.
.
Between August 27 and 29, 2002, the exhumations and identification of human remains were carried out in Sancaypata, Totos, by the so-called Joint Platform of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. On that occasion, the community rejected with considerable indignation the expert report of the foreign forensic specialists, who claimed to have successfully participated in exhumations carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Central America, Argentina, and Chile. Throughout all these years, this unprecedented but highly relevant event has strangely been kept in absolute secrecy. Below is a detailed report on the Sancaypata case, the presentation of the expert report on the identification of the human remains, and the current repercussions of the case.
1.- Background of the Sancaypata-Totos Case:
Between May 28 and 31, 1983, military forces—in response to terrorist attacks by the Shining Path group in Ocros, Paras, Chuschi, and Canchacancha—conducted joint operations with residents of the affected locations in the peasant community of Quispillaccta-Chuschi, its main town center, and its seven annexes. As a consequence, since January 1984, the case of forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions in the area of Sancaypata, Totos, began to be formulated regarding the whereabouts of the following fifteen individuals: Moises Huamán Ccallocunto, Nemesio Moreno Huamaní, Virgilio Moreno Machaca, Victorio Moreno Machaca, Víctor Espinoza Achallma, Demetrio Galindo Rocha, Francisco Huamaní Galindo, José Tomaylla Moreno, Cirilo Galindo Huamán, Cirilo Conde Galindo, Marcelino Espinoza Nuñez, Francisco Nuñez Vilca, Martín Vilca Tomaylla, Gregorio Cuello Flores, and Antonio Galindo Pacotaype. For their part, the relatives submitted a series of personal documents of those who were missing and presented testimonial statements regarding the denounced events. Thus, in November 1984, it was filed as a case under the status of forced disappearances. On May 14, 2001, a journalistic report gave an account of the discovery of an alleged mass grave in the area of Paqpamuqu (Totos district), and during the visit, complaints were gathered from residents who stated the existence of graves in the areas of Sancaypata and Ccarpaccasa in Totos, where people from the district and the community of Quispillaqta had allegedly been clandestinely buried.
Between May 16, 17, and 18, 2001, the Ombudsman's Office initiated a non-jurisdictional investigation to determine the existence of the mass grave. Therefore, according to Ombudsman Report No. 002-2002-DP/ADDHH, a visit was coordinated involving the Mixed Provincial Prosecutor of Cangallo, a member of the Peruvian Team of Forensic Anthropology (EPAF), and commissioners from the Ombudsman's Office. On-site, preliminary information was received regarding the burials in the Sancaypata area, a meeting was held between authorities, victims' relatives, and residents of the Totos district, ante-mortem information on the alleged victims was gathered, testimonies about the case were received, and the documentary records of the Public Ministry and the Ombudsman's Office were verified.
During the inspection, the existence of three graves was verified in the area of Sancaypata. However, the technical report from EPAF expressed the difficulty of finding not only the fifteen sought individuals, but even a single one:
"..we consider that it is possible to find a matching relationship between the physical characteristics of the designated area, the surface remains, the statements of the relatives, and the testimony of the witness. This means that the described sites give rise to the presumption of the existence of one or more graves containing human remains belonging to a case of extrajudicial execution by the armed forces. Furthermore, ante-mortem files of the victims are available, which allows for the initiation of forensic anthropological work in terms of identification.
Although it could happen during the intervention and as part of the exhumation process that no human remains are found, as these might have been looted, there are sufficient elements (to) initiate an investigation that rules out or confirms the fact and gathers the existing material evidence of the witnessed events.."
Finally, the exhumation in the area of Sancaypata, Totos, took place on August 26, finding human remains to which the codes SQ01 and SQ0201C were assigned. On August 27, excavations continued for SQ01 and SQ0202C, also finding SQ0204C and allegedly SQ03 (as it has not been found in the forensic archaeological report, nor has the graphic of the distribution of the corresponding remains). Luis Fondebrider participated as an International Monitor for the Joint Platform of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, along with archaeologist Flavio Estrada from the Public Ministry, supported by nearly sixteen professionals.
In a morgue set up in the city of Ayacucho between August 30 and September 6, 2002, the identification of the alleged victims was carried out. The forensic anthropological part of the investigation was led by Colombian archaeologist María Inés Barreto, and the forensic medical part by Dr. Félix Briceño from the Institute of Legal Medicine of the Public Ministry. Dr. Briceño avoided presenting his expert report jointly with Ms. Barreto, despite her complaints, due to failing to uphold a prior agreement with the Joint Platform of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In the end, the alleged relatives of the human remains found did not accept the identification results, as they considered that the remains did not belong to them; furthermore, they argued that the forensic experts had exhumed in a different site. As a result, samples of the individualized remains were sent to laboratories abroad for DNA identification, establishing a three-month deadline. However, by the year 2003, when the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was delivered, this final ruling was still unknown.
2.- The Meeting for the Presentation of the Forensic Expert Report on the Identification of Human Remains from Sancaypata-Totos:
The big question is, why did the residents of Sancaypata reject the forensic ruling of these "foreign forensic experts" hired by the Joint Platform of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? The answer is found in the meeting for the presentation of the expert report on the identification of human remains from the Sancaypata case in 2002, one week after the exhumation of the graves was carried out. On that occasion, the results of the expert ruling for the Sancaypata case were presented to the communities of Quispillaqta, San Jerónimo de Pampamarca, Canchacancha, and others. The presenters included prosecutor Felipe Villavicencio, Argentine forensic anthropologist Luis Fondebrider, Chilean forensic anthropologist Isabel Rebeco, Guatemalan forensic anthropologist Mercedes Salado, Peruvian archaeologist Cirilo Vivanco, and a representative from the Ombudsman's Office. Additionally, former commissioner Sofía Macher and a Quechua translator representing the Ombudsman's Office attended.
From the beginning of the forensic investigation, protests and complaints were raised by the population regarding the work of the forensic team, as they claimed that they had exhumed in other graves, and inspection visits were even carried out at the request of some relatives. However, the report of the specialists prevailed, who maintained that the conditions did not exist to perform exhumations in the graves pointed out by the relatives. Indignation reached its peak during this meeting when prosecutor Felipe Villavicencio announced: "One has been identified, two remain for identification. Everything indicates that it will not be possible to identify any others from the list. There are technical reasons that I ask Luis (Fondebrider), by giving him the floor with a gesture, to explain, please". Fondebrider then developed his arguments based on three theses:
2.1.- It was the correct location and the Identification was absolute:
"We think that when we excavated in those three locations in Sancaypata, according to what the witness said, and as we moved forward with the investigation and reviewed the identification of one of the bodies, we were in the correct place... Furthermore, shell casings from projectiles, from rifles, appeared in these graves, clothing appeared, all elements appeared, and additionally we identified a gentleman—whose name we are now going to give—who belongs to the group of fifteen. Therefore, we have a lot of evidence stating that the fifteen were killed together, and by identifying this gentleman, it confirms to us that the other bodies are not going to appear. We want to be very clear: there is no way the other bodies are in other graves. We can investigate other graves, but they will belong to other relatives, not to you."
However, as happens with all graves investigated to date, on that occasion, it caught the residents' attention that the exhumed graves contained far fewer human remains than what had been assured. In this case, they only found three of the fifteen sought human remains and, to make matters worse, they could only guarantee the identification of one of them: that of Mr. Víctor Espinoza Achallma. Through the Quechua-to-Spanish translator, one of the residents asked: "Why has 'only one body' been identified? What if you made a mistake and that one belongs to other relatives? I would like you to explain again." The translator then supplemented the relatives' questions, asking Fondebrider for clarifications: how did they identify him? Was it by his clothes? Was it because the relatives recognized him, or what was the indicator to say “this victim is so-and-so”?
2.2.- They were graves disturbed by the environment and predatory animals:
Faced with this situation, Fondebrider had to be upfront and explain all the difficulties that this type of investigation must confront, and therefore the limitations of all their evidence, which no longer seemed so indisputable:
"It is very difficult to find a body because the people who killed them did not just kill them, but they hid them; however, by hiding them, they left them near animals. When bodies are eaten by animals, when they are on a hill, with the rain, nineteen years go by, the little bones move around, they get lost, and we can no longer do anything. There is no longer any way to say this little bone corresponds to such person. That is the big problem we have; that is why we did not find the fifteen and only found five. If the grave had been well protected and deep, we would have found all of that. But they left it in a way that animals immediately started eating and tearing off pieces, so if they are not there, it does not mean they could be in another grave, because in another grave there are other people from other relatives. And if we had opened those other graves, we would not know who they belong to because we do not have witnesses for all the graves. We have witnesses for these, so that is the big problem we face in finding everyone."
With the utmost promptness, a resident remarked: "But I imagine that dogs cannot finish off the majority, nor can water carry them away. There should at least be five, six, or even ten at least; ten is a lot. According to what they say, the grave was more or less two meters deep; that doesn't match either, you have only excavated fifty, sixty-five centimeters. It doesn't match. So, well, what can we do! If you don't accept anything, then... all that's left is to take those little bones among all of us, but surely, I assure you, it will be the same for everyone."
2.3.- The Army had set up a boutique in the emergency zones to change their clothes before executing them:
However, the most surreal and hilarious statement of the meeting came from the forensic expert Fondebrider when he was explaining the procedure they had followed and warning the residents not to rely on identifying their relatives by their clothes, because the military had changed their clothes before executing them:
"In relation to the clothing, the group of fifteen was detained at a base, a military base, and it is very possible that people's clothes were changed. So, what happens is that the clothes you told us your relative had do not match what the body was wearing because they changed them. So perhaps today, if you see the clothes, you might recognize some garment that belongs to your relative, but the body will not be there because it was changed; perhaps you recognize a pair of pants or something, but the body will not be there, only the clothes."
This statement, which practically suggests the implementation of a sort of military boutique in emergency zones to dress detainees before executing them, has been implicitly accepted by prosecutors and authorities in most cases since the earliest ones investigated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, such as Sancaypata, Totos.
However, a community resident who was listening closely to the strange reasoning warned the "foreign forensic experts" through the translator:
"He states that there is a witness who escaped from that slaughter of the fifteen. So they are going to ask if they could have changed or if those people were in those same clothes. So, that will be an indicator to see as well, right? That is what they say, because if that is the case, we cannot just believe straight away that they could have changed them. We will talk with our witnesses, they say, right?"
2.4.- The location of Sancaypata on a slope prevented the remains from being preserved:
Finally, Argentine expert Luis Fondebrider wondered aloud and answered himself:
"Why is Ccarpacassa different from Sancaypata? Ccarpacassa is an area—the area is more protected, it is flat, it is not a slope, so the bodies were better preserved and it was much simpler to find and identify them. That is why it is different from the identification in Sancaypata."
Faced with these unusual claims by Luis Fondebrider, the community replied through a local resident, an area that the Argentine expert Fondebrider was surely visiting for the very first time on that occasion:
"Mr. Prosecutor, forensic experts, members of the Truth Commission, and relatives:
Well, some of us remain concerned about this case. Do you know why? Because as we imagine that site where we have now exhumed, it was not a place for a person to escape; it looks like a flat plain! It is not, but on the other side, where we went the next day to verify with a lady, two garments were recovered; now that site was indeed a place to throw oneself inward. With this, we worry that there is something going on here, right? And I also want to clarify this matter: the next day we went to check those graves, but the anthropologists or forensic gentlemen, I believe, said that those are not graves; they said very clearly that 'these are not graves.' Of course, at the end of the day, those are graves; I think that is a deception, isn't it? That should not be, Mr. Prosecutor, please. You as authorities must investigate it well, you must do things right, it seems to me, right?.. scraping around they said 'these are not graves,' that if they were graves, at first sight, the stones would be soft. 'They are hard, they are not graves,' but in reality, those are graves. Why did they tell us they were not graves? Because of that, we distrust that they have only identified one person, right?.. and furthermore, that area is not a cliff for rain or water to wash things away, it is not a mudslide site, right? It is a forest, it has bushy trees, I don't think they could have carried them away.."
In the end, with these words, the community rejected the expert report on the Sancaypata, Totos case from the Joint Platform of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: "We trusted this team, but right now, all of us relatives are left with pain and frustration. Why do I say this, Mr. Prosecutor? We peasants, the poor, perhaps do not have scientific knowledge; as a consequence of that, we cannot answer according to your questions. Mr. Prosecutor, as a representative of the Public Ministry, I beg you, madam from the Ombudsman's Office, I beg you, let it go back to being thoroughly investigated so that we can feel satisfied. Moreover, with this information, it is regrettable and more painful, we are left worse off; today we are going to leave here sick, demented, and psychologically broken. Instead of leaving here with relief... we might have found something good here, but no, everything is quite the contrary."
Entradas
