All content from Aquiabajo.com is in the process of being moved to Hondurasnow.org. The site will remain active until this process is complete and all post links and content will be carried through to the new site.
Thanks for reading!
** ESPAÑOL ABAJO **
Outside the courtroom, members of the Committee for the Freedom of Political Prisoners gathered along with members of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations (COPINH), the Municipal Committee for the Defense of Public Goods from Tocoa, and several allies from the capital city, in support of Edwin and Raúl. In the afternoon, Honduran singer, Karla Lara did a small concert for everyone.
All day, the prosecutors did an incredibly sloppy job at drawing out what the evidence and witnesses were supposed to prove and show about the crimes committed and Edwin and Raúl’s alleged involvement. For example, an anti-explosive expert was put on the stand. He confused two different reports that he conducted without the prosecutor either knowing or attempting to clarify. The judges were so confused that they spent approximately 20 minutes trying to understand what the expert, who contradicted himself several times, was trying to say. They questioned him about why a piece of evidence (a green glass bottle) was broken in the evidence box presented to the court while in his report, it was intact.
We feel good about how the trial is going thus far. As we have said from the beginning, there is no evidence against Edwin and Raúl. The prosecutor’s office has been incredibly sloppy, demonstrating incompetence at teasing out the important details or the case or even making an effort to show that any crimes were committed. It’s puzzling while at the same time, infuriating.
Edwin’s lawyer, Omar Menjivar told Radio Progreso on Tuesday that what is clear so far is “the irresponsible behaviour of the public prosecutor’s office and those that carried out the investigation … they didn’t document anything, they didn’t collect any evidence using common sense that would help to confirm that the incidents occurred, they didn’t use the correct criminal connotation or charges, but above all, that the individuals that have been accused in this trial are responsible. The prosecutors have been unable to demonstrate that.”
The trial was suspended and will continue on Friday, September 17 at 1:30 pm. There are only 3 pieces of evidence left to present and then the lawyers will present their conclusions.
Evidence
The court proceedings started at 10 am with ten observers in the court. The prosecution continued to present evidence.
· The firefighters’ crime scene inspections report.
o Firefighter Marco Antonio Valeriano was called to ratify the document but he wasn’t able to because he was not the person that wrote the report or did the inspection. The person that wrote it has since passed away.
o The written report was admitted as evidence despite the prosecutor not demonstrating in writing to the court that the person that originally authored it, had in fact died.
· The explosives expert’s report about a bottle and a piece of glass collected at the crime scene and at the scene of Edwin’s arrest
o Marco Antonio Perez Lagos testified that the evidence were sent to the anti-explosives lab after the incident at the Marriott and following Edwin’s arrest. The physical evidence, according to the report was a full glass bottle, a rag with alleged gas in it, and a piece of glass. Perez Lagos concluded that after an analysis, it was determined that the bottle was a Molotov cocktail.
o The judges asked a series of questions and were confused by the testimony. They asked questions like: If the bottle is supposed to smash when thrown, why was the bottle in evidence still intact? How do Molotovs work? How do you know the piece of glass was a bottle? How do you know the rag has gas on it if there isn’t a chemical lab analysis included in the report submitted to the court?
Again, this testimony was extremely confusing. The prosecutor did not ask any clarifying questions of the witness and instead, each of the three judges asked a series of questions to try and determine what the expert was testifying about. There were several contradictions between his testimony and his written report.
· The Marriott Hotel accountant testifying about the amount of damage done to the Marriot Hotel during the protest
o Maria Garcia testified that the total damage amounted to ~9,429,870.11 Lempiras [$385,000 USD]. The Marriott was closed for 2 months as a result of the damage. Garcia testified that the total cost of the damage is broken down into three categories: 1. Window replacement - $105,000; 2. Damages caused by the fire inside the Marriott (furniture, rugs, paint, and smoke damage) - $45,000; 3. Other related costs: food for employees, salaries during time the hotel was closed, legal costs, etc. - $235,000.
· Police investigator testified about Edwin’s arrest.
o Claudia Poala Garcia testified that Edwin was arrested on January 18 while riding his red and black motorcycle on a major boulevard in Tegucigalpa. His motorcycle had several stickers on it that read “No more impunity IHSS,” “Get out JOH,” “No more violence,” “I’m free” and “Freedom for the political prisoners.”
o A broken piece of glass was found close to where he was arrested. It measured 3.70 “meters” [sic] and was collected as evidence.
· Police investigator testified about what was found in Edwin’s possession during his arrest.
o David Flores testified that Edwin was arrested on January 18, 2018. He had nails, a pocketknife, a motorcycle, money, and two cell phones on him.
· Police investigator Jeisy Hernandez testified about reading Edwin his rights when arrested
· Police investigator testified about a diagram of the location of Edwin’s arrest
o Luis Velasquez drew a parameter diagram showing the location of the arrest (in front of a bus station) including where his motorcycle was located and where the piece of glass was found.
· The court secretary read the legal complaint filed by the Marriott Hotel about the damages from the protest in January 2018.
· The document describing the raid on Raúl Alvarez’s house was accepted into evidence but was not ratified by the respective police agent because former agent Pablo Cesar Hernandez no longer works with the Honduran police.
· Police agent Victor Alfonso Sierra ratified the documents outlining what was found on Raúl Alvarez during his arrest, reading Raúl his rights, and what was found on him when arrested.
The trial proceedings ended here for the day. The judges suspended the proceedings until Friday, September 17 at 1:30 pm.
Edwin and Raúl discuss the day with attorney Edy Tabora and Mario Rojas after leaving court on Tuesday at approximately noon.
En las afueras de la sala de audiencias, a los miembros del Comité por la Libertad de los Presos Políticos se les sumaron integrantes del Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas de Honduras (COPINH), del Comité Municipal por la Defensa de los Bienes Públicos de Tocoa, y varios aliados más de la ciudad capital en apoyo a Edwin y Raúl. Por la tarde, la cantante hondureña Karla Lara hizo un pequeño concierto para todos los presentes.
Durante todo el día, los fiscales hicieron un trabajo increíblemente desastroso a la hora de sustentar lo que las pruebas y los testigos debían probar sobre los crímenes en los que Edwin y Raúl estuvieron supuestamente implicados. Por ejemplo, subió al estrado un experto en antiexplosivos. Confundió dos informes diferentes que realizó sin que el fiscal lo supiera o intentara aclararlo. Los jueces estaban tan confundidos que pasaron aproximadamente 20 minutos tratando de entender lo que el experto -que se contradijo varias veces- estaba tratando de decir. Le preguntaron por qué una prueba -una botella de vidrio verde- aparece rota en la caja de pruebas presentada al tribunal a pesar que en su informe el testigo la reporta intacta.
Nos sentimos bien sobre cómo va el juicio hasta ahora. Como hemos dicho desde el principio, no hay pruebas contra Edwin y Raúl. La fiscalía ha sido increíblemente descuidada, demostrando incompetencia para desentrañar los detalles importantes, el caso o incluso hacer un esfuerzo para demostrar que se cometió algún delito. Es desconcertante y, al mismo tiempo, exasperante.
El abogado de Edwin, Omar Menjivar, dijo el martes a Radio Progreso que lo que queda claro hasta ahora es "la irresponsabilidad del Ministerio Público y de quienes llevaron a cabo la investigación... no documentaron nada, no recabaron ninguna prueba con sentido común que ayudara a confirmar que los hechos ocurrieron, no utilizaron la connotación penal ni los cargos correctos; pero sobre todo, el que las personas que han sido acusadas en este juicio son responsables, los fiscales no han podido demostrarlo."
El juicio fue suspendido y continuará el viernes 17 de septiembre a las 13:30 horas. Sólo quedan 3 pruebas por presentar y luego los abogados presentarán sus conclusiones.
El proceso judicial comenzó a las 10 de la mañana con diez observadores en el tribunal. La fiscalía continuó presentando pruebas.
El informe de las inspecciones de los bomberos en la escena del crimen.
El bombero Marco Antonio Valeriano fue llamado para ratificar el documento, pero no pudo hacerlo porque no fue la persona que redactó el informe ni hizo la inspección. La persona que lo redactó ya ha fallecido.
El informe escrito fue admitido como prueba a pesar de que el fiscal no demostró por escrito al tribunal que la persona que lo redactó originalmente efectivamente había fallecido.
El informe del experto en explosivos sobre una botella y un trozo de vidrio recogidos en la escena del crimen y en el lugar de la detención de Edwin
Marco Antonio Pérez Lagos declaró que las pruebas fueron enviadas al laboratorio de antiexplosivos después del incidente en el Marriott y tras la detención de Edwin. Las pruebas físicas, según el informe, eran una botella de vidrio llena, un trapo con supuesto gas y un trozo de vidrio. Pérez Lagos concluyó que tras un análisis, se determinó que la botella era un cóctel molotov.
Los jueces hicieron una serie de preguntas y se mostraron confusos con el testimonio. Hicieron preguntas como: Si se supone que la botella se rompe al ser lanzada, ¿por qué la botella que estaba en las pruebas seguía intacta? ¿Cómo funcionan las molotov? ¿Cómo saben que el trozo de vidrio era una botella? ¿Cómo se sabe que el trapo tiene gas si no hay un análisis de laboratorio químico incluido en el informe presentado al tribunal?
De nuevo, este testimonio fue extremadamente confuso. El fiscal no hizo ninguna pregunta aclaratoria al testigo y, en cambio, cada uno de los tres jueces hizo una serie de preguntas para tratar de determinar sobre qué estaba declarando el experto. Hubo varias contradicciones entre su testimonio y su informe escrito.
La contadora del Hotel Marriott testificó sobre la cantidad de daños causados al Hotel Marriott durante la protesta
María García testificó que el daño total ascendió a ~9,429,870.11 Lempiras [$385,000 USD]. El Marriott estuvo cerrado durante 2 meses como resultado de los daños. García testificó que el costo total de los daños se desglosa en tres categorías: 1. Sustitución de ventanas: 105.000 dólares; 2. Daños causados por el incendio en el interior del Marriott (muebles, alfombras, pintura y daños por humo): 45.000 dólares; 3. Otros costes relacionados: comida para los empleados, salarios durante el tiempo que el hotel estuvo cerrado, costes legales, etc. - $235,000.
Investigador de la policía testifica sobre la detención de Edwin
Claudia Poala García testificó que Edwin fue arrestado el 18 de enero mientras conducía su motocicleta roja y negra en un bulevar principal de Tegucigalpa. Su motocicleta tenía varias pegatinas que decían "No más impunidad IHSS", "Fuera JOH", "No más violencia", "Soy libre" y "Libertad para los presos políticos".
Se encontró un trozo de vidrio roto cerca de donde fue detenido. Medía 3,75 “metros” [sic] y se recogió como prueba.
El investigador de la policía testificó sobre lo que se encontró en posesión de Edwin durante su detención.
David Flores declaró que Edwin fue detenido el 18 de enero de 2018. Tenía clavos, una navaja, una motocicleta, dinero y dos teléfonos celulares con él.
La investigadora policial Jeisy Hernández testificó sobre la lectura de los derechos de Edwin cuando fue detenido
Investigador de la policía testificó sobre un diagrama del lugar de la detención de Edwin
Luis Velásquez dibujó un diagrama paramétrico mostrando el lugar del arresto (frente a una estación de autobuses), incluyendo donde se encontraba su motocicleta y donde se encontró el pedazo de vidrio.
El secretario del tribunal leyó la denuncia judicial presentada por el Hotel Marriott sobre los daños de la protesta de enero de 2018.
El documento que describe el allanamiento de la casa de Raúl Álvarez fue aceptado como prueba, pero no fue ratificado por el agente policial respectivo porque el ex agente Pablo César Hernández ya no trabaja en la policía hondureña.
El agente de policía Víctor Alfonso Sierra ratificó los documentos que describen lo que se le encontró a Raúl Álvarez durante su arresto, leyendo a Raúl sus derechos, y lo que se le encontró cuando fue arrestado.
Los procedimientos del juicio terminaron aquí por el día. Los jueces suspendieron el proceso hasta el viernes 17 de septiembre a las 13:30 horas.
ESPANOL ABAJO
At approximately 7 am, people started gathering outside the Supreme Court in Tegucigalpa to support Edwin and Raul.
· At approximately 9:30 am, the judges notified people interested in observing the trial that they would only allow 9 observers into the courtroom. When starting the proceedings at ~10 am, the judges informed everyone that the trial would not be broadcasted online until possibly the afternoon.
Outside the court this morning. From left to right: Prisila Alvarado, one of Edwin’s two lawyers; Edwin Espinal; Omar Menjivar, Edwin’s second lawyer; Alba Lopez, member of the Committee for the Freedom of Political Prisoners in Honduras; and Raul Alvarez.
· The trial process begins (as permitted by Honduran law) with the prosecutors and defense presenting additional evidence that was not presented in the evidentiary hearing. Today, the prosecutors mostly just clarified evidence that had previously been accepted by the court. In addition,
· Edwin’s defense team presented 9 documents outlining the state persecution that Edwin has faced since 2009 and one witness, Mery Agurcia from the Honduran human rights organization, COFADEH. The court did not permit any of the evidence presented by Edwin’s defense arguing that they were irrelevant to the crime being tried and were out of context.
· Raul’s defense argued that the raid of Raul’s house after his detention was illegal and that all evidence related to the raid, should be excluded.
· The judges verified the dates that two pieces of evidence had been presented to the court. After discovering that the prosecutors had given the court key evidence just one week before the trial date instead of two months prior (as the court had ordered) the judges warned that they would report this to authorities in the Public Prosecutor’s office. In short, the prosecutors defied a court order violating Edwin and Raul’s right to defense and timely access to evidence.
The next step of today’s trial proceedings involved the formalization of the charges against Edwin and Raul. This involves the prosecution explaining and justifying the charges in greater detail.
Charges Against Raul: The head prosecutor Juan Carlos Elvir told the court that the Prosecutor’s office would remove two charges against Raul – “aggravated arson” and “use and possession of homemade explosives”. The prosecutors said that they had “made a mistake” by charging Raul with these additional two charges and instead, will only charge him with “aggravated property damage”. According to the prosecutors, the damage that Raul caused to the Marriott hotel building amounts to 985,610.06 Lempiras [$42,000]. However, in another report submitted to the court, the prosecutor’s office alleges that the total damages to the hotel were ~9,000,000 Lempiras [$375,000].
This “mistake” by the prosecutors, cost Raul 19 months in a maximum-security prison. At the time he was jailed, the prosecutors argued that he should be sent to pre-trial detention because of the seriousness of the charges against him.
If found guilty of this one charge (aggravated property damage). Raul faces 2 to 3 years and 4 months in prison.
Charges Against Edwin: The prosecutor removed the “aggravated damage” charge against Edwin but formalized the charges of “aggravated arson” and “use and possession of homemade explosives.” If found guilty Edwin faces between 9 to 18 years in prison.
For observers, including myself, the main prosecutor, Juan Carlos Elvir stumbled through the technical arguments as to why the prosecution was charging Edwin and Raul with the above listed crimes. It was also obvious that the prosecution had not reviewed the entire legal file, did not prepare the first two witnesses, and struggled to make basic legal arguments specific to the case.
Two witnesses that presented two pieces of evidence:
· An analysis of videos of the 911 camera system from street cameras & videos obtained from the reception cameras inside the Marriott Hotel.
o The videos were played on a small screen that was difficult to see from across the court. They show hundreds of people participating in a protest, specifically at a moment in front of the Marriott hotel on January 12, 2018. It’s hard to identify people in the videos. The video forensic analyst Wilmer Anderson pointed out and focused on two individuals – one wearing a motorcycle helmet and another wearing a red shirt and beige shorts.
· An analysis of the geographical location of a cell phone using cell phone towers
o Police investigator Rosa Sanchez Gonzales clearly confused two separate phone analyses without the prosecutors even knowing it (again, likely because of their lack of knowledge of the legal file and sloppiness). She testified that one cell phone was within several kilometers of the Marriott Hotel during the time of the day when the protest was occurring. The investigator at one point said that the phone was Edwin’s but then said it was Raul’s cell phone. It’s difficult to explain the level of confusion associated with this specific investigator’s testimony.
Tomorrow, the trial is convened for 9:30 am. It’s unclear whether the trial will finish tomorrow given how slowly it moved forward today.
*************
- Aproximadamente a las 7 de la mañana, la gente comenzó a reunirse fuera de la Corte Suprema en Tegucigalpa para apoyar a Edwin y Raúl.
- Aproximadamente a las 9:30 am, los jueces notificaron a las personas interesadas en observar el juicio que sólo permitirían la entrada de 9 observadores a la sala. Al comenzar el proceso a las 10 de la mañana, los jueces informaron a todos de que el juicio no se transmitiría por Internet hasta posiblemente la tarde.
- El proceso del juicio comenzó (como lo permite la ley hondureña) con los fiscales y la defensa presentando pruebas adicionales que no fueron presentadas en la audiencia de pruebas. Hoy, los fiscales se limitaron a aclarar pruebas que ya habían sido aceptadas por el tribunal. Además:
- El equipo de defensa de Edwin presentó 9 documentos que describen la persecución estatal que Edwin ha enfrentado desde 2009 y a una testigo, Mery Agurcia de la organización de derechos humanos de Honduras, COFADEH. El tribunal no permitió ninguna de las pruebas presentadas por la defensa de Edwin argumentando que eran irrelevantes para el delito que se juzgaba y estaban fuera de contexto.
- La defensa de Raúl argumentó que el allanamiento de la casa de Raúl después de su detención fue ilegal y que todas las pruebas relacionadas con el allanamiento debían ser excluidas.
- Los jueces verificaron las fechas en que se habían presentado dos pruebas al tribunal. Tras descubrir que los fiscales habían entregado al tribunal pruebas clave sólo una semana antes de la fecha del juicio, en lugar de dos meses antes (como había ordenado el tribunal), los jueces advirtieron que informarían de ello a las autoridades del Ministerio Público. En resumen, los fiscales desafiaron una orden del tribunal, violando el derecho de Edwin y Raúl a la defensa y al debido acceso a las pruebas.
El siguiente paso del juicio de hoy fue la formalización de los cargos contra Edwin y Raúl. Esto implica que la fiscalía explique y justifique los cargos con mayor detalle.
Cargos contra Raúl: El fiscal jefe, Juan Carlos Elvir, dijo al tribunal que la Fiscalía retiraría dos cargos contra Raúl: "incendio agravado" y "uso y posesión de explosivos caseros". Los fiscales dijeron que habían "cometido un error" al acusar a Raúl de estos dos cargos adicionales y que, en su lugar, sólo lo acusarán de "daños materiales agravados". Según los fiscales, los daños que Raúl causó al edificio del hotel Marriott ascienden a 985.610,06 lempiras [42.000 dólares]. Sin embargo, en otro informe presentado al tribunal, la fiscalía alega que el total de los daños al hotel fue de ~9.000.000 de lempiras [375.000 dólares].
Este "error" de los fiscales le costó a Raúl 19 meses en una prisión de máxima seguridad. En el momento en que fue encarcelado, los fiscales argumentaron que debía ser enviado a prisión preventiva debido a la gravedad de los cargos en su contra.
Si se le declara culpable de este único cargo (daños materiales agravados), Raúl se enfrenta a una condena de entre 2 a 3 años y 4 meses de prisión.
Cargos contra Edwin: El fiscal retiró el cargo de "daños agravados" contra Edwin pero formalizó los cargos de "incendio agravado" y "uso y posesión de explosivos caseros". Si es declarado culpable, Edwin se enfrenta a entre 9 y 18 años de prisión.
Para los observadores asistentes, incluyéndome a mí, el fiscal principal, Juan Carlos Elvir, tropezó con los argumentos técnicos de por qué la fiscalía acusaba a Edwin y Raúl de los delitos mencionados. También era obvio que la fiscalía no había revisado todo el expediente legal, no preparó a los dos primeros testigos y tuvo dificultades para presentar argumentos legales básicos específicos del caso.
El tribunal comenzó a examinar las pruebas y a escuchar a los investigadores
Dos testigos que presentaron dos pruebas:
- Un análisis de los videos del sistema de cámaras del 911, de las cámaras de la calle y los videos obtenidos de las cámaras de la recepción dentro del Hotel Marriott.
Los videos se reprodujeron en una pequeña pantalla que era difícil de ver desde el otro lado de la sala. En ellos se mostró a cientos de personas participando en una protesta, concretamente en un momento frente al hotel Marriott el 12 de enero de 2018. Es difícil identificar a las personas en los vídeos. El analista forense de vídeos, Wilmer Anderson, señaló y se centró en dos individuos: uno que llevaba un casco de motocicleta, y otro que vestía una camiseta roja y unos pantalones cortos de color beige.
- Un análisis de la localización geográfica de un teléfono celular mediante las torres de telefonía móvil
La investigadora policial Rosa Sánchez González confundió claramente dos análisis de teléfonos distintos sin que los fiscales lo supieran (de nuevo, probablemente por su desconocimiento del expediente judicial y su dejadez). Ella testificó que un teléfono móvil estaba a varios kilómetros del Hotel Marriott durante el momento del día en que se produjo la protesta. El investigador en un momento dado dijo que el teléfono era de Edwin pero luego dijo que era el móvil de Raúl. Es difícil explicar el nivel de confusión asociado con el testimonio de este investigador específico.
Mañana, el juicio está convocado para las 9:30 de la mañana. No está claro si el juicio terminará mañana dado lo lento que ha avanzado hoy.
Last update: July 5 at 7:00 pm
Roberto David Castillo Mejía is found GUILTY of Berta Cáceres’s murder by the three judges of Courtroom One of the National Jurisdiction Sentencing Court. The court ruled that Castillo acted as co-author of the murder (as originally argued by the Cáceres family lawyers), coordinating with the team of hitman and intermediaries, primarily through retired military Lieutenant Douglas Bustillo who coordinated with active military major Mariano Diaz Chavez and hitman Henrry Hernandez, as well as other DESA executives - to take Berta’s life and stop her and COPINH’s resistance to the Agua Zarca dam.
[NOTE: Below is a paraphrased and rough translation which is far from perfect but that lays out the details, arguments, and final verdict. To watch the full verdict in Spanish, see here
The written verdict usually takes Honduran courts several weeks to prepare and provide a copy to the legal teams. In this case, the Honduran justice system and all it’s employees, are on vacation until July 21, 2021 which may mean that the written verdict will take longer to finalize].
We wanted to make some observations: the people that have observed this trial know that in this courtroom throughout all the trial proceedings, only one of the victim’s daughters and the mother of the accused were permitted inside the court. We are in a pandemic and we made this decision, just like we do about security, given the complexity of this case. Today, because the verdict will be read, we thought it was important to give the opportunity for people to be present inside the courtroom and listen directly to the verdict.
To be fair, we gave each party in this trial, the opportunity to list ten people to observe for their side. There are 20 people total from each side, as well as members of the international community.
In relation to journalists and media outlets, the trial is public and will be live streamed. We say this because media outlets were permitted into the court if they were on the respective lists of the parties. We make this clarification to clear up that the court did not intend to leave anyone out. Each person that was included on the lists were required to present ID at the door before entering the court.
We also want to highlight that today, the judiciary is on vacation. We have opened the court to give this verdict. We want to highlight the hard work of all parties in this case. We are a court of law that will not be influenced by extrajudicial agenda albeit in favor of or against either side. It’s really unfortunate that there are people in the judiciary that allow themselves to be influenced and that do not contribute to the strengthening of the judicial system.
Our decision is based on evidence presented in this case, which was complex, but we take responsibility for the resolution that has been fairly determined as a conviction or an absolution. For those that are listening and that are not familiar with this process, we say that this case will follow what was promised in this phase of justice.
We will now read the unanimous verdict.
After analyzing all the evidence and critically examining it:
In 2013, DESA tried to begin the construction of the Agua Zarca (PHAZ) project on the Gualcarque river in communities in the region of Rio Blanco, Intibuca, with national and international funding. The construction of the project was in favor of some of the people close to it, but it was opposed by others, including some communities and COPINH which was coordinated by Berta Cáceres. The construction of the hydroelectric project was a danger to the environment and natural resources, specifically in reference to the Gualcarque river and the communities that were located near it.
The project was carried out in violation of the right of the communities to be consulted. As a result, there were protests at the site and controversies between DESA and the communities. In this context of opposition, DESA’s executives decided to move the project to San Francisco de Ojüera in the department of Santa Barbara, which was resisted by COPINH.
Individuals that were in favor of the construction of the project including General Manager, David Castillo, began to carry out actions to monitor Berta Cáceres and members of COPINH. The executives participated in two Whatsapp groups - Coordination PHAZ and Project PHAZ - the last being changed to Security PHAZ on October 7, 2015. As part of these groups, David Castillo indicated to the rest of the executives that strategic and intelligence information must be managed only with the people in the chat groups. DESA’s executives paid for informants for information - days, places, and times - about the actions planned by Berta and her organization against DESA’s Agua Zarca project.
Despite ending DESA’s working relationship with Bustillo, there were a series of communications between Douglas Bustillo and DESA’s executives and Castillo with the objective of ending the opposition led by Berta Cáceres and COPINH. As a consequence of these discussions, it was determined to end Berta’s life - an action that would be coordinated and carried out by Bustillo with the supervision, logistics and budget, through requests made to Castillo. In this context, Bustillo, who had been military, communicated with Mariano Diaz, from the Armed Forces, who, since 2014, had had his phone calls wiretapped in light of another judicial investigation. From there, Bustillo looked for another person to carry out the actions to kill Berta Cáceres and they determined the means, including the weapon, that would be used. It was in this manner that cell phone data and wiretaps would determine that the three individuals - Henrry Hernandez, Douglas Bustillo, and Mariano Diaz Chavez - would follow and monitor Berta Cáceres and her home. On February 5, 2016, they were going to carry out the murder. That evening, Castillo sent a message to Bustillo that read: “Remember accidents at the [crime] scene”. The murder wasn’t carried out that evening, and Bustillo informed Castillo at 9:17 the following day on February 6 that: “Mission aborted. It wasn’t possible yesterday … I’ll wait for you .. because I don’t have any logistics, I’m at zero." Castillo responded at 21:46: “Copied. Mission aborted.” On February 20, 2016, Castillo and Bustillo agreed to meet. On March 2, 2016 and with the same plan coordinated by Bustillo who informed Castillo and other DESA executives, four people travelled from northern Honduras and arrived at 11:30 pm to El Líbano in La Esperanza where Berta lived. Berta was in the company of protected witness ABC, a foreigner who was participating in a forum in Intibuca. The four entered into her home, shot at the protected witness inside his room, injuring him. And then shot at Berta Cáceres who died from bullet injuries. This occurred while someone waited outside El Líbano in a car. In the early hours and throughout the day on March 3, Bustillo communicated with DESA executives and Castillo.
The court establishes the following:
The responsibility of David Castillo in Berta Cáceres’s murder, according to the Attorney General’s office, was as an intellectual author, and according to the private accusers, co-author of the murder. The fact that Berta Cáceres was murdered, was not a point of controversy in this trial, neither was the manner in which she died. Article 123, of the current Criminal Code outlines how the crime of murder is legally defined [the court reads parts of that article]
In the present case, the circumstances that involved planning the murder, were carried out in the following manner: The murder of Berta Cáceres occurred on March 2 and was committed by various individuals who went into her home with a weapon and took advantage of the circumstances that prevented her from being able to defend herself. According to the current Criminal Code, the crime of murder has a penalty of 20 to 25 years in prison.
[This part is somewhat unclear]. The elements expressed in trial, some controversial, others not, include: 1. The cause of the murder on March 2 by various individuals including some that are not part of this trial [and previously convicted], 2. It was not controversial that DESA’s construction of the dam in Rio Blanco was a point of conflict, 3. The various actions carried out by Berta Cáceres and others in response to the construction of the dam were not objected to or were elements of controversy, 4. In 2018 and 2016, arrests were made resulting from controversial communications between David Castillo and Berta Cáceres, 5. In the development of the opposition to the dam, there were various protests at the project site, including confrontations with public security, 6. The project was suspended because of Berta Cáceres’s opposition.
The following points were discussed in evidence presented during the trial:
3. David Castillo’s participation was a point of controversy between the different legal teams in this trial. In criminal acts, it is possible for planning to occur with third parties, directly or indirectly, and in this case, in the execution of the crime. The law says that these acts can be accredited or determined by facts and circumstances, externally known, that individually, do not demonstrate anything, but that when examined together or in a chain of events, allow for conclusions to be drawn. These can be considered as signs or proof of a crime.
Although circumstantial evidence is not a crime in itself, it can help determine - through direct or indirect action - or infer the participation of an accused individual in a crime. This is based in a logical and critical view of such circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of Honduras on December 13, 2004, established that evidence can be acts committed before, during, or after a crime, and can be used to reconstruct and understand a crime. This type of evidence provides an idea of the involvement of an accused.
Phone interventions extracted from cell phones and wiretaps were used as indicators of a crime. It was clear that in existing phone conversations that were used as evidence by experts in this trial, that some were messages that don’t necessary directly discuss the crime, but together are congruent with the murder. Before establishing what these are, it’s important to establish that the defense argued that the Attorney General’s office did not investigate important lines of investigation. This includes, for example, the threat of another project called Blue Energy, a mining company, manipulation of evidence, drug trafficking, and Berta Cáceres’s personal circumstances. According to this court, these did not confirm the hypothesis of the crime and were not ruled out. There was phone evidence used to determine this:
Investigators identified the phone numbers that were in the El Líbano neighbourhood in La Esperanza on the night of the murder. The numbers belonging to El Líbano residents were ruled out, and this established that phone number 9775-5627 used by Henrry Hernandez [convicted hitman that coordinated the group of material authors] had been communicating with other phone numbers on the night of the murder, including with Mariano Diaz, Douglas Bustillo, Oscar Torres, Elvin Rapalo, and Edilson Duarte. It was established by the phone number used by military official, Mariano Diaz Chavez, who sustained communication with Douglas Bustillo, that despite the fact that Bustillo did not work with DESA, he maintained communication with DESA executives including Castillo.
There were conversations between Bustillo, a former military official, with another individual, Henrry Hernandez including incoming and outgoing calls while the phones were located in El Líbano. Conversations were also found in data extraction from Bustillo, Rodriguez and Castillo’s cell phones. It’s possible to infer the intermediary communication between Bustillo and his former military collegue, Mariano Diaz, and other individuals with Bustillo and DESA executives, including Castillo. This is also shown by evidence about the company’s executives, like Castillo, through the creation of the Whatsapp chat group ‘Security PHAZ’ on October 7, 2015. In this chat it was established that information shared in the chat about security and intelligence was to stay between members of the group.
On October 29, 2015, a DESA executive wrote to the ‘Security PHAZ’ chat group that “When Tomas and Berta don’t show up, the movement is weak. We need to focus our actions on them.” This message doesn’t imply an illegal action but because of the damage against DESA caused by Cáceres, it can infer actions that led to her murder. In other conversations, Castillo, kept track of Cáceres’s movements including through his conversations with Berta. It’s worth mentioning that Castillo was part of DESA and had knowledge of her movements and actions carried out by COPNH. They had informants and there are conversations that show that Castillo told Berta Cáceres about the activities that she was involved in. The court understands that there was some sort of relationship between Castillo and Berta Cáceres, but it existed for the purpose of Castillo obtaining information about Berta including the actions she was carrying out in order [for Castillo] to take actions that favor the company.
With regards to actions carried out against Berta Cáceres, Castillo chatted with Bustillo on February 6, 2016 with respect to an event denominated “mission”. This mission couldn’t be carried out on February 5, 2016. In regard to this point, its important to mention that since July 2015, Bustillo had ended his job with DESA. Nevertheless, he maintained communication with Castillo. This communication was found in the extractions of Bustillo’s phone and also in chats extracted by the defense’s expert witness, Shaun Vodde. The important aspects of both extractions, show the same sequence of conversations. On February 5, 2016, Castillo, using phone number 9990-0946 wrote to Bustillo: "remember accidents at the scene” and then Bustillo wrote back the next day: “mission aborted. It was not possible. I will wait for what you say because I need logistics. I’m at zero” and another message: “I don’t need information, I need to know what you’re going to budget for the work.” And Castillo answered the same day, on February 6, “copied. Mission aborted.” These conversations between Castillo and Bustillo on February 5, 2016, show a consistency with the events leading to the murder for the following reasons:
The conversations on February 2, 2016 that were extracted from Bustillo’s phone by Shaun Vodde, Bustillo asks Mariano, his former military colleague, if he can bring ‘the gato’ [I’m not sure if thats the correct word] - a word used as code. According to conversations heard during the trial, on February 2, Mariano spoke with Henrry Hernandez about a loan to carry out the work on the weekend, being February 5 and 6th. According to information from the calls and the location from phone antenna, on February 5, coincidentally, Henrry Hernandez and Douglas Bustillo were located in La Esperanza at 18:39. On this same day, Bustillo looks for images of Berta Cáceres on the internet, according to his phone, and then at 21:46, according to Shaun Vodde and in chronological order, Castillo wrote Bustillo: “remember accidents at the scene.” Bustillo later responded that the mission had been aborted, that it couldn’t be carried out and that they needed logistics.
Then later, on February 6 in a chronological manner, phone antennas locate Mariano Diaz and Bustillo in Comayagua [a city 1.5 hours north of Tegucigalpa], after they left La Esperanza. The fact that Bustillo told Castillo that he would wait for what Castillo says and that he doesn’t have the logistics, shows that there wasn’t a working relationship between them. There is a relationship between Henrry Hernandez, Mariano Diaz and Bustillo with Castillo. Through phone taps and phone towers, it was shown that Henrry Hernandez was close to Berta Cáceres’s home the night of the murder and participated in it. Through phone taps of conversations between Henrry Hernandez and Mariano Diaz and Bustillo and Castillo, as well as the locations of Henrry Hernandez and Bustillo, in an isolated manner, are not proof that a crime was committed, but looking at them together and linking one with previous events, show the plan to murder Berta Cáceres.
Castillo’s involvement and coordination is shown through his messages to Bustillo: “take care of accidents at the scene.” and then Bustillo, who was the leader of the operation, in other conversations, discussed budget, logistical means, which coincide with discussion of money on February 5 in conversations between Henrry Hernandez and Mariano Diaz Chavez. In these conversations, they discuss “Douglas told me that it was 50 more and 50 for him.” We should be clear that this is proof - it’s a conversation between two co-participants, nevertheless, the court could not find support that the offered money, came from David Castillo.
Regarding Berta Cáceres’s murder on March 2, 2016, the communication between Bustillo, Hernandez, and other actors, are the same actors that Castillo coordinated with in February 2016. The intention was to carry out the crime on February 5 until it was achieved. After the murder in the early hours of March 3, Bustillo was in touch again with Castillo. This eliminates the possibility that Bustillo was working alone and shows that he was working with DESA and Castillo.
On February 20, there were opposition actions against the project.
Following those events on February 20, there was communication between Bustillo and Castillo.
Another aspect that isn’t essential, but it shows a typical pattern of participation - Berta Cáceres led opposition against DESA and Castillo was part of DESA’s management. As we said and as indicated during the trial, Berta Cáceres is an environmentalist and as a result, received threats. The arguments of the defense were not supported especially because people linked to DESA were located in El Líbano on the day of the murder. And conversations showed how the murder was coordinated and how people went into Cáceres’s home to commit the crime. Castillo is linked to the murder through his conversations with Bustillo. The defense’s arguments were not supported.
The murder of Berta Cáceres was committed by people linked to DESA as a consequence of the actions Berta carried out with COPINH and against the construction of the Agua Zarca dam in defense of natural resources and the Gualcarque river. This national jurisdiction court is convinced that the presented evidence is sufficient, and not contradictory, and shows that Castillo was a co-author of the crime of murder. He contributed actions to carrying it out. According to Article 25, Castillo acted as co-author and his participation met the different actions [outlining the role of a co-author according to Honduran law] including his behaviour, working with others, and sharing responsibility for the crime.
The court unanimously rules: 1. To convict David Castilllo of the crime of murder causing Berta Cáceres’s death, 2. Declare without merit the motions (nulidades) presented by the defense, 3. That the discussion and elaboration of the contested evidence be referred to in the final sentence, 4. As a result of his conviction, Castillo will continue in pre-trial detention.
The date of the individualization or discussion of the penalty is scheduled for August 3, 2021 at 1:30 pm.
Last update June 30 at 11:30 am
All parties - the prosecution, private accusers, and the defense presented their closing remarks. The prosecution argued that they presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that David Castillo is guilty of being the intellectual author of Berta Cáceres’s murder. The murder was carried out because Berta had caused significant economic losses for DESA and had caused the dam construction company, Sinohydro to pull out of the Agua Zarca project. The prosecutor highlighted important conversations from November 2015 to March 2016 between Douglas Bustillo and David Castillo in key moments in which Bustillo, Mariano Diaz Chavez and Henrry Hernandez (all three convicted of the murder) monitored Berta in La Esperanza, discussed the murder, and/or unsuccessfully tried to carry out the murder (the most key being the aborted attempt on February 5, 2016). As Bustillo communicated in these key occasions with the group of hitman and intermediaries, Bustillo would then report directly to Castillo. The prosecutions refuted the defense’s accusations of evidence manipulation.
The private accusers representing the Cáceres family argued that David Castillo is responsible for murder as a co-author of the crime (and not intellectual author as the prosecutors contend). They asked the court to break with the impunity in a country where human rights and land defenders are regularly killed for their work. The private accusers #1 (representing Salvador Zúniga) discussed 10 key events that were critical in the planning and execution of the plan to eliminate Berta Cáceres including the creation of the Whatsapp chat group ‘PHAZ Security’ to report on and monitor Berta and COPINH; the key communications between Douglas Bustillo and David Castillo and how the communications demonstrate how through Bustillo, Castillo planned, supervised and coordinated Berta’s murder. Private accuser #2 (representing Marcela, Berta, Laura Zúniga and Austra Berta Flores) refuted two of the defense’s arguments used to divert blame from Castillo: 1) the alleged audio recording that the private accusers argued was manipulated to distort the investigation, 2) The defense’s inability to generate any doubt about Castillo’s involvement in the crime. The private accuser #2 outlined 6 events that clearly demonstrate Castillo’s involvement in the murder, including how he strategically compartmentalized communication with Bustillo to protect himself and other DESA executives from blame.
The defense delivered their closing remarks by arguing and listing all the ways that the prosecutors and investigators manipulated evidence. A large focus was on the prosecution’s telecommunications analyst, Brenda Barahona, who as they argue, took chat messages out of context. The defense argues that communication between Bustillo and Castillo can be explained by the working relationship between both men, including Bustillo working for Castillo’s energy project in southern Honduras. They close by stating that Castillo’s guilty has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
After the closing remarks, all victims - Marcela Oliva Zúniga, Berta Zúniga, Laura Zúniga, Salvador Zúniga (Berta’s daughters and son) and Ms. Austra Berta Flores (Berta’s mother) addressed the court. They explained the pain experienced by losing their mother/daughter and the important role that Berta played in their lives and the lives of the Lenca and Honduran people. They demanded justice and said that there is conclusive evidence that Castillo is responsible for the murder and asked them to declare him guilty.
David Castillo also addressed the court. He denied any involvement - direct or indirect - in the murder, planning, and coordination of Berta’s murder, mentioning several times his religious upbringing.
The trial is officially over but no decision was given today. The verdict is expected sometime this week. The Honduran judiciary begins vacation this Wednesday, July 1st but the judges announced they would work to deliver a verdict likely no later than Saturday, July 3rd.
For those interested in watching the concluding statements, the Facebook recording can be found here
The Public Prosecutor’s office formalizes the murder charges against David Castillo. Castillo’s role in the murder is intellectual author [NOTE: Designating the role or degree that someone is involved in a crime is considered during sentencing).
The Agua Zarca project was built by DESA in San Francisco de Ojüera, Santa Barbara. The construction began in Rio Blanco in 2011. Berta Cáceres was a Lenca women from La Esperanza, a defender of natural resources and leader of COPINH since 1997. She led the struggle against the Agua Zarca project on the Gualcarque river, which is sacred to the Lenca people. Her resistance caused Sinohydro [Chinese construction company] to withdrawal and forced the company to change their construction. This caused damages of more than 55 million Lempiras and a 1-year delay on the construction of the dam, according to witness Rosalina Dominguez. This is also confirmed in conversations between Berta Cáceres and David Castillo, Douglas Bustillo [convicted of Berta’s murder] with Berta Cáceres and Tomas Gomez; the declaration of the defense’s witness; group chats in the Whatsapp chat ‘Security PHAZ’ found on Sergio Rodriguez’s phone; and a chat recovered from the phone used by Daniel Atala.
On March 2, 2016, Berta Cáceres was a victim of murder when Henrry Hernandez, Elvin Rapalo, Edilson Duarte Meza, and Oscar Torres jumped the exterior fence of her property and entered her home in El Líbano located in La Esperanza, where she was shot with a .33 calibre weapon. The gunshots caused her death which was proven through declarations by protected witness ABC [Gustavo Castro] and in several legal documents ratified by various investigators [names them]. In a raid, the weapon was found in la Ceiba, Atántida on May 2, 2016 and was verified in the legal document outlining the raid. According to the ballistic report, the weapon matched bullets recovered from the autopsy.
Roberto David Castillo Mejía was a military officer, and became a sub-lieutenant before beginning administrative work in the National Electrical Energy Company (ENEE). In 2011 he left his role in the Armed Forces and was notified in January 2012. In December 2011, he was named President of DESA. The capital of the company grew significantly [amount of capital growth was named].
During his time in the Armed Forces, he met Douglas Bustillo and Mariano Díaz Chavez, who took courses in military intelligence. They were members of a chat group of other people in the armed forces and share the same promotion [or promotion year]. This was shown in the conversation extracted from Douglas Bustillo’s phone, a black LG800 phone that was seized from Bustillo’s wife on May 2, 2016.
David Castillo used the phone number 9990-0946 and was a member of this chat. The chat was not created by him but it was only for members of the Armed Forces in promotion 34. In CVs included in the judicial file, it is listed that Douglas Bustillo and Mariano Díaz were students in military intelligence courses. David Castillo was in the intelligence section of the military with Mariano Diaz when he was taking a course and was promoted in 2016.
David Castillo’s phone number was confirmed through the extractions carried out by Shaun Vodde and through the extraction reports on Douglas Bustillo and Sergio Rodriguez’s phone. Their numbers were also confirmed.
On October 29, 2015 at 9:59, several individuals including Sergio Rodriguez, Daniel Atala, Douglas Bustillo - all numbers confirmed by defense’s expert Shaun Vodde, created a group chat of DESA employees and executives to share information about security for the dam company. Information about COPINH’s protests led by Berta Cáceres was discussed in the group. They also discussed that the information should not be shared with others because Cáceres would find out what they were saying. Around these dates, Sergio Rodriguez wrote: “when Berta Cáceres and Tomas Gomez don’t go to the site, not many people show up. We have to direct actions against them” to which David Castillo responded: “copied”
On the other hand - using the phone number xxxx - Douglas Bustillo was in charge of security at the Agua Zarca site. He was not just a consultant, he was the boss. This is confirmed in chats between David Castillo and Douglas Bustillo which were found on his phone when it was seized by authorities. The project was located in San Francisco de Ojüera in Intibuca from 2013 to 2015.
According to phone calls and information presented by expert witness Brenda Barahona, between June and October 2015, the communication between Douglas Bustillo, started in the month of November. Their communication grew. In November 2015, a chat was created, according to information in Douglas Bustillo’s phone.
From this chat, the conversations between Bustillo and Castillo contain information about meetings, requests for money, and information about planning the murder of Berta Cáceres. The same was confirmed through other data extractions, telephone location data, wire taps, photos, messages, and Brenda Barahona’s testimony.
On November 22, 2015, David Castillo wrote to Douglas Bustillo: “no fooling around” while Bustillo said that he had everything prepared. In a chat found on Sergio Rodriguez’s phone on November 14, 2015, it is discussed that Berta Cáceres would be leaving the country for the US and returning on November 20. The information came from an informant paid by DESA.
In January and February 2016, information extracted from Mariano Diaz’s phone showed communication between him and Henrry Hernandez. There was also information extracted from Bustillo’s phone. Hernandez was Bustillo’s work colleague from the security company PCI in San Pedro Sula. Hernandez’s phone number was confirmed in the documents from the company.
Information about communication between Mariano Diaz and Hernandez was obtained through wiretaps ordered in another judicial process. They discussed drugs and committing murder. According to Brenda Barahona, they discussed different criminal acts - they talked about a pending issue, which Barahona said was a murder. In a conversation on January 9th, 2016, they spoke about going to Comayagua [a city 1.5 hours from Tegucigalpa]. This was collaborated with Hernandez’s communications with Bustillo, who later communicated with Castillo, informing him of their activities. For example, on February 5, 2016, Henrry Hernandez was in La Esperanza. On this same day, Castillo said to Douglas Bustillo: “remember accidents at the [crime] scene.” While Henrry Hernandez was in La Esperanza, he maintained constant communication with Bustillo.
According to the evidence, Hernandez informed Mariano Diaz that they couldn’t do any more that night [February 5]. At 9:11 [on February 6?] he called Bustillo and they both continued their communication with Mariano Díaz about not being able to complete the mission in La Esperanza. At 9:17, Bustillo communicated with Castillo informing him that the mission had been aborted.
[NOTE: This is probably the strongest direct evidence against Castillo. As Hernandez, Mariano Diaz, and Bustillo talked about the murder and how to carry it out, Bustillo communicated with Castillo. Castillo would respond “copied, mission aborted” indicating that he knew and was informed about the failed murder attempt. About a month later, with more financial support and logistics, the murder would be carried out]
There are no wiretaps of communications between Hernandez and Bustillo or Bustillo and Castillo because their phones were not tapped between January and March 2016. We only have communications from Mariano Diaz including the conversations between him and Hernandez. The information extracted from the phone shows that they were monitoring Berta Cáceres. On February 5 and February 23, Douglas Bustillo was in La Esperanza, and on March 2, Hernandez, Oscar Torres, Elvin Rapalo, etc. went to La Esperanza while Bustillo communicated with Castillo. Using the phone data, we were able to identify the material authors (the hitman).
We know the defense will argue that Brenda Barahona manipulated the chat conversations extracted from cell phones. But its not about chronology. The criminal analysis carried out by Barahona was put together to show the chronology of the information related to the murder - the monitoring of Berta Cáceres and the decisions that led to the crime.
In the investigation, you have to look at context. A chronological order was used by the defense’s expert Shaun Vodde to order the extracted data. It is the logical way to present information related to an action that was carried out on a determined date. In this case, the information involved communications among many people.
Barahona extracted information from the Sony Ericsson phone. This information was included in her report. The defense will ask for this evidence not to be considered because the procedural norms were violated and the evidence was manipulated to give a different context. This has not been proven.
The documents presented by evidence and prepared by Ruben Chapas for the defense, should not be considered by the court. This evidence was not presented in the correct procedural manner. They violated the procedural norms and Chapas did not come to ratify the documents. We cannot establish the moment that and what Chapas received as documents to carry out the analysis. It was said that he used Brenda Barahona’s analysis to carry out his, but this was not authorized by the court. Vodde mentioned in his testimony that he gave the data he extracted to a Mexican expert, giving the impression that he was referring to Chapas.
[NOTE: The court will indicate in the verdict if they considered certain evidence or not, based on arguments made throughout the trial.]
Regarding the defense’s arguments that Cáceres’s phone was used after March 2: It was not possible to extract information from the phone because it did not have phone credit. This fits with the protected witness’s testimony who also said that the phone didn’t have credit. The manner in which data was removed from the phone, did not violate it's integrity. No information was deleted. When trying to extract data and being unsuccessful, other methods needed to be used. Barahona attempted to send the data via email because other methods wouldn’t work. This was confirmed by the defense’s expert Shaun Vodde who said that they couldn’t have done it any better.
If it’s true that David Castillo was outside the country on February 21, there are still phone calls between him and Bustillo. Bustillo was in La Esperanza.
A phone call on March 3, 2016 at 8:21 am from Bustillo to Castillo should be considered. 3 minutes later Castillo responds to Bustillo. Even though there wasn’t a conversation via phone call, Castillo realized that Bustillo had called him. At 12:08, he answered a phone call that lasted 158 seconds. This is how we know that Castillo was communicating about the actions related to Berta’s murder. It’s also confirmed by information from Bustillo and Mariano’s phone. Later, Bustillo asks a friend to send a message to Castillo (from another phone) because he warns that the phone might be tapped.
In some communications, Bustillo asks Castillo for money. if this was for work, there is no need for Bustillo to call him directly. The only work that Bustillo did for Castillo was to murder Berta Cáceres.
Besides all of the monitoring and murder attempts, on February 5, 2015, Hernandez informed Bustillo and Mariano Diaz that he couldn’t carry out the mission for a lack of logistics. On February 6, Bustillo informed Castillo that the mission had been aborted. Castillo responded: “copied, mission aborted” and then Bustillo said that he needed logistics and a proposal. He told him that a car, money, and a weapon was needed.
The purpose of the murder was to stop COPINH and Berta Cáceres’s struggle. When Mariano Diaz was arrested, he told an agent that they were making a mistake focusing on him and that he knew the people that had carried out the murder. He said there was a “young man from DESA” that was involved.
From February 21 to 23, when Bustillo was in La Esperanza with Henrry Hernandez, he looked for pictures of Berta on the internet. This was information found on Bustillo’s LG phone. On February 22, there were pictures on Bustillo’s phone of both Berta Cáceres and of her home. The pictures of Berta were taken from a vehicle - a vehicle of a company with ties to the construction of the dam.
Bustillo came to testify and in an effort to defend Castillo, he testified that Castilllo had offered him a job in southern Honduras. He said that he travelled to the area, which is not shown by examining telephone data. Bustillo said that he was a security advisor to Castillo, but this is not true. He has a personal interest in denying the increasing communication between him and Castillo in November to March.
Phone data shows that Bustillo was in the southern part of the country on March 16, 2016. But he wasn’t in Choluteca [where Castillo allegedly offered him to work]. He was in the southern area of the department of Francisco Morazan.
Elvin Rapalo, Henrry Hernandez, and Mariano Diaz Chavez maintained communication with Bustillo in the days leading up to the murder. There are conversations between Bustillo and Castillo on these days as well.
They wanted to stop COPINH, specifically a leader, in order to weaken the resistance. This is also why charges were pressed against Berta Cáceres.
The defense talked about a recording that discussed killing a woman and using a vehicle. This is an attempt to distract the investigation. This recording was given to the head of the Police Department in Santa Barbara, with who Jorge Avila, DESA’s security, coordinated and had a good relationship..
The Public Prosecutor’s office considers that David Castillo participated as an intellectual author in the murder. We ask that all the motions presented by the defense, challenging evidence, be denied by the court.
(Closing remarks were given by Pedro Mejía.)
We are Salvador Zúniga’s legal representation. Good afternoon to all the victims in this process, international organizations, COPINH and the national and international community.
Today is an important day. This is an important process. This is a historical day to break with a cycle that has characterized Honduras as a country that kills defenders in total impunity. A country that has a high murder rate.
We start by asking “who is Berta Cáceres?” As Gladys Tzul discussed, Berta was an indigenous leader a feminist, who collectively coordinated a struggle with the Lenca people against the Agua Zarca project. They killed her for being a human rights defenders. She was a defender for the Lenca people, against corruption, against the complicity of state institutions that pushed the Agua Zarca concession forward. This is a historical time for COPINH, the Lenca people, and for the victims.
This trial has the opportunity to change this history, and to say that no one can assassinate human rights defenders and to guarantee that crimes like this won’t happen again. That they should never ever again murder a human rights defender and that these crimes cannot be carried out in impunity.
This representation understands the following: David Castillo acted as a co-author in the murder with a level of participation outlined in Article 25 of the Criminal Code. Being a co-author means that two or more people with a common interest, with distributed roles, were involved in the crime. This is important when considering the question: Why is Castillo guilty of Berta Cáceres’s murder and how can it be shown?
Castillo planned, coordinated, and supervised Berta Cáceres’s murder through Douglas Bustillo. He did this in 10 key moments that together, made the murder possible.
On October 2015, through communications taken from Sergio Rodriguez’s phone that have been presented as evidence, David Castillo created the Whatsapp chat group ‘Security PHAZ'. The creation of this group was made in a context. David Castillo and the structure that he was part of, considered Berta and COPINH a threat because of their opposition to the Agua Zarca dam on the sacred Gualcarque river. This was affirmed explicitly in a message sent by Sergio Rodriguez on the same day that the chat was created, alerting all that COPINH was getting stronger in La Tejera [a community in Rio Blanco]. David Castillo responds “yes, of course”. Another relevant event was the moment that Castillo created the group. The first messages indicated that the information shared in the group was privileged. It was strategic intelligence information. In the same day in the same chat group, Castillo sent a message saying that Berta Cáceres could not be in a protest on the weekend, because on Monday, she had a meeting in Tegucigalpa. This information was obtained by Castillo from Berta. Castillo reported it to the group. Expert witness Gladys Tzul said that it was impossible for an indigenous leader to be friends with a business man who was in charge of the company building a project that the indigenous leader was fighting against.
The second event took place on October 29, 2015. Once Berta was identified as a threat, Sergio Rodriguez sent a message to the chat ‘Security PHAZ’ saying that as long as Berta and Tomas Garcia didn’t accompany the protests, the movements got weaker and that actions should be focused on them. Castillo responds “copied.” This event indicates that they had identified Berta Cáceres in an explicit manner. Attacking Berta meant stopping the resistance against Agua Zarca. They identified her as a threat.
On November 22, 2015, Castillo received a message from Bustillo saying ‘complete the 50%'. This message, shows that there is a reciprocal obligations and a continued relationship between Bustillo and Castillo. In this exact moment in an explicit manner, this messages begins the plan to assassinate Berta and assigns the role of each. Castillo was in charge of planning, coordinating, and supervising Berta’s murder, and Douglas Bustillo put together the criminal struggle that would monitor, follow, and murder her. This event, by itself, may seem irrelevant but the following events show it’s relevancy and how Castillo is responsible.
The fourth event is on January 21 and 25, 2016 in communication between Bustillo and Castillo. Why are they important? because through evidence it’s shows that Bustillo, Mariano Diaz, and Henrry Hernandez were located in La Esperanza in the days between those communications - January 22, 23, and 24th. All of these men have been convicted and all were members of the Armed Forces. These communications correspond to a prior date, to coordinate monitoring Berta as they were supposed to do, and then the day after, Bustillo communicates with Castillo who was responsible for supervising the operation.
February 5 and 6th, 2016 are key. The communications found in the extractions carried out by the prosecution’s experts show that on February 5, there was a failed murder operation. Henrry Hernandez informed Mariano Diaz Chavez and Douglas Bustillo that the operation had failed because there were a lot of people (around Berta’s house) and they needed better logistics. Having the information about the failed operation, Bustillo communicated with Castillo informing him that the operation had failed and that they needed a budget and logistics. Castillo responded: “copied. Mission aborted.” On the same day, February 5, 2016, Castillo communicated to Douglas Bustillo who was coordinating the operation, warning him to be careful about accidents in the scene, referring to the murder operation.
On February 21, 2016, Castillo and Douglas Bustillo communicated while Bustillo was in La Esperanza. Its important to mention that these conversations occured while Bustillo was in la Esperanza, and then after, he met with Mariano in Siguatepeque, following his conversation with Henrry Hernandez. In these communications, they discussed the plan to murder Berta Cáceres.
On February 29, 2016, David Castillo spoke with Bustillo. In these communications, they talk about an alleged loan. Why is this important? It’s important because it: 1. Confirms that according to the phone antennas, Bustillo was in La Esperanza. He was there from February 27 and 28. [AUDIO BRIEFLY CUTS OUT]. These conversations on February 29 are relevant because Castillo and Bustillo agree to meet on March 1, one day before the murder. In the operation to kill Berta, as the prosecutors explained, it was confirmed that the hitman entered Berta’s house. While they did this, they were communicating with Bustillo, showing that Bustillo was the one monitoring the operation.
On March 3, 2016, Castillo again, and after the murder, spoke with Bustillo. This is not a coincidence and corresponds to the logic of Castillo’s role as supervisor. Castillo, through Bustillo, planned, coordinated, and supervised the operation, and they finally got in touch to ensure the results and to get a report about the murder.
After on March 8, 2016, an important date not only because it’s International Women’s Day but also because of the date’s importance in this process. There was communication between Castillo and Bustillo about a supposed job. This was the first time that Bustillo and Castillo referred to a job. It’s an absurd argument that the President of a company would think about contracting an employee that had been fired because of his negligent behaviour. These conversations show that Bustillo was always an operator under Castillo’s orders and shows the patterns of communication between the two. Bustillo always communicated with Castillo even after he was fired. Bustillo was Castillo’s field man - he was the man that Castillo trusted to carry out the operation. In the communications on February 5, Bustillo said that he didn’t need more information, he needed a budget and logistics.
In April 2016, a similar phenomenon occurs. Bustillo instructed someone that he had a relationship with, to contact Castillo. This is not the only time that Castillo and Bustillo spoke about money. If we analyze this, Castillo spoke with Bustillo in four occasions regarding money. In these four occasions, there were different reasons. On February 29, Castillo refers to a loan to Bustillo. On February 5, Bustillo told Castillo that he needed a budget and logistics. On November 22, Bustillo said to ‘complete the 50%’. These four communications make reference to money and all are for different reasons that don’t correspond to the arguments presented by the defense, who are interested in maintaining impunity. Castillo is an expert in intelligence, like Bustillo.
These events have two patterns: They show a pattern of communication between Castillo and Bustillo before and after the murder. When there were operations to monitor Berta, Castillo communicated with Bustillo the day before they started, on January 21. January 22, 23, and 24 were the days the operation occurred, and then on January 25, Bustillo again communicated with Castillo. Then on February 5, Castillo tells him to be careful about accidents at the scene. Then on February 6, they talk about a failed operation. On February 29, Castillo tried to have a meeting with Bustillo, one day before the murder, and then after the day of the murder, they communicate once again. These events show that there were always operations to follow and monitor Berta before specific actions were executed. Before the failed murder attempt on February 5 and 6th, they were monitoring and following Berta Cáceres. And then before March 2, they were again doing the same. The most recent was February 27 and 28. There is overwhelming proof that Castillo, as an individual, contributed to this and to carrying out the murder.
This is also shown through Castillo creating the ‘Security PHAZ’ Whatsapp group. In this chat, they identified Berta Cáceres as a threat and an object to eliminate. They gave reports from the informants. In these surveillance and execution operations, Castillo used his military intelligence training and supervised Bustillo.
If Castillo didn’t have information about Berta’s whereabouts, he couldn’t administer the actions and provide logistics for the murder. When I refer to logistics, it’s important to remember that on February 5th, Bustillo sent a message to Castillo saying that he needed a budget and logistics - which he didn’t have. Castillo obtained these resources. Bustillo always referred to Castillo as ‘leader’
It’s important to highlight that if Castillo hadn’t made use of his position as a public official and a military officer, he wouldn’t have been able to intervene in the development of the Agua Zarca project. This was shown since 2012 through witness testimony and Daniel Atala’s communications.
If Castillo hadn’t intervened in the Agua Zarca project, the violence in Rio Blanco and the murder of Tomas Garcia in 2013, wouldn’t have occurred. And much less, the extreme action of murdering Berta Cáceres in 2016 to eliminate the struggle of the Lenca people in Rio Blanco.
The pattern of communications show a logic called compartmentalization that was described by expert Waxenecker.
On November 7, 2015, Castillo wrote in the ‘Security PHAZ’ chat saying that only the people in the chat group could have access to the information shared there. They shared information with other employees of the company. They compartmentalized information, and to murder Berta, Castillo valued his communications with Bustillo which established a bridge between the ‘superior group’ or the executives, with the structure of hitman. In doing this, he protected his identity and the identifies of DESA’s executives.
There were multiple attacks against Berta. 1. Her murder, 2. The criminalization, being the closest to the murder. The criminalized was carried out using Castillo’s power structures and a legal complaint was filed on February 23 which occurred immediately after a chat message with Jorge Avila who said that they should use their influence to punish Cáceres. They used their influence to punish the people that were part of the resistance. We saw from the video that was presented as evidence, the violence directed against the Lenca people and Berta.
The defense has tried to argue that the threat in the area against COPINH and Berta Cáceres wasn’t the Agua Zarca project and Castillo. This is not true. The main risk for Berta was Castillo and DESA. This is what testimonies like from Rosalina Dominguez outlined. She identified Castillo as the main threat, using Berta’s words: “if something happens to me, it’s David Castillo’s fault.” The same thing was said in Melissa Cardoza and Bertha Zúniga’s testimonies.
Shortly after the murder, Sergio Rodriguez talks in the ‘Security PHAZ’ chat that notes were being sent to the media about Berta’s murder to say that COPINH was responsible. There were experts that testified that Castillo was involved in the violence to impose the Agua Zarca dam. Brenda Barahona, when asked about the motive, said that the murder was because of Berta’s struggle against the Agua Zarca dam. Expert witness Waxenecker also identified the motive of the crime.
It has been shown that David Castillo committed the crime. Castillo guaranteed certain conditions so that the victim couldn’t defend herself. First, Castillo carried out the murder through a structure of hitman. This didn’t represent any risk to Castillo. Berta was murdered inside her home at night in a relatively isolated area. This circumstance was guaranteed by the monitoring and surveillance they did of Berta, to ensure she was defenseless.
We have shown that Castillo is responsible for murder as a co-author of the crime. These conversations are in the report presented by the Public Prosecutor’s office. These messages that show Castillo’s guilty are in messages sent by him and confirmed by Shaun Vodde. They show that Castillo is guilty and was receiving instructions from Daniel Atala, who is also being investigated for the murder.
(Presented by Victor Fernandez)
Today is June 28, 2009, the 12 year anniversary of the coup, an event that has been relevant for this legal team and was incorporated as one of the reasons Berta Cáceres was murdered.
This is not a typical person normally on trial and accused of involvement in a crime - it’s not just a material author (a hitman) of a crime and we understand this. In this context, the court has two responsibilities: to set a precedent in this country, and to determine the responsibility of the accused.
This court has set a precedent admitting the expert witness testimonies of Gladys Tzul and Waxenecker, who did an analysis of the David Castillo’s situation and his institutional-business relationships in this country. These are important precedents and are relevant to the process.
We have to refer to things said by the Prosecution and the other private accuser legal team:
For us, when we hear the arguments of the defense, and also what the prosecutors have presented, we had hope and thought that they would present evidence to show that there were other actors involved in this crime and that the prosecution had hidden. But whats important is that, Castillo’s responsibility in the crime was only affirmed by the defense. In none of their arguments, did the defense provide any evidence that disassociates Castillo from the murder. What the defense has said, is that there were hypotheses about the crime that have not been investigated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and investigative bodies of the state. This legal team recognizes that the Public Prosecutor’s office’s position has not always been a good one, but nevertheless, we coincide with the accusations against Castillo. We have collaborated with the Public Prosecutor’s Office and we hope that they recognize this.
In terms of other theses about the crime, we recognize that investigative agents, as Brenda Barahona explained, looked into other possible lines of investigation. Barahona described why other lines of investigation were not pursued - the primary being the hypothesis that was referred to by Jose Carlos Cruz.
The defense has tried to focus on chains of custody and evidence. But their explained source of proof doesn’t meet the basic level of confidence that what they presented was credible evidence. The most relevant event that the defense insisted on, is the supposed audio recording of a group of people planning the murder of a woman. There is no evidence that they were talking about Berta Cáceres. They presented Jonathan Murillo and another witness to argue this. It’s not possible to verify the evidence. The audio recording was also created the day after the murder. What generates doubt is the creation of manipulated evidence. The focus of the evidence manipulation and creation is being heard in another judicial process.
There is another relevant fact about this evidence, which was just presented by the prosecution - that Casco Torres, the head of the police in Santa Barbara, that discovered the audio file, collaborated with DESA’s security to persecute COPINH, Berta Cáceres and the Lenca people. This supposed evidence presented by the defense doesn’t generate any doubt about Castillo’s involvement in the murder.
In the telephone extractions presented by the Public Prosecutor’s experts, there is no difference between the extractions they conducted and the one done by the defense’s expert, Shaun Vodde. The extractions carried out by Vodde 100% confirmed the extractions by the prosecution, including the methodology that was used. In his declaration, he referred to the procedures followed by the prosecution.
We understand that this expert (Vodde) was using more advanced technologies. He pulled out more information from the phones, which this legal team used to show audios and videos of the victim, when she was in places where DESA operated, denouncing what the company was doing.
The relationship mentioned between Castillo and Bustillo was a work-related relationship that began in 2016. As Mejía [lawyer for the private accusers #1] said, the communications didn’t stop after Bustillo was fired from DESA. From June 31, 2015, in all the communications between them, it’s not until March 8, 2016 where the possibility of a job appears. In these terms, the orientation, the defense’s inventions, don’t contradict any evidence presented by the prosecution and the private accusers.
In relation to responsibilities, when we presented our line of arguments, we promised to do three things:
Explain the motive of Berta Cáceres’s murder
In order for the crime to be executed, they had to carry out a conspiracy involving DESA’s associates and executives; and
The execution of the crime and the important involvement of David Castillo on February 5 and 6, 2016, and March 2, 2016. Castillo knew about all of these distinct events.
We have completely fulfilled what we set out to prove.
We showed the motive of the crime - which is a privilege to be able to show, because it’s not always possible in trials to establish the motive. Also, the many pieces of evidence. The motive of the crime is related to the opposition to the construction of the Agua Zarca dam and the struggle that Berta, the Lenca people, and COPINH carried out against the dam. The struggle of the Lenca people and Berta Cáceres had to do with the violation of international standards, including ILO 169. This was incorporated into the process. Look at how much the explanations of the crime’s motive coincide with testimonies of different trial participants. Investigative agent, Jesus Perdomo who came to explain the dynamics of the investigation, determined that the crime was related to Berta Cáceres’s opposition to the construction of the dam on the Gualcarque river. When consulting Brenda Barahona, she also said that Berta was killed for her resistance against the dam.
The four testimonies that were presented by the private accusers gave a human face to the process - who Berta Cáceres is, her dynamic in the struggle. This was included in the testimonies given by Rosalina Dominguez, a leader in Rio Blanco, another victim of atrocities similar to Berta Cáceres. The testimony of Indrya [María Mendoza Aguilar] and Melissa Cardoza, Berta’s friends and compañeras, who are committed to the struggles of women. And Bertha Zúniga, also a leader in this country and of COPINH. These four women agree that there wasn’t another serious threat and permanent risk faced by Berta, other than from the Agua Zarca dam. The four witnesses knew about Berta’s relationship with Castillo, and the four understood that, as said by the victim and through her own interpretation, that the only source of real threats against her were from the Agua Zarca dam and from the accused.
For us, it was revealing when Berta Zúniga explained the sources of risk, that people that most contacted Berta from DESA were Bustillo and Castillo. The victim considered them as sources of risk because in his way of being, the accused had military intelligence training.
Expert witness Waxenecker explained that the most important source of risk, the only - according to his investigation of many years - was the dispute over the environment, the dispute for the Gualcarque river was the motive of the murder.
We have to overview the ways that we agree with the Public Prosecutor’s Office:
They are arguing about the crime against one of the most important leaders in the country - but we are also talking about David Castillo. From his training and his appearance, no one would think he’s capable of carrying out such a crime. From his position of power, he carried out several acts that destroyed the social fabric of this country.
This legal team highlights the profile that was painted of Castillo by expert Waxenecker. The accused is a military officer, a sub-lieutenant of the Armed Forces since 2006, and then starting on January 14, 2008, he became part of the state and then was assigned to a public position in the National Electrical Energy Company (ENEE). He was notified of his dismissal from the military in 2012. He’s a person involved in four companies and this was proven in court. For being paid two salaries - one from the Armed Forces and another from the ENEE - he is being accused in the corruption case, ‘Fraud On the Gualcarque’.
These considerations show Castillo’s guilt. The level of evidence of his involvement in the crime shows his guilt. One can only understand this by looking at the structure that has a history of impunity in this country. The Atalas are being investigated, and the guarantee of impunity that Castillo had, was shown in the number of criminal acts he committed in this case.
We will mention 6 events that show Castillo’s involvement: 1. His involvement with DESA, the Agua Zarca dam and the resistance of the Lenca people, 2. His permanent relationship and involvement with Berta Cáceres, 3. His continued relationship with Bustillo, 4. The operations he conducted when they started to build the Agua Zarca dam and imposed it on the communities, 5. His attitude also shows his guilt - after being arrested, he had a particular reaction about being a person under investigation, and, 6. The compartmentalized network that he acted with.
For the first point - his relationship with DESA. DESA was created on May 20, 2009 by the two Ponce brothers. But also, Waxenecker established that DESA’s formation was based on a false document created by Castillo. The Ponce brothers were Castillo’s employees in his Digicom company. For this specific act, Castillo is being accused in the ‘Fraud on the Gualcarque’ [corruption case originally presented by the MACCIH and now continued by the Special Prosecutor’s office Against Corruption, UFERCO. It will soon go to trial]. And although it could not be revealed through the expert testimonies, the witnesses and collaborators presented by the prosecution in the Fraud on the Gualcarque case, are the Ponce brothers. They say that they were used to create DESA while Castlilo was working as a public official. The second event of relevance (in this particular point) is the meeting of ENEE’s board to approve the contract granted to DESA. The accused participated in this meeting. It occurred on June 2, 2010 and the contract was signed between ENEE’s Manager and Carolina Castillo, a work colleague of Castillo’s in the ENEE and a business associate in the company PEMSA. This shows Castillo’s commitment to DESA.
Another relevant event is the accumulated events that link David Castlllo to the Agua Zarca dam in the community of Rio Blanco, Intibuca. Berta began an act of resistance in April 2013 when - as the witnesses verified - the occupation of the blockade at ‘El Roble’ began [El Roble is the name of the place where the blockade was in Rio Blanco. It blocked DESA’s access to the river]. This process of resistance is relevant and involves Castillo, as is the expulsion of the Agua Zarca project from Rio Blanco. As a result of the above, another event occurred. It involves DESA. This is the criminalization of Berta Cáceres. Berta was accused by DESA for causing damages that affected the company and caused them to move to the other side of the river to San Francisco de Ojüera.
The second relevant event is Castillo’s relationship with Berta. If you review the communications between Castillo and Berta Cáceres, they start on June 27, 2013, meaning, the most intense moments of the territorial dispute. The accused insists on meeting with her to resolve the conflict and he tells Berta, that he will do everything possible to carry out his project. And he in fact, did this.
The third relevant event is Bustillo being fired on July 31, 2015 and the fact that the communication between Castillo and Bustillo continued. Then there were several communications between Bustillo and Berta Cáceres. There are 6 relevant communications about the events in San Francisco de Ojüera. On October 7, 2015, Castillo creates the Whatsapp group chat ‘Security PHAZ’. He is the General Manager of DESA, which has a relationship with international banks that allow them to manage $44 million USD. DESA also has a contract to produce 21.5MW of energy. It’s a big company - and for a General Manager to create a security chat? The accused went to this level to get involved in the murder. And he excludes other members of the company from being in this chat. This isn’t just about acts of corruption and using political influence, it’s a criminal plot. And he used his military training to carry it out.
Another relevant point is the communication on November 22, 2015, which in this chat thread, it’s confirmed that Bustillo works for the security company PCI. Nevertheless, he has communication with Castillo and asks him to ‘complete the 50%’ and they discuss meeting in a Chili’s restaurant [in Tegucigalpa]. This must be interpreted using criminal psychology. It shows the advancement of a criminal plot.
One of the most revealing pieces of evidence demonstrating Castillo’s involvement in the murder, is the events that took place on February 5 and 6, 2016. This event, as the prosecutors and private accusers #1 said, is the clearest evidence of the plan to murder Berta. It’s when the military structure behind it, reveals itself the most - Henrry Hernandez, Mariano Diaz Chavez, and Bustillo, who are all military. On February 5, they couldn’t carry out the crime. This is proven directly in phone calls. This is how they carried out the crime. Castillo was notified that they couldn’t carry out the operation. He was notified and his response was “copied, mission aborted.” He was part of the plan and he played a fundamental role.
Another relevant communication is on February 29 when Bustillo and Castillo discuss meeting a day before the murder. And then one day after the murder, there is another communication between both men. There were four in total. There was a compartmentalization of communication when Bustillo tried to communicate with Castillo through a friend.
The other events that are relevant is that the accused had two cell phones in his possession when he was arrested. His own communications show his involvement, but if he’s so innocent, why didn’t he give the passcodes for his cell phone? If we had that, we would have a perfect picture of the criminal structure.
We tried to incorporate Bustillo’s testimony. You may think - why would you put a convicted person on the stand to testify? Why did we put him on the stand? We are convinced that the criminal network that killed Berta Cáceres is still active. The explanation of the compartmentalization, as Waxenecker explained, was the reaction of the group when they were surprised about the judicial processes in this case. The actors of the network never compromised the structure. This is exactly what Bustillo did. We could verify, through his testimony, that the criminal structure is still alive. It is a threat to the Lenca people because the Agua Zarca concession, is still active.
They tried to use the story that Bustillo was going to work with Castillo in southern Honduras. We are talking about a compartmentalized, active criminal network. This reminds us of the risk that the Lenca communities are still living.
With these arguments, we have proven that a murder occurred. Th accused participated in the planning and execution. He wasn’t in the field doing the dirty work and he wasn’t close to the victim. He was in touch with the victim by telephone. The act of murder is recognized in the oldest doctrines - it is a crime committed for an advantage, with betrayal. Castillo monitored the victim, and another element that is important - the murder was committed in the home of the victim, carried out by various men. Castillo knew all about it.
Finally, about Castillo’s role in the murder: We agree with the other private accuser legal team. Castillo was a co-author in the crime as outlined in Article 25. The accused worked, together with others, in an illicit network. If you remember the graphics [presented by Waxenecker], there are two structures that participated - the superior structure (DESA executives and the Atala Zablahs) and the lower structure (the military and hitman structure). A lot of these people are co-authors of the crime - they share the responsibility of the crime.
There is one element that is important. The meeting that the accused planned with Bustillo one day before the murder, could have been used to stop the murder. Castillo was in a privileged position in the network. Bustillo identified him as a leader. For these reasons, he is a co-author of the murder.
With these arguments, we have proven, together with the Public Prosecutor’s office and the other private accuser legal team, that there is sufficient proof, certainty, of Castillo’s guilt. You, the judges, just have to apply the law like you have been doing. Declare David Castillo guilty, because of his own actions, that were clearly displayed in this trial.
This trial has not shown David Castillo’s guilt. The prosecutors and private accusers have not proven this beyond a responsible doubt.
On May 2, 2016, an indictment was presented by the prosecutors against 5 material authors (hitman) and 3 intellectual authors (masterminds). At this time, as part of the indictment, an expert analysis conducted by Brenda Barahona was included. It was later expanded for trial. On March 1, 2018, a new indictment was presented, close to the anniversary of Berta Cáceres’s murder. At this time, Brenda Barahona was sworn in and in record time, a third version of her analysis was presented. This third version contained a hypothesis that was totally different. In this trial, she presented a new version of her analysis. This means that there are four versions.
Why is this important to mention? Castillo should never have been imprisoned if you look at the third version of Barahona’s analysis. On page 16, you can see messages that give a different meaning. As you can observe, there were chats taken from the Whatsapp group ‘Security PHAZ’ and ‘Coordination PHAZ’ and put together. There were multiple people in both chats. Brenda Barahona said that the first message in the ‘Security PHAZ’ chat was (paraphrase) ‘it’s clear that when Berta and Tomas don’t arrive, the movement is weak"‘ - sure, this is obvious, because they are leaders. And then Barahona included messages that supposedly Castillo responded ‘copied’ but that message came from another chat, which gives the conversation a different meaning.
The real conversation involved Castillo writing ‘copied’ occurred several months later. The conversation was manipulated to make it seem like Castillo wrote that the day after.
After the defense insisted that messages were missing, Brenda Barahona came here and changed her analysis. It was established that when Castillo wrote ‘copied’ in response to a message about lawyers in Santa Barbara. The expert explained that later in her analysis after multiple complaints made by the defense.
The initial decision made by the Honduran courts to send the case against Castillo to trial was based on illicit evidence that was manipulated. Why is this important? Because it violates Castillo’s state of innocence, which cannot be violated without minimal evidence.
The information and contents in the cell phones cannot be treated as trustworthy evidence because the investigators violated the procedures to protect it’s integrity. The laws outlining the management of evidence is stated in Article 2, 4, 21 and 25 that speak about how evidence should be handled. In relation to this, 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 (in the defense’s PowerPoint presentation that was not visible through the Facebook video) show the way that the phones should be managed as well as the information inside them.
On page 42 are the procedures that outline how experts should be managed by the court. There are clear instructions, and the legal procedures that demand that an expert’s expertise is demonstrated to the court.
None of the experts that came to ratify extractions demonstrated their expertise. Brenda Barahona did not do this. There were several irregularities with evidence that was presented. Some of these examples include:
On the search warrant dated May 2, 2016, state authorities did not identify the offices [I’m assuming they are referring to the raid on DESA’s offices?]. They seized a cell phone that was allegedly used by Daniel Atala, but the document outlining the raid doesn’t say from what office it was seized.
The phones that were found in Bustillo’s house are documented in a contradictory manner in the legal documents. His wife had four cell phones and Bustillo had two but the investigators didn’t indicate who they belonged to. In the document outlining the raid, there are no identifying characteristics of the mobile phones and no location of where they were found. The investigator that came to ratify the documents said they were found “around there” and so it’s impossible to say if they belonged to Bustillo.
In the phones that the prosecutors say were used by Castillo, there are documents outlining that they had seized two cell phones. They didn’t put the descriptions of the phones in the document. How do we know that they were Castillo’s and how was it identified that they were his? There is no certainty about what type or model the phones are.
In the physical search warrant on pg. 130, you can see similar information. There are contradictions in these documents. The time the phones were collected is 1:48 but the time that the phone was put in a protective envelop [not sure if this is correct], is listed as 2:35. No signature is included on the document. The police investigator that came to ratify the document in court, Saul Colindres, says that he gave the phones to a colleague in the city of Siguatepeque, who then gave them to Vilmar Maldonado, who then gives them to Ponce on March 9, 2018. Then the next entry on the documentation is March 11, 2019. The phones taken from Castillo were not taken from him right away when he was in the airport [the location of his arrest]. The document outlining the extraction says the phone was updating but it doesn’t say since when. It says that the phone was turned on 6 months later. The IPhone 5.1 is not described from the moment it was seized. It’s not written who confiscated it either.
The Samsung phone that was collected was manipulated as well. There is clear proof that the investigation was manipulated to directly blame a company. Extraction expert Amador said that once the information was extracted from the phone, there were several GBs of information that were lost. 17 GBs of information from the USB submitted to the court went missing. The loss occurred while the USB drive was in Brenda Barahona’s possession. The expert didn’t say when he handed over the evidence and then did nothing to find out what happened to the missing information. Amador didn’t establish where the information was lost from - what file. This is all related to key evidence used in the trial. It was contaminated and is therefore, illicit evidence.
In the raid on Mariano Diaz’s house, agent Jose Perdomo said he took Diaz’s declaration once Diaz had been arrested. According to the legal document, the declaration lasted one hour and 10 minutes. Who would give a declaration like this? What they are trying to do is make it seem like Mariano said that a ‘young man from DESA’ had murdered Berta. But when Jose Perdomo was asked to ratify the document, he had to admit that it wasn’t properly signed or dated. It was a document created to blame David Castillo.
It’s also important to discuss the evidence that was used. Brenda Barahona said that telephones belonging to Berta Cáceres used in the extractions. Let’s focus on the one that they extracted information from. This phone was seized on March 2, 2016. In the chain of custody document, it says the phone was seized on February 3, 2016 and the Public Prosecutor’s office never explained the error in the date.
On June 25, 2019, Brenda Barahona did a second extraction of this cell phone. The document outlining this extraction says that the phone’s last activity was in 2016. In the extraction carried out by Vodde, how do you explain his findings that the phone was last activated on January 16, 2016 and then seized on February 3 - one month before Berta Cáceres was killed? It’s important to establish that in the second extraction of the phone, it was noted that the phone had a passcode. But this information was not included in the description of the first extraction. If the phone had a passcode on it on the night of the murder, how did the Mexican use it? You can see that his messages are asking people for help - how could he have written those messages if the phone had a passcode?
The data extractions show that Brenda Barahona manipulated evidence. It was manipulated to blame Castillo. Castillo didn’t have to monitor Berta Cáceres because she would say to him in messages “here I am in the hotel” - he didn’t have to follow her.
An expert testified that a telephone was brought in in the last minute and that information had been deleted from it. There were 31 emails that were sent on the day that a data extraction was done. There was a deleted email. This was outlined in expert Vodde’s testimony.
It was also said that Bustillo sent a message to Henrry to say that he had communicated with David Castillo. Douglas was living in a crisis - he didn’t have phone credit. He was desperate. Just look at the extractions from the phone. How does it make sense that the message on April 1, 2016 when Bustillo asks for a payment up front, was related to the murder, if it had already happened? How can one argue that the statement ‘complete the 50%’ was for a murder? How can the message on April 1 talking about payments be related to the murder if it was after the date it happened? It doesn’t make sense. For these reasons, Brenda Barahona didn’t complete her expert analysis.
In none of the messages extracted from the phones, will you find something that says that David Castillo or an employee of DESA will kill Berta. We presented all of the data extractions from the seized phones and there was nothing about this.
We need to be transparent about something. Not only was DESA operating in Rio Blanco, but so also was [the energy company] Blue Energy. You will see the messages discussing an incident related to Blue Energy between Berta and a teacher. (Castillo’s lawyer reads parts of the conversation). This means that Blue Energy had blocked the road. There is a very clear message from Berta to Karen Spring, mentioning Blue Energy as well. And then another from someone else that says “I’m sorry you have to live through this again” and Berta Cáceres said that it involved Blue Energy. (Castillo’s lawyers read another short conversation that mentions the Canjel river and Blue Energy) There are so many messages where Berta says that Blue Energy is behind the threats.
There are other threats that establish that Blue Energy wanted to kill Berta. She said that Blue Energy was in Agua Caliente. And she says that it belongs to a Canadian company then a witness referred to an incident with a bus in Agua Caliente saying the threat was from DESA. But Berta said it was Blue Energy.
There are also pages of conversations between Berta Cáceres and Janickson Fari [not sure of the name but it’s a foreign European journalist] where Berta tells him that there were a series threats from a mining company. There are only speculations and a desire to find Castillo guilty. He’s a military officer!
The private accusers say they don’t understand why there was a working relationship and communication between Castillo and Bustillo. We showed that there was a call and an email from Douglas Bustillo sent on February 26 to an engineer saying that he had taken photos in La Esperanza. The private accusers say that Castillo sent Bustillo to take pictures in La Esperanza when he wasn’t even in the country.
There was also an incident where Berta wasn’t even in La Esperanza. If you look at her phone, there is no recoded activity. Castillo said to everyone in the Whatsapp group chat that Berta wasn’t in the country. And Castillo wasn’t in the country on November 22 to 25, 2015. The prosecutors tried to argue that Bustillo and Castillo met when Castillo wasn’t even in the country.
The prosecution never investigated a suspicious phone number that made calls to suspects in the investigated time frame. There was a call at 6 am [on March 3, 2016, this is unclear] but it wasn’t investigated. Who does that number belong to? The calls were made between two people that didn’t know one another and they communicated within hours of the murder. Why would they call one another at that time?
This young man (referring to David Castillo) has a family that has been abandoned because he has been imprisoned.
There is another incident - communication between Mariano Diaz and Henrry Hernandez. The experts tried to relate it to the murder. Mariano Diaz was being investigated in another case, for his activities with Henrry Hernandez. And the prosecution tried to show that Mariano was involved with Henrry in a crime that involved Castillo. Mariano says in the conversations “let’s communicate with the higher-ups.” But Mariano never has communication with any individuals from DESA.
Who are the higher-ups? But also, the fact that Henrry said to Mariano “what, I wanted to ask you, do you have the number of the usual guy” - they weren’t referring to Bustillo.
On April 2, Mariano asks [Henrry?] how a project is going. This conversation occurred month after Berta was murdered and it shows that Mariano continued doing business with Henrry. These chats were framed to blame Castillo.
There is absolutely no evidence against David Castillo.
Evidence was used in this trial that was not authorized by the court. And the evidence should not be considered because it was not under judiciary control. David Castillo has been a victim of specific interests.
[The floor is passed to the other defense attorney, Cantillano]
I’m just going to speak for 5 minutes. There are important and abundant elements presented by my colleague Ritza. Evidence was manipulated. We can see that in the way that the evidence was collected and managed in the legal case against Castillo. There are serious violations of fundamental rights. Like Mariano Diaz’s declaration that was included as evidence even though Díaz had already been arrested. This is a clear violation of legal procedure. The evidence was obtained through a violation of constitutional rights and is therefore, invalid.
On November 22, a message saying “complete the 50%”, relates to a message sent on April 1, 2016. These are relevant facts that were not investigated and are attributed to a poor investigation.
On February 21, 2016, Brenda Barahona said that there was communication between Bustillo and Castillo to reactive the plan to kill Berta. According to Castillo’s migration records, Castillo was not in the country. They said that there were two calls between Castillo and Bustillo, but one was only an attempt to call and lasted only one second. The second lasted only 38 seconds.
[END]
Laura Zúniga starts by saying that her sisters, brother and grandmother want to speak and that they are connected via Zoom.
Marcela Olivia Zúniga Cáceres (Berta’s oldest daugther):
Good afternoon. The entire world is hoping that there is a fair verdict for Castillo, who we have considered responsible for the crime against our mother, Berta Cáceres. It’s been more than 5 years and it’s been a painful process for a long time. The struggle is about good against bad, lies against the truth. The entire world and the Honduran people want justice for Berta. History will make justice for Berta and this will be independent from what the Honduran courts say.
Diego and Camilo, two of my sons, have been deprived of their grandmother. Diego won’t ever know her and she was taken away from Camilo. They denied them the right to know their grandmother and for her to be part of their lives. We demand justice - we have no one else to ask for justice, just the Honduran courts. I not only demand that Castillo be declared guilty, but that he be given the maximum penalty.
Bertha Zúniga Cáceres (Berta’s second daughter. Berta speaks in person)
My mom taught me, our whole lives, to fight against injustices. She worried about the Lenca people and other struggles. She worried her whole life, about teaching us to be aware of injustices, and to be people that spoke out against injustices. We never thought this would be used to demand justice for the crime against her. I just want to say that we demand justice for her because there is so much violence in this country. Corrupt business elite are capable of killing, like Castillo, and I demand that he be found guilty and responsible for the crime against my mom. This has been shown in this trial. We have been recognized as victims in this process, but this is also for the Lenca people - people that Berta Cáceres fought for, and people that came to Tegucigalpa, to demand justice.
Laura Zúniga Cáceres (Berta’s youngest daughter and third child. Laura speaks in person)
I’m Berta Cáceres’s third daughter. We have decided to speak because we think it’s important as victims. We are victims of crime, just like so many people in this country. It’s important to include the voices of the victims and we want the court to value this work. Many years have passed and we have been victims of this court and fought so that this court will recognize us as victims. But our insistence is also an act of solidarity for the mothers and daughters of women that have experienced violence. I want to say that we have lost the hugs, spending nights together with my mom. No one will return our mother and end this impunity. I want justice for my mom because she deserves it, and we are not alone. Outside this court are communities that are camped out demanding justice for over 2 months. Berta Cáceres was a strong and brave woman, and her worries were for her mother, her daughters, and the people of this country. She met with very important people in the world. She faced violence by machista men in this country. They have tried to say that David Castillo was her friend. Friends don’t create Whatsapp group chats to monitor their friends. They don’t communicate with murderers to carry out a crime. We have a person that used his relationship with power to create a company -
[Castillo’s defense attorneys stand and say this is not a declaration. The court attempts to interrupt her. Laura continues]
DESA’s executives sought to make contact with Ministers and public officials in this country to guarantee impunity. This project caused displacement, violence, deaths and several victims. We demand justice for Berta Cáceres, for my mom, and we will continue making justice, just like we have done for the last 5 years. We will not stop until the structure responsible for her murder, is held responsible.
Salvador Zúniga Cáceres (Berta’s son and the youngest)
I direct this to all the people that have accompanied this process, to the court. This process for justice, we aren’t just part of this as sons and daughters, but because it’s a shared pain in the name of all people struggling for justice which means being criminalized, persecuted, and murdered. Today, I speak in the first person because the pain is mine. I speak proudly as Berta Cáceres’s son but I have sustained a pain for all this time and since March 2, when we witnessed the brutality of the economic powers that govern this country. They are capable of criminalizing, murdering, and persecuting, and many of these acts remain in impunity. I call on this court and demand that they take the necessary steps to break with the impunity in this country that all people suffer. It’s necessary to punish the people that are responsible - not just poor people that are paid to kill - but also the real economic power that exists behind all of this, that repeats itself again and again, and that are invisible, but always behind the crime.
Ms. Austra Bertha Flores (Berta’s mother)
Tonight, I thank all the people who are accompanying us. This crime has destroyed our lives. For health reasons, I cannot be there but I am following the trial very closely. Berta Isabel was a defenders of rights, and defender of the Lenca people.
In this trial, David Castillo’s responsibility and guilt has been shown. I demand justice, that he be punished with the whole weight of the law and we demand justice so that no other defender of the Lenca people and natural resources faces this.
[At times, Castillo’s declaration was hard to hear because it sounded like he was mumbling. I missed parts of it]
Good afternoon. i want to say thank God for my life and give thanks that I am living, despite all the difficulties and this tragedy. I say thank you to God who has helped me immensely.
I would like to say to all of Berta Cáceres’s family members that I did not have any direct or indirect participation in Berta’s murder. I’d like to restate that I did not play any role - make payments or have any intervention. I had no part in finding the weapon. I want to say that so you know that and you keep it in mind.
At no time did I have anything to do with the murder.
I want to say that the woman that is here is my mom. I am a Christian, just like my mom raised me.
I also have children who I haven’t seen in 3 years and 4 months. I haven’t seen them since I left the house [in the US], came to Honduras for a meeting, and then when I tried to return home, I was detained as a result of the indictment that the prosecutors presented against me.
It’s been difficult for me. But God gives us a purpose in life and I don’t question it.
There is a communication machine and political support that you get from your organization [referring to COPINH] that you work with, people that are in solidarity - I respect that and I’m not criticizing it. You have political power that is made up of a well organized network … which is real power. The prosecutors also have unlimited resources. These resources were not used to discover the truth.
I want to thank the Honduran associations for the experts and technical consultants that were used in this trial. I’ve felt like the process has not been fair. There are three accusers - the prosecutors and the two private accusers - we have limited resources [referring to his legal team].
To the international organizations that have been accompanying this trial, I hope that in reality, you evaluate the evidence. I hope that they take the time.
I am asking the judiciary to be impartial and to examine the evidence in a critical manner so that I can have my life back very soon.
Civic Council of Popular & Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) WEBSITE & BLOG (SPANISH)
COPINH WEBSITE (English)
Black Fraternal Organization of Honduras (OFRANEH)
BROAD MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE AND DIGNITY (MADJ) (SPANISH)
HONDURAS SOLIDARITY NETWORK (ENGLISH)
SYDNEY WITH HONDURAS (ENGLISH)
