Journalism and environmental defense: two hazardous activities in Latin America

Francesc Badia i Dalmases:
The new political cycle in Latin America, which entails taking turns in office,
and the economic crisis, which imposes policies to restrict government spending,
have created a new dynamic in the region. Power switching may help secure the
achievements made, but it can also open the door to regressive changes. There
has been clear progress, for instance, in relation to judicial independence—a
core issue for the Due Process of Law Foundation
(DPLF). Do you see the potential consolidation of these advances, or do you see
a threat of backsliding at this new stage?

Katya Salazar: In spite of
the notable advances of the past decade, poverty and inequality persist. Significant population groups have left those
categories, but others have entered. Our public institutions have been
strengthened, but they remain weak in terms of their ability to respond to the
new realities and challenges facing the region, including the increasingly
immense power of corporations. We have judiciaries that are more solid,
transparent, and better funded than 20 years ago, but they continue to be
inefficient.

Save for a few
exceptions, the justice systems in many countries of the region are collapsing
and do not have the public’s trust. The interference of the executive branches
in the judiciary is also ongoing, although it is now done in a more
“sophisticated” form (for instance, through the selection of members of the
high courts or interference in disciplinary proceedings). Citizen security is
one of the most important concerns in a large number of the region’s countries.
And impunity—for common crimes, but also for the most horrendous crimes,
including those in which State agents are involved—is a hallmark of several of
those countries.

Citizen security is one of the most important concerns in a large number of the region’s countries.

In terms of
specific phenomena, the practice of journalism and
the defense of the environment have become “risky” activities. And apparently, being a woman or belonging to
the LGBTI community is as well.
In spite of major strides, freedom of expression and the right of association
continue to be controversial issues in several countries. Finally, corruption,
as a “cross-cutting theme” that
spans all of the above, should be cause for deep reflection from Tierra
del Fuego to Canada.

FB: Another issue that you
have worked on extensively at DPLF is
transitional justice. There have been important successes in the region, especially
in Central America. But now transitional justice seems to have suffered a
significant setback with the victory of the “NO” vote in the Colombian
referendum – in particular, due to the opposition to allowing the FARC to
participate in the political arena. How do you view the situation of transitional
justice in the region right now?

KS: It is a fundamental
issue. Several Latin American countries – including El Salvador, Guatemala,
Peru, Chile, and Argentina – have gone through transitional justice processes
with different outcomes that include important achievements as well as failures
and unresolved matters. Nevertheless, transitional justice continues to offer a
number of very important tools with which to address impunity and the legacy of
serious human rights violations. Those mechanisms are now being used in
countries that have not necessarily initiated transitional justice processes in
the strict sense, like Mexico. This is something very positive, as it makes it
possible to connect the debts of the past to the current set of problems.

The decision of
the Colombian people to opt for the “NO” vote is surprising. But we must
acknowledge that the transitional justice process in Colombia is an
unprecedented case, because it incorporates all of the experience and lessons
learned from the region and the world. We should not attribute the “NO” vote in
the referendum to the transitional justice mechanisms. On the contrary, they
were the basis for the four years of dialogue in Havana. Without this theoretical
framework, the agreements would not have been reached. It is my hope that the
Colombian process will succeed and that the instruments of transitional justice
will continue to be used in current situations where human rights are in
jeopardy, like in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras.

FB: Another important
issue is the evolution of the Inter-American Human Rights System. We have seen
a weakening of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), explained
above all by different countries’ unwillingness to finance it. I recently
interviewed former IACHR Executive Secretary Emilio Álvarez who, in spite of
noting some positive aspects, was very concerned about the lack of financial
(and sometimes political) support from member countries. What is your take on this issue?

KS: The Inter-American
Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights make up the Inter-American
Human Rights System. While the Court issues judicial decisions that usually
pertain to acts that occurred ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago, the Commission
is the initial filter that receives the complaints and petitions and issues
decisions in connection to acts that are taking place now or that took place a
short time ago. For this reason—solely and necessarily—the IACHR is in some
respects a thorn in the side of the
States, as it reminds them of their mistakes in statements, press releases,
precautionary measures, visits, and public hearings. This is one explanation
for the antipathy of many States toward the Commission: although they may deny
it, they are not comfortable with the international scrutiny.

This is one explanation for the antipathy of many States toward the Commission: although they may deny it, they are not comfortable with the international scrutiny.

It is also true
that the IACHR has had its ups and downs and, like any institution, can stand
to improve its practices and policies. In this regard, there are some critiques
that are reasonable and that must be addressed, such as the procedural delays,
the identification of priorities, transparency in the administration and
management of its resources, and so on. But it should be made clear that the
Commission is an indispensable body, with a totally different role from that of
the Court, because it deals with events and takes action “in real time,” as it
did in the case of Ayotzinapa in Mexico. Having to react to current events
often makes sitting governments uncomfortable, and therefore we must treat the
States’ criticism of the IACHR with caution.

FB: Another matter that
gives rise to concern is the issue of human rights violations. There is a
certain prevalence of impunity, as we saw with the murder of Berta Cáceres and,
shortly thereafter—in spite of the worldwide outrage—the murder of some of her associates,
all of whom were environmental activists. Attacks on activists are also common
in Brazil, while in Mexico the victims tend to be journalists. How can we address
these attacks on freedom of expression in the region? How can we curtail
impunity in Latin America?

KS: Over the past decade, Latin
America has experienced an explosive increase in private investment for natural
resources extraction and, surrounding this phenomenon, an increase in social
unrest related to these projects. While the States have benefitted economically,
neighboring communities do not necessarily agree with this assessment, because
they simply do not feel the effects of the economic benefit. In other cases, in
spite of the economic benefit, communities oppose the project because of its
potential impacts on the daily lives, health, and way of life of their members.
This has been expressed in a pattern of resistance to the haphazard
exploitation of natural resources, which in many cases has given rise to
violence. In many of the region’s countries, the defense of land and territory
and the indifference of the States and the corporations has created a perfect
storm for violence and impunity. The States must acknowledge the tension that
these projects create and the situation of inequity in which the affected
communities find themselves. States, corporations, and affected communities are
not equal stakeholders when sitting at the table to resolve these conflicts.

Journalists are
another particularly vulnerable group, especially in Mexico. They are victims
not only of physical violence but also of economic and symbolic violence. To be
a journalist in the most violent areas of the region is a hazardous occupation,
one that is poorly paid and subject to social stigmatization. The States must
provide more forceful responses to this reality.

Journalists are another particularly vulnerable group, especially in Mexico. They are victims not only of physical violence but also of economic and symbolic violence.

FB: In closing, how would
you explain the case of Mexico? With a significant GDP per capita, a
prestigious international position, a solid diplomatic situation—why does it
have such an unacceptably high number of violent deaths? What is the key to
preventing the protection of human rights and basic freedoms from ceasing to
function in Mexico?

KS: Mexico is a paradox. As
you said, it is a country that is rich not just economically but also
culturally. But it is also a country that is wounded and in intensive care. I
think first of all the Mexican State should admit the severity of the situation
it is experiencing. Thus far, that has not happened, and if it has, the State
has put the blame on the criminal organizations. Unfortunately, the violence
occurring in Mexico is not just the result of actions by criminal groups; it is
the result of a combination between those actions and other actions taken by
State actors. Mexico must acknowledge that the real problem lies in this fatal
combination, and come to grips with it from that perspective.

The solution
will not be easy. It is not just a matter of enacting new laws and creating
more commissions, but rather of going to the structural causes of the problems.
Mexico must reform its political system. It must confront clientelism directly
at all levels, and strengthen the independence of the branches of government.
It must create mechanisms for the selection of high-ranking civil servants
based on their merits rather than on quotas. It must implement serious and
mandatory accountability mechanisms. The state judiciaries should cease to be
appendices of the executive branches and the Office of the Attorney General of
the Republic (PGR) should not be attached to the Presidency. Only in this way
will the problem be addressed head-on. If there is any desire to put an end to
the spiral of violence and impunity, there is no other way out.