Salvadoran court convicts 3 former army officers in the 1982 killing of 4 Dutch journalists
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (AP) — Three former Salvadoran officers were convicted by a five-person jury late Tuesday for the 1982 killings of four Dutch journalists during the Central American nation's civil war.
A jury made up of five women convicted the three men of murder in a lightning trial that began Tuesday morning in the northern city of Chalatenango, said Oscar Pérez, lawyer for the Foundation Comunicandonos that represented the victims. Pérez said prosecutors requested 15-year prison sentences for all three.
Convicted were former Defense Minister Gen. José Guillermo García, 91, former treasury police director Col. Francisco Morán, 93, and Col. Mario Adalberto Reyes Mena, 85, who was the former army commander of the Fourth Infantry Brigade in Chalatenango.
García and Morán are under police guard at a private hospital in San Salvador, while Reyes Mena lives in the United States. In March, El Salvador's Supreme Court ordered that the extradition process be started to bring him back.
The Dutch TV journalists — Jan Kuiper, Koos Koster, Hans ter Laag and Joop Willemson — had linked up with leftist rebels and planned to spend several days behind rebel lines reporting. But Salvadoran soldiers armed with assault rifles and machine guns ambushed them and the guerrillas.
García was deported from the U.S. in 2016, after a U.S. judge declared him responsible for serious human rights violations during the early years of the war between the military and the leftist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front guerrillas.
The prosecution of the men was reopened in 2018 after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a general amnesty passed following the 1980-1992 war.
It moved slowly, but in March 2022, relatives of the victims and representatives of the Dutch government and European Union demanded that those responsible for killing Jan Kuiper, Koos Koster, Hans ter Laag and Joop Willemson be tried.
The United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador, which was set up as part of a U.N.-brokered peace agreement in 1992, concluded there was clear evidence that the killings were the result of an ambush set up by Reyes Mena with the knowledge of other officials, based on an intelligence report that alerted of the journalists' presence.
Other members of the military, including Gen. Rafael Flores Lima and Sgt. Mario Canizales Espinoza were also accused of involvement, but died. Canizales allegedly led the patrol that carried out the massacre of the journalists.
Juan Carlos Sánchez, of the nongovernmental organization Mesa Contra la Impunidad, in comments to journalists, called the trial a 'transcendental step that the victims have waited 40 years for.'
An estimated 75,000 civilians were killed during El Salvador's civil war, mostly by U.S.-backed government security forces.
The trial was closed to the public.
____
Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
44 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Will Harvard win its legal battle against the Trump administration?
The high court has given more leeway to presidential powers, particularly on national security issues the White House has cited to justify its latest impositions on Harvard. Moreover, the battle of attrition could wear Harvard down on the financial front: the legal battles will be costly, and in the meantime, Harvard may lose students and scholars 'I think the government wins every time,' said Brad Banias, an immigration lawyer based in Charleston, S.C., and former trial attorney for the Justice Department. 'If I'm an international student and I have a choice between Harvard, Yale, Brown . . . why would I pick the one in a battle with the government?' Advertisement Under fire on multiple fronts, Harvard has filed two lawsuits against the administration: one to reverse the elimination of billions in federal funding after the school refused to agree to a series of demands; the second over the White House's efforts to block international students from attending Harvard, citing potential threats to national security. Advertisement On the latter fight, Harvard so far has won temporary relief. On Thursday night, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining barring President Trump from denying visas to all students seeking entry to the country to attend Harvard. Last month, the judge temporarily halted the administration's effort to immediately revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students. In its lawsuit filed in May and amended Thursday, Harvard accused the administration of 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and due process rights as part of an ongoing, retaliatory campaign against Harvard and other elite schools by Trump. Banias said he believes the administration's actions against Harvard were 'unlawful retaliation' and predicted the school will obtain a permanent injunction to allow international students to continue their studies while the underlying lawsuit proceeds in court. But, he said, it's 'a coin flip' as to which side wins if the case reaches the Supreme Court. On the one hand, the court historically is hesitant to restrict a president's power on national security issues. Yet in this case, Banias said, the Trump administration is unlikely to prove that all Harvard student visa holders pose a national security threat. During Trump's first term, in a 5-4 vote in 2018, the Supreme Court upheld his ban on travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries, a victory that came after two prior versions of the ban were struck down. The court found presidents have broad statutory authority to make national security judgments involving immigration. Laurence Tribe, a law professor emeritus at Harvard, said he's confident the university would prevail before the Supreme Court. Advertisement 'This has nothing to do with national security,' said Tribe, a liberal lawyer who's argued before the court dozens of times. 'The courts aren't stupid; they recognize a fig leaf when they see one.' He said Harvard has no choice but to fight Trump's actions. He noted Columbia University's more conciliatory approach: The Ivy League school in New York City agreed to change certain internal policies earlier this year in the face of federal funding cuts, but the Trump administration has continued to hammer the college. On the same day Trump announced the latest move targeting the student visas of Harvard enrollees, his administration sent a letter to the accreditation agency that oversees Columbia, writing that the school has violated civil rights laws and asking it to open an investigation. 'Columbia has seen the consequences of trying to deal with him,' Tribe said. 'We are not going to cave.' Daniel DiMartino, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, said that if Harvard wins a permanent injunction, the school will be able to continue to admit foreign students, and likely run out the clock until Trump is out of office or the administration's attention shifts. 'If there is an injunction, essentially Harvard wins. If there is not an injunction, Harvard really is in trouble,' DiMartino said. But Trump's goal, he said, is not to stop foreign students from coming to Harvard: it's to cause the university enough problems that it has to agree to changes demanded by the White House. Trump and other conservatives say Harvard has discriminated against white and Asian people in admissions, failed to do enough to tackle antisemitism, and rebuffed efforts to have ideological diversity in its professorial ranks. Advertisement 'If their goal was actually just to forbid foreign students from Harvard, they would have done it much more slowly and given them notice,' DiMartino said. 'The administration is trying to make an example out of Harvard to threaten other universities into cooperating and not misbehaving.' And in a broad sense, with the legal fees that come with protracted fights, DiMartino said, 'Harvard will lose no matter what. It just matters how much they lose.' Harvard also sued the Trump administration in April after it announced it was slashing about $3 billion in federal grants to the university. That case is pending. Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who teaches courses at Harvard Law School, said she believes the Supreme Court will come down on Harvard's side and predicted the case will move quickly because of the ongoing harm to the school and its students. Citing the administration's demand the school turn over disciplinary records and other information on international students, Gertner said the White House 'essentially wanted Harvard to be a whistle-blower,' and is now retaliating even though that information is not legally required or provided by any other schools. Northeastern constitutional law professor Jeremy Paul said the government is able to punish institutions that break the law, as the Trump administration says Harvard has in its handling of antisemitic incidents. But first, he said, they have to prove in front of a judge the institution has done so. They can't just make an allegation and then act unilaterally, as the administration has done, he said. 'The executive branch is acting as though they're both the prosecutor and the judge,' Paul said. Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Milwaukee sicko Maxwell Anderson found guilty of murdering, dismembering college student Sade Robinson after first date
A Wisconsin sicko was found guilty of killing and dismembering a 19-year-old college co-ed on their first date in a grisly scene eerily similar to a Netflix documentary he watched days earlier. Maxwell Anderson, 34, sat stone-faced as Judge Laura Crivello read the guilty verdicts in the April 2024 murder of Sade Carleena Robinson after the jury discussed for less than an hour Friday afternoon. Robinson was studying criminal justice at Milwaukee Area Technical College when she met Anderson for dinner on April 1, 2024. Robinson, who was described as being excited for the date, went out to a restaurant and a bar with Anderson before returning to his Milwaukee home. She was reported missing on April 2 when she didn't show up for her shift at a pizzeria. Police conducted a welfare check at Robinson's home on April 3, but found no trace of her. 7 Maxwell Anderson appears in court during his murder trial in Milwaukee, Wisc. on June 5, 2025. AP Robinson's sawed-off leg was found on the shores of Lake Michigan that same day the police visited her residence. Prosecutors used graphic and bloodied photos from Anderson's phone to prove he was the teen's killer. One deleted image recovered by detectives captured Anderson holding Robinson's chopped-off right breast, described as 'his trophy' by one juror. 'This is his trophy in a way,' juror Melissa Blascoe told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 'Those pictures will be in my mind for quite some time.' 7 Sade Robinson was brutally murdered and dismembered by Maxwell Anderson after their date on April 1, 2024. Sade Robinson/Facebook Along with the leg that matched Robinson's DNA, authorities also found additional body parts, including a foot and human flesh scattered throughout the city. Her right breast is among other parts of her body that haven't been recovered. The jury was provided with additional evidence after the hearing that Anderson and Robinson were inside his home the night she was murdered when her killer turned on the Netflix animated series 'Love, Death & Robots.' In the second season finale, a dismembered corpse is discovered on the beach, similar to Robinson's body. 'I was like, oh, … that's disgusting because that could have been where he got some of his ideas or fantasies,' Blascoe told the outlet. 7 Prosecutors provide evidence pictures to the courtroom including a knife and sheath. AP 7 Maxwell Anderson arrives to court wearing an orange prisoner jumpsuit on April 22, 2024. AP Police found a 'sex dungeon' in Anderson's home after his arrest. In his basement, the creep had 'a sex sling, restraints and handcuffs,' a police source told the Post last April. Other photos on Anderson's phone included pictures of the college student inside his home, described as graphic and disturbing. 'That was pretty damning evidence that shook everyone,' Blascoe said. 'I physically felt like I was gonna throw up at that point. I know a lot of people were shaking and crying.' Some of the photos captured Anderson groping Robinson as she lay face down on his couch. Prosecutors said Robinson was incapacitated at that point and could not have resisted. She said the photos were a turning point in the trials as they physically put Robinson inside the home of her soon-to-be killer. After the brutal killing, Anderson drove Robinson's 2020 Honda Civic around Milwaukee for some time before parking it in North Milwaukee and lighting it on fire. 'He was just making circles around the city and probably just kind of panicking,' Blascoe said. It took the jury 45 minutes to reach a guilty verdict, with the majority of the discussion focusing on the technicalities of the law. 'Everyone agreed pretty early on in the morning that he was guilty,' juror Melissa Blascoe told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 7 Body parts belonging to Sade Robinson were discovered scattered around Milwaukee in the days after her death. Sheena Scarbrough/Facebook 7 Security footage captured Sade Robinson leaving her apartment building on April 1, 2024. AP The pack of 15 jurors debated on the type of homicide Anderson committed – intentional or reckless. He was ultimately found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse, hiding a corpse and arson. Robinson was remembered by her family, who attended the hearing Friday. 'She will forever be remembered as an angel,' said Sheena Scarbrough, Robinson's mother said outside the courthouse. 'My baby solved her own case. That's how I raised my kids. We don't give up. We are fighters. I demanded justice. I stand tall, I stand affirmative. Sade will continue to walk with me daily and right beside me.' 7 Anderson faces a mandatory life sentence, but Judge Laura Crivello could sentence him to additional extended supervision. AP Anderson is believed to have planned Robinson's killing for months, creating a space covered in a plastic tarp. 'He intended to kill Sade Robinson,' a police source recalled Anderson telling him, according to Fox 6 Milwaukee. No motive for the killing was revealed during the trial. Anderson is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 15. He faces a mandatory life sentence, but Judge Laura Crivello could sentence him to additional extended supervision. With Post wires
