On 28 February El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele vetoed a new bill on transitional justice, reparations and national reconciliation relating to the country’s civil war (1980-1992).
Analysis:
Bukele had already said he would veto the bill which the 84-member unicameral national legislature approved last week, arguing that it would result in impunity for war crimes and was unconstitutional. Human rights groups such as Fundación de Estudios para la Aplicación del Derecho (Fespad), along with the regional Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), had also rejected the initiative, not least for its failure to consult with the representatives of the victims. However, some human rights activists warn against Bukele’s use of the veto, warning it provides him with the opportunity to portray himself as a champion of the victims at a time when his own commitment to democracy has been seriously questioned, following his recent deployment of the security forces to congress.
- In a presidential statement Bukele objected to various provisions of the bill which was passed by 44 deputies, mainly from the right-wing opposition Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (Arena) party, which emerged from the civil war along with the other main opposition group Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN), which did not support the bill. These include Art. 67 which allows the commutation of a sentence due to age or health concerns, regardless of a perpetrator’s cooperation as well as the limited amount of time assigned for the attorney general’s office (FGR) to investigate potential cases.
- In an opinion piece published in national daily El Diario de Hoy on 26 February, Arnau Baulenas Bardia, coordinator of the judicial process team at the Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas’ human rights institute (IDHUCA), expressed concern about Bukele’s potential vetoing of the law. He argues that “you can’t ask someone who has interpreted the constitution in his own interest to act as its guarantor and establish whether the articles guarantee minimum rights in favour of the victims” – a reference to the deployment of the security forces to congress, which was widely slammed.
Looking Ahead: While the bill was passed by 44 votes, 56 votes would be required to override the presidential veto.
