El Salvador holds trial for army killing of Dutch journalists

A former defense minister and two colonels went on trial in El Salvador Tuesday for the killings of four Dutch journalists 43 years ago, an NGO assisting the victims' families said.
Koos Koster, Jan Kuiper, Hans ter Laag and Joop Willemsen were killed in 1982 while filming a television documentary during El Salvador's civil war.
The accused are General Jose Guillermo Garcia, 91, former police colonel Francisco Antonio Moran, 93, and ex-infantry brigade commander Mario Reyes Mena, 85.
In 1993, a UN-sponsored Truth Commission found the journalists had walked into an ambush planned by Reyes, who lives in the United States, and with the knowledge of other officers.
The Salvadoran Supreme Court approved an extradition request for Reyes in March, but there has been no progress so far.
Garcia and Moran are under police surveillance in a private hospital in San Salvador.
The hearing in the northern city of Chalatenango is expected to conclude on Wednesday with a verdict from a five-member jury.
If convicted, the defendants face prison sentences of up to 30 years.
The trial was closed to the media, but activist Oscar Perez of the Fundacion Comunicandonos confirmed from the courtroom that it was under way.
The NGO and the Salvadoran Association for Human Rights hailed the trial as a "decisive step" in the search for truth and justice.
"We trust that this trial sets a historic precedent in the fight against impunity," they said in a joint statement.
The Netherlands' Costa Rica-based ambassador to Central America, Arjen van den Berg, was in court.
The case remained unresolved for decades after the presiding judge received threats in 1988, prompting her to seek refuge in Canada.
It was reopened in 2018 after the Supreme Court declared an amnesty law for civil war crimes unconstitutional, but relatives of the victims still had to wait years for the main hearing.
Evidence such as a statement from a former US military attache and a military expert's report "directly points" to the defendants' responsibility, said lawyer Pedro Cruz, who represents the victims' families.
More than 75,000 people were killed in El Salvador's 1980-1992 civil war pitting the military against leftist guerrillas.
cmm/fj/dr/md

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

42 minutes ago

• Politico

‘We can't wait forever': GOP frustrated but unwilling to act on Trump's TikTok extension

President Donald Trump's latest move to keep TikTok alive is yet again frustrating congressional Republicans, many of whom object to China's continued involvement in the popular app but just want to be done with the whole drama. 'Not my favorite thing,' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), along-time proponent of the ban, deadpanned, when asked about the president's plan to issue another extension. He spoke a day before the White House confirmed Trump signed a 90-day suspension of enforcement of the law requiring TikTok to divest from ByteDance, its China-based parent company, throwing another lifeline to the short-form video app. By Friday, some House lawmakers registered a note of resigned irritation. The extension — Trump's third since the law went into effect on Jan. 19 — is a unilateral decision not envisioned in the bipartisan law passed by Congress and upheld last year by the Supreme Court. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), a member of the House Intelligence and China committees, told POLITICO. 'The national security concerns and vulnerabilities are still there, and they have not gone away. I would argue they've almost become more enhanced in many ways.' But Trump's extension of the TikTok law largely boxed out Republicans in both chambers who have shown little inclination — beyond stern words — to prevent him from making these postponements almost routine. Many GOP lawmakers saw themselves as granting the president space to cut a promised deal while the White House deals with urgent priorities, like trade negotiations and the Israel-Iran conflict. 'In light of everything going on, I think he did the right thing,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a China hawk who voted for the ban, told POLITICO of Trump. 'I have concerns about all kinds of things — that [the extension] is on the list — but it's not at the top of the list.' Though Trump has promised his TikTok negotiations areclosely tied to trade talks with China, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified last week to a Senate panel that TikTok's sale was not currently a part of the negotiations with China, raising a further potential obstacle to Trump inking a deal in the near future. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of the president and longtime national-security hawk said earlier in the week: 'The sooner we get that issue solved, the better,' without offering any ideas for further enforcement. 'I just want finality,' Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO. 'I want some certainty and just know that the Congress isn't being played when we make a decision [that the app] be sold.' Another member of the House China Committee, Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), told POLITICO, 'No more extensions. It's time to follow through.' Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), also a member of the China panel, noted in a post on X Thursday the law only allows one extension of the compliance deadline, adding, 'I was proud to support the ban of TikTok and believe the law should be implemented as written.' With their comments, the lawmakers echoed House China Chair John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who in early June called for the U.S. to 'let [TikTok] go dark' to bring China to the table to negotiate. He reiterated that stance on Friday. 'Delays only embolden the Chinese Communist Party,' Moolenaar said in a statement to POLITICO. 'I urge the administration to enforce the law as written and protect the American people from this growing national security threat.' Still, observers say Republicans are not exercising their leverage to demand the White House enforce the law they helped write, for example by withholding funding or congressional oversight hearings. 'I keep reading that Republicans are 'frustrated' and 'impatient' about their TikTok law being ignored, but they should stop complaining to reporters and take it up with Trump,' said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the pro-tech Chamber of Progress. Among the Republicans being undercut by the president is his own secretary of state. Marco Rubio — who as senator was one of the loudest critics of TikTok's ties to China, and a huge backer of the app's ban — has been conspicuously silent as Trump has repeatedly granted more time to strike a deal for its sale. 'You have to decide what's more important, our national security and the threat that it poses to our national security,' Rubio told POLITICO in March 2023, as Congress was considering a ban. 'You have to weigh that against what you might think the electoral consequences of it are. For me, it's an easy balancing act. I mean, there is no balance. I'm always going to be for our national security.' A spokesperson for Rubio at the State Department did not respond to a request for comment. Democrats — even those who support keeping TikTok online — say Trump's approach is the wrong one. 'These endless extensions are not only illegal, but they also put TikTok's fate in the hands of risk-averse corporate shareholders,' Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told POLITICO in a statement. 'This is deeply unfair to TikTok's creators and users. I'm prepared to work towards a solution, but Trump isn't coming to the table.'

UPI

an hour ago

• UPI

Supreme Court allows terrorism victims to sue Palestinian groups

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue Palestinian entities in U.S. courts. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue two Palestinian entities in U.S. courts. The decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals in the New York-based 2nd Circuit that found the law denied the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority fair legal process. All nine justices ruled that the bipartisan 2019 law, called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not violate due process rights of the PLO and PA. The lawsuit and appeal involve cases from the early 2000s and not the Israel-Hamas war and airstrikes between Israel and Iran. It was based on the Antiterrorism Act of 1990, which creates a federal civil damages action for U.S. nationals injured or killed "by reason of an act of international terrorism." Founded in 1964, the PLO is internationally recognized as the official representative of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. The PA, founded in 1994, is the Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 46-page opinion that included a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas and backed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wanted to define the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Lawsuits by U.S. victims of terrorist attacks in Israel can move forward in American courts. "It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to ATA compensation," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. In April, the high court consolidated two cases for arguments: a Justice Department appeal and an appeal by the family of Israeli-American Ari Fuld, who was fatally stabbed at a shopping mall in the West Bank in 2018. The Biden administration initially intervened in Fuld's case and another one brought by 11 American families who sued the Palestinian leadership groups and were awarded $650 million in a 2025 trial for several attacks in Israel.

USA Today

2 hours ago

• USA Today

Walmart to pay $10 million to settle FTC fraud lawsuit over money transfers

Walmart WMT.N has agreed to pay $10 million to settle a U.S. Federal Trade Commission civil lawsuit accusing the world's largest retailer of ignoring warning signs that fraudsters used its money transfer services to fleece consumers out of hundreds of millions of dollars. The settlement was filed on Friday in Chicago federal court, and requires approval by U.S. District Judge Manish Shah. Walmart also agreed not to process money transfers it suspects are fraudulent, or help sellers and telemarketers it believes are using its services to commit fraud. "Electronic money transfers are one of the most common ways that scammers tell consumers to send them money, because once it's sent, it's gone for good," said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC consumer protection bureau. "Companies that provide these services must train their employees to comply with the law and work to protect consumers." Average worker pay: Walmart reveals its highest paying job, excluding managers The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer did not admit or deny wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. Walmart did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In its June 2022 complaint, the FTC accused Walmart of turning a blind eye to fraudsters who used its money transfer services to cash out at its stores. Walmart acts as an agent for money transfers by companies such as MoneyGram, Ria EEFT.O and Western Union WU.N. Money can be hard to trace once delivered. The FTC said fraudsters used many schemes that included impersonating Internal Revenue Service agents, impersonating family members who needed money from grandparents to avoid jail, and telling victims they won lotteries or sweepstakes but owed fees to collect their winnings. Shah dismissed part of the FTC case last July but let the regulator pursue the remainder. Walmart appealed from that decision. Friday's settlement would end the appeal. The case is Federal Trade Commission v Walmart Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 22-03372. Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Marguerita Choy