repression?” Ex. 92 (March 23 homily); Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Wipfler), 64:3-65:16. IV. ASSASSINATION OF ARCHBISHOP ROMERO A. The Assassination. 34. On March 24, 1980, Major D’Au-buisson, Saravia and others gathered at the home of a D’Aubuisson supporter in San Salvador. The group had knowledge that Archbishop Romero would celebrate a mass that day. A member of the group proposed that this provided a good opportunity to carry out the already approved assassination. D’Aubuisson agreed, and the group began to make arrangements. Saravia took charge of the operation and was involved in paying the fees of the assassin. Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 19; TC Report, pp. 127-131; Ex. 99, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Decision (“LACHR Decision”), ¶¶3, 20, 43, 54, 54 (citing with approval the findings of the TC Report). 35. Amado Garay testified that early that evening, Saravia was at home when he instructed his driver, Garay, to drive him to a house with distinctive Japanese Maro-non trees in front. Saravia, along with two members of the National Police, Nelson Morales, and Nelson Garcia, who had previously recruited Garay to work for Saravia, and another person also drove to the house. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 103:22-104:23; TC Report, pp. 127, 130, 131. 36. Garay waited by the gate of the house while Saravia went into the house. Saravia later emerged accompanied by a tall man with a beard. Saravia told Garay to drive the bearded man to an undisclosed location, and told him that the man would give him directions. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Ga-ray), 105:11-106:5; TC Report, pp. 127, 130,131. 37. Saravia said to the tall, bearded man, in Garay’s presence, “It [is] better to shoot in the head because maybe he have [sic] a bulletproof vest. You have to be sure he got [sic] killed.” Saravia also informed Garay that they would be provided with protection, as a vehicle would drive behind him. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 106:7-16. 38. Saravia directed Garay to get into a red Volkswagen to drive the tall, bearded man. The man had a long rifle with a telescopic lens. Garay followed the directions of the man, who spoke with a Salvadoran accent, to a location with a big gate followed by a long path. Complaint, ¶ 16; Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 106:13-14; 20-23; 107:1-2; 111:12-13; 112:16; TC Report, pp. 127,130-131. 39. During the ride, while Garay drove, the bearded man said, “I can’t believe it, I’m going to shoot a priest.” Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 112:3-4. 40. The man directed Garay to stop at the front door of a church, which was identified by eyewitnesses as the chapel of the Hospital of Divine Providence. Garay saw people sitting in the pews of the church and a priest — whose identity was unknown to him at the time — speaking. The priest was Archbishop Romero, who was celebrating a mass in memory of Sara Meardi de Pinto, the mother of Jorge Pinto, a friend of the Archbishop’s and the owner of the opposition newspaper, El In-dependiente. Notice of the mass, celebrated at six o’clock in the afternoon, had been published in the newspapers, La Prensa Grafica and Diario de Hoy. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 107:5-7; 108:21-25; 109:1; Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Ramirez Amaya) 34:19-22; 35:10-11; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 153:2-7; Ex. 40 (photo of Jorge Pinto); IACHR Decision, ¶ 45, n. 31; Ex. 115 (announcement of mass for Sara Meardi di Pinto). 41. The bearded man in the car directed Garay to act like he was fixing something in the car. Garay bent over in the front seat. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 107:8-11. 42. Garay then heard a loud explosion as the bearded man in the back seat of the vehicle shot Archbishop Romero. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 107:12-13, 108:24; Complaint, ¶ 6; TC Report, pp. 28, 127, 130, 131. 43. The man told Garay to drive slowly away from the church. Garay drove slowly, and subsequently got lost, but the shooter made contact with the security car by radio and was given directions back to the house with the Japanese Maronon trees. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 107:14-22. 44. When Garay and the shooter returned to the house with the Maronon trees, they were greeted by Saravia. The shooter informed Saravia that the assignment had been carried out. Saravia told Garay and the shooter that he had heard the news on the radio that the Archbishop had died instantly. Complaint ¶ 16; Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 109:20-22, 24-25; 110:1-4. 45. Saravia, Nelson Morales, Nelson Garcia and Garay drove back to Saravia’s house in a Jeep Cherokee, which was the vehicle regularly used to transport Sara-via. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 101:24; 115:7. 46. Once at Saravia’s house, Saravia advised Garay that Garay, Nelson Morales, and Nelson Garcia would sleep at a different house that night. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 116:25; 117:1, 3-10; 119:1, 4-5. 47. Several days later, Garay drove Saravia from Saravia’s home to a house in Sal Salvador that looked like a castle. The house had a long driveway and a big, white gate. Major D’Aubuisson emerged from the house. Saravia saluted Major D’Au-buisson and told him, “Mission completed.” Complaint, ¶ 17; Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 127:1-11,16-23; 127:5-9. 48. Saravia also delivered to the assassin a sum of money, which earlier had been provided to him to pay the assassin, or his agent. Complaint, ¶ 17; RT Report, pp. 127,131. 49. On a later date, Garay was driving Saravia past an empty lot. He saw a car that had been burned. Saravia told Garay that the car was the red Volkswagen that had been used to transport the shooter to the Romero assassination. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay) 115:9-11, 13-18, 20-25; 116:1-8. B. Events in the Immediate Aftermath of the Assassination. 50. Archbishop Romero fell where he had been shot at the Chapel of the Hospital of Divine Providence and was tended to by the nuns who lived and worked there. He was rushed to the Policlínica Hospital in a station wagon right after he was shot. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 149:18-20; Exs. 22, 24-30, 34, 36, 38 (photos of assassination); Declaration of Maria Clelia Flores Iraheta, ¶ 7, filed 8/20/04. 51. At the Hospital of Divine Providence, many people were gathered, including Father Jon Cortina; Monseñor Ricardo Urioste; other nuns and priests; one of the lawyers for the Archdiocese’s human rights office, Florentin Melendez; the members of an American ecumenical delegation; relatives of the Archbishop; and others. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Wipfler), 73:20-24; Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya) 30:22-25; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Cortina), 104:1-2; 5-6; Hr’ Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 145:21-23; 146:4-6, 9; Ex. 42 (photograph at the Policlínica); Declaration of Rosa Nohemy Ortiz, ¶ 7, filed 8/20/04; Declaration of Philip Berryman, ¶ 21, filed 8/20/04; Declaration of Thomas Quigley, ¶4, filed 8/20/04. 52. Archbishop Romero was pronounced dead on his arrival at the Policlí-nica. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Wipfler), 73:23-24. 53. At the Chapel of the Hospital of Divine Providence, some of the hospital patients were detaining the photographer from the newspaper, Diario de Hoy, who had attended the mass. He initially was suspected of carrying out the assassination. Father Cortina testified he was somewhat knowledgeable about photography, he went to Divine Providence to investigate this situation. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Cortina), 104:8-21, 105:5-13; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 150:21-23. 54. Fearful to go by himself, Father Cortina was accompanied by Monseñor Modesto Lopez to the Chapel of the Hospital of the Divine Providence. Father Cor-tina arrived at the chapel and hospital area around 8:00 p.m. At that time, the area was filled with armed soldiers wearing camouflage uniforms and armed policemen, he believed were members of the National Police. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Corti-na), 104:25, 105:3-4; 108:10-15, 108:25-109:10. Father Cortina determined that the two cameras of the photographer could not have been converted to fire a bullet and were not out of the ordinary. Father Cortina then left with the photographer to assist him in developing the photographs at the offices of the Diario de Hoy. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Cortina), 104:20-24; 105:1-2, 5-15,16-18; 107:11-16; Exs. 24, 25, 27-30, 33-36 (photographs of assassination). C. Post-Assassination Investigation. 55. Judge Atilio Ramirez Amaya, the Criminal Judge of the Fourth Criminal Court in San Salvador, testified he attempted to carry out a serious investigation into the assassination of Archbishop Romero, but National Police and other government officials charged with assisting in the investigation actively obstructed his efforts, failed to conduct a timely investigation, failed to collect and preserve material evidence, and failed to identify witnesses. Complaint, ¶ 18; Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 22:2^4; 23:5-7, 15-18; 24:6-15; 27:4-7, 11-18; 45:21-25; 46:1-11; TC Report, p. 128; IACHR Decision, ¶¶ 10,12, 20, 43, 46, 87-91. 56. On March 24, 1980, Judge Ramirez Amaya heard by word of mouth that Archbishop Romero had been shot. He went to the Policlínica Hospital after he determined that Archbishop Romero had not been taken to the forensic clinic, a departure from the normal procedure. He arrived around seven o’clock in the evening. The National Police had not informed Judge Ramirez Amaya of the murder, also a departure from standard procedure. Since Romero was a person of high ranking, Judge Ramirez Amaya, as the Criminal Judge in San Salvador, immediately took over the investigation from the Justice of the Peace. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 22:19-22; 23:15-18, 20-23; 28:17-21, 22-25; 28:12-14; 29:1-10. 57. Judge Ramirez Amaya did not observe any police at the Policlínica despite the fact that they should have been there to ensure security. Judge Ramirez Amaya then called his secretary and asked him to call the police to request their presence at the Policlínica. The police never arrived. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 27:4-7; 30:13-18; 31:21; 46:9-11. 58. The room finally was cleared of all the people, and Judge Ramirez Amaya ordered the forensic doctors to perform the autopsy. The autopsy was performed by Dr. Cuellar Ortiz, Dr. Pedro Chavarria, and two others. Judge Ramirez Amaya and his secretary were present during the autopsy. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Ama-ya), 31:1-5; 32:22-25; TC Report, p. 128. 59. The first step in the autopsy was the taking of X-rays to make a determination as to the location of the bullet in Archbishop Romero’s body. The first X-ray was unsuccessful so two or three more X-rays were taken. From these X-rays, the doctors determined that a small entry wound, barely 5 millimeters in diameter in the right thorax, evidenced the point of entry of the bullet. The bullet had fragmented into three parts and was still inside Archbishop Romero’s thorax. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya) 31:5-8; TC Report, p. 128; Ex. 113 (Romero autopsy report). 60. The forensic doctors cut the cartilage in the sternum area of Archbishop Romero’s chest to open his thorax. They discovered a number of blood clots which inhibited the locating of the bullet fragments. The blood clots were removed and dissolved individually. Finally, the bullet fragments were located. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya) 31:9-18; TC Report, p. 128; Ex. 113 (Romero autopsy report). 61. The autopsy took almost four hours. The book of acknowledgment and the final autopsy report, signed by Dr. Chavarria, on behalf of his colleagues, and by Judge Ramirez Amaya and his secretary, recorded that Archbishop Romero died from a hemorrhage caused by the bullet fragments severing his aorta and the venae cavae. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya) 32:5-6, 9-21; 33:1-3, 6-7; IACHR Decision, ¶¶45, 46; Ex. 113 (Romero autopsy report). 62. At this point, Judge Ramirez Ama-ya requested that Ms secretary telephone the National Police once again so the police could secure the evidence in bags, as was standard operating procedure. The police did not arrive. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 24:12-15; 31:19-22. 63. Later, Judge Ramirez Amaya requested that his secretary place yet another call to the National Police to arrange for them to accompany him and his secretary to the scene of the crime, the Chapel of the Hospital of the Divine Providence. The police never arrived. Judge Ramirez Amaya was forced to take the evidence, the bullet fragments and the Xrrays, with him. Judge Ramirez Amaya and his secretary had to travel to the crime scene in Judge Ramirez Amaya’s private vehicle. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 33:8-15; 34:14-17. 64. When Judge Ramirez Amaya arrived at the chapel around 11:30 p.m., Flo-rentin Melendez and Roberto Cuellar, the two lawyers for the Archdiocese’s Human Rights Office, were present. No police were present. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 33:6-18; 34:15; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 146:9-18, 21-23; 147:9-10. 65. Judge Ramirez Amaya and the others canvassed the small chapel in search of the bullet. They took measurements to determine the range and distance from which the shot could have been fired. They thoroughly searched for any type of evidence but found none. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 33:19-25. 66. A short time before midnight, Judge Ramirez Amaya drove his secretary to the court, where his secretary stayed instead of returning to the secretary’s home as it would have been extremely dangerous to drive there. By this time, Judge Ramirez Amaya observed Army tanks on the streets and police patrolling with automatic weapons. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 34:2-13. 67. Because the National Police never came to pick up the evidence, Judge Ramirez Amaya took the bullet fragments and the X-rays with him to his home. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 34:14-17. 68. The next day, March 25, 1908, Judge Ramirez Amaya went to his chambers at the Fourth Criminal Court. There, he organized the files on the case and the book of acknowledgment so that it could be transcribed. He also was made aware of the published advertisement announcing Archbishop Romero’s celebration of the memorial mass for Sara Meardi de Pinto the previous evening. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 26:20-24; 34:19-22, 23-25; 35:18-21. 69. The National Police finally went to the crime scene four days after the assassination. The police did not collect evidence nor did they provide the investigating judge any information or evidence to assist in the investigation. IACHR Decision, ¶¶ 46, 88, 89;' Complaint, ¶ 18. 70. Despite a National Police analysis confirming Judge Ramirez Amaya’s conclusion that the projectiles extracted from Archbishop Romero’s body came from a .22 caliber bullet, these conclusions never appeared in the judicial file of Archbishop Romero’s case. The X-rays also disappeared from the judicial file. TC Report, p. 128; IACHR Decision ¶¶ 46, 90; Complaint, ¶ 18. 71. Pedro Napoleon Martinez was alleged to have been an eyewitness to the flight of the assassins. At the chapel, he assisted in moving Archbishop Romero’s body for transport to the hospital. Twenty days after the assassination, on April 13, 1980, P. Martinez was Mdnapped and disappeared. His disappearance was never investigated. Complaint, ¶ 18; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 149:18-22, 25, 150:1-4; 152:22-23; Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Karl) 129:4-130:16; Ex. 34 (photograph showing Martinez helping to remove Romero from the chapel); IACHR Decision, ¶¶ 11, 103-104. 72. In the months following the assassination, several other suspicious events occurred, obstructing any investigation of the murder of Archbishop Romero. These included: • On July 5, 1980, the offices of Socorro Jurídico were searched by the National Police and the files concerning Socorro Juridieo’s investigation of the assassination were removed and were never seen again. IACHR Decision, ¶ 106; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 148:1-15, 20-23; 149:7-10. • In 1980, both the Director of Socorro Jurídico, Roberto Cuellar, and its staff attorney working on the investigation of the assassination of Archbishop Romero, Florentin Melendez, were forced to flee El Salvador after receiving death threats. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 146:9-16; 21-25; 147:1-25; Ex. 42 (photo of Melendez at autopsy). D. Attack on Judge Amaya. 73. On March 25, 1980, Judge Ramirez Amaya received a telephone death threat at his home. Altogether, on March 25 and 26, Judge Ramirez Amaya received three or four telephoned death threats. In one instance, his thirteen-year old daughter, who answered the phone, was asked her favorite color. She was told that “that was the color they would paint the coffin that they would have [Judge Ramirez Amaya] in.” Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 39:2-10; 41:16; IACHR Decision ¶ 114. 74. On March 27, 1980, at about 10:15 p.m., two men knocked at Judge Ramirez Amaya’s door. The men claimed to know a friend of the Judge. Ramirez Amaya told his housekeeper to carefully open the door. The two men entered his home. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 39:11-22; 40:4-5. 75. Judge Ramirez Amaya, armed with a twelve gauge shotgun, stayed in the bedroom. He opened the bedroom door, peeked out, and realized that he did not know the men. He told them to be seated. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 39:22-23; 40:5-9. 76. One of the man immediately pulled an automatic weapon from a briefcase he was carrying. Judge Ramirez Amaya responded by pulling out his shotgun. As Judge Ramirez Amaya was about to fire at them, his housekeeper ran towards him. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 40:10-15; IACHR Decision ¶ 112. 77. One of the men fired the gun at Judge Ramirez Amaya. However, since the housekeeper was in the way, the gunman missed the judge and, instead, wounded the housekeeper. She was injured in the back and the buttocks area. She fell towards Judge Ramirez Amaya, who was not able to break her fall. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 40:17-22; IACHR Decision, ¶¶ 11,112. 78. The men immediately fled from Judge Ramirez Amaya’s home. Outside, they shot at the house and the tires of Judge Ramirez Amaya’s car. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 40:23-25; 41:1-2. 79. Judge Ramirez Amaya then heard noises on the roof of his house. He began to fire his shotgun out the windows. He was mindful of the fact that within recent weeks, Mario Zamora, the Attorney General of El Salvador, the mayor of the City of San Miguel had been killed in a similar fashion. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Ama-ya), 41:4-11. 80. Judge Ramirez Amaya yelled to his wife “Josefina, they are going to kill us, just like they did with Mario Zamora,” and urged her to fire a pistol out the windows. In addition, Judge Ramirez Amaya protected his daughter by throwing a mattress over her. He crawled through his home and listened for the attackers. Finally, the noises stopped. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 41:12-20. 81. Breaking the silence ten minutes later, the phone rang. The voice on the other end said, “Doctor, this is Elicio Soto from the National Police.” This voice was familiar to Judge Ramirez Amaya as he had known Soto, now a National Police inspector, since childhood. Ramirez Ama-ya’s mother had assisted Soto in obtaining his job with the police. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 41:21-25; 42:1-9. 82. Next, in a surprised tone of voice, Soto said to Ramirez Amaya, “Doctor, you are alive.” Judge Ramirez Amaya answered, “Yes, I am happy to be alive.” Soto replied, “Don’t worry. Perhaps they were just trying to scare you.” Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 42:10-15. 83. Within a half hour, family and friends, whom Judge Ramirez Amaya had telephoned, arrived at his house. When he opened the door for them, Judge Ramirez Amaya also greeted some of his neighbors and the night watchman. The night watchman informed Judge Ramirez Amaya that the police must have been “deaf’ because two marked police vehicles had been parked on the street during the assassination attempt and did not move. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 42:16-20, 24-25; 43:1-5, 6-9. 84. One of Judge Ramirez Amaya’s students at the National University, the boyfriend of his neighbors, was visiting his girlfriend at the same time as the attack. He confidentially informed Judge Ramirez Amaya that he saw that three persons were involved in the attempted murder of the Judge. In addition to the two men who entered the house, one remained behind in the get-away car. He told Ramirez Amaya that he personally knew the man at the wheel of the car to be a member of the National Police. Judge Ramirez Amaya knew that the neighbor’s boyfriend had worked with the National Police. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 43:10-25. 85. The night of the attempt, a group of police detectives arrived at Judge Ramirez Amaya’s home and inquired what was happening. They dismissed the assassination attempt as the work of “amateurs” that they could have prevented from happening. No further investigation occurred thereafter. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 44:3-6; 46:12-22; IACHR Decision, ¶¶ 115,116. 86. At this point, Judge Ramirez Ama-ya told his wife they would be killed by the police so they had to leave El Salvador. Despite the fact that he had a ticket to go to Venezuela two days later, Judge Ramirez Amaya determined that, with police control of the airports, traveling by plane would be too risky. He arranged to leave by boat through the Gulf of Fonseca and to travel directly to Nicaragua. Complaint, ¶ 18; Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 43:25; 44:1-2, 20-25; 45:1-4, 6-9. 87. Judge Ramirez Amaya went to the hospital the next day to visit his housekeeper. He found that she had not been admitted to the hospital. She was still lying on the floor in the hallway. A doctor explained that they did not intend to remove the bullets and would send her home the next day. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 44:7-19. 88. Judge Ramirez Amaya then resigned his position and fled El Salvador. Judge Ramirez Amaya was not able to return to El Salvador for almost ten years. Complaint, ¶ 18; Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 21:7-11, 19-20; 45:10-13; IACHR Decision, ¶ 46. 89. The assassination attempt against Judge Ramirez Amaya was never investigated. Hr’g Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 44:3-6. 90. The Truth Commission concluded that “[t]here is sufficient evidence that the failed assassination attempt against Judge Atilio Ramirez Amaya was a deliberate attempt to deter investigation of the case.” TC Report, pp. 127, 128, 131; IACHR Decision ¶ 54 (citing with approval the finding of the TC Report). E. The Funeral for Archbishop Romero. 91. For one week after the assassination, Archbishop Romero’s body was available for viewing by the public. His coffin was never alone. Different communities were a part of this ritual by leading the activities and mass each day. Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Guerra), 59:13-17; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Cortina), 111:10-18; Declaration of Julia Elvira Chacon, ¶ 8, filed 8/20/04. 92. On March 31, 1980, the funeral for Romero was held at the cathedral in San Salvador. The National Palace, located next to the cathedral, was an official government building, inaccessible to the public, and could be entered only by government officials. The day of the funeral, the palace was closed. Nonetheless, during the funeral mass, bombs were thrown into the crowd from a window at the far end of the National Palace. Additionally, government officials in civilian clothes were stationed on the roofs of the National Palace and surrounding buildings. After the bombs were thrown, government officers in plainclothes on the roofs opened fire on the crowd. Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Cortina), 115:10-16, 25; 116:1-4, 24-25; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Acosta), 40:1-2, 18-20; 39:12-20; Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Guerra), 60:19-21. 93. The bombs and gunfire caused the approximately 100,000 people at the funeral to run in fear. Many in the crowd were trampled. The priests who had carried Archbishop Romero’s casket were forced to take his body inside the cathedral and hurriedly place it in the burial vault for fear that it would be stolen. About 5,000 people crammed into the cathedral in search of safety. Once Archbishop Romero was buried, the priests encouraged those in the cathedral to sing. Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Guerra), 61:7-20; Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Acosta), 40:1-8; Hr’g Tr. 8/26/04 (Corti-na), 115:4-8. See also Declaration of the Rev. Charles Harper, ¶ 16, filed 9/01/04; Declaration of Carlos Ayala Ramirez, ¶ 9, filed 8/20/04; Declaration of Philip Berry-man, ¶ 22, filed 8/20/04; Declaration of Julia Elvira Chacon, ¶ 9, filed 8/20/04; Declaration of Maria de la Luz Cueva Santana, ¶ 7, filed 8/20/04; Declaration of Pierre Jean DeClarcq, ¶ 8, filed 8/20/04; Declaration of Jose Humberto Giron Pez, ¶ 9, filed 8/20/04. 94. After about two hours, some of the priests went outside to the plaza. They recovered seventeen dead bodies. Not until 4:30 in the afternoon were all the priests and nuns who had been trapped in the cathedral able to leave under Red Cross protection. Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Guerra), 61:21-24; 62:6-8,17-19; Ex. 65 (photo of dead bodies at funeral); Ex. 66 (photo of nuns leaving cathedral at funeral). V. FAILED EFFORTS TO PROSECUTE ARCHBISHOP ROMERO’S KILLERS A. The Arrest of DAubuisson, Sara-via, Garay and Others at the San Luis Finca on May 7, 1980. 95. On May 7, 1980, twelve civilians and twelve military personnel met at a farmhouse near San Salvador known as the San Luis Finca. They included D’Au-buisson, Saravia and Garay, as well as numerous other persons associated with El Salvador’s rightwing death squads. At the meeting, D’Aubuisson gave his .45 millimeter handgun to Garay to hold while he was inside the farmhouse. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay), 121:12-122:13; Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (White) [White Dep. 43:18-44:14]; Hr’g Tr. 8/27/04 (Karl), 152:17-153:5; Ex. 122 (May 8, 1980 U.S. diplomatic cable); Ex. 125 (May 12, 1980 report of Maj. Jose Francisco Samayoa); TC Report, pp. 28 and 129. 96. While the meeting was going on, troops from the Salvadoran Army’s First Brigade raided the farmhouse, arresting, among others, D’Aubuisson, Saravia and Garay. The raid had been ordered by Col. Majano, a member of the five-man Revolutionary Governing Junta. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (White), [White Dep. 45:13-47:5]; Ex. 122 (May 8,1980 U.S. diplomatic cable). 97. Numerous documents were seized during the raid which implicated many of those arrested in the assassination of Archbishop Romero, a coup plot, and other serious crimes. Hr’g Tr. 8/24/04 (White) [White Dep. 40:10-20 and 63:14-64:2]; Ex. 122, Ex. 125; Ex. 127 (June 19, 1980 U.S. diplomatic cable); Declaration of Todd R. Greentree, ¶¶ 5 & 7, filed 8/20/04; Hr’g Tr. 9/3/04 (Karl), 3:6-12, 4:10-12, 5:9-16. 98. Members of the Junta and experts contacted by U.S. Ambassador White concluded that the “Operación Pifia” documents seized at the San Luis Finca, along with the so-called “Saravia Diary,” referred to the plan to assassinate Archbishop Romero. Hrg. Tr. 8/24/04 (White), [White Dep. 35:2-39:2]; Hrg. Tr. 9/3/04 (Karl), 19:15-22:10; Ex. 122 (May 8, 1980 U.S. diplomatic cable); TC Report, p. 129. 99. On May 12, 1980, Col. Majano lost his influence over the Junta when Col. Jaime Abdul Gutiérrez was appointed President of the Junta by the High Command of the Armed Forces. That same day, several newspapers published a message from a group calling itself “death squad” that demanded the release of D’Au-buisson and the others arrested at the San Luis Finca. TC Report, p. 204, n. 24. 100. D’Aubuisson and the others arrested at the San Luis Finca were soon released without ever being interrogated, much less prosecuted for any of the crimes for which they were implicated. Col. Ma-jano was removed from the Junta by the end of the year, and was forced to flee El Salvador not long afterwards. Hrg. Tr. 8/24/04 (Garay); 123:15-124:4; Hrg. Tr. 8/24/04 (White), [White Dep. 47:9-14]; Hrg. Tr. 9/3/04 (Karl), 9:15-17, 32:1-6; TC Report, pp. 28, 29 and 205, n. 29. B. Failed Investigations During the Early and Mid-1980s. 101. The investigation of Archbishop Romero’s murder was not pursued by the Government of El Salvador in the months following the killing and was actively thwarted in many ways. In June 1984, José Guerrero, a member of the ARENA party, Roberto D’Aubuisson’s personal lawyer, and a former delegate to the CAL, the regional anti-communist league, was named as Public Prosecutor of El Salvador by the Legislative Assembly, which at the time was controlled by ARENA and its allies. IACHR Decision at ¶ 120; Hrg. Tr. 9/3/04 (Karl), 51:11-17. 102. On December 12,1984, the Fourth Criminal Court’s investigation of the Romero assassination was formally closed. IACHR Decision at ¶ 14. 103. The Fourth Criminal Court’s investigation was reopened in 1985. Id. 104. On May 21, 1985, the Legislative Assembly, which was no longer controlled by ARENA, dismissed Guerrero as the Public Prosecutor “for not meeting the well-known requirements of morality and competence.” However, Guerrero was quickly reinstated by the Salvadoran Supreme Court of Justice, which ruled that his dismissal had been unconstitutional. Id. at ¶ 120. 105. In August 1985, the Public Prosecutor, Guerrero, submitted the statement of Robert Adalberto Salazar Collier (“Pedro Lobo”) to the Fourth Criminal Court. At that time Guerrero did not mention that the videotaped “confession” of “Pedro Lobo” had first been presented by Major D’Aubuisson during the March 1984 electoral campaign, and that it had been immediately discredited when it was determined that “Pedro Lobo” was a common criminal who had been incarcerated from 1979 through 1981 and who had admitted that he had been offered $50,000 to confess to being an accomplice in the assassination of Archbishop Romero. IACHR Decision at ¶ 50, n. 43; TC Report, p. 129. C. The Failed Extradition Effort of 1987-1988. 106. In January 1986, President José Napoleón Duarte appointed a Commission to Investigate Criminal Acts (“the Investigative Commission”) to give impetus to the Romero investigation. IACHR Decision at ¶ 14. 107. The work of the Investigative Commission led to the discovery of Amado Antonio Garay, Saravia’s former driver. On November 20, 1987, the Investigative Commission presented Garay to Judge Ricardo Alberto Zamora Pérez of the Fourth Criminal Court, who took Garay’s sworn statement. IACHR Decision at ¶ 52; Complaint, ¶ 20, TC Report at p. 130. 108. On November 24, 1987, Judge Zamora charged Saravia with aggravated homicide in violation of Article 53 of the Salvadoran Penal Code for his alleged role in the murder of Archbishop Romero. Judge Zamora issued an arrest warrant for Saravia, and an extradition request was duly issued to the United States. TC Report, p. 130. 109. On November 25,1987, the United States Department of Justice filed a Criminal Complaint against Saravia in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and that court issued a warrant for his arrest. U.S. v. Alvaro Rafael Saravia Merino, Case No. 87-3598-CIV, (S.D.Fla.11/15/87). The November 25, 1987 affidavit of Sharon L. Kegerreis, an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, filed in support of the Complaint identifies Saravia as a citizen of El Salvador who was born on February 16, 1946 in Santiago de Maria, Usulatan Province, El Salvador. U.S. v. Alvaro Rafael Saravia Merino, Affidavit of Sharon L. Kegerreis at ¶ 5. 110. On November 27, 1987, Saravia was arrested in Florida pursuant to the arrest warrant. U.S. v. Alvaro Rafael Saravia Merino, Case No. 87-3598-CIV, “Certification of Extraditability and Order of Commitment” (S.D.Fla. Sept. 27, 1988), p. 1; Complaint, ¶ 20. 111. Saravia, reportedly with funding for his legal costs provided by Major D’Aubuisson, filed habeas corpus petitions in both the U.S. and Salvadoran courts. See Saravia v. U.S., 88-01975-CIV-TES (S.D.Fla.). On October 3,1988, the United States Ambassador to El Salvador, William Walker, sent a diplomatic cable to the United States Secretary of State regarding “The Saravia Extradition and the D’Au-buisson Mafia.” Ex. 96, p. 1. Ambassador Walker reported the following to the Secretary of State: There is ample eircumstancial [sic] evidence that an effort is underway to obstruct the extradition from the U.S. of Cpt. Alvaro Rafael Saravia, the cashiered Salvadoran Air Force officer charged with complicity in the March 24, 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero. The effort is traceable to Roberto D’Aubuisson and associates through a document telefaxed from D’Aubuisson’s Mariscos Tazumal office to Saravia’s U.S. lawyer for entry into the Saravia extradition court records. The Mariscos Tazumal fax identification clearly links the Saravia defense to an entire realm of coup plotters, death squad chiefs, kidnappers, baby robbers, mad bombers, car thieves, and other assorted criminals. None, however, has ever been convicted, and prosecution is unlikely as long as D’Aubuisson and his backers are free to manipulate the Salvadoran judicial system. Ex. 96, pp. 1 and 8. 112. On December 19,1988, the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador issued a decision ordering the Fourth Criminal Court to stop the investigation of Saravia and to withdraw the warrant for his arrest. U.S. v. Alvaro Rafael Saravia Merino, Case No. 87-3598-CIV, “Government’s Motion to Dismiss Extradition Proceedings” (S.D.Fla. Dec. 28, 1988) (attaching a certified translation of the Salvadoran court’s decision). 113. No member of the Salvadoran Supreme Court had been present when Ga-ray gave his statement. The Chief Judge of the Supreme Court at the time was the same José Francisco Guerrero who had served as D’Aubuisson’s personal lawyer and who had submitted the discredited “Pedro Lobo confession” to the Fourth Criminal Court when he was the Public Prosecutor in 1985. Id,., Hrg. Tr. 9/3/04 (Karl), 51:11-53:1, 55:23-56:10. 114. The U.N. Truth Commission found the Salvadoran Supreme Court “played an active role that served to hinder the extradition from the United States and later imprisonment of Saravia in El Salvador.” The Truth Commission interpreted the decision as politically motivated. Complaint, ¶ 20; TC Report, p. 131; IACHR Decision, ¶ 98. 115. On December 28, 1988, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida vacated the Certificate of Extra-ditability and Order of Commitment and ordered the United States Marshals to release Saravia. U.S. v. Alvaro Rafael Saravia Merino, Case No. 87-3598-CIV, “Order of Dismissal and Vacation.” (S.D.Fla. Dec. 28, 1988). 116. No further efforts have ever been made in El Salvador to prosecute Saravia or anyone else for the murder of Archbishop Romero. Complaint, ¶ 21. D. End of Civil War. 117. From 1980 to 1992, El Salvador was engaged in full-scale civil war, caused in part by the assassination of Archbishop Romero. In 1990, the parties began informal talks about the possibility of negotiating a peace agreement. Actual negotiations continued from 1990 to 1992. A formal cease fire and Peace Accords were signed in Chapultepec, Mexico, on January 16, 1992. The peace agreement required the dismantling of the Treasury Police and the National Police because they “were so thoroughly repressive and corrupt that they could not be saved.” However, the death squads that operated out of those forces were not entirely dismantled. Hrg. Tr. 8/25/04 (White), [White Dep. 55:13-56:1]; Hrg. Tr. 8/27/04 (Acosta), 41:2-6; 42:6-21; Hrg. Tr. 8/25/04 (Karl), 75:6-18, 93:3-16. E. United Nations Truth Commission. 118. In accordance with the Peace Accords, the United Nations established a Truth Commission that began investigating crimes committed since 1980. It was set up in July 1992 and was composed of former Colombian president Belisario Be-tancur, former Venezuelan foreign minister Reinaldo Figueredo Planchart, and George Washington University law professor Thomas Buergenthal. The Truth Commission’s report on “serious acts of violence” since 1980 entitled “From Madness to Hope: the 12-Year War in El Salvador: Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador,” was released on March 15, 1993, at the United Nations. The peace agreements also commissioned the Truth Commission to make “legal, political or administrative” recommendations that were either general or related to specific cases. The Truth Commission was delegated two specific powers: the power to make investigations and the power to make recommendations. The Parties to the peace agreement had agreed to be bound by the Truth Commission’s recommendations. TC Report, p. 11, 18-25; Hrg. Tr. 8/25/04 (Karl), 75:19-21. 119. The Truth Commission testimony attributed almost 85% of all abuses to agents of the government of El Salvador, allied paramilitary groups, and the death squads. TC Report, p. 43. Among other things, the Truth Commission concluded that: • Violence in the 1980s “originated in a political mind-set that viewed political opponents as subversives and enemies.” TC Report, p. 43. • Those who promoted opposing ideas that questioned official policy were automatically labeled subversive and deemed to be working for the guerrillas. TC Report, p. 43. • In the early 1980s, violence in rural areas was “indiscriminate in the extreme.” TC Report, p. 44. • Several members of the armed forces admitted and gave details of their involvement at the highest levels in the organization, operation and financing of the death squads. TC Report, p. 132. • Between 1980 and 1991, human rights violations were committed in a systematic and organized manner by groups acting as death squads. TC Report, p. 132. • Many of the civilian and military authorities in power during the 1980s “participated in, encouraged and tolerated” the activities of the death squads. TC Report, p. 132,137. • The intelligence sections of many armed forces units operated on the death squad model, dressing in civilian clothes and driving unmarked cars. TC Report, p. 136. • Salvadoran exiles living in Miami “directly financed” certain death squads. TC Report, p. 137. • The lack of effective action by the judicial system was a factor in main- ' taining impunity for “members and promoters” of the death squads. TC Report, p. 137. • None of the branches of government were capable of restraining the military’s overwhelming control of society. TC Report, p. 172. • The judicial system suffered from a “glaring inability” to investigate crimes or to enforce the law, especially with regard to crimes committed or supported by government institutions. TC Report, p. 178. 120. Based on these findings, the Truth Commission recommended, among other things: • The discharge of officers in the Salvadoran armed forces who were named in the report. TC Report, p. 176. • The appointment of a new Supreme Court. TC Report, p. 177. • Elimination of the defense of “due obedience” for soldiers who carry out orders that are clearly illegal. TC Report, p. 179. • The subordination of the military to civilian authorities. TC Report, p. 179. • The eradication of illegal armed groups by “all necessary measures.” TC Report, p. 180. • Review of the constitutional rules which led to “tremendous concentration” of power in the hands of the Supreme Court, particularly its President. TC Report, p. 181. 121. The Truth Commission was unable to recommend specific penalties because, as it found: “El Salvador has no system for the administration of justice which meets the minimum requirements of objectivity and impartiality so that justice can be rendered reliably. This is a part of the country’s current reality and overcoming it urgently should be a primary objective for Salvadoran society.” TC Report, p. 178. F. Amnesty Law. 122. On March 20,1993, five days after the Truth Commission Report was released at the United Nations, the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador adopted the General Amnesty Law by Decree No. 486 (“Amnesty Law”). IACHR Decision, ¶ 55; Hrg. Tr. 8/26/04 (Hernandez), 126:3-10, 128:4-12; Hrg. Tr. 9/3/04 (Roht-Arriaza), 130:16-21,131:14-17. 123. The Amnesty Law grants a “broad, absolute and unconditional amnesty ... in favor of all those who in one way or another participated in political crimes, crimes with political ramifications, or common crimes committed by no less than twenty people, before January 1, 1992.” The Amnesty Law extends to indirect perpetrators and accomplices as well, and includes those who have been convicted, indicted or not yet charged. Id. At Art. 1, 4. 124. Shortly after passage of the Amnesty Law, on March 31, 1993, Judge Luis Antonio Villeda Figueroa applied the Amnesty Law to Saravia and dismissed with prejudice the case against him for the murder of Archbishop Romero. Specifically, Judge Villeda found that the Romero assassination was a “political” crime which provides Saravia with amnesty under the 1993 law. Judge Villeda’s decision was upheld by the First Criminal Chamber on May 13, 1993, which entered a final judgment in the case because the time for the Office of the Public Prosecutor to file a motion had expired without any action. The First Criminal Chamber ruled that its decision has res judicata effect with regard to Saravia in the Romero case. IACHR Decision, ¶¶22, 98, n. 100, 101; Amnesty Law, Art. 2, 4(c). 125. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found in 2000 that “the application of the General Amnesty Law in the [Romero] case eliminated the possibility of undertaking judicial investigations aimed at determining the responsibility of all those involved. In addition, that decision violated the right of the victim’s relatives and of society at large to know the truth about the events in question.” The IACHR Commission recommended that the government of El Salvador pass legislation to nullify the amnesty law. IACHR Decision, ¶¶ 151,159(3). 126. No such legislation has ever been passed. The Salvadoran Supreme Court has twice upheld the constitutionality of the Amnesty Law, in 1993 and 2000. Although the Court’s 2000 decision, postdating the IACHR Decision does not foreclose narrowing of the amnesty, in the twelve years following enactment, no prosecutions have taken place for crimes and individuals facially covered by the Amnesty Law. This is because the Public Prosecutor has interpreted the Salvadoran Supreme Court decision to apply the amnesty law to all cases of human rights abuses. Hrg. Tr. 9/3/04 (Roht-Arriaza), 136:3-20. 127. Aside from the Amnesty Law’s blocking prosecution of Saravia for his involvement in the assassination of Archbishop Romero, the passage of the Amnesty Law immediately following the release of the Truth Commission Report served to stifle discussion of the report and frustrated the implementation of its recommendations. This undermined the efficacy and purpose of the entire truth-finding process. Hrg. Tr. 9/3/04 (Roht-Arriaza) 130:16-21, 131:14-19. G. Inability to Publicly or Privately Pursue Justice in El Salvador. (1) Fear of Reprisal. 128. Prior to the first democratically-elected government taking office in El Salvador on June 1, 1994, the military and security forces held enormous power. From 1980 to 1994, any person who made allegations against active or former members of the military risked reprisal, including death. However, citizens did not just fear reprisals by the military. The ARENA party held great power in El Salvador in the 1980s and continues to run the government today. The ARENA party was founded by Roberto D’Aubuisson, who also founded the death squads that operated in direct concert with the Salvadoran armed forces. Salvadorans feared and continue to fear, not only retaliation from the military, but also from the ARENA-run government and its death squads. Complaint, ¶ 22; Hrg. Tr. 8/25/04 (Ramirez Amaya), 26:12-19; 493:3-12, 51:22-52:21. 129. During the civil war, judges were murdered at a high rate. As the Truth Commission concluded, “In the 1980s, it was dangerous to be a judge in El Salvador.” During that decade, 28 judges were killed. The judiciary could not defend itself against violence. It “fell victim to intimidation and the foundations were laid for its corruption... [I]ts ineffectiveness steadily increased until it became, through its inaction or its appalling submissiveness, a factor which contributed to the tragedy suffered by the country.” TC Report, pp. 170,172-73. 130. Even after the security forces were disbanded pursuant to the Peace Accords, Salvadoran courts were still unable or unwilling to hear most claims for human rights violations against individuals for alleged involvement in financing, ordering, assisting, or carrying out death squad killings, including the assassination of Archbishop Romero. Even today, survivors of torture and relatives of killings committed by Salvadoran death squads and the armed forces as far back as the 1970s and early 1980s have declined to bring claims in El Salvador or elsewhere against the individuals responsible, for fear of violent reprisals. Complaint, ¶ 22. 131. J. Doe, specifically, was afraid to bring a case either inside or outside of El Salvador due to risks of violent reprisals against plaintiff and plaintiffs family. Although plaintiff has now brought this case, it is only with the protection of anonymity provided by filing under the name J. Doe. El Salvador remains a dangerous place, but changed circumstances now permit this case to be brought and improved cooperation of witnesses in El Salvador now makes it possible to present this case in a United States Court. Supplemental Declaration of Plaintiff J. Doe, ¶¶4-6, filed 9/28/04. 132. Fear is a primary reason that cases have never been brought. The inefficiency a