The United National Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL) was created by UN Security Council Resolution 693 on 20 May 1991. The original mandate was to oversee the peace process and conduct limited peace-keeping operations. Coinciding with the cease-fire agreement between the AFES and FMLN, the mandate of ONUSAL was transformed to a purely verification operation by UN Security Council Resolution (SC Res.) 729 on 14 January 1992, with three divisions: Human Rights, Military and Police. The horizon of ONUSAL was extended by SC Res. 784 on 30 October 1992. The first ONUSAL report was submitted by the Secretary-General to the Security Council on 26 May 1992. ONUSAL expressed concern about a number of delays in the implementation of the Peace Agreement, but reported overall progress in the process.¹ ONUSAL subsequently facilitated a negotiated agreement between the Parties to adjust several deadlines and renew their efforts to fulfill their obligations in a timely manner.² Difficult situations such as these caused ONUSAL to take a more proactive role in COPAZ and the implementation of the peace agreements in general.³ Delays and tensions continued into the fall of 1992, so the Security Council granted ONUSAL’s request to extend its mission an additional six months with resolution 791 on 30 November 1992.⁴ On 23 December 1992, ONUSAL confirmed that the armed conflict between the Government of El Salvador and the FMLN formally ended on 15 December 1992, six weeks late. ⁵

The ONUSAL Human Rights Division developed robust investigation and verification mechanisms, producing lengthy reports separate from the main series of reports.⁶ It also organized training, promotion and educational activities regarding human rights.⁷

The ONUSAL Police Division assumed its role according to the peace agreements, with hundreds of international police observers deployed across the country during the transitional period. The Division assisted in locating illegal arms caches, cooperated with the Military Division in verifying the dissolution of the civil defense units, and supported the Human Rights Division.⁸

The ONUSAL Military Division began with 290 military observers at the beginning of 1992. It was set to reduce that number by 1 June 1992, but the Chief Military Observer requested and was granted a three-month extension.⁹ The numbers were reduced upon the formal ending of the armed conflict in December 1992, and the Military Division was restructured.¹⁰

No developments observed this year.

No developments observed this year.

No developments observed this year.

No developments observed this year.

No developments observed this year.

The mandate of COPAZ expired on 10 January 1996. The Government of El Salvador and the members of COPAZ viewed it as a success, with only a few aspects of the peace process left incomplete—notably the land transfer and rural re-settlement programs. Some of the former members of COPAZ went on to serve in non-governmental organizations, such as Fundapaz, which endeavored to fulfill a similar role as that of COPAZ.⁸

According to the new timetable for implementation agreed upon on 19 May 1994, COPAZ was set to terminate on 30 April 1995, but it became clear that the Peace Accords would not be fulfilled by that date, and so COPAZ sought an extension on the grounds that its mandate was to ensure the complete implementation of the Peace Accords.¹⁰

COPAZ continued to operate, and conversations began of it becoming a peace foundation once its mandate was officially fulfilled.¹¹

COPAZ submitted recommendations for a several constitutional reforms to the Legislative Assembly. The recommendations included changes to the functions of the Supreme Court of Justice and protections for individual rights, and they were in line with the Commission on the Truth report. The Assembly passed some constitutional amendments, but did not fulfill the recommendations of COPAZ or the Commission on the Truth.¹²

COPAZ worked to seek consensus among its constituent members on various measures related to the Peace Agreement, but met many disagreements over its mandate. It discussed the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on the Truth, but moved very slowly and failed to come up with a unified proposal.¹³