 | This document has been published on 06Feb04 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights |
EQUIPO NIZKOR |
|
06May88
Deposition of Carlos G. Suarez-Mason, First Army Corps Commander, in the matter of his extradition from the US to Argentina.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALFREDO FORTI and DEBORA BENCHOAM,
- Plaintiffs.
- -vs.-
CARLOS GUILLERMO SUAREZ-MASON,
- Defendant.
No. C-87-2058 DLJ
DEPOSITION OF:
CARLOS GUILLERMO SUAREZ-MASON
MAY 6, 1988
VOLUME I
Pages 1 - 122Reported by:
RENEE A. KELLY, CSR
(CSR No. 6041)SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
717 MARKET STREET, SUITE 606
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94013
INDEX
DEPOSITION OF CARLOS GUILLERMO SUAREZ-MASON
Examination by Ms. Hoeper
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS (*)
2-page document entitled "Order"
23-page document entitled "Separador I, Orden de Operaciones Nro 9/77"
1-page handwritten diagram
9-page document Attachment 7, Appendix 1 of Order No. 9/77
BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Order of the Court and on Friday, May 6, 1988, commencing at the hour of 6:46 o'clock p.m. thereof, at the Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant, 7th Floor, San Francisco, California 94103, before me, RENEE A. KELLY, a Notary Public in and for the County of Sacramento, State of California, there personally appeared
CARLOS GUILLERMO SUAREZ-MASON, called as a witness by the plaintiffs, who, having been by me first duly sworn, testified as is hereinafter set forth.
MORRISON & FOERSTER, 345 California Street, San Francisco, California 94104, represented by JOANEE HOEPER, THERESE Y. CANNATA and PAUL T. FRIEDMAN, Attorneys at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs HORACIO MARTINEZ-BACA and ALFREDO FORTI and DEBORA BENCHOAM.
ALSO PRESENT: PHILIP ESCUDERO, Certified Interpreter.
CARLOS GUILLERMO SUAREZ-MASON, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
MS. HOEPER: Mr. Suarez, my name is Joanne Hoeper. I'm the attorney for Mr. Horacio Martinez-Baca and for Alfredo Forti and Debora Benchoam.
MS. CANNATA: I'm Therese Cannata.
MS. HOEPER: This is Therese Cannata and Paul Friedman. This is the Court Reporter, Renee, and the interpreter-(The interpreter introduces himself in Spanish to the witness.)
MS. HOEPER: To say Judge Jensen signed this order which allows us to take your deposition. The deposition is a process in which we ask you questions and in which you answer them and you are under oath.
THE WITNESS: yes, all right, but I have some papers to bring here.
MS HOEPER: You have papers?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MS. HOEPER: And you would like to bring them here?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MS. HOEPER: Yes. You may go ahead and get your papers and we'll be here.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MS. HOEPER: Thank you.
(A recess was taken from 6:48 p.m. to 7:01 p.m.)
THE WITNESS: Okay. Ready?
MS HOEPER: I'm going to shut the door because -
THE WITNESS Yeah, much better because so noisy.
MS HOEPER: Let me explain again.
THE WITNESS: It's much better - I can understand. When I donīt, I going to ask you. Okay? It's much better for you and for me.
MS. HOEPER: All right. So I will ask in English and you will answer in English unless you need assistance.
THE WITNESS: When we need the interpreter, we use it. If not, because -
MS: HOEPER: All right. Now, as I told you before, the three of us represent Alfredo Forti and Debora Benchoam and they have brought a lawsuit against you before Judge Jensen.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MS. HOEPER: We filed papers asking Judge Jensen to allow us to take your deposition. And today Judge Jensen signed an order and I gave you a copy of the order.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MS. HOEPER: And at the end of the deposition we'll mark this as Exhibit 1.
Now, we have attempted to contact your attorneys, and as far as we are able to tell, they know that this deposition is going forward. We spoke with Mr. Natali -
THE WITNESS: Yes, I know because Dennis Natali, one of the - told not to me because he canīt talk by phone to jail like he can to my wife, and she talked to me.
MS. HOEPER: All right. Now, a deposition is under oath and so I'm going to ask the court reporter to swear you.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MS. HOEPER: Okay.
THE REPORTER: If you'll raise your right hand?
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
THE REPORTER: In the testimony you shall give, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
THE WITNESS: Right.
EXAMINATION BY MS. HOEPER
Q. Now, because this is probably an unfamiliar experience, I'll explain how it works.
Because you're under oath, it's as if you were speaking at a courtroom, as if Judge Jensen were here or any of the other judges were here. And so all of - everything that you say has the same weight, has the same importance as if you were speaking in a courtroom.
I will ask you questions and the purpose of my questions is to get information from you, so it's very, very important that you understand my questions. If at any time --
A. If I say repeat, if don't , we going to use interpreter.
Q. Yes. And if at any time -
A. Otherwise I'm telling you because if this a possibility that you don't understand me because my English is awful.
Q. Okay. Your English is actually quite good. Its far, far better than my Spanish, which is very bad.
As long as we understand the purposes, that both of us understand each other and if at any time you donīt understand me just say so.
If at any time my question, if my use of terminology is confusing, you should also ask. I will be --
A. Yes, if there is some technical terminology we have, maybe there's some military terminology that I can't explain, but if - you explain.
Q. All right. That's fair.
I will also have documents that I will be showing you.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. All right. Would you please state your full name for the record?
A. Yes. Carlos Guillermo Suarez-Mason.
Q. Are you the same -
MS. CANNATA: Maybe he'd like to take notes. If he wants to, here's some paper.
MS. HOEPER: Okay. Therese has pointed out - would you like to take any noted? Would you like a pad of paper and a pen?
THE WITNESS: Some notes? Yes. Well, maybe it's a possibility. Maybe I have a pen, yes.
MS. CANNATA: Is this fine?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MS. CANNATA: Here you go.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Okay. Are you the same Suarez-Mason that is facing extradition to Argentina?
A. Yes, I suppose.
Q. What was your position with the Argentine Army between 1976 and 1978?
A. I was First Army Corps Commander.
Q. What exactly did you so as First Army Corps Commander?
A. Well, several things, but you have you ask me about what.
Q. What I would like you to answer now is generally what you did and then I will ask specific questions about each of those things.
A. okay. The corps commanders coordinate the task between several brigades. Do you know what a brigade is?
Q. What is a brigade?
A. A brigade is some number of units, military units under a general commander.
Q. And -
A. Now, this is for military instructions and by that time the war against guerrillas and subversive -
THE REPORTER: The war against -
THE WITNESS: Guerrillas and subversive. Guerrilla warfare. I donīt know if this is the pronunciation is exactly this, but it's guerrilla.
MS. HOEPER Q. Okay. You said that you coordinated tasks between several brigades.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you do anything else as Commander of the First Army Corps?
A. Yes, of course. According to the Commander's in Chief rules, I gave the orders to these brigades to coordinate their section. It mean to instruct troops and coordinate troops.
Q. All right. When you say there were several brigades that you coordinated -
A. Yes.
Q. - what were those brigades?
A. The 10th Infantry Brigade, 1st Armored Brigade, not army, but armor, and corps units. It means that, not brigades, small units but with attendance directed to the First Army Corps Commander.
Q. Okay. Those corps units, did they have any names?
A. Yes. In general were artillery groups, engineers, battalions, military police.
Q. Did you also direct Battalion 601?
A. No. This unit belonged - I understand that you are talking about Intelligence 601 Battalion.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, because it is the unit belonged to the Commander in Chief, but I have to make some details about this.
Q. did you have any -
A. i have some relation.
Q. What were your relations to the Battalion 601?
A. The relation is function control, function control.
Q. What do you mean by "function control"?
A. Yes. I have to explain you both things.
According to military rules in Argentina now, and even the American Army is the same, operational control is one thing and functional control is other and right command is other. The units that were under my direct structures of command, this direct command. So I can make - give orders to the - several orders of different kinds. They have to follow them.
Operational control - this is not your answer, but it is going to be the same - means the capability that a superior command give to you to give an order to a unit that is not in your structure of command. It's outside of your command. And this order is for one specific mission for a short period and never includes logistic, administrative or discipline matters.
Q. It does not include; is that right?
A. Yes, it does not include. I can give you an example.
For example, I can order to such a unit or go with troops and block that street. They're going to do a search. They have to do it. When this task is finished, they go back to his own command. And if something is wrong there, the discipline issues or punishment must be taken by him. I have only operational control. This is operational control. Is it clear for you?
Q. Yes. Thank you.
A. Okay. If it's not clear, it's in the record because you have to realize that - even you can make a concert with some American military officer. Everybody's going to say you the same thing.
Functional control, that is my operation, is a little different. I have not the right to order anything to them, but I have the right to ask them some specific of his function, his own function.
So in that case Battalion 601, Intelligence 601, they produce intelligence. So I have the right to ask them information. Is that clear?
Q. Are you saying that you could only ask and you could not order them to give you information?
A. No, no - Yes, I can ask them about his function to inform me, because this unit belongs to the Commander in Chief, nothing to do with me. If not, the intelligence that they can produce mist go directly to the Commander in Chief, so I have to ask the Commander in Chief. This is a very long way.
Q. Okay.
A. But functional control, I have the right to ask directly the information about this or that.
Q. Okay. You said -
A. It's always referring to the real function of the unit. In that case it's and intelligence unit, but can be some other kind of unit.
Q. All right. Now, Intelligence Battalion 601, you said that their job was to produce intelligence.
A. Yes.
Q. How did they do that?
A. How they do this.
Q. Yes.
A. Well, they have people for - especially for this. It's like an American intelligence service, but hey are not police, of course. They have information about operations and in the case of war against guerrilla about subversion.
Q. Did they wear uniforms?
A. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.
Q. When would they wear uniforms and when would they not wear uniforms?
A. When?
Q. What I'm asking you is if you can explain to me why they would wear uniforms sometimes and not other times.
A. Because they able to do it because they working in the states. For, instance, they working in - getting information sometime for their own necessary.
Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the term "undercover"?
A. Well, they have the right to be undercover according to the Commander in Chief rules. They have the right.
Q. And when they were undercover, is that when they did not wear uniforms?
A. Yes. This is a normal function. It's got nothing to do with my rules. This is a normal function of this unit under the Commander in Chief rules.
THE REPORTER: Can I go off the record a second?
MS. HOEPER: Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. HOEPER: Now we're back on the record, so everything will be written down.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Did you in fact ask Intelligence Battalion 601 for the information while you were the commander of the First Army Corps?
A. I have the right to do it and I got information, yes.
Q. You did ask for information?
A. Yes.
Q. And you received it?
A. Yes.
Q. What did the 10th Infantry Brigade do?
A. Well, several functions. Instructing troops and making operations. In the case of the guerrilla warfare they were making security operations.
Q. What do you mean by "security operations"?
A. It's operations that control of population. And in the case of the skirmish, for instance, they even can recruit and they fight.
THE REPORTER: They what?
THE WITNESS: Fighting.
MS. HOEPER: Fight
THE REPORTER: They even come and fight?
THE WITNESS: Fought. Fighting in past. They fought.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Now, what do you mean by control of population?
A. Well, require identities, certificates.
Q. Anything else?
A. Yes. And they fought and were able to make some detentions.
Q. What kind of detentions were they able to make?
A. Well, I call into informations. Sometimes they have suspected about some people who was participates in the guerrillas warfare. With that information they can - they could arrest under law.
Q. How were these arrests done?
A. Well, they arrested people in several ways. In the control population sometimes would, of course, identity; arrest people. And sometimes went with the police to make arrest and some private property.
Q. I didn't understand. You said they went with police to make arrests?
A. Yes, because they usually use the police for this.
Q. Did you have operational or functional control over the police?
A. No. I have operational control only of the chief of police. The police units were under control of the subzone commanders. Before -
THE REPORTER: Of the what?
MS. HOEPER: Subzone commanders.
THE WITNESS: Subzone commander. I have to explain what it is.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Yes.
A. The army forces - the First Army Corps was located in the Buenos Aires state. This is a province, a state. Part of this state was under the First Army Corps' jurisdiction. This jurisdiction was divided in several subzones and each subzone has a general - have a general subzone commander.
You see, the zone was so wide and so crowded that it was impossible to make zone controls directed by me. So that's the reason why the zone was divided and subzone - each subzone has a general, has its own commander.
Q. And were the subzone commanders under your direct control?
A. The subzone commander were under my control, yes.
Q. And under the subzone commanders were the police units?
A. Yes. They had the right to get operational control of police units.
Q. And did they in fact exercise their right to -
A. Yes.
Q. - control the police units?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Let me just make one point here. It's easier on the court reporter if I finish my question and then you answer.
A. Okay
Q. I'll try not to interrupt you; you try not to interrupt me and then the court reporter will be happier with us.
A. Yes. Now, I'm trying to explain because sometimes a word is not understandable for you.
Q. I understand you. You're are speaking very well.
A. Okay.
Q. How many subzone commanders were under your control?
A. I would say about six.
Q. And who were they between 1976 and 1978 while you were commander of the First Army Corps?
A. Well, I can't remember all of them.
Q. Can you remember any of them?
A. Yes, I can remember some. For instance, one of the subzone was named Capital because it was the capital city. That subzone's commanders were, for instance, Olivera Rovere, one of the generals. Olivera Rovere. You want a spelling?
Q. Yes. Could you spell it for the court reporter?
A. O-l-i-v-e-r-a R-o-v-e-r-e, Olivera Rovere. He was Spanish. Montes, M-o-n-t-e-s, Montes, Ferrero, F-e-r-r-e-r-o.
Q. Now, Montes Ferrero, is that -
A. All of them were subzone commanders in the capital subzone. And the Subzone 11, that was the 10th Infantry Brigade -
THE REPORTER: The what infantry, 1st?
THE WITNESS: 10th Infantry Brigade. The subzone commanders were General Sigwale. This is a Dutch name. Is S-i-g-w-a-l-e. The next was Sissiain. This is a Basque name. It's spelled S-e-s-s-i - no. S-i-s-s-i-a-i-n. It's a Basque name. Sissiaian, tha's the Spanish pronunciarion.
Some others were - another subzone, Subzone 12 was General Saint Gean. It's a French name. Saint, that's in English Saint. And Gean is J- - G-e-a-n.
Well, maybe there was some others, but I can't remember some more. That was years ago. And Subzone 16 was commanded by an Air Force brigadier general. One of them was Garcia. And I can't remember the others.
Q. All of these men were under your direct control?
A. Yes. The subzone commanders were under my control.
Q. Were you also head of Zone 1 of the national defense network?
A. Would you repeat me, please?
Q. Head of Zone 1 of the national defense network.
A. Would you -
(Spanish is spoken by the interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Yes, Zone 1 is the jurisdiction of the First Army Corps, the same, the same. Zone 1 - the country was divided in zones. Zone Number 1 was in the jurisdiction of the First Army Corps. So it means the same.
MS. HOEPER: Q. so Zone 1 is the same -
A. Yes. Yes, Zone 1 is a translation of territorial jurisdiction -
THE REPORTER: Of what? I'm sorry.
Translation -
THE WITNESS: Territorial jurisdiction.
MS. HOEPER: Territorial.
THE WITNESS: And the First Army Corps troops.
MS. HOEPER: Q. While you were commander of the First Army Corps, who were your direct superiors?
A. The chief of Staff - Chief of General Staff.
Q. And who was that?
A. By that time General Viola, V-i-o-l-a.
Q. And did you report directly to General Viola?
A. Yes. And over him was the Commander in Chief.
Q. Now, as commander of the First Army Corps, did you have direct operational responsibility for all antisubversive activities in that area?
A. Direct responsibility, no. I have responsibility for the things that happen in my troop because the jurisdiction was very - so wide and so crowded.
For instance, the American embassy was in my jurisdiction. The national government was in my jurisdiction. The bishops were in my jurisdiction. And I don't have any responsibility over this, but I have some responsibility about my troops, and in the case of operational control, if I gave an order for this. I can repeat to you. Do you understand?
Q. So within the jurisdiction of the First Army Corps -
A. Yes.
Q. - you directed your troops -
A. Yes.
Q. - and you also had operational control over other organizations -
A. Yes.
Q. - who were fighting subversion -
A. Uh-huh.
Q. - in that area?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Were you the person who was ultimately responsible for all of the antisubversive activities in that zone?
A. No. First of all, I repeat. I have direct responsibility over my own troops, yes. Responsibility over some other organizations with operational control if I give an order. If not, no. I have responsibility for the orders I gave him. I was able to do - under operational control, I was able to order. For such an order I was responsible, but they were independent, so I was not responsible for the things that they do - that they did by his own.
Q. By - I didn't -
A. By his own. They could -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: "They could operate on their own."
THE WITNESS: You see.
MS. HOEPER: Q. And who directed their activities when they were not following your operational control?
A. When I gave an order - or the subzone commander gave an order to such units, they were responsible and I was responsible.
For instance, I had the responsibility to order the chief of police to do this. In that case I am responsible with him, but the could operate by his own, not under operational control. In that case, no.
Q. Now, the -
A. That's one instance. That's one example, but I can give you some others.
There were some units that were not under my command, were not under my operational control. They were totally independent.
THE REPORTER: They what?
MS. HOEPER: Totally independent.
THE WITNESS: Totally independent, yes.
MS. HOEPER: Q. And what were those units that you say -
A. Navy units, for instance.
Q. Are those units within Zone 1?
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE INTERPRETER: "Yes."
THE WITNESS: But they depended on the Commander in Chief of the Navy.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Did you at any time direct the activities of any Navy units in Zone 1?
A. No.
Q. Never?
A. No.
Q. Now, you talked earlier about a war against guerrillas and a war against subversion.
A. Yes.
Q. Were you the person responsible for conducting and coordinating the war against guerrillas and subversion in Zone 1?
A. Yes. It's according to Commander in Chief orders, coordinators of operation, yes. But execution was under the subzone commander's responsibility. This is an order and it's written on this order. Unfortunately it's in Spanish. I can show you.
Q. You have an order that you can show us?
A. Yes. And this is not my order. This order was sent by -
MS. HOEPER: What you have pulled out is a copy of - what I'm doing is I'm going to tell the court reporter in words what you have in front of you so that we can see.
THE INTERPRETER: Can we switch seats, if you'd like?
MS. HOEPER: Q. You have Plaintiff's deposition questions of Suarez-Mason dated -
A. This is the questions that were prepared for the Martinez-Baca's case. Okay? And this -
Q. Okay. Now you're looking at exhibits for the deposition of the Suarez-Mason. I also have copies of the same document here.
A. I suppose they are the same.
Q. Yes.
A. I can show you this.
Do you remember the jurisdiction?
Q. Okay. You -
A. This is Buenos Aires province was divided in several zones. This is Zone 1. This is Zone 6 and this is Zone 5.
Q. All right. Let me get -
A. This is some other thing.
Q. Let me get a copy of that document.
A. The copy is Order 9/77, Zone 1.
Q. This document.
A. That's right.
Q. All right. I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark this so that we know what we're talking about.
A. Right.
MS. HOEPER: She's going o mark it as Exhibit 2 to Suarez-Mason deposition.
(Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)
THE WITNESS: Now you have to translate me.
THE INTERPRETER: Okay.
THE WITNESS: I can make my own translation, but -
MS. HOEPER: No, you shouldn't try.
THE WITNESS: I am going to read to you, and you will have to read the right translation. "Pautas" means rules. Reguladoras, to employ the medios, the troops in the zone. Los comandos, the command -
THE INTERPRETER: Okay.
THE WITNESS: - of subzone.
THE INTERPRETER: The command of -
THE WITNESS: The subzone's command.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes. It says shall have the primary direct responsibility and not to be delegated of the totality of the military operations and security -
THE WITNESS: Operations.
THE INTERPRETER: - that are executed in its jurisdiction and the corresponding coordination.
MS. HOEPER: Q: So the subzone -
A. It's in Page 6.
Q. Page 6.
A. 6-21, paragraph "a."
I have this in English, but unfortunately I left it in -
Q. All right. The commanders of subzones -
A. Yeah.
Q. - have the primary responsibility for all operations and you directed -
A. Primary and direct.
Q. - and you directed the subzone commanders, is that right?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. You're saying, "Yes, that's right"?
A. That's right. Because they had the responsibility of the operation. They can't delegate this and -
Q. And you told them -
A. Sometimes I have to coordinate and the coordination is this order.
Q. All right. Now let's look at this order. What are you pointing to is the order, Exhibit 2, that we've just marked -
A. Uh-huh.
Q. - and it's Order Number 77; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you look through this very carefully and tell me if this is a correct copy of the order that you remember?
A. I can't tell you if the correct copy. Maybe it's the same copy because I have to - I would have here the original. I couldn't do it. But I suppose it's - as far as I can remember, this must be right.
Q. Okay. Look through the order very carefully and tell me if that is the order that you remember when you were the head of the First Army Corps.
A. Well, I have to -
Q. And I'm not asking you to compare it against your copy.
A. Yes.
Q. What I am asking you to do -
A. but this copy is not my copy. It's your copy.
Q. That's right. What I'm asking you to do is to look at either copy and tell me whether it is a correct copy of what you remember when you were the head of the First Army Corps.
A. Well, I can't tell you in detail because I repeat you; I would have to have the original in hand. It's ten years ago. It's much time. But I suppose because somebody certificate that this are the copy of the original. I suppose that's possible. But some details maybe are change; I don't know. As far I can remember, this is part of the order.
Q. Okay. As far as you can remember then, the order that you have in front of you -
A. Yes.
Q. - is the same order that you saw when were you the head of the First Army Corps; is that right?
A: As far I can remember, yes, but I'm not quite sure. I repeat. I have to have the original in hand to compare and I can't do it.
Both copy obviously are the same, but I can't make a compare with the original. That's why I'm telling you as far I can remember.
And I must tell you something about - that I have to be responsible for the orders I give to the subzones. This is the order. I responsible for this order. As far I can remember, is this like the original. Is that clear?
Q. Yes.
A. This is my own order. I'm responsible for this order.
Q. that is the order that you signed and you were responsible for?
A. Yes, of course. Written orders, signed orders and approved by the Commander in Chief because this order to be enforced have to be approved by the Commander in Chief.
Q. Did you write the order and then submit ti to the Commander in Chief for approval?
A. Yes, I can show you this.
See? Distributes Copy number 1 and 2 to the Commander in Chief.
Q. All right. You're looking at Page 20.
A. Yes, 20 f the - of the head order.
Q. Did you sign this order?
A. Yes.
Q. That was also on Page 20 that you signed it; is that right?
A. yes. So this is legal order, written order and even approved by the superiors.
Well, I think that this go on because both copies are the same.
Q. All right. You're comparing the copy that I just showed you with the copy that was filed with the court?
A. Yes, and both copies are yours.
Q. Right. And as far as you know the copies are correct from what you remember when you -
A. As far I can remember, yes, but I'm not quite sure because I have to Have the original in my hands.
Q. I understand that. But as far as you can remember, this is the order that you signed?
A. Yes. It's not the complete order because they have several -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Attachments.
THE WITNESS: Attachments and they are not here. For instance, they have one - 15 attachments and here in this copy there are not the 15.
MS. HOEPER: Q. All right. You're referring to page 20 of Exhibit 2 -
A. Yes.
Q. - which lists 15 exhibits or attachments.
A. Attachments and not all of this attachments are here.
Q. Was this a secret order?
A. Was classified order.
Q. What do you mean "classified"?
A. Some classification of the paper must be done in the Army. Some are public, some are reserved and some other are secret and some are to secret. This is secret. It means that they have to go to a superior personnel or it is not public.
Q. While you were -
A. Because almost all operational orders in the Army are secrets. Are classified as secrets.
Q. While you were head of First Army Corps, was there an instruction that orders not be written down and that they be made verbally rather than being written?
A. Verbally? No, no. No, because verbal orders, it doesn't value. That's impossible. Well, very simple detail maybe is possible, but an operational order, if you don't write it, it's no value.
Q. Were there instructions -
A. It must be writed and signed and received by the chief.
Q: Were there instructions that these written orders were to be destroyed after being read and - received and read?
A. No, not in my case.
Q. Are you aware of any cases in which written orders were received and then destroyed after being read?
A. No, I don't think so. I never did. I can say about me, only about me. And never give an order to be destroyed after reading because it's unusual. It's no value. If I give you an order and you destroy it, what is the evidence, but this the evidence.
Q. And did this order, the one we're talking about here Exhibit 2 -
A. Yes.
Q. - did that set out the operational role of the Zone 1 command in various antisubversive activities that took place in Zone 1?
A. Would you translate me, please?
THE INTERPRETER: Repeat it again.
MS. HOEPER: Can you read it back.
(The record was read back by the Reporter as follows:
"Question. Did that set out the operational role of the Zone 1 command in various antisubversive activities that took place in Zone 1?")
THE WITNESS: Yes. It's in the headline.
MS. HOEPER: Q. All right. You're turning to Page 2 -
A. 1-21.
Q. Page 1-21.
A. Continuation of offensive against subversion, that page.
Q. And did this order also set out the antisubversive activities of the police force in Zone 1?
A. Yes, there's some rules about.
For instance, look for page 15-21. Part (q.) It says, "Police Provincial," state police, "they" - translate, please.
THE INTERPRETER: "They shall put under the operational control of the" -
THE WITNESS: "Subzone."
THE INTERPRETER: - "of the subzone commands the regional units" - "comisarias," delegations?
THE WITNESS: Yes, delegation.
THE INTERPRETER: - "delegation and all organic elements that are detailed in the attached one, Order of Battle."
THE WITNESS: Yes, but unfortunately the attachment is not here. Maybe it is this, but it's not clear. So here I did send in each subzone, which are the units, police unit, and operational control of the subzone commander, but this is not here, an excerpt or attachment.
MS. HOEPER: Q. All right. You're referring to the organizational chart that's on the last page -
A. Yes.
Q. - of this exhibit?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, the paragraph that you just read, does that mean that the commanders of the subzones -
A. Yes.
Q. - in Zone 1 -
A. Yes.
Q. - control the provincial police?
A. Yes.
Q. And they also control the operation of the police stations?
A. No, no. Doesn't mean the same. The police would put under the operational control of the subzone commanders and it means the same definition that I explained you in the very beginning.
The subzone commander was operational control; have the power to give an order to the police for short mission, in short time - for a specific mission, short in time, never include administrative, logistic and personnel responsibility. Discipline, for instance. Understand?
So they can use - they could use this unit, the police unit, to make an operation and after this the police went on with his normal function under his own structure, under his own chief.
Q. Now, all the antisubversive activities that provincial police did in Zone 1 was at the command of the subzone commander; is that right?
A. Not necessarily because they have his own function and in his own function was - they were fighting against guerrilla, too.
THE REPORTER: "They were fighting" -
THE WITNESS: Against guerrilla, too. Because I can tell you, for instance, more than 400 policemen were killed by the guerrilla and not necessarily under Army operational control. They were acting by itself. Because they were acting even before the Army forces took responsibility.
The Army forces took responsibility under the constitutional government before the junta in '75, but the fighting against guerrilla began in the '70 and police were acting by itself during this long period.
MS. HOEPER: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE WITNESS: Yeah, against the guerillas without any intervention of the Army forces because the decree allow the Army forces to intervene from '75 under the constitutional government..
MS. HOEPER: Could you read that back for me. I didn't understand it.
(Discussion off the record.)
(A recess was taken from 6:50 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
MS. HOEPER: Q. Would you look at Page 14 of your copy in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that page confirm that you had control over prisons within Zone 1?
A. No.
Q. What does that page do?
A. Penitentiary service, federal -
Q. Okay. You're looking at the section"p" there.
A. Yes.
Q. Does that confirm that you as Zone 1 commander had control over the prisons?
A. no.
Q. What does that - does it confirm that you had operational control -
A. Of the subzone commanders.
Q. And the subzone commanders had operational control over the penitentiary units?
A. Yes, the penitentiary units. Specify on this, but it says for some specific mission and it's very clear what the specific mission is.
Q. What is that specific mission?
THE INTERPRETER: "The concept of operational control covers the personnel in the installations at the SPN " -
THE WITNESS: Penitentiary service.
THE INTERPRETER: "Penitentiary service where there exists subversive - delinquent subversives who are detained and it implies:" colon.
THE WITNESS: Yes, operational control is over - is not over the prisons. It is not over the prisoners. That's very clear.
MS. HOEPER: Q. It's not over the -
A. The prisoners.
THE INTERPRETER: The prisoners.
THE WITNESS: Is over penitentiary service personnel and for this, this -
MS. CANNATA: Over the penitentiary service what? I didn't get the last word. Service -
THE WITNESS: The guards.
MS. CANNATA: Oh, the guards?
THE INTERPRETER: The prisoners.
THE WITNESS: They didn't have operational control over the prisoners. They had operational control only of the guards and for this specific mission and this detail here.
MS. HOEPER: Q. And that was where delinquent subversives were detained; is that right?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. All right. Now let me make sure that I understand. You as commander of Zone 1 -
A. Yes.
Q. - had control over the subzone commanders. They had operational control over the federal penitentiary service?
A. Yes.
Q. And the penitentiary service controlled the guards in the penitentiaries where delinquent -
A. No, penitentiary service are the guards.
Q. Okay. And they were the guards and the subzone commanders had operational control over the guards in those places where delinquent subversives were held?
A. Yes, according to my prison orders.
Q. Now, what do you mean by "delinquent subversives"?
A. People who was under arrest because they participated in subversion and terrorism and guerrillas.
THE INTERPRETER: Guerrillas.
THE REPORTER: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Guerrillas. How do you pronounce it?
THE INTERPRETER: American say guerrillas.
THE WITNESS: Guerrillas.
THE INTERPRETER: Guerrillas, yes.
THE WITNESS: Like "gorilla."
THE INTERPRETER: It sounds like it. Children think it's the same.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Are you familiar with the term "assembly points of detainees" or "LRD"?
(Spanish is spoken between the Interpreter and the witness)
THE WITNESS: But wait a minute. I have to explain what operational control capability was for the subzone commander, but was not for everything. Here is very clear in points (a), (b) and (c). If you can translate for her.
THE INTERPRETER: Okay.
MS. HOEPER: Q: You're pointing to - under p) (2), (a), (b), and (c) as the responsibilities -
A. Of the subzone commanders. The operational control was specific mission for this, not for everything. That just for this. Security and - what's -
THE INTERPRETER: Recuperation of -- what is this?
THE WITNESS: Yes. For instance, in several cases the prisons were taken by the guerrillas. MS. HOEPER: Q. Prisoner were taken by the guerrillas?
A. Prisons.
THE INTERPRETER: The prisons were taken by the guerrillas.
THE WITNESS: And the guerrillas escape from prison. This is one of the capabilities they have to recover this installation. This is one. The second is -
THE INTERPRETER: "To supervise the interior regime according with decrees in effect. In particular, Decree 2023/74 955/76 with the finality with the goal of avoiding the prosecution of the activities of direction and indoctrination by part of the" - "by the" - "with the ring leaders of the detained be they delinquents or subversives or common" - I suppose it means "common criminals."
THE WITNESS: Yes. This means that as here in San Francisco jail there is an intelligence service to supervise what the detainees are doing.
For instance, they control the phone. They control the mail, when enter and when they may get out, just to know what is happening. And sometimes they put police with the rest of prisoners in the cells just to know what is going on there. This means intelligence know and knowledge of what is happening and between this kind of - detains there, the penitentiary service should do it.
So the subzone commanders have the operational control to supervise this, organize this and know what happen. This is the second.
Please translate.
THE INTERPRETER: Okay. "Supervise the regime and relation and contact with the delinquents or subversive delinquents detained in the interior and exterior of the installation based on the current law." It says actually "the current legislation."
THE WITNESS: It saying the same thing that I explained to you. What's going on between prisoners and the outside people just donīt know because someday the prison could be attack or some of them can escape. Exactly that is here.
For instance, when you are going to court or you are to be transferred to some other place, they cut the phone. You can't contact exterior people as a security regulation. This is normal. The only difference in that case, the subzone commanders, have the capability to know what is happening.
MS. HOEPER: Can we go off the record for one second.
(Discussion off the record.)
(A recess was taken from 8:12 p.m. to 8:12 p.m.)
THE WITNESS: I can tell you something. Maybe you can come back tomorrow.
MS. HOEPER: Al right. Well we'll try that.
THE WITNESS: I suppose I'm going to be here. I can't guarantee you, but -
THE INTERPRETER: Depends on your travel agent.
MS. HOEPER: Q. All right. Are you familiar with Olimpo?
A. Olimpo.
Q. Olimpo.
A. I know what it is.
Q. What is Olimpo?
A. Well, it's a detention center. We name this - in Spanish is -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Place for assembling detainees.
THE WITNESS: But it was not under my direct control.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Whose control was it under?
A. Subzone commanders.
Q. And you control the subzone commanders; is that right?
A. Yes. Under such points of view, yes. Or what they did according to this order, yes, but if they did something not in this order -
Q. All right. Let me make sure I understand.
A. Yes.
Q. The subzone commanders were in charge of Olimpo?
A. Yes.
Q. And you directed the subzone commanders. They were under your control?
A. Yes. But if they do things according to this order -
Q. All right. When you say "this," you're referring to Order 77, the one we've been talking about?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. All right. Are you familiar with El Banco?
A. Now, let me see. I have several names here.
THE INTERPRETER: El Banco?
MS. HOEPER: El Banco.
THE INTERPRETER: Okay.
MS. HOEPER: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE WITNESS: Yes, you are trying to talk about detention centers.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Yes. Now, you are turning to the questions we submitted to Judge Conti -
A. Yes.
Q. - in the Martinez-Baca case.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. This is what I have.
Q. Yes. And if you turn to Page 10. And there is listed El Banco.
A. Yes. Because I have to read something because I cannot remember.
Olimpo was under capital subzone.
Q. Capital subzone responsibility?
A. Yes, Olimpo.
El Banco was in 11th Subzone. Atletico, I don't remember this. I never saw this.
Q. All right.
A. Not even the others. There is no necessarily that I knew something about, but no necessarily I visit. Because I never have contact with detainees or prisoners. Was not my mission.
Q. All right. Let me ask a -
A. But you said Olimpo and El Banco.
Q. Did you ever visit Olimpo?
A. Olimpo, yes, yes, yes. Olimpo I visit because this was transfer for the police - the police to the subzone - to the capital subzone. And I visit at the very beginning one time.
Q. Do you remember when that was.
A. I can't remember the date, but was nobody in.
Q. There was -
A. There was nobody in because was at the very beginning I saw the installation.
Q. All right. You say there no prisoners then.
A. No.
Q. All right. Now, El Banco is under the 11th Subzone; is that right?
A. Yes. I have never been there.
Q. But you were the commander of the subzone commander who controlled Subzone 11; is that right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And Atletico?
A. I donīt know. I never been - Atletico. I really don't remember.
Q. Do you see how Atletico is described here. Pasa Colon, San Juan, the streets that are listed there? Do you see those streets?
A. Yes, yes, and I understand where it should be, but I never been there. I don't remember.
Q. Okay. Looking at the street names does not help you remember?
A. Colon, San Juan, Cochabamba, Azopardo, yes.
Q. And that does not help you remember what was there?
A. No.
Q. What about Vesubio?
A. I can't recognize by this description. And even this building of the penitentiary service, I donīt think so.
Q. You don't remember Vesubio?
A. No.
Q. What about -
A. Sheraton.
Q. Sheraton.
A. This is a police detention center. This is police detention center for police, but were never under my control. This belong to the police. Remember that operational control means the capability to give an order, but not include administrative things, logistical, no personnel, no discipline. So what the police have, I never knew it.
Q. But the police were,- the police were under operational control of the subzone commanders?
A. Yes.
Q. And the subzone commanders were under your control; is that right?
A. Yes, but this police gathering places were not under operational control except the police. Because remember what I said you that operational control means the capability to give an order.
So this force police was outside the structure of command. What happened in the police they don't have responsibility. Maybe they could give an order to the police, but never in surveying what the police structure is. Is what the chief of police responsibility.
Q. All right. You're saying that Sheraton was the chief of police responsibility?
A. Was police responsibility. I don't know if it was the chief of police responsibility. If this what it say - if this what is saying here is true and the police precinct in Villa Insuperable, Mantanza, this refers to the police; not to the Army, to the police. Because there's a difference. Were a gathering place and the Army subzone commander's responsibility directly there, but they had nothing to do with the police. This is the police according to this.
Is that clear? If you don't understand something -
Q. No, I don't understand.
A. Okay.
Q. Sheraton -
A. This is the structure.
Q. All right. Now you're going to draw a picture
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay.
A. And this is the police. What happened here, suppose the subzone commanders are here. They have a gathering place of their own.
Q. All right. Why don't you label this and we'll use this picture as an exhibit for the deposition so that we'll know what you're referring to.
A. Well -
Q. This is the Army?
A. Yes. And this is the police. Were different structures. The police have his own gathering places. We really don't have anything to do with the interior police force. We have only the capability to give them an order. They fulfill that order and came back, go back to his own structure. And this structure was commanded by the chief of police and this was commanded in that case Zone 1 by me. So we have different responsibilities of gathering places.
Q. And you had the power to order the chief of police -
A. Yeah.
Q. - to perform operational missions; is that right ?
A. Yeah.
Q. - in order to coordinate the battle against subversion; is that right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And that was the purpose for creating a zone and creating a zone commander; is that right?
A: Yes, yes, right.
Q. So the reason that you were made zone commander was in order to coordinate the battle against subversion in your zone; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Let me - could I take this and mark this as an exhibit?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. It will help me later to be able to know what you were referring to.
Okay. And you're writing in under Army, "LRD Gathering Places."
A. It's in Spanish, (Spanish spoken by the witness). That's the name in the Army.
Q. All right. But that is the gathering place for the detainees; is that right?
A: Right.
MS. HOEPER: All right. Let's take this piece of paper then and mark it as Exhibit 3.
(Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.)
MS. HOEPER: Q. Okay. Now, on this piece of paper you listed the LRD's or gathering places for detainees that were under the control of the Army.
A. Yes, subzone commanders specifically.
Q. Yes. Could you tell me what names those LRD's were, as many as you can remember?
A. Names were - (Spanish is spoken by the witness.)
THE INTERPRETER: Occupation -(Spanish spoken between the Interpreter and the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Yes. What they said here were not real names. How can I say it.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Nicknames?
A. The people name that. Was not real names. What's -
THE INTERPRETER: You mean it's not the official name.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE INTERPRETER: It's what people in the street refer to it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, unofficial.
THE INTERPRETER: Unofficial names.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Okay do you know how many LRD's were under the operational control of the subzone commanders in Zone 1?
A. I think that one by subzone.
Q: One in each subzone?
A. Yes.
Q. And how many subzones were there?
A. Six, I suppose.
Q. So is it true then that there were about six LRD's in -
A. Yes, it should be. I don'tīremember the - Subzone 16 for instance had one, but it's about.
Q. About six -
A. About one each subzone.
Q. All right. So there were about six LRD's or gathering places for detainees in Zone 1 when you were the head of Zone 1; is that right?
A. I was the of Zone 1, yes.
Q. And when you were head of Zone 1 there were six LRD's that were in your zone more or less?
A. As far as I know because remember I was responsible for the orders I give to him. I never ordered to put a gathering place. They did it. I knew it, but in someplace they have detainees. The detainees were there for some time, most of them for release and some other were sent to the executive power state of siege law.
THE REPORTER: The executive power --
THE WITNESS: The executive power state of siege of law.
MS. HOEPER: State of siege law.
THE WITNESS: That means that they were putted on the government - under the government power according to the law. There is a special law for this.
MS. HOEPER: Q. So you knew that there were LRD's that were set up by each of the subzone commanders; is that right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And did they report to you that they had set these up?
A. They report to me when people should be put under court-martial, under federal judge or under the executive power state of siege law. In that case, I informed the Commander in Chief to the government and the government produce decrees about this. All people who was put under the executive power state of siege law was under a national decree. And the others went to the court martial or federal judge.
Q. Did you receive reports about how many people were kept in each LRD?
A. No, I received reports of the people who was or should be or must be putted in this condition. They ask me - if this according - in the order here, too.
Q. Okay. I did not understand that answer. Could you repeat that, please
A. Yes. I received informs about the people who was detained and must be putted under the federal justice, state of siege - executive power state of siege law or under court martial.
Q. Were those the only three alternatives?
A. Yes. There is no other, but this is written in the order. Can I show you?
Q. Yes, please.
Okay. Now you're looking at a different document. Let's have this one marked.
A. Is an attachment of the same order. Let me see which one is. Is Attachment 7, Appendix -
THE INTERPRETER: Appendix 1.
THE WITNESS: Appendix 1, yes.
MS. HOEPER: All right. I'm going to - because it is a separate document in my set of documents, we're going to mark this Exhibit 4.
THE WITNESS: I can give you that number. Attachment 7, Appendix 1.
(Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)
MS. HOEPER: Q. All right. Now, you're pointing to which page of this document? You were looking at a page before to answer my question.
A. Yes. No, no. I have to read it again.
Q. My question to you is you had told me -
A. I think that all the attachment is useful because is all to say what to do to the detained. On Page 1, 2 - what to do to put the detained under state of siege law.
Q. Okay. Does this exhibit -
A. For instance on Page 2-9. This is an example, 4. a. 1).
Q. Okay. Let's look at Page 8 of this document.
A. Page 8?
Q. Page 8.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is there anything on that page that talks about children?
A. I'm not quite sure. I suppose - I repeat you, I have to compare this order with the original, but it's all about the - many children were founded sometimes.
Q. Children were found?
A. Yeah. And what to do - to the subzone commander, what to do with this. To put this people, written with identity, not to put the boys with the neighbors.
THE REPORTER: Not to put the -
THE WITNESS: The boys.
THE REPORTER: Boys?
THE WITNESS: Boys, children.
THE REPORTER: With the neighbors?
THE WITNESS: Yes, to the neighbors. And to give this children to the federal police to - why donīt you translate this.
THE INTERPRETER: "In case of not knowing the facts of --
(Spanish spoken by the Interpreter and the witness.)
THE INTERPRETER: Okay. - "of the identity of the detained, disappeared and/or close relatives," they shall be - "the minor shall be turned over to the closest organism of the PFA" -
THE WITNESS: The federal police.
THE INTERPRETER: -"the federal police or provincial police so that these can later turn over to the minister of social welfare or similar provincial dependencies."
MS. HOEPER: Q. Okay The term -
THE WITNESS: This translate, too.
THE INTERPRETER: Okay. "In the case mentioned in 4, the delivery shall be made in documented form." In case the identity of minors or the existence of family - excuse me. "In case of not knowing the identity of the minors or the existence of family members, the necessary facts should be supplied for their publication with the object that possible relatives may solicit delivery."
MS. HOEPER: Q. Now -
A. That's instruction to the subzone commander, what to do in that such a case.
Q. All right. Now, in those cases those were children of persons who were detainees or disappeared; is that right?
A. No - yes.
Q. Now, what is meant by the term "detainees"?
A. It doesn't say detainees. It says the child that - the semparados without protection.
THE INTERPRETER: Without the protection of consequence of antisubversive operations.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Sometimes in an escape, battle, fight appears some children.
THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Sometimes battle or fight?
THE WITNESS: Or skirmish.
MS. HOEPER: Appears some children.
THE WITNESS: Some children appears. Nobody knows who belong to, so to put the children under the authority of the police and all what is said here.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Okay. And the term "disappeared" is used; is that right?
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Yes. What about this?
MS. HOEPER: Q. And disappeared persons were persons who no one knows -
A. Yes, who left the house. Nobody knows what happened with them.
Q. Now, many persons were disappeared persons in Subzone 1 while you were commander; is that right?
A. Not such a number, but, yes. That's right. It happen in all te whole country and during the whole war.
Q. And did you receive reports of the number of persons disappeared -
A. No.
Q. - in your area?
A. No.
Q. Did the subzone commander -
A. No. For instance, I can remember this. Were many requirements -
(Spanish is spoken between Interpreter and the witness.)
THE INTERPRETER: Requirements.
THE WITNESS; Yes. - to some authorities about this, national authorities, military authorities, church authorities, et cetera. A long list of the people who was met to inquire about this. There is no my name there.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Okay. This long list that met, what are you referring to?
A. Well, this in the extradition case. They present what the people was inquiring about, this people who nobody knows what happened with.
THE INTERPRETER: Inquiring about these people who are disappeared.
THE WITNESS: yes, from the president to -
MS. HOEPER: Q. Did people come to you and inquire about the disappeared?
A. No.
Q. Never?
A. Never.
Q. No one ever came to you to ask about what happened to a disappeared person?
A. No. No, I'm telling you even different commissions were working about his and they met a lot of authorities or personnel. There is not my name in the list.
Q. Okay. When you're talking about the people who met, the met after -
A. During that time, from '74 and before because this is not - such things happened in '76 to '79 is not true. The war began in the '70.
For instance, the first disappeared was the former president, General Aramburu. Nobody know what happened with him and his body appeared months ahead in a -
(Spanish spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Cemetery?
THE WITNESS: No, was not cemetery.
THE INTERPRETER: Oh, clandestine burial?
THE WITNESS: Yes, clandestine burial.
THE INTERPRETER: In a burial place.
THE WITNESS: So many people was asking about him. Was a real war. Was a long fight, was very difficult. But my name doesn't - is not in that list. For instance -
MS. HOEPER: Q. What list?
A. - I can remember - huh?
Q. What list? I don't understand.
A. In the extradition case there's an exhibit about the people who was interview by the different commission of madres and et cetera about this, president, administer of interior, the bishop, et cetera, a long list of people, maybe more than a page. There is no my name there.
Q. What does that mean? I don't understand why you're telling me that.
A. There is a list of people who was interview but this commission inquiring about what happened with Mr. X or Mr. B or Mr. C.
Q. This is the commission, Sabato Commission?
A. What is it?
THE INTERPRETER: Sabato?
THE WITNESS: No, no, no.
MS. HOEPER: Q. No?
A. Sabato Commission was political commission that was formed during the actual government or in 1894. We are talking about '76, '75, 77.
Q. This a commission during -
A. No. Were several people who were asking for this, so several different authorities. Did you understand me? Not Sabato Commission, some other.
Q. You're telling me that during the time that you were the commander of Zone 1 -
A. Yes.
Q. - that there was a commission what was looking at the problem of disappeared -
A. Different commission what were - they were inquiring and habeas corpus and et cetera for different people. And they interview a long list of authority. This is the extradition case and there is no my name there. Nobody came to me inquiring about Mr. X or Mr. B or Mr. C.
Q. Do you know why they did not come to you?
A. No, I really don't know. I was lining in the middle of the capital.
Q. During -
A. but I suppose that because it was very clear that the operation - the operation were developed by the subzone commanders in different parts of the province.
Q. Were any subzone commanders that were under your control ever punished from 1976 to 1978 for any excesses of human rights abuses?
A. Not subzone commanders, but some other ranks, yes.
Q. Some members of the Army were punished?
A. Members of the army and police.
Q. During the time that you were the commander?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember how many persons?
A. No, I can't remember.
Q. Do you remember -
A. Because this investigation about were maybe subzone commanders. So they informed me, but I can't remember this. Remember, were years and years, day by day with hundreds of episodes, events, et cetera.
Q. Do you know what these persons did -
A. But it's all registered in the army.
Q. Pardon?
A. It's all - all of this is registered in the Army and in the police.
THE INTERPRETER: Is what in the Army?
THE WITNESS: Registered.
THE INTERPRETER: Oh, registered.
THE WITNESS: Registered, yeah. I don't have here that section. We have to ask -
MS. HOEPER: Q. Do you know what those persons were punished for?
A. No, I can't remember. They were punished. Some of them have to left the Army. Some others went to the judges. I can't say to you.
Q. And these were persons who were punished for human rights abuses?
A. No, they were punished because some violations of the rules.
Q. What rules?
A. The military rules under which they were working.
Q. Okay. When I'm using the term -
A. Refer to, for instance, violations of the private property, violations of - this is a case I remember well. It was about some prostitutes, some ranks makes silly things.
Q. I didn't understand you.
A. Well, I have to explain this to him.
THE INTERPRETER: Yeah.
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: There was a case of which I can remember -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: - of some noncommissioned officers -
THE WITNESS: Who - how can I say. That use prostitutes -
THE INTERPRETER: Who used these prostitutes -
THE WITNESS: Against his - with no money paper.
THE INTERPRETER: Without payment of money.
THE WITNESS: That's such a case.
MS. HOEPER: Q. And what happened to those noncommissioned officers?
A. They were punished.
Q. Now, was -
A. For this - I can't remember this, but either the Army or this is logistics. You have to ask them everything.
Q. Were there any Army or military persons who were punished for their treatment of detainees or subversives?
A. No, I think that - I don't remember that such a case.
Q. So -
A. But maybe you have to ask to the subzone commanders because they were working under me.
Q: So you remember no such cases in which any personnel under your operational control were punished for their treatment or mistreatment of any detainees or subversives?
A. I don't remember. But I repeat you, there were several ranks of police and the Army that were punished. And I can't tell you in detail about this. I can't remember.
Q. All right. We were talking about the LRD's under the command of the Army?
A. Yes.
Q. And you made the diagram Exhibit 3?
A. Yes.
Q. And I asked you if you could remember the names of any of the six or so LRD's that were in Zone 1.
A. No, I can't remember that name because I repeat you: This name that they put here are -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Like nicknames, the proper names.
THE WITNESS: What page are we?
MS. HOEPER: On Page 10 and 11.
THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Okay. Do you see the detention center of Mar del Plata?
A. Mar de Plata, si, yes.
Q. And do you see the five detention centers that are listed there?
A. Belongs to the Navy, Air Force, police -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Central headquarters of firefighters.
THE WITNESS: Firefighters, yes. This belong to other forces.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Did all of those belong to other forces?
A. Yes.
Q. Were those detention centers set up for the battle against the subversion?
A. I really don't know because they belong - it's obvious they belong to other forces. For instance -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: School for -
THE WITNESS: Noncommission officer school of the Marines belongs to the Navy. I never knew what happened there. Naval base de la Armada. Is clear it's a naval base, naval base of the Navy.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Do you know whether there was a detention center at the naval base?
A. No, I don't know if they were detentions centers or not. Here they speak about this, but how can I know? They belong to - this units that are here belongs to other forces, not to the Army.
Same thing with Pozo de Quiimes, Pozo de Banfield. They belong to the police.
Q. Now, before when we were talking about the Zones that the country was divided into and you agreed that the reason the country was divided into zones was to coordinate the battle against subversion; is that right?
A. Yes. Zones and the subzones were divided into - the zones were divided into subzones. The country were divided in zones. I think there were five of them and each zones were divided in subzones.
In my case the responsibility, direct responsibility by order was given to the subzone commander because it was a overcrowded zone with close to nine million people. And it was impossible to control this for one commander. You have to be divided into subzone and they have a responsibility. If they did something wrong, I am co-responsible
Q. You are -
A. Co-responsible. If one of them made something wrong, I am co-responsible because he made a mistake under my orders or not. But other regulation, the commander is responsible for his unit for what the unit do and for what the unit do not do in fulfillment of the order. But all this people is free. They never tried and if someone was said, never sentenced for all of these things. So I have to assume that the things that the people said never happened afer three years or even more this people free. No one of them was sentenced.
Q. All right. Let me make sure that I understand you. You said that you were responsible for what the subzone commanders did because you were their commander; is that right?
A. Yeah, that's what I said. I'm co-responsible according to regulation for what my troops did.
Q. You're using a word that I don't understand.
THE WITNESS: Co-responsible.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Co-responsible.
MS. HOEPER: Co-responsible. All right.
THE WITNESS: Co-responsible means both responsibility. Subzone commander and the zone commander, we both were responsible if the subzone commander made a mistake. Is that clear?
MS. HOEPER: Yes, I understand now.
THE WITNESS: Okay. What I'm telling you that no one of the subzone commanders was sentenced for nothing. They are free.
MS. HOEPER: Q. They are free now?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you believe that the reason they are free is because they didn't do anything wrong?
A. There is no trials against them and if some one of them was putted on trial, they were not sentenced. They were not condemned. After three years, I think that the government had enough time to put in evidence against them, but actually they're in the street. They are free.
Q. Because they are free you believe that there's nothing that can be - you can only -
A. They didn't find anything about them.
(Spanish is spoken between the Interpreter and the witness.)
THE INTERPRETER: Justice - the justice system did not find anything against them.
(Spanish is spoken between the Interpreter and the witness.)
THE INTERPRETER: Some were judged.
THE WITNESS: No one was sentenced.
MS. HOEPER: Q. When you say some were judges, what do you mean?
A. The subzone commanders.
Q. Were judged?
A. Yes.
Q. And what do you mean by the word "judged"?
A. They were putted on trial. They were called by the justice to make a statement and there were investigations about all of this things around him, and they are all free, all of them. There is no one in jail; no one was sentenced.
I going to tell you if someone made something wrong, I'm co-responsible, but how can I have full responsibility for this thing that nobody knows who did it, and even the responsible, according to this order, is free. He wasn't putted on trial and he was not sentenced.
Q. Okay. You talk about some things that no one knows who's responsible. What things are you talking about?
A. The human right violation for instance. Because the trial was about human right violation. All the trials were about this.
Q. Okay. Were you asked - were you ever subpoenaed or asked to come to court for a trial on human rights crimes?
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Not exactly. What happened to me was as follows:
I was called for the judge, for the federal judge, one time as a witness. They were inquiring - is that-
THE INTERPRETER: Investigations?
THE WITNESS: Investigations about one people who was disappeared.
MS. HOEPER: Q. One person who was disappeared?
A. One person, yes. The name is or was Giorgio, Giorgio. And a judge in the federal court was a long meeting of propaganda, pancars, et cetera.
THE INTERPRETER: Pancars, signs. You know, like picket signs or canvas signs.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Right
A. Okay. I went to the judge. He interrogates me for a long time. He tell me nothing about.
After this I went to the Chief of Staff in the Army and I said to him: According this they are trying to a lot of propaganda about this. I went to the judge one time, but I don't want to be judges by a civilian judge because I need, I deserve - according to regulation is I have to be judged by the court-martial. Right?
The judge call me for a second time to compare my statements with the Chief of Police's statements, all according to Giorgio case is a case that happened in '78, end in '78. Again, political demonstrators and et cetera, et cetera, in the federal court door.
And the judge was calling us for a fact that happened in '78 to compare my statement with the Chief of Police. And that Chief of Police left the charge in '77, so he was out of this charge one year before the fact. Did you understand?
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And the judge tried to compare both statement.
I went for the second time to the Chief of the Staff and I told him what- now I need that you make an investigation about this, about what happened in the First Army Corps. I putted this in writing.
They received this letter and told me we can't do anything because without the Commander in Chief, the president ordered not to be tried under court-martial.
So I didn't accept this; another reason why I left the country. I asked to the judge permission in writing and they gave me. He gave me. And I left the country. And I never received any other orders to be presented by this judge until now.
Q. When did you leave Argentina?
A. Generally '84, approximately.
Q. Where did you go after that?
A. To the states.
Q. Did you go straight to the United States?
A. No, I pass couple of days or three in Uruguay.
Q. And then where did you go when you to the Untied States?
A I went to my son house.
Q. In Long Island?
A. In Long Island.
Q. And was your wife already there?
A. No, no. My wife came after this.
That the reason why I left the country. I didn't agree with this. I didn't accept this because was not according - the rules were what was I acting during that time. I was acting under the military rules, under military law, court martial, et cetera. And they denied this. Not only to me, they deny it for everybody, and all the people that actually are in jail were sentenced and condemned by the civilian judge. Even the president organized, pass a new law and create a new court, appeal court. So all this people was judged in this appeal court, federal appeal court.
Q. And some of them were convicted of -
A. Yes, yes.
Q. - of human rights abuses?
A. They were convicted, the former president, the former Commander in Chief of the Navy, both of them, or two of them, and some other Chief of Police and some other people.
Q: All right. Let's go back to the list of detention centers on Page 11. Are you familiar with the detention center Number G, Pozo de Quiimes?
A. No. I never knew nothing about this, Pozo de Quiimes. No idea.
MS. HOEPER: Let's take a short break because we've been going for quite awhile.
(A recess was taken from 9:03 p.m. to 9:10 p.m.)
MS. HOEPER: Q. What was the purpose of the detention centers?
A. To interrogate people and make some investigations about facts.
THE REPORTER: About what?
THE WITNESS: About facts.
MS. HOEPER: Q. And what do you mean by "interrogate"'
A. Investigate.
Q. Interrogate -
A. You are interrogating me.
Q. Yes. I'm asking you questions.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Is that what you mean by interrogate?
A. Huh?
Q. To ask questions?
A. Yes.
Q. And were there directives or orders about how interrogations should occur?
A. Maybe it's possible, but I can't remember where they are.
Q. You've seen orders about interrogations?
A. I think, yes. I couldn't find it here. I can't tell you where it is, but the interrogators were specific people who were trained for this. And they know what to ask for the people.
Q. Who were these specific people?
A. Intelligence people.
Q. And were they under the operational control of subzone commanders?
A. No, no. They ask it to the intelligence for people to come to interrogate to help them to find facts and that's all.
Q. And were the only people who conducted interrogations the intelligence people?
A. No, maybe not. I can't tell you because I wasn't there. This was under the subzone command's responsibility and control.
I knew that they ask for some intelligence people to make some - to help to interrogate because intelligence service knew how to afford this, what to interrogate about. They have some experience because they were working for a long, long time and they knew who can be a subversive, who can be the material also of something or not. Experienced people.
Q. Were they under Battalion 601?
A. Yes, maybe some of them were. I think - I'm telling you maybe because the brigades, for instance, they have a zone intelligence people.
Q. So the brigades under your direct control also had intelligence people attached to them?
A. Yes, his own people; not my people as commander.
Q. The subzone commander people.
A. The subzone commander.
Q. And the subzone commanders reported to you; is that right?
A. The subzone commanders reported what really discover in such investigation and send the people, the names of the people who has to be putted under arrest or as I told you -
THE REPORTER: Or what? Under arrest or -
THE WITNESS: Who had to be putted under arrest of the executive power, the state of siege law or be sent to the federal judge or to the court-martial after this investigation that they made.
MS. HOEPER: Q. All right. So the subzone commanders reported to you on the results of interrogations; is that right?
A. The results of the - not interrogations. The results of the investigation.
Q. Which included interrogations; is that right?
A. Included interrogations, yes.
Q. And you said that these interrogators were trained persons.
A. Yes.
Q. How were they trained?
A. Well, this is a specialty of intelligence service. They were trained there. I don't know. Interrogator is a -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: It's a specialty of the intelligence service.
THE WITNESS: They have to know what is happened with that zone with the guerrilla. They have to know something about to make a good interrogator.
For instance, a fuhrer agent have to know something about a crime to make an interrogation. If he doesn't know nothing, how is he going to interrogate the people. It's the same thing.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Were all persons who were detained interrogated?
A. I can't say. I don't know.
Q. Were there any orders about who would be interrogated and who would not?
A. No. The order is that they have the responsibility to make some investigations or not. And they did investigation and they saw this people must be free because they have nothing to do. They were released immediately and some other they putted under arrest because some suspect or something like this.
Q. How long would it take from the time a person was arrested until the time that the decision was made what to do with them?
A. I don't know because they inform me only the results.
Q. Were you ever informed of the numbers of persons that were being detained?
A. Usually a few days.
Q. A few days?
A. I can't say two, three, or five. I can't say you.
Q. Okay. The subzone commanders, how often did you meet with them when you were commander of Zone 1?
A. Depends because one of them were very close to the capital and some others were far away. With this people who had a command close maybe is two weeks more or less. And some others maybe once a month.
Q. And what was -
A. For instance one of the subzone was even in the other province, La Pampa. It was part of the -
THE INTERPRETER: La Pampa.
THE WITNESS: La Pampa is a province and is part of Zone 1. With this commander I met for the most one time a month.
MS. HOEPER: Q. And what was the purpose of these meetings with the subzone commanders?
A. Well, to - several. In this fulfillment of the fight against the subversion, to actualize -
THE INTERPRETER: Actualize.
THE WITNESS: Yes. - between them, coordinate actions and after - out of this, several subjects because there's instruction of troops -
THE REPORTER: Wait a minute. Several what?
THE WITNESS: Several subjects.
THE REPORTER: Subjects?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE REPORTER: What are they?
THE WITNESS: Maneuvers, instruction of troops, exercise, et cetera. Normal and regular military duties or task.
MS. HOEPER: Q. What do you mean by "coordinate actions"?
A. Well, if you think that - the zone is divided into subzones, but the enemy have units, too. And they have even zones and subzones, but they were not coincidence between both. So they have for instance a battalion of several hundred people who was acting in south Buenos Aires, part in capital, part in our Subzone 11 and part in some other. Well, they have to coordinate to discover what this unit is, try to catch and detain the people. They have to coordinate between them.
Q. And did part of that coordination involve setting up a system of free areas?
A. No. What you are talking about is area libre. No, that's different.
Q. What is an area libre?
A. Area libre means that in a subzone - for instance, the capital. When somebody go to make some arrest or detention to advise the police that were located in the proximity, what's going on.
For instance, when the marshal went to my home -
Q. Pardon?
A. When the marshal went to my home to put me under arrest, they advise the police that they are going. This means area libre.
THE INTERPRETER: They advise the police that they were going.
THE REPORTER: What was it, master?
THE INTERPRETER: Marshal.
THE WITNESS: Marshal. This means area libre. In that area is some commission going to put or investigate this or try to catch these people, et cetera, but they advise the police we need an area libre here. Not to fight with them, in between them.
MS. HOEPER: Q. So that the area libre told the police to stay away from that area while the military operation -
A. No, so that the police know that some other people is going to there to recognize this and not to fight it.
Q. And those other people were military people operating -
A. Sometime military people, yes.
Q. And what other people?
A. And sometimes same police. For instance, in my case when the marshal went home, there was the police and both are police. And this marshal belongs to the police, the same kind of policeman.
Q. And the designation of area libres was done by the subzone commanders; is that right?
A. Yes, inside each zone and sometimes between subzone. One subzone went to the other and they advised. They coordinate this through the Army Corps Command. We have a center there named tactics called - Spanish is -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Center of Tactical Operations.
THE WITNESS: Yes. And they inform them what they need to go to some other subzone and we pass the information and they coordinate.
MS. HOEPER: Q. All right. So where there were two subzones involved in an operation, that was coordinated -
A. Sometime, yes. Or one subzone go into the other.
Q. All right. And in those situation where more than one subzone was involved, that was coordinated through tactical operations center that was under your direct control; is that right?
A. Yes, that's right? This tactical operation center have this pur -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Purpose.
THE WITNESS: This purpose. Just to know when between zones they need to coordinate something. Because one subzone has to coordinate with the other, but the other didn't receive orders from other subzone. They have to receive the orders from the Army Corps. So these one as to the Army Corps and the Army Corps ordered to the other, coordinate between both.
MS. HOEPER: Q. And what they were coordinating were anti subversive activities; is that right?
A. Yes, of course. Sometime a skirmish, sometime a battle, sometime just detentions.
Q. And by "detentions" you mean arrests of persons?
A. Arrested.
Q: And were there - was there a system set up so that the results of an operation could be reported?
A. Yes.
Q. And there were codes set up for what the results of the raids were?
A. I can't remember exactly, but usually what happened is that some information had to be code because the enemy was decoding everything they read. If you want to keep a secret - if you want to go by surprise to someplace, you have to keep a secret. So you have to use the raid, you have to be code because if the enemy decode this, they find out.
Q. Okay. And the results of raids were also coded and reported back; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were reported to the subzone commanders; is that right?
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Si, si.
THE INTERPRETER: "Yes, yes."
MS. HOEPER: Q. Now we were talking before about interrogation. Was it the subzone commanders who decided who would be interrogated and who would not?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And was physical force part of interrogation?
A. I don't think so because here is doesn't say nothing about this. I never order physical force. I never ordered tortures.
Q. You say you never ordered physical force or torture?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're pointing to the orders that we've been talking about today?
A. Yes, because in the same order - I don't remember if there is here, but in some of the attachment that this same order is in the extradition case. It's some explanation how to use the intelligence personnel and what the quality they have to have and perform in protection of the people.
Q. And what -
A. This is very clear I couldn't find it here, but in extradition case is there. It's in on of the attachment. Referring to - to take care about this, general instructions to the subzone commanders.
Q. Okay. What do you mean by "general instructions to the subzone commanders"?
A. It's a directive like this according to the treatment of the people who were under arrest.
I couldn't find it here, but in the extradition case is exactly, and even, even the - one of the lawyers pointed out in one of the briefing - brief and it was presented to the judge. And there it said very clear it is written in such an order and that page. This is very clear. And I have that briefing and tomorrow I going to show it to you because I have that briefing - that brief in the cell. And I think that this is one of the first brief presented by Jack Hill to the Judge Jensen.
Q. Now, the order is about how detainees were to be treated. There was nothing in any of those orders that prohibited the use of force; was there?
A. That prohibited - I going to show you tomorrow because it's very clear. And even consideration about the Army prestige and some people makes things wrong. How can be damaged Army prestige about the taking care of the people.
Q. Okay. I wonīt ask you any more questions about that issue then until I see what you're going to show me tomorrow. All right?
A. Yeah, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. As far I remember, this is written in the first briefing of the Jack Hill.
Q. Okay.
A. I have a copy here.
Q. We'll talk about that tomorrow.
A. yeah.
Q. Let me just ask you another question. Mr. Archuleta is your lawyer in this case; isn't he?
A. Mr. Archuleta was appointed by me in the case about Judge Conti at the last moment and Judge Conti didn't allow him to enter. And even I tried to defend myself and didn't allow me to speak. So this was entirely one side's side because I couldn't defend, present anything.
Because for a long time I couldn't get a lawyer because the lack of money. You see, a lawyer wanted money. And in this case, human right violation, everybody is afraid about his prestige. If I could pay them 60, 70,000, maybe some people wants to work, but I couldn't and I can't do this. So it's very difficult. It's really difficult to me to get a lawyer.
But Mr. Archuleta represented me the last time. What he did is present an appeal - he present an entry for - re-entry for before. Judge Conti deny. He present an appeal before the Ninth Circuit about this.
Q. Yes.
A. And in this same written paper he said - maybe tomorrow I can show you, too, that he is going to take care about the three cases. Actually he didn't appear. I think I have to ask him what's going on with him. He went to Sacramento. He have a long trial there. He didn't come.
Q. So let me understand. You hired Mr. Archuleta in all three cases?
A. Yes.
Q. So Mr. Archuleta is your lawyer in this case as well?
A. In the three cases.
Q. All right.
A. But if he is not performing this, I have to ask for some other lawyer.
Q. Now, did you pay Mr. Archuleta to represent you?
A. Very little because they didn't ask me to say any paper. They didn't ask me to pay the money. I have to afford - presume that I can pay you something - pay him something. I think that I give to him 2,000 for the most.
Q. And what about Mr. Natali, is he representing you?
A. Mr. -
Q. Natali, Dennis Natali
A. Dennis Natali, no. Was representing my wife for some questions like this and that's all.
Q. And has Mr. Natali been paid?
A. No, I don't think os. I think that is the same money because they are partners.
Q. They are partners?
A. Yes.
Q. And they share the money?
A. Yes. And he went with my wife - I don't know how long, but maybe six hours, something like this and that's all. He wasn't working on anything because all what he did is to -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: To accompany her.
THE WITNESS: To accompany her to that questions and that's all.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Okay. And do you understand that we tried to contact Mr. Archuleta to come here today, and that we also spoke with Mr. Natali and told him that you were going to be deposed today?
A. Yes, because I couldn't speak with Dennis Natali, but he called my wife. He said that you were trying to contact me tonight because you need to question me. So my wife - I called my wife and she told me: These people, maybe is going, maybe is not. We don't know, but they are trying to contact you. Okay.
Q. So you knew that we were going to come before we came? You knew we were coming?
A. Yes. Not exactly if you were coming or not, but I was advised that you were intending to come.
Q. All right. Were there task groups that you set up for coordinating antisubversive activities.
A. What?
THE INTERPRETER: Task groups?
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat?
THE INTERPRETER: Task groups. I'm not sure what - military jargon, I don't know the equivalent would be.
(Spanish is spoken between the Interpreter and the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Task group.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes.
THE WITNESS: What about? What do you want?
MS. HOEPER: Q. Well, my question was whether you put together or set up task groups to work to - let me start over.
Did you put together task groups to be in charge of the battle against subversion, to coordinate the battle against subversion?
A. No. this was made by the Commander in Chief. You refer to group one, group two, group three, four. All of them belong to different forces. One to the Navy, one to the Air Force, one to the secretary - intelligence service of the state and some other to the fuhrer police.
This group were appointed to take account of several - one of each subversive group. For instance, task group one take account of Montanero. Montanero was the secret army of the guerrilla. The two about Revolutionary Army - Revolutionary Army of the People. Group three about some other. And what I remember was that group five that take account of foreign subversive group.
For instance, Tupermaros of Uruguay. This five group I remember belonged to a state. They were not under subzone commanders because they were acting in the whole country and they belonged to the different forces. And they were coordinated by the intelligence service of the Army to exchange information about this.
Q. Were you involved in any of these groups?
A. No.
Q. None?
A. No. I have any control.
Q. I didn't ask you if you had control. I asked you if you were involved in any of them.
A. No, no.
Q. Was the Army involved in any of these groups?
A. The Commander in Chief - not the Commander. The Commander in Chief, yes, because they had to coordinate.
There was an intelligence cental at government level and this intelligence central review information of the different forces to make national intelligence about not only Army forces, but police and state intelligence service, et cetera.
So this group reported to this. They were not zones and units. They had nothing to do with zones because they were acting in the whole country.
Q. The First Army Corps cooperated with these groups; is that right?
A. Not necessarily, no. What is "cooperated"? He gave them the information. Yes. They asked, for instance, to our people what's going on. Yes, we gave them information.
Q. And did the First Army Corps cooperate in the efforts of these groups against subversion?
A. No. I don't remember such a thing.
Q. Did the First Army Corps work with any of these groups to combat subversion?
A. No, because they were not under our command. They were not under operational control. They were out of our structure. They belonged to the national structure.
Q. I understand that, but did your efforts - did you coordinate you efforts? Did you make sure that your efforts worked together to fight against subversion?
A. Yes, I - yes. I can tell you "yes" because the military were acting, for instance, in the capital zone and they, of course, saw what the subzone commander, what they need or what they were doing. It should be a cooperation.
Q. And one of the purposes of the groups was to gather information on subversion; is that right?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And so in order to help these groups the First Army Corps and you reported information and results of interrogations to those groups; is that right?
A. Is that right. Not exactly me. The subzone commander directly because it wasn't a necessary step. To report to me and I have to get this information to them. They were directly.
Q. All right. So the subzone commanders reported on the results of the interrogations and investigations to the groups?
A. Yes, if they needed. They not necessarily reported what happened, but sometimes one of this group went to a subzone when we need to know what happened here, there and, yes, of course, they cooperated. If they needed cooperation, they do it - they did it.
Q. And the reason that people were detained or questioned was in order to provide information that the groups could use in the battle against subversion; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did anyone ever come to you while you were commander of the First Army Corps and ask your assistance in locating a disappeared person?
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat?
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Yes, sometimes. For instance, I remember a friend of mine; he was a former congressman and sometimes - I don't remember exactly, but is said, and maybe is true, but he asked me about a son or a relative of some other friends. And that he said that he answer him that have anything about. Maybe I investigate or ask for that such person and I didn't found him. Because, for instance, I was sometimes trying to find some relatives of mine and I couldn't do it.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Now, when someone came to you and asked for information about a disappeared person, did you conduct an investigation?
A. Yes.
Q: And what did you do to try and find those persons?
A. Well, first of all ask the subzone commanders if they have any news about this.
Q. And did you look at reports?
A. Yes.
Q. And what reports were there?
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Sometimes some people were appeared, sometimes.
THE INTERPRETER: Appeared?
THE WITNESS: Appeared.
THE INTERPRETER: Reappeared.
THE WITNESS: No. Reappeared, no. Appeared. Somebody was looking for people, so I asked the subzone commander and they told me, yes, we have this person. He's being interrogated and he's in such a place and he is going to be free or he is going to be putted under arrest. Some others we don't know nothing about.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Now, did you ever see lists of persons who were detained and look on those lists to see -
A. No, no. I receive only the asking people to be putted under arrest to the government. I receive this list, not list of detention centers. No, I didn't receive this. This is not true. Some people, and I think that that's false testimony, are saying that there were written lists of people in the detention centers. Ridiculous because no one prisoner is going to written a list of the people under arrest, not even here. They make, of course, and they count us twice daily, but there's no one prisoner making list, only guards.
Q. Did subzone commanders keep lists of people in detention centers?
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: I suppose, yes, but they don't have to elevate to me a list of this because it was his responsibility. He have to elevate me the results and these people is in charge or this - acusada, accuse -
THE INTERPRETER: The accused.
THE WITNESS: - of such a thing. He must go to the court-martial, et cetera, according to what I showed you in this order.
MS. HOEPER: Q. So you knew that the subzone commanders had lists of detained persons; is that right?
A. Not necessarily. I suppose that they make lists, but they were responsible. They don't have to elevate me a list of the people. They have to elevate me the results. Because you see - I can tell you about ten thousand people were putted under arrest in this time. And as I told you, executive power, state of siege and et cetera, almost ten thousand. Can't you imagine they sent to us daily many, many names of people.
Q. And the names they sent to you were people who were being sent to the executive power or court-martial -
A. yes, they asked me to make this according to the orders.
Q. And were there other persons who were in detention centers who were not included in those ten thousand people you just described?
A. There were some other people in the detention center not included in this asking for them under government arrest; is because they were released. And I'm asking you if there is some other people in the detention center who was not informing not to me and were not released. Why the subzone commanders are actually free? They were investigated.
Q: You keep telling me that the subzone commanders reported results to you?
A. Results of the operations and of investigations, yes.
Q. And what were the results that they reported to you?
A. The results of the operation was, of course, we made a list; we had some people injured; we have a soldier dead. That's the results. And some other people were detained. These people actually belongs to such an organization. We need to put these people under arrest. That's the results.
Q. So the results that were reported to you included how many subversives were killed? How many people were detained?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
A. Because I want you to understand this. In the middle of such a number of population, in such a number of actions, even daily, it doesn't make sense to inform me details about this. They have to inform of results.
Q. So they tool the details of the operations and they put them into final results?
A. The results, yes, and they inform me. But this morning we make a strict control. We detained four people. We are investigating these people. Two of them were released. These two were suspected to be - to belong to such an organization. Please put these people under state of siege law until we can put on evidence or not.
Q. All right. Now, you keep saying state of siege of law; put these people under state of siege law. What do you mean by that?
A. There is a national law authorizing the executive power to put people under arrest without - with not limit of time and even with no process - with no prosecution. It's a national law.
According to this, even this actual government, for instance, putted under arrest people under this law sometimes. What happened in the guerrilla time that the people were putted under this state of siege law, and the government left these people for a long, long time because if they have not evidence and put these people in the street again, they are killing police every day. That's the reason why they in many cases may remain prisoners for a long time in the jail.
Q. How long?
A. But this was legal.
Q. How long, do you know?
A. Some of them were years. But this was a national government responsibility and there was a law for this and all of this is legal.
Q. And who decided how long a detainee would be held?
A. Executive power and through a decree. Here is a decree.
Q. And was that made for each person, the decree made for each for person?
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Yes. There were two decree, one to put the people - that person in prison and some other to release them. There are two decrees for each, one to put in prison and other decree to release.
MS. HOEPER: Q. All right. You told me that detainees were sometimes held for several years without charges; is that right?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. And who made the decision to hold those persons for that long a time?
A. The executive power, the government. All the prisoners dependent of the -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Minister of interior.
THE WITNESS: And he signed the decrees together with the president.
MS. HOEPER: Q. How many subversives were killed in Zone 1 while you were zone commander; do you know?
A. I can't tell you exactly because there were many people who died on both sides. I can't tell you exactly a number, but I think that thousands.
Q. One thousand?
A. Maybe it's possible. I can't tell you exactly what happened in Zone 1, but I can tell you in the whole country as a result of the whole war there was almost ten thousand people detained and thousand, maybe two or three, I don't know, people killed as a consequence from both sides, of course.
Q. When people were being detained and interrogated, were they allowed to see their lawyers or their families?
A. The people who were interrogated could see the lawyers when they were putted in the executive power state of siege law.
Q. Before they were put into executive power state of siege law could they see their lawyers?
A. No.
Q. And how long could that - was that a period that lasted sometimes many months?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. How long did that period last?
A. Several days.
Q. No longer than that?
A. No. As far as I know, no.
Q. Who were the guards at the detention centers?
A. Well, depends of the - what subzone commander decide. Sometime they put military personnel, sometime -
THE REPORTER: Sometime they put -
THE WITNESS: The military personnel, sometimes Army personnel, sometimes police, sometimes (Spanish is spoken by the witness.) - is like a -
THE INTERPRETER: National police?
THE WITNESS: No, it's like a national guard. This is special people to protect special Argentineans and even the frontiers. This is a (Spanish is spoken by the witness.) It's a semi-military force. It's a kind of police. They were allowed to use these people.
THE INTERPRETER: What?
THE WITNESS: They were allowed to use these people and to use these people to watch and - not only watch the detention center, but for several task. In the order it's very clear that they can do this.
MS. HOEPER: Q. You said that you received the results of operations, the summaries of what happened.
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with the information you received?
A. That's information, of course, was transferred - reported to the commander in chief, what happened today, yesterday, such things, a fight, skirmish, et cetera.
For you to make an idea what all of this was and how was arranged, I can tell you that during this actual government, during supreme control of the justice of the armed forces make a report, a public report, about all of these wars. And they stated there that during the war period there was 21,600 terrorist acts, facts. This is a public - that's an official report of the supreme counsel of the Army forces. Not during the military period, but during this actual government period.
Q. Was the fact that some persons were detained kept secret for security purposes?
A. Would you -
(Spanish is spoken by the Interpreter to the witness.)
THE WITNESS: Maybe couple of days, yes. No more than this. For instance, I can give you an example.
Mr. Timerman, he was putted under arrest, and during 48 hours, I think, the news was keeping secret. That's one of the case I remember.
Q. Why was Mr. Timerman's arrest kept secret?
A. Because he was - according to the investigation, he was a partner of Mr. Grayver. Mr. Grayver was a banker. It was discovered that this bank was financing the guerrilla. Mr. Grayver even have a branch of his bank here in the States, in New York. And he made -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Made defalcation.
MS. HOEPER: A what?
THE INTERPRETER: Defalcation.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Grayver, not Timerman. Mr. Grayver.
THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Grayver.
THE WITNESS: He -
THE INTERPRETER: Defalcation is a -
THE WITNESS: After this Mr. Grayver fly to Mexico. He had an accident and he died. What - Timerman was his partner and this is the reason why he putted under arrest, to investigate this. And the investigation confirmed this. He was his partner. He was a partner in the newspaper what Timerman was running called La Opinion and some other properties. They shared some other properties
So if he was his partner and if Mr. Grayver with his bank was financing the guerrilla, something could happen between them. This is the reason why he was putted under arrest.
After this, of course, was publicly announced this. Mr. Timermen didn't deny his partnership with Grayver and they always putted under the knowledge of the president and ministers, et cetera.
And the Commander in Chief ordered that Mr. Timerman were putted under court-martial. This court-martial was formed in the Commander in Chief, so Mr. Timerman was submitted to this court-martial. This court-martial find him - found him not guilty of direct participation in guerrilla warfare, but he was guilty about some complications.
So the junta decided to take it off his citizenship. He was putted under arrest in his own home, in his own house. And after this he put appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. The Supreme Court of Justice ordered to be released. He was released. He came to - he went first to Israel. He had some troubles there with his own people. After that he came to New York. He's very close to some people in the New York Times. He's a very -
(Spanish is spoken by the witness to the Interpreter.)
THE INTERPRETER: Influential.
THE WITNESS: Influential person here in the States. He tried to put some relation between his Jewish nationality or race and his detention, but it's nothing to do with this. The trouble that he had was specifically in Israel with his own people, nothing to do with Argentina about Jewish. He was putted under arrest because of this, not because he was Jewish.
MS. HOEPER: Q. Was he arrested in Zone 1?
A. In Zone 1, yes, in the capital.
Q. And where was he detained?
A. In the police.
Q. Where?
A. In the police.
Q. Do you know where?
A. No. Where, in his home. In his own house.
Q. When he was being detained and interrogated, where was he?
A. In the police.
Q. Do you know where in the police?
A. I can't tell you exactly. He said he was in police station called Martinez or Corte Martinez. And some other parts of his statement he said he was in the police headquarter.
Q. How long was he detained in a detention center?
A. I think that he was not in a detention center; was the police station, but anyway - I can't remember, but not so long.
Q. Do you know how long he was detained?
A. Detained at his home several months. Then the police maybe a week, something like this. And after this the Commander in Chief ordered to perform court-martial, and he was passed to the judge of the court-martial.
Q. Who ordered that Mr. Timerman be arrested?
A. I ordered because the police show me some evidence of what the investigation that they were making, and they asked me to - me authorization to put him under arrest and I authorize it.
Q. So you authorized the police to detain Mr. Timerman?
A. To detain Mr. Timerman. I have that power. I have the power to make detentions when some investigation was done and was a clue about something wrong, and this was very clear. And the facts confirm this. Really he was the partner. Really he was involved in many things with Mr. Grayver.
After this he wrote a book about because he said that he was tortured. He never said this to the court-martial. He only said this after years. He said that he was tortured. I can't believe this because it's very rare. He was under the Chief of Police direct responsibility.
Q. Now, you said it was very rare that people were tortured. Were there some -
A. No, no. I'm talking about - I think I am telling you that it's very rare. I don't believe that Mr. Timerman were tortured because it was the direct responsibility of the Chief of Police.
THE INTERPRETER: By "rare" you mean raro?
THE WITNESS: Raro, si.
THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, raro means unbelievable, odd or strange.
MS: HOEPER: Q. Okay Mr. Timerman was under direct control of the Chief of Police when he was detained?
A. Yes. I suppose, yes.
Q. And he was detained at your order; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And why was -
A. I authorized it, his -
Q. Why was it necessary for you to authorize Mr. Timerman's arrest?
A. Because the investigation was made in the police of the state of Buenos Aires - province of Buenos Aires. And Mr. Timerman was living in the capital of the subzone, so this is the reason why they asked to Army Corps permission to enter in the other subzone to make such an arrest.
Q. So one subzone asked you for permission to enter another subzone to arrest Mr. Timerman?
A. Yes. Not subzone, the police.
Q. The police? And is it true that when arrests were made by one subzone in another subzone that you had to approve those arrests?
A. I have to authorize one subzone to operate in other, not in this specific arrest. They asked me to - they informed that they were going to be making operation in other subzone. So I informed the other subzone to make contact and coordinate.
In that case was not the subzone. Was the police of the province of Buenos Aires who asked for permission to put under arrest these people, but think about because he is very important journalist.
Q. Now, when Mr. Timerman was under control of the Chief of Police, did the Chief of Police report to you about what was -
A. The results of the investigation?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, in written and sign it and with fingerprints of his statement and a tape like this. And all of this confirmed that he was a partner, several things. I show all of this to the Commander in Chief. This is the result of the investigation made by the police of Buenos Aires. I asking you what to do with this because maybe this going to be a national - not scandal, but have some national repercussion.
Q. Why would it have national repercussions?
A. Because he was a very important journalist. Very important journalist involved with some of the bankers who were financing the guerrillas and was a headline.
Q. Was there ever an order of habeas corpus issued in favor of Mr. Timerman?
A. Habeas corpus. No, I don't think so because - I don't remember exactly, but I don't think so because he was - 48 hours or something like this -
THE REPORTER: He what?
THE WITNESS: - in 48 hours or something like this the news was given to the press that he was in the police or he was under arrest.
MS. HOEPER: Q. So you're saying that it was made public within 48 hours of what happened to Mr. Timerman?
A. Yes.
Q. And where was he for the 48 hours before the information was made public?
A. He was in the police and was being interrogated.
Q. And did you talk to the Chief of Police during that 48 hours?
A. No. I knew what was going on and I asked him to - the results of this at the end of the interrogation. He brought us the interrogations, written and tape, et cetera, and he show us what the results of the investigation were.
So I informed to the Commander of Chief this is going on. This is not my task. This is not my subject because I was not involved never with the press. Was not my - the press was not our task. The press was task of the government, the Secretary of Prensa, the Secretary of Press.
But he was a journalist. So I informed to the press, the Commander in Chief and he ordered court-martial. So the prisoner was passed to the court-martial. I never saw him. I never touch him. I have no idea who he is except by photograph.
THE REPORTER: Except by -
THE WITNESS: except by photograph.
MS. HOEPER: Let's take a break here.
It's five after 10:00. I'm tired, everyone else is tired. You seem also to becoming tired because you're asking for more help in translation.
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
MS HOEPER: What I would suggest is to start again in the morning at 9:00 o'clock?
THE WITNESS: As you wish. It's 9:00 o'clock?
MS. HOEPER: What time is it? 10:00.
MS. CANNATA: Let's at least stretch.
(Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No.1 was marked for identification.)
(10:08 p.m.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOI, RENEE A. KELLY, hereby certify that the witness in the forgoing deposition,
CARLOS GUILLERMO SUAREZ-MASON was by me previously sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled cause.
That said deposition was taken down in shorthand by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and disinterested person, at the time and place therein stated, and that the testimony of the said witness was thereafter reduced to typewriting under my supervision and direction.
I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney for either or any of the parties to the said deposition, nor in any way interested in the event of this cause, and that I am not related to any of the parties thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office this 27th of May, 1998.
Renee A. Kelly
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the County of Sacramento
State of California
(*) Documentation note: The Documents pertaining to the Plaintiff's Exhibits will be posted at a later date.
|
| This document has been published on 06Feb04 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights |