On December 5 El Salvador’s Attorney General advised a Salvadoran court that the case over the 1989 murder of the Jesuit priests should be reopened. This follows a similar request on November 27 by the Institute for Human Rights of the University of Central America (UCA), where the priests lived and worked.
The defendants in the case are the alleged intellectual authors of the crime: former president, Alfredo Cristiani; the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, René Emilio Ponce (now deceased); ex-commander of the Air Force, Juan Rafael Bustillo; Deputy Defense Minister, Juan Orlando Zepeda; Public Security Vice Minister, Inocente Orlando Montano; the former commander of the First Infantry Brigade, Francisco Elena Fuentes; and the former Minister of Defense, Rafael Humberto Larios.
Another former Salvadoran military officer and intellectual author of the crime, Guillermo Alfredo Benavides, earlier was convicted of the crime in El Salvador and now is imprisoned in that country.
Montano, as reported in previous posts, is now in Spain facing the same charges in a Spanish court. Apparently he is asserting the following defenses: (a) he had no knowledge of the orders to kill the priests, (b) he was not part of the military chain of command; and (c) at the time of the assassination of the Jesuits, former President Cristiani was present in the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces. At least one of these defenses is supported by an attorney for the Salvadoran military, who is asserting that Montano had no command over military personnel since as deputy minister he only could give orders to members of the military corps security.
In response, the prosecution in Spain is arguing that Montano was present at the Salvadoran Military General Staff meetings when the orders were given to commit the murders and that as Deputy Minister of Defense and Public Security he was empowered to command the security forces (National Police, National Guard and Treasury Police) while as a Colonel he had command over the military units.
On July 13, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of El Salvador decided, 4 to 1, that the country’s amnesty law of 1993 was unconstitutional. This post will examine that decision and a subsequent post will discuss the impact of that decision on the pending criminal case in Spain regarding the 1989 murders of the Jesuit priests in El Salvador.
The Chamber held that the country’s amnesty law of 1993 was unconstitutional because it was “contrary to the access to justice” and the “protection of fundamental rights” as impeding the state from fulfilling its obligation to investigate, try and punish grave violations of those rights. Indeed, the court said the government has an obligation to “investigate, identify and sanction the material and intellectual authors of human rights crimes and grave war crimes” in its civil war and to provide reparations to victims. The court also suggested that prosecutors begin with about 30 cases highlighted by a U.N. Truth Commission in March 1993. The cases include massacres, assassinations and kidnappings by combatants from both the armed forces and the guerrilla army called the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN). One of the most prominent was the 1989 murders of the Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her daughter.
The court’s announcement of its decision stated that the 1992 Peace Accords ending the civil war had contained no provision for an amnesty; that the country’s National Assembly had no power to grant an amnesty to persons who had committed crimes against humanity or war crimes constituting grave violations of human rights and that its constitution and international law of human rights required the conclusion of invalidity.
The court also stated that the crimes against humanity during the civil war were not individual and isolated acts, but the result of guidelines and orders issued by organized apparatuses of power with hierarchies of command. This implies criminal responsibility of the direct actors, those who gave the orders for the crimes and those commanders who failed to countermand the orders and thereby failed to exercise control over the hierarchies.
Much to the surprise of this blogger as a retired U.S. attorney, one of the Chamber’s four judges in this very case, Florentine Menendez, made a public statement about the decision. He said, “We’re not raising hatred or reopening wounds,” but rather emphasizing “the strength of the constitution and the right to life and justice” for the victims. The decision rescues “the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system of human rights protection to heal the wounds of the past and finally close the page and get a national reconciliation.”
The next day the decision was celebrated at a ceremony in San Salvador’s Cuscatlan Park, the site of a 275-foot granite wall etched with the names of 30,000 civilians killed in the country’s civil war and the locations of nearly 200 massacres committed between 1970 and 1991. Below are photographs of David Morales,El Salvador’s human rights ombudsman, who made remarks that day, and of part of the granite wall.
At this celebration, David Morales said, “If prosecutors and judges are willing to comply with the ruling, it will generate for the first time in El Salvador the first glimmers of reconciliation.” He added that many Latin American countries have already abolished their amnesty laws and begun to prosecute crimes dating to the civil wars and military dictatorships of the late 20th century.
Benjamin Cuellar, former director of the human rights institute at the University of Central America (UCA) and one of the petitioners in the lawsuit, said, “This is the first step that will take El Salvador to true reconciliation; so that the institutions work and bring to justice those who commit crimes, regardless of who they are.”
UCA, the home of the murdered Jesuit priests, stated, “The majority of the victims are more noble than the victimizers. They do not want vengeance, they want the injustice to be recognized. And the State is obliged to honor them. It is time to put the victims in the center. The new phase that is opened for the country is positive, it means an advance for democracy and justice, and constitutes a late but just recognition for those who had been disrespected in their memory and in their pain.”
The Center for Justice and Accountability, which has been involved in various Salvadoran human rights cases, including the Spanish case regarding the murder of the Jesuit priests, said, “Today’s decision marks a moment many of us have hoped for, for a long time, as we struggled by the victims’ side. The victims have been demanding justice since the peace was signed and the brave truth commission report was published. The amnesty law passed only seven days after was a betrayal to the victims’ hopes and the whole peace process. With it, justice was excluded forever. Today’s decision brings back hope for investigation and prosecution both inside and outside the country.”
A group of independent United Nations human rights experts declared: “This historic decision for the country brings hope to victims and confidence in the legal system…. More than twenty years after the end of the conflict, this decision will restore the fundamental rights of victims to justice and full reparations.”
Amnesty International praised the decision: “Today is an historic day for human rights in El Salvador. By turning its back on a law that has done nothing but let criminals get away with serious human rights violations for decades, the country is finally dealing with its tragic past.”
Another voice of support for the decision came in a New York Timeseditorial calling it “ a remarkable ruling that opens the door for relatives of victims of war crimes to hold torturers and killers accountable.” “However,” the editorial continued, “there appears to be little political will in El Salvador to revisit a painful chapter of its history in courtrooms. Politicians across the political spectrum have questioned the viability of war crimes tribunals at a time when the country’s judicial institutions are overwhelmed by endemic gang violence.” Nevertheless, the Times suggested that El Salvador should create “a prosecution unit and gives it the tools and independence to pursue the most emblematic cases of the conflict” like the El Mozote Massacre,” which has been discussed in prior posts.
Negative Reactions to the Decision.
The lack of political will referenced in the Times editorial can be seen in the country’s President, Salvador Sánchez Cerén, a member of the FLMN, asserted that his government had always been committed to the restoration of the victims of the war and to building a culture committed to human rights. However, he said the court’s decision did not meet “the real problems of the country and far from solving the daily problems of Salvadorans, worsens them. Judgments of the Constitutional Chamber ignore or fail to measure the effects on our living together in society, and do not contribute to strengthening institutionality.”
Another FLMN leader had a similar reaction. The former president of the National Assembly, Siegfried Reyes, said the decision was “surprising and seeks to weaken and hit the governance and hit the security plans that the government is implementing effectively.”
The country’s Minister of Defense, David Munguia Payés, asserted that the decision was a “political error” and would be a setback to the process of pacification which had occurred since the end of the civil war.” He openly worried that the ruling would turn into a “witch hunt.”
Mauricio Ernesto Vargas, a retired general who represented the armed forces in the peace negotiations, said the court’s ruling could intensify political polarization in a country with no shortage of problems: a gang-violence epidemic, a migration crisis, crop failures and economic stagnation.
The country’s Attorney General, Douglas Melendez, had a more nuanced view. He said, “We respect from the institutional point of view this ruling. We will do what we have to do, we will fulfill our constitutional responsibilities.”
The conservative political party ARENA (founded by a leader of the death squads in the 1970s and 1980s, and in control of the government when atrocities like the massacre of the Jesuits occurred and the authors of the amnesty law) published an official statement urging respect for the court’s decisions, but also noting that the decisions would present challenges for the process of reconciliation and the strengthening of democracy and institutions.
Now we will have to see whether this decision leads to any Salvadoran investigations and prosecutions for the serious human rights crimes of its civil war and to a resumption of Spain’s criminal case regarding the 1989 murders of the Jesuit priests. (The latter subject will be covered in a subsequent post.)
That started to change when the other members of my delegation and I visited UCA’s beautiful, peaceful campus, in contrast to the noisy bustle of the rest of San Salvador, and when we had an hour’s calm, reasoned conversation with one of its professors, Fr. Jon Sobrino, S.J., a noted liberation theologian. I came away impressed with UCA and with Sobrino.
I, therefore, was shocked six months later to hear the news of the November 16, 1989, murder of six of UCA’s Jesuit professors and their housekeeper and daughter. How could such a horrible crime happen to such intelligent, peaceful human beings in that tranquil, academic setting?
I was even more appalled when I learned about the selfless, courageous lives of the murdered Jesuits who used their minds, education and spirits to help the poor people of that country and to work for bringing about a negotiated end to its horrible civil war.
Their deaths were repetitions of the horrible assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero on March 24, 1980, who like the Jesuits had used his mind, education and spirit to help the poor people of his country and to condemn violent violations of human rights. The same was true of another Salvadoran Roman Catholic priest, Rutilio Grande, who was murdered in 1977 because of his protests against the regime’s persecution of the poor people, and of the 1980 murders of the four American churchwomen, who worked with the poor in that country.
Thus, Romero, Grande, the four American churchwomen and the murdered Jesuits are forever linked in my mind as profound Christian witnesses and martyrs. Their examples have strengthened my Christian faith to love God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself.
All of these experiences have inspired me to learn more about El Salvador, Romero, Grande, the churchwomen and the Jesuits’ Christian witness in the midst of violence and threats to their own lives. On my subsequent five trips to that country, I always visit UCA for prayer in the Romero Chapel where the Jesuits’ bodies are buried and in the beautiful chapel of a cancer hospital where Romero was assassinated.
On my 2000 visit to El Salvador for the 20th anniversary of Oscar Romero’s assassination, my group visited UCA to spend time with its then Rector, Dean Brackley, a Jesuit priest from the U.S. who went to El Salvador to help UCA after the murders of his brother priests. He impressed me as a calm voice of reason and passion in UCA’s ministry of helping the poor and the country.
In 2010 I returned to El Salvador for the 30th anniversary of Romero’s assassination. On my delegation’s visit to UCA, we spent time with its then Rector, José Maria Tojeira, S.J.. He was an amazingly serene and soft-spoken man. He told us he was a new “church bureaucrat” (the Jesuit Provincial for Central America) at UCA in November 1989 and lived nearby, but not on the campus. During the night of November 15th-16th he heard gunfire and thought there must have been a skirmish between the Salvadoran security forces and the guerrillas. The next morning he went to the campus and was one of the first people to see the dead bodies of his six fellow Jesuits and their cook and her daughter. He nonchalantly said to our group, “That morning I thought I was the next one to be killed.” Later that day he went to his office and found faxed messages of support and solidarity from people all over the world. Then in the same casual manner, he said he thought, “Well, maybe I am not the next to be killed.”
As a result, my cloud of Salvadoran witnesses includes Oscar Romero; Rutilio Grande; the American churchwomen; the Jesuit priests; Fr. Brackley; Fr. Tojeira; Bishop Menardo Gomez of the Salvadoran Lutheran Church, who escaped a death squad on the night the Jesuits were murdered; Salvador Ibarra, who in 1989 was a lawyer for the Salvadoran Lutheran human rights office; and my Salvadoran asylum clients. Outside of El Salvador, of course, I am impressed by another Jesuit, Pope Francis.
I have been humbled to learn about the incredible courage and minds of the Jesuits, not just at UCA, but at other Jesuit universities that are generally regarded as the best of Roman Catholic institutions of higher learning. Simultaneously I am puzzled how such a marvelous group of religious men could have emerged from the Jesuits who were the shock-troops of the Counter-Reformation and did so many horrible things during the Spanish Inquisition.
All of this also inspired me to become a pro bono lawyer for Salvadorans and later others (an Afghani, a Burmese man, two Somali men and two Colombian families) who were seeking asylum or other legal status that would enable them to remain in the U.S. and escape persecution in their own countries. I always have regarded this as the most important and spiritually rewarding thing I have ever done. As I did so, I often reflected that I was able to do this in the secure and comfortable legal office of a large Minneapolis law firm. I did not have to risk my life to help others as did my Salvadoran saints.
After I had retired from practicing law in 2001, the Jesuits along with Archbishop Oscar Romero continued to inspire me to learn more about international human rights law as I co-taught a course in that subject at the University of Minnesota Law School from 2002 through 2010. In the process, I was amazed to discover the array of inter-related ways the international community had created to seek to enforce international human rights norms in a world still based essentially on the sovereignty of nation states.
I then was inspired to use my legal research and writing skills to investigate how these various ways had been used to attempt to bring to justice the perpetrators of the assassination of Archbishop Romero, the rapes and murders of the American churchwomen and the murderers of the Jesuit priests and then to share the results of that research with others on this blog. Many posts have been written about Romero, including the various unsuccessful legal proceedings to identify and punish those responsible for that crime. Other posts have discussed the criminal case still pending in Spain over the murders of the Jesuits and their housekeeper and daughter while another post summarized other legal proceedings that unsuccessfully sought to assign criminal responsibility for the murders of the Jesuit priests other than the brief imprisonment in El Salvador of two military officers.
I also have written the following other posts prompted by the 25th anniversary celebration of the lives of the priests and commemoration of their murders:
On my 2010 trip to El Salvador, I had the honor and privilege to be a member of a group of Americans who spent some time with our fellow American, Fr. Dean Brackley, S.J., then the Rector of the University of Central America (Universidad de Centro America or UCA). I recall being impressed by his warm and engaging manner as he shared his experiences in that country and urged us to tell our friends in the U.S. about our experiences.
He came to UCA in 1990 soon after the murders of his Jesuit brothers in November 1989. Brackley had seen a notice that UCA was looking for replacements for the slain priests. Although he admitted to being scared, the job description seemed to have his name on it. He told a friend, “They wanted a Jesuit. They wanted someone who had a Ph.D. in theology. They wanted someone who spoke Spanish. I started looking around and realized there weren’t that many of us.”
Brackley, therefore, volunteered to leave his teaching at Fordham University in New York City and to go to UCA to help it surmount its many challenges in the aftermath of that brutal crime.
He taught and served on UCA’s staff. He also became pastor to two municipalities and started the Scholarship Program of the Martyrs of the UCA to support poor students at the university. In his 2010 book, Spirituality for solidarity: Ignatian new perspectives, he said, “”The world will change only if human beings are changed, if people are free to love, to resist the lure of wealth and to be in solidarity with the poorest of their brothers and sisters.”
Brackley is remembered especially “for his tireless efforts to build awareness and solidarity between churches and universities in the United States and the poor in Central America. He wrote and lectured extensively on the need for higher education to connect scholarship to service and resources to the social reality of the poor.” Brackley laid out the radical challenge that education and privilege place upon the shoulders of those with resources, often describing what contact with the poor does to us: ‘First, it breaks your heart, then you fall in love, then you’re ruined for life.’”
In the summer of 2011, after he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he wrote to friends, “”The faith factor is decisive, as you know. When I ask you and Monseñor Romero to pray, I mean: Let us pool our faith. Mine is weak enough, but with all of us, that is another matter. God wants to give life more than we want life. St. Ignatius wrote to Francisco Borja: ‘I consider myself wholly an obstacle to God’s work in me. In other words, the exercise of faith, our fundamental human challenge, gets us out of the way of God’s work. So, let us pray.’”
After his death of the disease at UCA on October 16, 2011, Congressman James P. McGovern of Massachusetts said that Brackley “was a bridge between two worlds:” the U.S. and El Salvador. He offered “his talents, his passion and his life to . . . [UCA] and to the Salvadoran people. He was our anchor and our conscience, not just for the faith community, but for all of us in American who share his love for the Salvadoran people and who remain engaged in their hopes and struggles. [He] . . . became our bridge of solidarity, our commitment to justice, faith and love. . . . On my many trips to El Salvador, his enthusiasm, humor and passion kept my spirits lifted, my mind focused, and my heart engaged.”
McGovern added that Brackley “joins Monseńor Oscar Romero, my friends the martyred Jesuits, the four American churchwomen, and so many Salvadorans as a beacon of integrity and hope. He will always be ‘presente’ in our lives and work.”
On the third anniversary of Brackley’s death this October, a memorial mass was held for him at UCA. Rocio Fuentes remembered that in the last six months of his life, he was “full of joy and gratitude . . . [for] his family supporting his vocation; [for] the Society of Jesus for their support in the pursuit of justice; [for] Salvadorans, because through them he learned to know the true meaning of solidarity; and for God’s presence.”
Andreu Oliva, the current Rector of the University of Central America (Universidad de Centro America or UCA), in an article titled, Celebrating with gratitude, hope and commitment, said, “[W]e celebrate [the martyred Jesuits] because their wrongful death, so violent and cruel, has become a source of life, urging delivery, the commitment to the causes of the poor and marginalized, to move forward in building the Kingdom of God among us.”
“The martyrs continue to inspire us today and not only in El Salvador: they are inspiration for many people around the world. The large number of visitors, mainly from the U.S., Spain and Canada, who came these days to El Salvador to participate in the anniversary, and to be happy and full of spirit, strengthened in their commitment to the struggle for faith and justice that faith requires of us is without doubt a clear example of the power of the resurrection, that love is stronger than hate. In short, the promise of Jesus is made: ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled.’”
“It’s been 25 years since the slaughter happened in the UCA, but the martyrs continue giving life, continue to inspire commitment to justice and the poor, continue evangelizing and attracting women and men to join the project of the Kingdom of God. They are an example of a life offered from following Jesus, and lived to the fullest, in the service of the Salvadoran people, serving the defense of the poor and the persecuted by demanding that the equal dignity of every human being be recognized. They belong to us and to the world as examples to follow, an invitation to continue on the same path and with the same feeling.”
In the midst of its commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the murders of its martyred Jesuit priests and professors, El Salvador’s University of Central America (Universidad de Centro America), also made news regarding the beatification and canonization of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero.
In early November UCA’s website had an article by Jon Sobrino, S.J., the Director of its Archbishop Romero Center, entitled, “Beatification of Bishop.” He reported that Salvadoran Archbishop Jose Luis Escobar recently had said that Pope Francis had told him that Romero would be beatified next year (2015).
Subsequently Sobrino corrected this to say that he had not attended the meeting of the clergy where Archbishop Escobar made the announcement, but instead Sobrino had received the information second-hand from someone who had conveyed erroneous information. In particular, Sobrino clarified that Archbishop Escobar had not spoken to Pope Francis, but instead to Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the postulator (advocate) of Romero’s cause for beatification and canonization, who had said beatification would “possibly” be in 2015.
After the publication of the initial Sobrino article, Archbishop Escobar said that he hoped beatification of Romero would occur in 2015, which will be the 35th anniversary of his assassination and part of the Triennial, 2014-2017, ending in 2017, the year marking the centennial of his birth. But although beatification “was in its final stages, no date has been set,” said the Archbishop.
On November 14th UCA published on its website an editorial, “Holy to the World,” endorsing the beatification and canonization of Romero. It started, “The news [by UCA] of the possible beatification of Archbishop Romero [in 2015]spread like wildfire, both inside and outside the country. The UCA has received many reactions from many countries of the continent. The vast majority of these reactions expressed joy and hope for good news. Only a very small group of people was opposed.”
The editorial continued “Eventual beatification and subsequent canonization of Romero will be an act of justice to his career, qualities and generous dedication to the Salvadoran people. Definitely, Monsignor Romero was and still is . . . good news for the poor. To recognize this is to recognize the causes he defended, by which he lived and why he was murdered. Beatification and canonization [will recognize his] complaint against structural injustice and his fight for justice for the victims of senseless violence and an exclusionary and undemocratic system that concentrates wealth in a few hands.”
“Doing justice to Archbishop Romero is also doing justice [for those] he championed: the work of [Fr.] Rutilio Grande, the suffering of many victims of state violence who found comfort, encouragement and hope in Romero and the Archbishop’s legal aid office. Doing justice to Archbishop Romero also is doing justice to the victims of the violence he denounced, victims before and after their death, and the poor.”
Beatification and canonization also “implies a moral condemnation of his opponents, who reviled him, persecuted others and rejoiced with his murder.” This anticipated recognition of Romero leaves “in the pit of shame and disrepute the mainstream media, which systematically slandered him, branded him a communist agitator and even suggested the way to silence him.” It also will “bare the guilt of those who constantly threatened him, the masterminds who forged his death.”
“In short, to do justice to Archbishop Romero is to accept that he was right, that he was telling the truth, and makes these points clear to those who until now have remained rooted in lies and injustice.”
Beatification and canonization “will only be a formal recognition of what most people have in their hearts and cries. Romero said that if he were killed, he would be resurrected in the Salvadoran people. But his life and resurrection have transcended borders, religions and ideologies. Archbishop Oscar Romero is holy not only for El Salvador, but for the whole world.”
 A Salvadoran newspaper (Diario CoLatino) had an article about the Archbishop’s correction of the story. A fascinating, detailed examination of Sobrino’s error is provided in an article on the “SuperMartyrio” website that is dedicated to advocating Romero’s beatification and canonization:
Spain’s National Court (Audicencia Nacional) since November 2008 has been conducting a criminal case regarding the murders of six Jesuits priests and their housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador on November 16, 1989. This lead in January 2009 to the Spanish equivalent of indictments of 14 former Salvadoran military officials and soldiers for murder, crimes against humanity and state terrorism. In May 2011 the court added six indictees and issued 20 international arrest warrants. Thereafter in November 2011 Spain issued requests for extradition of these men to Spain to face the charges. 
However, in August 2011 El Salvador’s Supreme Court refused to enforce the Interpol arrest warrants for 13 of the indictees who were living in that country and in May 2012 denied the requests for their extradition on the ground that the country’s constitution prohibited extradition of its citizens. Another indictee, Inocente Orlando Montano, had been living in the U.S. and now is in U.S. prison after pleading guilty to lying multiple times to U.S. immigration officials. (One indictee, former Colonel René Emilio Ponce, died during the prior proceedings.)
Just this October the Spanish court’s Criminal Chamber, en banc, decided that the court did have jurisdiction over all of the charges: murder, crimes against humanity and state terrorism.
Last week Almudena Bernabeu, CJA’s International Attorney and Transitional Justice Program Director and the lead private attorney for the prosecution in this case, was in El Salvador to discuss the case in connection with the twenty-fifth anniversary of these horrible crimes. 
First, she reported that the case is now at a standstill because none of the suspects is physically present in Spain.
Next year, however, she hopes this will change. In April of 2015, Senor Montano will complete his incarceration in the U.S.  By then the U.S. must decide whether it will honor Spain’s request to extradite Montano to Spain.
Although the U.S. is not legally required to consult with El Salvador on this issue, as a matter of inter-state courtesy the U.S. probably would do so, she said. Therefore, Bernabeu has conferred with officials of the Salvadoran government, who have confirmed that there is absolute willingness to collaborate with the Spanish process for the extradition of Mr. Montano from the U.S. Thus, it is important to know that when the U.S. faces the decision whether to extradite Montano, the government of El Salvador has decided not to interfere.
Second, upon such an extradition and Montano’s arrival in Spain, the Spanish case would be re-activated to prepare the case for trial, presumably within 30 days.
Third, if, however, the U.S. deported Montano to El Salvador, the Salvadoran courts probably would refuse to extradite him in light of their prior refusal to extradite to Spain other indictees in the case who are Salvadoran citizens. In that event, the case in Spain could not proceed further.
Fourth, Bernabeu said she unsuccessfully has tried three times to have former Salvadoran President Alfredo Cristiani added as a defendant and indictee because she believes the evidence shows he ultimately was responsible for the crime committed by the military’s High Command and was an accessory to the killing. Indeed, she said that the testimony of two former Salvadoran military officials and documents, including declassified U.S. documents from the CIA, FBI and Department of Defense, show that Cristiani knew of the plan to kill the Jesuits before the murders happened. Whatever the reasons, the Spanish court has been reluctant to join a former foreign president as a defendant. 
Fifth, she said El Salvador’s General Amnesty Act of 1993 was a major problem for this case and others like it. This was so even though the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in December 1999 decided in the Jesuits case that the Amnesty Law violated the American Convention on Human Rights and ordered El Salvador to declare it null and void and even though the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in December 2012 in another case (the El Mozote Massacre) ordered El Salvador to repeal the Amnesty Act.  That has not yet happened, but the Constitutional Chamber of El Salvador’s Supreme Court sometime soon is expected to rule on the constitutionality of that Act.
 The Spanish court has jurisdiction over the case under Spain’s statute for universal jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of international concern. This statute is an implementation of the international legal principle of universal jurisdiction whereby a state has universal jurisdiction over certain crimes of international concern regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the victim or perpetrator. A detailed summary of the Jesuits case along with some of the court documents and other materials is available on the website of the non-profit Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) based in San Francisco, California. CJA, the sponsor of the case in Spain. It is an international human rights organization dedicated to deterring torture and other severe human rights abuses around the world and advancing the rights of survivors to seek truth, justice and redress. It uses litigation to hold perpetrators individually accountable for human rights abuses, develop human rights law, and advance the rule of law in countries transitioning from periods of abuse.
 On December 16, 2008, the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador sent a cable to the U.S. Secretary of State. It reported that earlier that month senior officials of the Salvadoran government went to Spain and met with its attorney prosecuting the Jesuits case and with other top-level Spanish government officials, who said they were embarrassed about the case’s seeking to add Alfredo Cristiani, El Salvador’s former president, as a defendant. The Spanish prosecutor also promised support and cooperation to the Salvadoran officials.
 Yet another post reviewed the decision in the El Mozote Massacre case by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.