DAY TWENTY-SEVEN: Trial Against David Castillo
/Last update: May 30 at 4:15 pm
Main Points of the Day
Witness Indyra María Mendoza Aguilar from the organization Cattrachas was called by the attorneys representing the Cáceres family to testify. As someone who monitored and reported to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights about threats against and security incidents experienced Berta Cáceres, Mendoza provided a comprehensive overview of these concerns including meeting David Castillo, being told by Berta not to trust him, and testifying that DESA played a large role in Berta’s difficult security situation in and post-2013.
The defense proposes controversial Honduran teacher Edgardo Rodríguez, as a technical consultant to question expert witness Gladys Tzul who began presenting her analysis: “Situation and Condition of Violence Experienced by Indigenous Women and Women Human Rights Defenders: The case of Berta Cáceres and the defense of the Gualcarque river”
Expert witness Tzul uses sociological theories and various chat messages presented as evidence in the case to describe gender-based violence that occurred between Castillo and Cáceres; and Castillo and DESA’s mechanisms of control over Berta as an indigenous, female, human rights defender, among others. Tzul also discussed the complex means in which control over women’s bodies and subjugation are necessary in order to achieve control over communal territories.
More Details
Indrya María Mendoza Aguilar, Human Rights Defender from Organization Cattrachas Testifies
[NOTE: It was extremely difficult to write the details of this testimony as the witness spoke very fast. There are many details that are missing from these notes]
Mendoza started by giving a declaration describing the work she did at monitoring and documenting threats against Berta Cáceres’s life as a result of her work as a human rights defender, and particularly the work she did with COPINH in Rio Blanco from 2014 to 2016. In 2013, Cattrachas started to follow the actions that COPINH was carrying out in Rio Blanco, particularly the murder of Tomas Garcia. And then from there, the criminalization process and hate campaigns against Berta. Mendoza also did follow up on the implementation and monitoring of Berta’s IACHR precautionary measures. She met David Castillo on July 3, 2014 during a celebration at the US Embassy. Cattrachas was invited because the policies of the US Embassy at the time were pro-LGBTI. In the line waiting to sign the attendance list, David Castillo said to her: “I’m from DESA.” Mendoza asked him what he was doing there. Castillo responded: “I’m not the bad guy” and gave her his business card. The following day, Berta wrote her asked Mendoza if she had been at the Embassy. Berta said she found out through Castillo and she would explain why she’s in touch with him later. Then Mendoza received an email from Castillo saying “it was a pleasure to meet you” and she thought that was unusual considering the exchange they had had. Mendoza also describes a meeting that was coordinated to occur in Cattrachas office in Tegucigalpa between Cáceres and Castillo. When asked why she was meeting him, Berta told Mendoza it was because he gave her information but warned her not to trust him.
The Private Accusers Question Mendoza:
[NOTE: The witness’s answers were more extensive than represented here. It was difficult to note a lot of the details because of the speed of Mendoza’s answers]
Q: What was your relationship with Berta Cáceres? A: We were compañeras de lucha [comrades in the struggle]
Q: What was Berta’s role in the Agua Zarca struggle? A: From 2006 and on, COPINH, which Berta was part of, had a mission to protect their territories for everyone. This was COPINH’s mission
Q: What consequences did Berta and COPINH face as a result of the defense of their territories? They suffered more direct attacks when DESA began operating in Rio Blanco
Q: You have a registry and monitored the threats against Berta, what were the risks she faced? She faced a lot of risk that came from many places - private industry, and the press being some
Q: In your documentation, who was putting Berta and COPINH at risk? A: The Madrid family, DESA, Sergio, Bustillo and people from the community, almost all of them had the last name Madrid.
Q: You did a risk analysis, what is that? A: To identify patterns and help identify real risks.
Q: You talked about declarations made in the news, who made them? A: I don’t have all the information and names now. People from the private lobby, like Elsia Paz, and others.
Q: How did the criminalization against Berta start in 2013? A: The threats against Berta were not the same types as threats prior to 2013. It wasn’t just threats but also actions against COPINH. The criminalization started by accusing Berta of having an illegal weapon that didn’t exist. This diverted their energy from defending their territory to defending themselves against these attacks.
Q: What security measures did Berta have and how were they implemented? A: In the beginning she was given a phone number to call, the number of the Ministry of Security, a person named Sagrario Purdott.
Q: What would Purdott do when there were security problems? A: She would say that police would be sent.
Q: How did you find out about Berta’s murder? A: They called me at 3 am. I immediately made calls and contacted people like Karla Cueva [Minister of Human Rights]
The Prosecutors Question Mendoza:
Q: You said that Berta Cáceres was a land defender. What else did she do? A: She and COPINH accompanied struggles all over the country, in Zacate Grande, Cortés … it wasn’t just about the Gualcarque river
Q: What were the threats at the project site in Rio Blanco? A: Security guards, military, police and then people from the community that worked with DESA or sold their land to the company
Q: What other companies were there? A: DESA and others but mostly DESA
Q: You said that in 2009, Berta Cáceres received precautionary measures from the IACHR, why? A: She received them for defending democracy in the context of the coup
Q: How many precautionary measures were given to her? A: She always had measures and we informed the commission throughout the years about security risks.
Q: When was the last time Berta went to Agua Zarca? A: I don’t know
Q: How did Berta send you details about the threats against her? A: Through email
The Defense Questions Mendoza
Q: You were very informed about Berta, what other types of projects did Berta influence? A: Berta and COPINH were involved in the defense of various territories like Zacate Grande, Palmerola, and Cortés amongst others
Q: What communication did you have with Berta about threats in the area related to mining? A: I collected information about the risks .. [rest of answer was hard to catch]
Q: According to your personal relationship and your analysis of press reports, how was Berta’s relationship with mayors in the areas where COPINH was present? A: I don’t know. There were a lot of mayors that would talk against COPINH
Q: How many communities are in Rio Blanco? A: I don’t know … El Barreal … I don’t remember
Q: How many times did you visit the zone, the project? A: My role was outside of the conflict area
Q: How many communities are part of COPINH? A: I dkno’t know
Q: What is COPINH’s support or social proposals in the communities where they work? A: They defend life and their territories
Q: How do the communities react with actions taken by COPINH? Was there democracy about COPINH’s presence in communities? A: It wasn’t an issue of democracy, if the communities decide to defend their river, like the Gualcarque river which they did starting in 2006, then it’s a human right, it’s not about democracy
Q: What community was Berta from? A: She was from La Esperanza but she was a human rights defender.
Q: What was the reaction of the communities with respect to the money that Berta won? A: The award was about the recognition of her work, it wasn’t about money. I don’t know.
Q: In the communication with Berta, did she say what issues the communities have about the money? A: No
Q: Do you know how frequently Cáceres and Castillo met? A: No
Q: Do you know when David picked Berta up from the hotel where she was staying? A: No, I don’t know
Q: What did you know about the relationship between Berta and Aureliano Molina? A: They were compañeros de lucha. They had a personal relationship
Q: When you said that you saw David Castillo at the Embassy, you said that he was “the most hated”, why? A: Because they had just assassinated Tomas and DESA was responsible and there were threats against COPINH
Q: You said that DESA was responsible, who was responsible? A: It was the military [that killed Tomas Garcia] and DESA called them and the police.
Defense Presents Technical Consultant to Assist Their Questioning of Expert Witness Harald Waxenecker
The private accuser’s expert witness Harald Waxenecker briefly joined the trial via Zoom. As he is based in Europe with a significant time difference, he requested to change his presentation to the following day at a more appropriate time. His presentation will last between approximately 3 to 4 hours and is titled: “Analysis of Roberto David Castillo Mejía’s position of corporate-institutional power and his involvement in the planning, coordination, and execution of Berta Cáceres’s murder.” The court granted this request.
The defense presents a technical consultant to assist the defense in questioning Waxenecker. Given the difference in the consultant’s credentials in comparison to Waxenecker, the court rejects the technical consultant.
Testimony of Witness Melissa Cardoza Must Take Place in Front of Honduran Consulate in Mexico
A witness presented by the private accusers, Melissa Cardoza, briefly joins the trial from Mexico via Zoom. As a result of an emergency trip, Cardoza is unable to appear before the court in person to testify.
The court rules that they will accept Cardoza’s testimony but only if it’s given in the presence of the Honduran Consulate in Mexico City. This would ensure that the testimony is spontaneous. The private accusers and the court commit to making this request to the Consulate and for Cardoza to appear via Zoom at another date.
Expert Witness Gladys Tzul On Violence and Gender
Tzul begins by outlining the objectives of her analysis: 1. Study the situation of violence suffered by women that defend the Gualcarque river and in particular, the case of Berta Cáceres, 2. Analyze the correlation between violence against Berta Cáceres and the presence of DESA, 3. Examine the effects of female leadership in indigenous communities and the consequences of gender-based violence against Berta Cáceres that ultimately led to her murder.
Tzul outlines the theoretical and methodological frameworks and scholars used in her analysis including sociology, oral histories, and the judicial files provided to her.
Tzul drew ten conclusions:
1. Berta Cáceres was a woman, Lenca, political leader and general coordinator of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. COPINH collectively produce and politically coordinate a process of communal defense of the Gualcarque river, together with the communities of women, men, children, elderly, who together, articulated a communal and pan-indigenous defense of water, land, and communal living.
2. The subjugation and control of women’s bodies are necessary to allow for the devastation of communal territories. This is understand in a broad manner in the harassment campaigns against Lenca women in their defense of the Gualcarque river. In the case of Berta Cáceres, persecution, monitoring, harassment triggered her murder. The murder of women plays a specific role of terrorizing the communities.
3. The communal struggles of Lenca women are repressed with diverse mechanisms of violence and discipline - the use of force, discrediting, and death is used to achieve the imposition of capitalist investment on communal lands. Because of this, Berta Cáceres’s murder must be understood as a territorial femicide
4. Colonization, sexism and racism work not only in the economic realm but also in symbolic material ways when they liquidate bodies, feelings, and knowledge. This is explained under a business model which contradicts the communal resolutions that determine the communal nature of the territory in Rio Blanco. In the same way, the sacred notions about destiny, origins, and life of the Gualcarque river demonstrate a clear tension with a business model that seeks to name the river as a water resource - exploitable.
5. Lenca women have generated political mechanisms to confront physical, sexual and psychological violence. In this context, the Popular Women’s Courts that Berta Cáceres created and supported can be understood. These courts helped with communal struggles and put the problems of violence and harassment as central topics to be dealt with. Berta Cáceres was well-versed in the mechanisms of violence against women
6. The masculine business class, the state, and corporations attack, try to discredit, and harass feminine leadership by defaming and criticizing their status as women in front of their family and their community. This is done by persecuting, harassing, and monitoring them. They use violent and docile mechanisms and strategies in order to dominate women in leadership positions. When this is not achieved, they are murdered.
Tzul presents several chat between Cáceres and Castillo to demonstrate this. One chat outlines how Cáceres reaffirms her struggle as a leader of COPINH as Castillo complains about her organizing.
7. One can see evidence of the state and corporate alliance that DESA used to monitor Berta Cáceres's actions as a leader. She is identified and observed. Both promoted legal complains against her as a person that had influence in the community and that opposed the construction of the Agua Zarca dam.
Tzul uses another chat between Cáceres and Castillo to show this
8. Berta Cáceres as a defender of life - which was revealed in the way she acted and in her work as COPINH’s coordinator, along with Lenca communities - sought to maintain control and take care of communal territories and their means of life. Her work as a leader achieved the combination of defending life and being critical of violence against women.
9. The process in which women relate to men is always unequal. Because of this, when referring to a male business manager and a female community leader, one can name diverse layers of inequality. The friendship can only occur in unequal conditions. A male manager that seeks to exploit land cannot be friends with a community leader that defends land.
10. The trajectory of gender-based violence appears in the relationship between Castillo and Cáceres. He seeks to be her friend, he offers her favors, he provides support, he monitors her with the objective of her ceding to his conditions. When he does not achieve this, he carries out actions against her as a person by criminalizing her and seeking to neutralize and eliminate her political actions as an obstacle to the economic project that he represents. These actions lead to Berta Cáceres’s murder.