Judiciary Reform: Chapultepec Peace Agreement

Written by

« Back to Accord

Judiciary Reform: Chapultepec Peace Agreement

Implementations

Judiciary Reform – 1992

The majority of constitutional reforms required to enact judiciary reform were made, but delays on secondary legislation prevented the full implementation of the new judicial system.1

The judiciary began to receive 6% of the State budget and a career judicial service was set up, with measures to ensure stability and independence. Military courts were confined to trying crimes perpetrated by members of the FAES in active duty only.2 The judicial system as a whole remained largely unable to ensure due legal process and hold human rights violators accountable.3 Institutions of Judiciary were in place as required by the accord, but effectiveness of the system was the main concern.

  1. “Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador,” United Nations Security Council (S/24833), November 23, 1992.
  2. “Report of the Director of the Human Rights Division of ONUSAL,” United Nations Security Council (S/24066), June 5, 1992.
  3. “Situation of human rights in El Salvador,” United Nations General Assembly (A/47/596), November 13, 1992.

Judiciary Reform – 1993

The Ministry of Justice promoted a national legal reform plan to improve the capacity and credibility of the judicial system, but ONUSAL was dissatisfied with the lack of progress in practice. Positive reforms were made in instituting a consistent norm of habeas corpus proceedings, but the remedy remained ineffective overall.1 Multiple legislative initiatives regarding the administration of justice mandated by the Peace Agreements, the Commission on the Truth and the Human Rights Division were not adopted. The Supreme Court of Justice handled some cases of derelict judges, but many of the proceedings did not lead to appropriate corrective action.2

  1. “Report of the Director of the Human Rights Division of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador up to 30 April 1993,” United Nations General Assembly / Security Council (A/47/968 S/26033), July 2, 1993.
  2. “Ninth report of the Director of the Human Rights Division of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL),” United Nations General Assembly / Security Council (A/49/59 S/1994/47), January 18, 1994.

Judiciary Reform – 1994

The Ministry of Justice submitted a bill to the Legislative Assembly that affords prisoners basic human rights in compliance with international standards.1 ONUSAL contended that the main source of human rights abuses was impunity, which stems from a weak justice system. The Legislative Assembly had the task of appointing new members of the Supreme Court of Justice when the prior court’s term ended on 30 June 1994. The Commission on the Truth had recommended that the Legislative Assembly pass constitutional reforms that would decentralize the judiciary, but it did not do so.2

The ONUSAL Human Rights Division pushed for an overhaul of the penal system, including several high-level reforms to the judiciary, in order to bring the system into conformity with internationally recognized standards.3

  1. “Tenth report of the Director of the Human Rights Division of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador,” United Nations General Assembly / Security Council (A/49/116 S/1994/385), April 5, 1994.
  2. “Eleventh Report of the Director of the Human Rights Division of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (1 March — 30 June 1994),” United Nations General Assembly / Security Council (A/49/281 S/1994/8861994), July 28, 1994.
  3. “Twelfth Report of the Director of the Human Rights Division of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL) (1 July — 30 September 1994),” United Nations General Assembly / Security Council (A/49/585 S/1994/1220), October 31, 1994.

Judiciary Reform – 1995

The new Supreme Court of Justice began to modernize and purify the judiciary, as recommended by the Commission on the Truth and ONUSAL. The Court stopped short of complying with the recommendations to decentralize, however. By the time of the last report by the ONUSAL Human Rights Division, the National Council of the Judiciary was not developed into the empowered independent body envisioned in the Peace Agreements and the recommendations of the Commission on the Truth. At the same time, the Judicial Training School had not enacted selection criteria that would adequately implement the Peace Agreements, and reforms had not been made to curtail arbitrary detention, pre-trial detention and punishment.1

MINUSAL later confirmed that the Legislative Assembly failed to pass a number of required reforms by the end of the year, let alone the 31 October 1995 deadline. Stalled reforms included the criminal code, penitentiary law, repeal of the 1996 police law, and guarantees of due process.2

The Supreme Court of Justice contemplated creating special courts with anonymous judges to hear cases of alleged crimes detailed in the report of the Commission on the Truth.3

  1. “Thirteenth Report of the Director of the Human Rights Division of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL),” United Nations General Assembly / Security Council (A/49/888 S/1995/281), April 18, 1995.
  2. “Mission of the United Nations in El Salvador: Report of the Secretary-General,” United Nations General Assembly (A/50/935), April 23, 1996.
  3. “El Salvador considers special courts,” United Press Internaitonal, February 14, 1995.

Judiciary Reform – 1996

The Supreme Court continued to make improvements in the judiciary. Issues addressed include professional ethics, delays in the judicial process, prison overpopulation, defendantsÕ legal counsel, and the vetting of lower judges.1

In response to public outcry, the Legislative Assembly passed an emergency crime law, which had the effect of undermining some judicial reforms prescribed by the Peace Agreement and the Commission on the Truth, especially due process.2 In December 1996, the Legislative Assembly approved the Code of Criminal Procedure aimed to improve the judicary.3

  1. “Mission of the United Nations in El Salvador: Report of the Secretary-General,” United Nations General Assembly (A/50/935), April 23, 1996.
  2. “Mission of the United Nations in El Salvador: Report of the Secretary-General,” United Nations General Assembly (A/50/935), April 23, 1996.
  3. “Assessment of the Peace Process in El Salvador: Report of the Secretary-General,” United Nations General Assembly (A/51/917), July 1, 1997.

Judiciary Reform – 1997

Despite the important structural reforms to the judiciary, the system was inefficient and lacked adequate capacity to continuously vet judges and officials.1

  1. “Assessment of the Peace Process in El Salvador: Report of the Secretary-General,” United Nations General Assembly (A/51/917), July 1, 1997.

Judiciary Reform – 1998

Judiciary reform took place when constitutional revisions were made in 1992. Nevertheless, there were issues related to the judicial reforms recommended by the Commission on the Truth, which was not fully implemented (Source: Amnesty International.1

  1. “El Salvador: 10th anniversary of Peace Accords, still no justice for victims of human rights violations,” AI Index AMR (29/001/2002), January 16, 2002.

Judiciary Reform – 1999

No further developments observed.

Judiciary Reform – 2000

No further developments observed.

Judiciary Reform – 2001

No further developments observed.