The Ministry of Justice submitted a bill to the Legislative Assembly that affords prisoners basic human rights in compliance with international standards. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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. The judicial system as a whole remained largely unable to ensure due legal process and hold human rights violators accountable. Institutions of Judiciary were in place as required by the accord, but effectiveness of the system was the main concern.
No further developments occurred this year.
No further developments occurred this year.
No further developments occurred this year.
No further developments occurred this year.
The COPAZ was a multi-party mechanism designed to facilitate the implementation of the accord and its completed its mandate of dispute resolutions. The COPAZ was dissolved once its mandate expired on 10 January 1996.
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.
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.
