Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on April 8th, 2014

[Bertha Oliva]

I think that the international community and governments really have to strengthen their knowledge of human rights because a great deal is invested to help, to provide the technical tools to the military and to the government authorities in charge of ensuring public security, and they're the ones who are persecuting the people.

I think international governments should rethink their approach. It is not enough to simply say that we have a project that looks very good and it looks like it will help raise people's awareness about human rights. I think that we have to let the Honduran government know that if there is no effective proof of transparency in the way that human rights are managed in Honduras, and in the way public funds are managed in Honduras, there can be no support, because human rights keep getting violated again and again. That's one thing.

So there has to be a cause and effect to the effect that if the government continues to violate human rights, and when there is a situation of impunity, and when this impunity exists, who allows it to occur? Well, it's the authorities who are in charge of implementing justice. The impunity exists because the state is complicit in these crimes. That is why impunity is a major issue, and I think that would be a good topic to discuss with the Government of Honduras.

The other thing I'd like to say is that I think there should be periodic observation, official observation, but not just with members of the state and the officials of the country. Those observations must take place in the field. There must be talks with the various organizations—human rights organizations, communities, and social organizations—to obtain information. It's important to talk with the various survivors of the tragedies that have occurred and with family members of victims. There should be a space for debate so that the government and its authorities, and most of all the government authorities in charge of implementing justice, so that they can be asked point-blank what is happening, why there is no follow-up.

The answer is because there is no political will to do so and we confirm that, because we have the information, we have the data, and we present claims, we bring cases to court, and they don't get through. So that's what government and representatives of the government can do, they can talk about impunity.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Well, Honduras has had a really rough road to democracy, and we have seen other Latin American states such as Chile transition much more smoothly, and with a greater capacity to prevent human rights violations than Honduras. So what makes Honduras kind of politically more vulnerable than other countries?

[Bertha Oliva]

I think it is precisely because there is a lack of political will internally. I think it's because there is not a great deal of observation of the agreements with other countries and whether the terms of those agreements are respected. I think that the Government of Honduras has a historic debt with regard to punishing human rights violators.

In my organization, in COFADEH, if an investigation process had been undertaken, if those responsible for the crimes had been taken to court, and if there had been a process for bringing back the trust of family members, things would be different. That's not the case and there is a debt on the part of the Government of Honduras with regard to prosecuting those responsible for creating victims. That debt is towards the family members of victims. That has created an obstacle to the country's progress and we are caught in a repetitive cycle in which the perpetrators of human rights violations become the ambassadors for the country to other countries.

Those who have committed crimes against humanity in the past are the same ones who were very active in the coup that took place in 2009. That has led to the slew of human rights violations. Today, some of the perpetrators of human rights violations are in key positions, important positions in charge of civilian security and public security. They're within the public authority responsible for people's security.

How can the people have trust in the government when we know that those who perpetrated human rights violations are responsible for protecting them from similar violations? So the government is becoming weaker and less credible, and there has been a movement towards consolidating impunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Unfortunately, that does use up your time.

Mr. Benskin, you're next.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your insight as to what's happening in Honduras.

Listening to your testimony, it's quite frankly hard to know where to begin the discussion. Before I get to the original question I was going to ask, I would like to pick up on your last comment about the perpetrators of human rights violations becoming ambassadors to other countries. In your opinion, what could the international community do in cases like that, where they have representatives who have been either accused or are known to have committed human rights violations and are now representing a country? Is there anything, in your opinion, that the international community could do in terms of accepting their credentials, not accepting their credentials, in some form that would send a message to the Honduran government?

[Bertha Oliva]

In the case before us with regard to the perpetrators of human rights violations, I think that a message should be sent by other governments to the Government of Honduras so that the security of the people not be entrusted to past human rights violators who have been shown to violate human rights and who have never been punished because of the impunity that reigns in the country.

I think that there could be official action on the part of other governments to ask the Honduran government why certain people are in charge of public security when in fact they have violated human rights in the past and haven't been judged for it—not because there isn't proof, not because the cases haven't been presented to the courts, but because there simply has been no political will to actually go through with punishing those people.

So that is why we know as well that the justice system should not be a question of political will. The justice system should be applied regardless of who's in power. But in Honduras there has been a restriction of the independence of the powers of the state—basically the state's power to implement justice—and that is why we are in the situation we have today. That situation will continue if we do not at least have governments like the Government of Canada call the Government of Honduras to task about that.

If you would like to ask me what cases I can transmit to you, I can tell you that I have a great deal of proof and a great number of cases that I can transmit.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you for that answer.

You mentioned earlier that, I believe it was between 75,000 and 125,000 individuals or private security forces members exist in Honduras, and I'd like to know how much of that number— And you also mentioned that there isn't the political will or the desire to form a professional public security force or a professional government-run public security force.

Out of those, can you give me a rough estimate, if possible, of the number of individuals in the private security sector who are directly engaged by private companies in Honduras, and in particular, internationally based private companies?

[Bertha Oliva]

Sorry, I didn't understand the question properly.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

You mentioned that there are between 75,000 and 125,000 private security members in Honduras. So these are people who are paid by a private entity. Are these people paid for or engaged directly by companies in Honduras? Are they paid for by the government or by a combination of both?

Can you tell me what the breakdown is, internationally? In other words, are there international companies that engage a significant number of these private security forces? Who do they answer to?

[Bertha Oliva]

Yes, when we look at that figure from 75,000 to 120,000 members of private security, that means they are at the disposal of the Honduran state to ensure security in the country. So for the most part, the people in charge of these individual security members are former members of the military who were responsible for human rights violations in the past, or who are current members of the military who are perpetrating them now. So these are the security forces that are arresting people. I have the example of the Bajo Aguán region. There are the forces, and we're not just talking about the police and the military, but we also have the peasants who are making their demands for land reform, and there is this other military force of private security force members, so there's a combined effect. There's public security, there's the military, and there's the private security forces that work together. For us, that creates a very dangerous situation, because, be it national or international, those private security forces are operating in the country. But I would only like to refer to national private security forces because they are very dangerous, and there is no control or record, really, that can guarantee who it is, where they come from, who these people are within the private security force. This creates a high-risk situation that leads to the impunity that I mentioned earlier, because it's very difficult to investigate and find, even, a member of a private security force who committed a crime.

For example, in the Bajo Aguán region, three members of private security forces from one of the businessmen in the area, raped a young woman. There was no way of finding out who was responsible for that rape. The private security force members wear a uniform, but there's no way of knowing who they are because they don't have their identity papers, and that can lead to all types of violations and atrocities. That is a constant concern for us because, on the one hand, they generate fear and terror, and furthermore we have to be very, very careful because they work with the military and the police in Honduras.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Mr. Schellenberger, please.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you very much for your testimony here, Ms. Oliva. We've heard other testimony before from people from Honduras or people who are knowledgeable.

What was the human rights situation before the coup? What was it like before the coup?

[Bertha Oliva]

I don't think you're asking a political question, are you? But I will answer it.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I don't think it's political, no. What was the situation with human rights in Honduras before the coup?

[Bertha Oliva]

When I talk about impunity and I tell you that I have been a member of the organization that I represent for 30 years, I think it demonstrates the very little interest that the representatives of the Honduras government have had when it comes to fighting impunity.

But I will tell you that throughout the eighties, we saw the worst barbaric forced disappearances and political assassinations. In the nineties, through certain public institutions of the government, new institutions that were created at the time, there was the beginning of a search to implement justice and create sanctions and punish those responsible. After the year 2000 there were some cases presented for prosecution against the perpetrators of human rights violations.

But after the coup, as before, there were violations of human rights. But before the coup it wasn't a state policy. There had not been punishment of those responsible. They were still there in the state institutions and they violated human rights freely because they could. Simply, they could. But it wasn't a policy. But what we have seen since the coup is a state policy that is very similar to the one that existed in the eighties, and that is what we want to stop, because it is a clear attack on political dissidence.

So if we do not come to forums such as this to talk about our concern, the situation in Honduras will be even worse than what it was in the eighties, because in the eighties there was not as much expertise and the level of impunity was not as severe as it is now for the perpetrators of human rights violations. Now the same perpetrators are more knowledgeable, have more expertise, and they know how to use the system to protect themselves and continue their violations.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

We were told that the police were not capable of investigating. They didn't know how to investigate, but they're being trained now in how to investigate, collect evidence, be able to charge and prosecute people. That's what we were told, that people now might go and be picked up and looked at, and they know very well that they caused an injustice or a murder or whatever it was, but because they never collected the evidence properly, it gets thrown out if it goes to the judiciary, if it goes to the judge. Is the judicial part of Honduras credible?

[Bertha Oliva]

That is our Achilles heel. It is clear that the police will not have the capacity to investigate, because those who commit human rights violations are members of the police. They're authorities. They're state agents. Rather than searching for evidence, they clear the scene of the crime. That's one point.

The other point is that the public authorities allow this to happen. Furthermore, the judiciary does not have credibility because it is not independent. I'm not trying to say that they don't know or don't have sufficient knowledge; it's that they're not independent. They act and hand down decisions, but they decide who they will punish. If they receive the order to set someone free or not to bring them to account even though there may be proof against them, the judiciary must let them go free. That's the problem, because there is state corruption. That corruption doesn't just mean money grabbing. It is also manipulation with regard to what the public receives, and in this case it's information. So there is no credibility because of those who have guaranteed impunity in Honduras. It's a very serious situation, and they themselves refer to this.

Perhaps we do not have to start from scratch, but we do have to see how we can reconfigure the state's public institutions and how we can ensure that citizens act to show that crimes are being committed, and that there is some kind of obligation to punish those crimes. Corruption also takes that shape. Our justice system has virtually collapsed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I want to thank our witness today.

We've really appreciated the fact that you could come and testify before us. This has been most helpful to us in engaging in our ongoing hearings. We are aware of course that you were testifying before another committee. I can only imagine how exhausting it is to be a witness before two committees in a row. I very much appreciate it and very much appreciate the dedication that you show for your cause.

Thank you.

[Bertha Oliva]

Thank you very much for allowing me to be here with you and to talk about this issue that is of concern for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We'll be back on Thursday at the same time.

The meeting is adjourned.