DAY SEVEN: Trial Against David Castillo

Last update: April 30 at 10:15 pm

Main Points of the Day

• Investigative agent José Paloma testified that during the raid on the house and arrest of Mariano Díaz Chavez, Diaz Chavez approached him and told the agent that Douglas Bustillo had contracted hitmen to killed Berta Cáceres and previously, had offered Díaz Chavez 500,000 Lps [~$20,000 USB] to carry out the murder which he declined. The money was given to Bustillo by a DESA manager. He also specified that Cáceres was killed because she opposed a dam project.

• The forensic doctor that conducted the autopsy and determined the cause of Berta’s death testified that Berta was shot four times but killed by two bullets that damaged her lungs and caused blood to drain into her thorax (hemothorax). Within minutes, the injuries would have caused her death which was classified as a homicide.

• Several documents were ratified [by error, it was reported yesterday that this part of the evidence had concluded, but it continued today].

  • Castillo’s defense team was more insistent today about highlighting and questioning errors made by investigative agents including delays between the moment that property was seized from a suspect and the time the chain of custody was started; the lack of signatures on investigative reports, the expertise of agents to conduct inspections, etc. This questioning is in line with Castillo’s defense strategy.

• The trial was suspended at 10:11 pm and convened for Monday, May 3rd at 8:30 am after the lawyers representing the Cáceres’ family asked the court to reconsider the decision to schedule the trial for tomorrow (Saturday, May 1st). The request was granted.

More Details

Case Documents Ratified and Discussed

• Sara Grijalva Romero ratified the document outlining the raid on Mariano Díaz Chavez’s residence in Tegucigalpa on May 2, 2016. One of the phones (a Sony cell phone) found in the house was ratified as physical evidence.

• Elvin Alejandro Maradiaga Gomez ratifies a series of photographs taken during an inspection of the exterior surroundings of the house where Berta was murdered in El Líbano in La Esperanza. The agent took the photos to compare them with photos of the same house and area that were extracted from Douglas Bustillo’s phone.

• Investigative agent Jose Palomo ratified a document outlining statements that Mariano Díaz Chavez made to him during the raid on his house and his arrest.

  • Díaz Chavez’s statements to the agent as written in the document was read in court: “Mariano Díaz Chavez, who identified himself as a Major of the Honduran Armed Forces said that: “they were confusing him in the investigation because he remembers that Douglas Geovanny Bustillo, who works in the company Desarrollo Energético (DESA), had proposed to Díaz Chavez to kill Berta Cáceres and that she was a leader of COPINH. She was opposing the construction of dams on rivers in the sectors of Intibucá and Santa Bárbara. Because of the trust that Bustillo had in him, Bustillo had proposed to give him 500,000 Lps [~$20,000 USD] to carry out an assassination plan, and that the money would be given by a DESA manager, a young person, but that he [Díaz Chavez] didn’t know his name. The company was located in the Yojoa lake area, and also he was aware that on March 3, 2016, in the El Líbano neighborhood in Intibucá, they killed Berta Caceres and injured another person. The payment for the murder was given to Douglas Geovanny Bustillo the following day after the murder, and that he could give a declaration because he had not participated in the murder and that he knew about the planning of the murder because they had offered him the work but he had not accepted. And that because of Bustillo’s trust in him, Bustillo had told him what had happened both before the planning and after the murder. Diaz Chavez also said that Douglas Bustillo was a member of the Armed Forces of Honduras and that because of this, they had sought him out because he was a person trained in special forces.”

Forensic Medical Doctor Testifies that Berta’s Death Was a Homicide and Caused by Two Fatal Bullet Injuries

• Dr. Etelinda López Castellanos, the forensic doctor that conducted the autopsy provided a medical analysis of how Berta Cáceres was killed.

• Berta Cáceres was shot four times and suffered from three injures. Berta suffered one injury to her arm/shoulder. Two of the fired bullets damaged her lungs and caused blood to drain into her thorax (hemothorax). Within minutes, the injuries would have caused her death which was classified as a homicide.

Forensic Analysis on David Castillo’s Cell Phones

• Investigative agent and expert witness Walter Caballero Zelaya was called to the stand. He testified that he attempted to carry out data extraction on two of Castillo’s cell phones, both IPhones. One (the IPhone with a black cover) appeared to be blocked and would not connect to a network which is required in order to extract data. The SIM card was attached to a Honduran cell phone number (+504-9990-0946). The second contained a SIM card attached to a US phone number. No data was extracted from either phone.

• The defense brought a technical consultant to assist in questioning the prosecutor’s expert witness. The questions focused on the manner in which the phones were handled in his possession.

DAY SIX: Trial Against David Castillo

Last update: April 30 at 2:09 pm. There are still evidentiary documents that still need to be presented on Friday, April 30. This was incorrectly reported on April 29 and has been fixed below.

Main Points of the Day

• Rosalina Dominguez, a Lenca leader from the community of Rio Blanco testified. Dominguez declared that David Castillo had visited Rio Blanco on a few occasions insisting that the Agua Zarca project be built (see photos below). Dominguez described the role that Berta Cáceres and COPINH played in assisting the community defend their territory and the violence that was caused by DESA including the destruction of crops, murder, threats, etc. Dominguez spoke about Berta mentioning Castillo, telling Dominguez that Castillo would send her weird messages inviting her to go to swim in the river, and that if anything ever happened to her, it would be Castillo’s fault.

• One investigative document describing the raid on Douglas Bustillo’s home included the discovery of parts of an M16 weapon. During the course of the day, COPINH publicly denounced that the weapon belonged to the Honduran Armed Forces and under Honduran law, it is illegal for unauthorized individuals to possess such military-grade weapons (see photos below).

• In one investigative document, an agent spoke about finding uniforms with the logos and names of the ‘Anti-Narcotics Directorate’ (DLCN) and ‘Attorney General’ in DESA’s office when it was raided.

• Several documents were ratified by individuals involved in the investigations, raids, and seizures of property related to the murder case.

• The live transmission continued to cut out regularly throughout the day making it extremely difficult to follow the proceedings. Some parts were missed entirely. Trial was suspended at 9:20 pm.

• Tomorrow, prosecutors will continue to present their evidence (only expert testimony/analyses and witness testimonies remain). It is possible that the prosecutor’s key expert telecommunications witness, Brenda Barahona, will testify. Proceedings are scheduled to begin at 1:30 pm.

For picture one and two, COPINH writes: “Just as Rosalina mentioned, these images are evidence of David Castillo’s presence in the El Roble blockade carried out by the Rio Blanco community. Despite the community telling Castillo that they would not permit the construction of the hydroelectric project due to the violation of the right to free, prior, and informed consent, he continued to impose his boss’s - the Atala Zablah family - project through violence and death.”

For picture three and four, COPINH writes: “According to executing judge Luis Ramírez’s testimony, in Douglas Bustillo’s home, they found parts of an M16 weapon and a magazine. This is a weapon is for the exclusive use of security forces. According to Article 332 of the Criminal code, “an unauthorized person that … stores military-grade or combat materials … will be punished with 8 to 10 years in prison.” Nevertheless, this crime remains in impunity because the Attorney General’s office has not acted. The same Attorney General’s office that in 2013, imprisoned Berta Cáceres for a similar accusation that was ordered by DESA which was directed by David Castillo and is property of the Atala Zablah family. It is the duty of the Attorney General’s office to proceed against Douglas Bustillo for this crime.”

More Details

Testimony of Rosalina Dominguez

NOTE: These notes simple paraphrase the testimony and include the questions and answers that are most relevant to the specific accusations against David Castillo.

• Declaration: The community carried out a territorial exercise in Rio Blanco. The company violated our right to free, prior and informed consent and Convention ILO 169. In the community, we decided to stop the machines from circulating, and David Castillo, because we were not consulted. The company just caused environmental destruction.

• Prosecutor’s questions:

  • Why did you say you have a personal interest in testifying? A: I have an interest because I want justice for Berta Cáceres and the Rio Blanco community. Our community has not been respected as an indigenous community.

  • Q: Why is ILO 169 important? A: Convention 169 says that indigenous communities must be consulted and no one can come and invade our territories without our consent.

  • Q. Why did the community defend the river? A: It’s a sacred river that we use to swim, and its life, for animals and us.

  • Q: What does the river spiritually represent? A: Spiritually, the river is the force of life and it gives us life … everything around the river.

  • Q: On these territorial exercises, where did you go? A: We went to the side of the river where DESA was building the dam and we continued to insist to David Castillo, that Rio Blanco didn’t want the project.

  • Q: In what way did you inform David Castillo that the community was not in agreement with the project? A: We told him that we didn’t want the machinery. And he came into the community and said that the project was going to be built.

  • Q: How do you know he said this? A: Because he said it in front of the whole community of Rio Blanco.

  • Q: How many times did Berta Cáceres visit El Roble [the place where the communities maintained a blockade preventing DESA from accessing the river]. A: Berta was more from Rio Blanco than she was from La Esperanza, because she was with us more there than in La Esperanza. She never left us alone and always accompanied us. COPINH was always with us.

  • Q: When was the last time Berta Cáceres visited Rio Blanco? A: The last time was when we did the territorial exercise in San Francisco de Ojuera on February 20 [2016]. DESA used their machines to block the road so that we couldn’t pass to the river. There were about 300 of us participating in the territorial exercise.

  • Q: How do you know the machines belonged to DESA? A: Sergio Rodriguez told Berta, “don’t sacrifice your people, don’t take your people there.” And Berta asked us what we wanted to do. We told her that we wanted to get to the river. We got there at 6 pm.

  • Q: What was Sergio Rodriguez’s attitude? A: He asked us why we continued with Berta if she was making us stand in the sun? He told us to go look for work. Berta told us it was our decision to be there.

  • Q: At 6 pm, what did you do when you got to the river? A: We insisted that they send us our buses and that if they didn’t, we would stay there that night at the side of the Gualcarque river. We couldn’t go walking and it was the evening. We left the river at 10 pm. From there, people threw rocks at the car Berta was traveling in and they called her an “old witch” [vieja bruja]

  • Q: How do you know that happened to Berta? A: Because I was in the same car with her.

• Private accuser #1’s questions:

  • Q: You said that ‘they’ killed Tomas García, who is they? A: I said they because Sinohydro and DESA were there. In that instance, Sinohydro left after Tomas was killed, and DESA stayed.

  • Why did those people in the community attack Berta? A: Because she supported the community.

  • What did Berta Cáceres’ murder mean to you? A: For us, taking Berta .. it was an emptiness that they left us because she left behind a legacy. She was a good person, she respected the communities, she valued our rights. So it was painful and when we heard they had killed her, the entire community went to “plant” her [bury her].

• Private accuser #2’s questions:

  • Q: What was your relationship with Berta Cáceres? A: I was always with her. When they criminalized her, I was with her in La Esperanza.

  • Q: In what occasions did you see David Castillo? A: I saw him three times.

  • Q: What was Castillo’s attitude when you saw him at El Roble? A: His attitude was that the community had to allow the project. He asked Berta to tell us to accept the project and Berta asked us, and the community said no, that the machines had to stop and weren’t allowed in the community.

  • Q: To finish, what was Berta’s relationship with Castillo? A: Her relationship with him didn’t exist. What she said was that Castillo was sending her weird messages to her phone. He would invite her to swim in the Gualcarque river in the deepest area.

  • Q: And what did Berta say about these messages? A: She said that he invites her to swim and that if anything happens to her or to Tomas, that it’s David Castillo’s fault.

• Defense’s questions:

  • Q: You said you were injured in a car accident in Rio Blanco, how was your recovery? A: I almost died in the hospital because there was no medical attention. So I went home to recover.

  • Q: Who helped you recover? A: Luis Green [government representative]. One compañera told me that David Castillo said he had put 18,000 Lps in my hands. I never received this.

Case Documents Ratified and Discussed

• Intelligence agent Jefferson Roberto Valladares Matamoros ratified photos and investigative document dated March 6, 2016 of the inspection of the damages to Berta Cáceres’ home during the murder.

• [Transmission cut out, person not identified]. Ratified the document outlining the raid at DESA’s office on May 2, 2016.

• Maria Paola Quintero ratified a document and the physical cell phone confiscated from Sergio Rodriguez during his arrest. [There was an error between the copy presented to the court and the original. The court will investigate and return to this document once the original is examined].

• Investigator Leticia Naja ratified the document of the raid on a house in La Ceiba. [The house belonged to one of the individual convicted for Berta’s murder].

• Investigative agent Luis Enrique Ramirez ratified the document of the raid on Douglas Bustillo’s house on May 2, 2016. It was established in the questioning that parts of an M16 weapon was found in the house.

• Investigative agent from ATIC, Yosly Carías Cruz ratified the document and photos of the raid on Douglas Bustillo’s house.

• David Joel Alvarez Zelaya ratified a technical document including photos of the raid of DESA’s office carried out on May 2, 2016. During this raid, uniforms belonging to the Attorney General’s office and the Anti-Narcotics Directorate (DLCN).

• [There were approximately two other documents that were ratified and discussed when the live transmission cut out].

DAY FIVE: Trial Against David Castillo, Co-Author of Berta Cáceres' Murder

Last update: April 29 at 8:48 pm

Main Points of the Day

• Today, the trial consisted of the witness testimony from investigator Jesús Perdomo and a brief expert analysis by ballistic expert Olman García who studied the gun found in Henry Hernandez’s home [Hernandez was convicted in November 2018 of Berta’s murder] that matched fragments and bullets found during the autopsy and at the crime scene. In addition, several documents and the relevant physical evidence were ratified by state agents involving inspections of the crime scene; inspections of the convicted men’s houses raided by investigators, several cell phones that were seized; the firearm found in Hernandez’s home; and the bullets recovered from the autopsy and crime scene.

• Investigative agent Jesús Perdomo testified that the first line of investigation into Berta Cáceres murder was based on a theory that it was a crime of passion. The second line of investigation involved an individual that lived in a neighborhood close to the scene of the murder. Then investigators began to consider lines of investigation related to DESA and threats that Berta had received, according to testimonies of COPINH members, for resisting the Agua Zarca dam.

• COPINH published documents (see below) during the course of today’s proceedings questioning the role of Security Minister Julian Pacheco in promoting the first line of investigation mentioned by agent Jesús Pacheco; and documents related to the military careers of Douglas Bustillo and Mariano Díaz Chavez questioning whether high-level military officials also knew about and were part of the murder.

• The proceedings ended at 9:35 pm and will begin again tomorrow at 10 am.

COPINH writes: “David Castillo used his military intelligence knowledge to monitor, harass, and intimidate Berta Cáceres. Castillo coordinated the operation to assassinate Berta with convicted Douglas Bustillo and Mariano Díaz. They are members of the Honduran Armed Forces that were trained in the United States. They used their military knowledge in a criminal manner. The authorities refuse to investigate the structures inside the military that were involved in these types of crimes. Mariano Díaz was an active military major and was a Military Police instructor when he was arrested. Why have the authorities not investigated any connections between high-level officials in the Armed Forces to the crime? See the attached documents.”

More Details

Testimony of Investigative Agent Jesús Perdomo

• On March 3, 2016, I went with a multi-disciplinary investigative team to La Esperanza to initiate an investigation into Berta Cáceres’ murder. There was already a person that had been detained related to the first line of investigation which consisted of the theory that it was a crime of passion. Aureliano Molina had been detained because someone had testified that they had seen Molina in a vehicle close to Berta’s residence. Molina maintained that he was not responsible for the murder and he had not been near the house. We examined his phone records and took the testimony of a family member who said that Molina had received a call informing him that Berta had been murdered and traveled from his home to La Esperanza afterwords.

• After reviewing the phone records, we determined that his telephone had been located in Lempira [where Molina lives] and according to the phone antennas, he had traveled to La Esperanza. We then took the testimonies of members of COPINH, family members, and it was established that Berta had been involved in a struggle against the Agua Zarca hydroelectric project.

• The next line of investigation involved investigating an individual who had been arrested for killing a woman near the neighbourhood where Berta lived. We raided the individual’s house and found nothing that confirmed this line of investigation.

• In the preliminary investigations of phone calls from the area of the crime scene, we found a telephone number that belonged to Douglas Bustillo. The case got more complex so more agents joined the investigation.

• In our first report, we outlined the involvement of 5 people in the crime. We requested telephone records. We inspected a security camera located at the entrance of the El Líbano community [where Berta lived and the murder occurred]. From that security camera, we were able to identify a car that had been parked on the road close to the community the night of the murder.

• Using phone data, we identified five phone numbers that we considered to be suspicious once other investigators had identified the phone numbers that had connected to the nearby phone towers. We identified these phones as belonging to Henry Hernandez, Edilson Duarte Meza, and another person named Dilma.

• Tracing the movement of the cellphones, we could see that these individuals had traveled in the direction of El Líbano, and it was clear that there was communication between the suspects and the person that was driving the vehicle parked on the road.

• When we identified Edilson Duarte Meza, we went to La Ceiba and through human sources, we located his residence. We carried out a search and found a weapon.

• When the houses of Sergio Rodriguez and Mariano Díaz Chavez were raided, we collected their phones. We also raided DESA’s offices and seized cell phones found inside. In our report, we reported that Rodriguez and Bustillo, Chavez, Duarte, and Hernandez, had been identified as suspicious. Other agents got involved and later reported that Bustillo had communicated by telephone with the hitman.

• We then went to the offices of the security company where Bustillo worked. We interviewed Bustillo’s boss and were able to confirm Bustillo’s telephone number.

• The five telephone numbers mentioned previously, coincided with movements of the phones on the day of the murder. The data demonstrated that the cell phones had traveled from La Ceiba to La Esperanza.

• We identified a protected witness that testified that Elvin Rapalo had admitted to her that he had participated in the murder. Using Rapalo’s Facebook page, we identified his phone number. The phone was in the name of a person named Vilma. We took her testimony and she told us that the phone had been stolen.

• We then raided his home in San Pedro Zacapa in Santa Barbara. We then identified, through phone data, Henry Hernandez. Using social media, we located him in Mexico. We contacted the Mexican authorities who then deported him to Honduras and upon arrival, he was arrested.

• During or after [unclear] his arrest, Hernandez explained how the crime had occurred and how the hitman had shot at the protected witness inside Berta’s home. He outlined several details about the night of the murder. We also identified another person, Oscar Torres, nickname “Coca” using social media.

• The last report I presented, together with agents Elvin Maradiaga and Carolina Maldonado, we outlined the involvement of David Castillo in the murder. The document was based on official reports and data extractions that had been found in the raids. These included Whatsapp conversations between Bustillo and Castillo where they discussed logistics and other relevant incidents. According to the telephone company, the phone was used by David Castllo and we were able to interview others that confirmed this information. We also were able to confirm the telephone used by Bustillo by interviewing protected witness JAP-2018.

  • The prosecutor, private accusers and the defense all questioned the witness.

  • Jesús Perdomo was also asked to ratify a document pertaining to an investigation into the security company PCI Inc where both Bustillo and Hernandez worked. The document confirms the existence of an employment request that includes a phone number linked to the murder.

Testimony of Ballistic Expert Olman Garcia

• The ballistic laboratory received a .38 calibre weapon and it was compared to the bullet casings and fragments found at the crime scene as well as two bullets recovered during the autopsy.

• We first tested whether the weapon worked and then compared it to the evidence we received. We found that the weapon matched the type of bullets from the autopsy and the 3 bullets including one fragment that was found at the crime scene. We concluded that the weapon was operative and that it had fired the bullets found in the autopsy and the crime scene.

• Each bullet, once fired, that includes the unique characteristics of the weapon it was fired from. We found these characteristics to match the weapon that was given to us to analyze.

  • The expert witness identified the physical bullets presented to him by court authorities as well as the Smith and Wesson gun that was found in Henry Hernandez’s home during a raid carried out by investigators.

  • Prosecutors asked questions. Both private accusers and the defense declined to question the expert witness.

Ratifying Documents Relevant to the Investigation

NOTE: Investigators that wrote, signed, or were responsible for specific documents pertinent to the investigation are called to ratify and answer brief questions about the document and the action described in the document. Below is a list of these documents. The questions asked, if any, are not included in the summary below as they don’t add much to understanding the content of the document. There were moments that the signal cut out and details were missed.

• Technician Sandra Garcia Gladys ratified the document describing the physical inspection of Berta Cáceres’ house in the El Líbano residence in La Esperanza

• Technician Ruth Elena Franco ratified the document describing the inspection and raid on the home of Emerson Duarte [convicted for Berta’s murder in November 2018]

• Investigative agent Allan Aplicano Ramirez ratified the document describing the seizure of the LG phone belonging to Lesly Patricia Zambrano Zúniga (Douglas Bustillo’s spouse)

• Jimmy Arturo Espinoza ratified the document describing the raid on Mariano Díaz Chavez’s home where three cell phones were found: One white Blu phone, a blue Samsung, and a black Sony.

• Agent Saúl Colindres ratified the document describing the physical search conducted of David Castillo during his arrest and two cell phones were taken from him - two Iphones, one black and the other blue.

• William Alvarado Guevara ratifies two documents: The personal search and seizure of a white Blu cell phone that was believed to belong to Henry Hernandez [convicted for Berta’s murder].

DAY FOUR: Trial Against David Castillo, Co-Author of Berta Cáceres' Murder

Last update: April 28 at 3:38 pm

Main Points of the Day

• Court rejects the documents presented as evidence by the attorneys of the Cáceres’ family that demonstrate David Castillo’s role in the company PEMSA and the bank transfer request solicited by Daniel Atala from CONCASA to PEMSA for $1.254 million just days before Berta’s murder.

• Court accepts all three of the expert witnesses (arguably a unique acceptance in the Honduran judicial context) proposed by the private accusers representing the Cáceres family titled:

  • “Analysis of Roberto David Castillo Mejía’s position of power in a business-institutional setting and his involvement in the planning, coordination, and execution of Berta Cáceres Flores’ murder” by Harald Waxenecker

  • “Analysis of the frequency of telecommunications between the members of the organized structure that planned, coordinated, and executed the operation to murder Berta Cáceres” by Andrés Arrieta; and

  • “Analysis of the situation and condition of violence experienced by indigenous women and women human rights defenders” by Gladys Tzul.

• The court decides to allow Laura Zúniga and David Castillo’s mother into observe the trial. COPINH denounces that this equates their participation in the process and in doing so, the court is rejecting Laura’s unique legal status as a victim which gives her the right to actively participate in the process.

• At 7:30 pm, the opening statements were presented and the murder charge against David Castillo were formalized. The trial has now begun. The defense’s principal argument is that the Honduran state and investigators manipulated the investigation from the beginning, excluding relevant lines of investigation. The prosecutors focused their remarks on Castillo’s role within the organized criminal group that murdered Berta, specifically his communications with Bustillo. The private accusers argued that the context of the case began as early as the granting of the concession to build the Agua Zarca dam and Berta’s role in resisting the project led DESA - it’s employees like Castillo and executives - to monitor, criminalize, and murder her.

• Trial was suspended at 10:10 pm and tomorrow, is scheduled from 8:30 to 10 am, then 1 to 3 pm, and again at approximately 4 pm until the judges decide to suspend for the day.

More Details

Context

The trial was originally scheduled to start at 9 am but was postponed until 1:45 pm. Proceedings began at 2 pm until 5 pm when the judges called a recess to deliberate. The presiding judge notified the parties that they should be ready to return to the court this evening and expect to stay later than yesterday (which ended at 9 pm). Today’s proceedings ended at 10:10 pm. 

Initial Resolution of the Court Regarding Newly Presented Evidence

NOTE: After the resolution was given, all parties that want to appeal or ask the court to reconsider their decision or argue in favor of the court’s decision based on objections from other parties, were permitted to do so. Below the court’s resolution and the relevant responses from each party. In addition, just to clarify, the evidentiary hearing was held in February 2021 but all parties have the opportunity prior to the opening remarks, to present new or clarify evidence within certain legal parameters. To review this new evidence, see the trial notes from day one, day two, and day three.

• Regarding New Evidence Presented by the Prosecutors, the Court Determined:

• Accepts the request related to the ratification of  a legal document pertaining to the removal or collection of evidence at the crime scene (acta de levantamiento)

• Accepts the proposed physical evidence involving two cell phones (one black and one blue) that were seized from David Castillo.

• Accepts the document outlining the data extraction of an LG phone that contained a voice message sent on March 31, 2016.

• Agrees to formally cite two witnesses to testify - protected witness “Triple A” who the prosecutors have been unable to locate, and Lilian Esperanza. The court notes that there is a document in the court file that indicates that the court has been unable to locate Lilian Esperanza’s residence but that she and “Triple A” will be subpoenaed to testify.

• Clarifies that the technical consultant Oscar Rodriguez, who will examine data extracted from the LG phone, will be permitted to assist the prosecutors in the construction of their arguments, but will not be able to question the expert witness testifying on the same matter presented by the defense. (NOTE: Technical consultants under Honduran law do not have the same judicial role as expert witnesses and instead are invited by the defense or prosecutors in trials to help them make their argument related to specific evidence)

• Accepts the participation of technical consultant Jose Eduardo Sierra but clarifies that his role is to assist the prosecutors in their concluding remarks and will be unable to interrogate Ruben Chapas, who will not testify in person in the trial.

  • Prosecutors ask for clarification as to whether Jose Eduardo Sierra can assist in the interrogation of the defense’s expert witness Hugo Rivas Garcia.

• Regarding Evidence Presented by private accuser #1 (acusador privado) representing Berta’s son, Salvador Zúniga):

• Reject their request to exclude the document written by Ruben Chapa regarding the alleged manipulations of evidence by the prosecutor’s witness Brenda Barahona. The court will allow the evidence but reserves the right to exclude the document if necessary, later on.

  • Private accusers #1 present a reposición (legal motion asking the court to reconsider this decision and exclude this document) arguing that the expert witness cannot be present to answer questions about the document and the alleged threat that Ruben Chapas claims is the reason for not being able to appear in the case, has not been proven by the defense.

    • Court denies this request and the evidence (document written by Ruben Chapas) is admitted.

• Accepts the analysis of expert witness Gladys Tzul “ Analysis of the situation and condition of violence experienced by indigenous women and women human rights defenders.”

  • Defense presents a reposicion asking for court to reconsider the decision.

    • Court rejects request by defense. Expert witness accepted.

• Regarding Evidence Presented by private accuser #2 (representing Berta and Laura Zúniga and Austra Berta Flores)

• Rejects the two documents outlining David Castillo’s role in PEMSA and the $1.254 million bank transaction authorized by Daniel Atala to PEMSA. The court argues that these documents are copies, not originals and parts of the documents have been highlighted thus affecting the integrity and validity of the document.

  • Private accusers #2 present a reposición (legal motion asking the court to reconsider the decision) arguing that the evidence is relevant to the case and that the originals of the documents are located in UFERCO’s office (the office of the Special Anti-corruption prosecutor)

    • Court denies request to reconsider. Both documents will NOT be admitted as evidence.

• Accepts the expert analysis of witness Harald Waxenecker titled “Analysis of Roberto David Castillo Mejía’s position of business-institutional power and his involvement in the planning, coordinating and execution of Berta Cáceres Flores’ assassination”

  • Defense presents a reposición (a legal motion asking for the court to reconsider the above decision) asking that this expert testimony not be heard.

    • Court rejects motion. Expert witness accepted.

• Accepts the expert analysis of witness Andrés Arrieta titled “Analysis of the frequency of telecommunications of members of the organized structure that planned, coordinated, and executed the operations to kill Berta Cáceres.”

  • Defense presents a reposicion arguing that more than one person participated in this study and that evidence was provided to the expert by a third party (COPINH).

    • Court denies reposición request by defense. Expert analysis accepted.

• Regarding Evidence Presented by the Defense

• Accepts the testimony of Mariano Díaz Chavez and Jose Palomo under the condition that the relevancy of their testimony is demonstrated to the court.

• Accepts the document outlining Castillo’s migration history

• Accepts the document from the Honduran Armed Forces

• Rejects the chain of custody document of the LG phone that is located in a judicial file in the city of La Esperanza.

• Accepts testimony of accused DPI agent, Juan Carlos Cruz

  • Prosecutor’s present a reposición (legal motion asking the court to reconsider decision to admit this evidence) arguing that he is being accused in another legal process and will not add new details to the case.

    • Court rejects prosecutor’s request. Testimony accepted.

• Rejects the presentation of emails between Castillo and Elvin Santos.

• Accepts expert testimony of Hugo Alberto Riva Garcia

  • Private accusers #1 present a reposición (a legal motion asking the court to reconsider this decision)

  • Private accusers #2 present a reposición (a legal motion asking court to reconsider this decision) arguing that it is not relevant to the murder.

    • Court rejects request to reconsider. Evidence accepted.

• Accepts expert analysis of Jonathan Murillo, who will analyze the data extracted from the LG phone.

• Rejects the admission of the two bank certificates arguing that they aren’t the originals and there is no listed name(s) on the certificates.

  • Defense presents a reposición (motion to reconsider)

    • Court denies request and the bank certificates are NOT accepted as evidence.

• Rejects the documents containing the sentencing from the US District court in Mississippi.

  • Defense presents a reposición (motion to reconsider)

• Rejects witness testimony from Aristides Mejía.

• Regarding the nulidades (legal challenges) presented by the defense

• Court rules that all three will be resolved and announced when the verdict is given at the end of the trial.

Opening Remarks/Prosecutors Formalize Accusation Against David Castillo

NOTE: The summary below is paraphrasing the prosecutor’s presentation. For a summary of the previous case against the seven men convicted as the material authors and intermediaries, see this article in The Guardian.

• In 2013, DESA received a concession to build the Agua Zarca dam on the Gualcarque river . The dam affected several communities. In response, COPINH initiated a struggle against the construction of the dam because of the project’s impacts on the environment and the lives of the communities. This struggle impacted the project’s international financial support and forced the project to move to the other side of the river. In response, the DESA’s Environmental and Social manager Sergio Rodriguez Orellana [convicted for murdering Berta Cáceres in November 2018] and DESA’s President Robert David Castillo began to monitor and obtain information about the movements of COPINH members including Berta Cáceres.

• To do this, Sergio Rodriguez and David Castillo paid to obtain information about their movements- the dates and times - of their actions of resistance against the Agua Zarca dam. This would later have consequences for Berta, who was leading the actions.

• On October 29 [2015? unclear], Sergio Rodriguez wrote to a WhatsApp chat indicating that without Tomas and Berta, the movement is weaker. This led to Castillo and DESA’s former head of security, Douglas Bustillo [convicted for murdering Berta Cáceres in November 2018], to act to stop Berta’s actions, and later kill her.

• At the end of the year in 2015, there are several communications between Bustillo, Rodriguez, and Castillo. At the time, Bustillo, who stopped working as DESA’s head of security in July 2015, coordinated with Rodriguez and Castillo, with the intention of killing Berta. Bustillo had been part of the Honduran military and knew and maintained communication with Mariano Díaz Chavez [also convicted for Berta’s murder in November 2018], who was also in the military. By 2015, Díaz Chavez’s phone was being tapped for his suspected involvement in another criminal case.

• These four individuals remained in communication. Bustillo and Díaz Chavez spoke about the logistics of the actions against Berta Cáceres. Díaz Chavez contacted Henry Hernandez [also convicted for Berta’s murder in November 2018] to discuss plans to murder Berta. As part of this coordination, at the end of 2015, Bustillo and Castillo maintained communication with the objective of following and monitoring Berta, including at her home residence in La Esperanza.

• In the early months in 2016, Bustillo asked Castillo for a 50% payment in order to set up logistics. Both discussed an aborted mission in February 2016 at a time when Bustillo was spending time in La Esperanza. On the 21st [February?], Bustillo continued to coordinate activities with the intention of of killing Berta and maintained communication with Díaz Chavez and Hernandez, who maintained communication with Edwin Rapalo, Oscar Torres, and Edilson Duarte [all three convicted in November 2018 for murder and attempted murder], who would later travel to La Esperanza to kill Berta Cáceres.

• On March 2, 2016 at approximately 3 or 4 pm, Rapalo, Torres, Hernandez, and Duarte went by car to La Esperanza and monitored Berta’s house. At the time, Berta was not present in her residence because she was participating in a forum alongside a person that would later become a protected witness [Mexican activist and Berta’s friend, Gustavo Castro] in the case. The four were contracted by Castillo.

• At approximately 11 pm, the four men went to El Líbano [where Berta’s house was located], jumped the fence, broke into the back kitchen door, and went into Berta’s room. They shot her three times and Berta fell to the floor. Then the hitman went into the room where the protected witness was located, and fired a shot at him. Then they left the neighbourhood, got into their car, fleeing the scene and traveled back to northern Honduras.

• At 6:16 am on March 3, Rodriguez called Bustillo to collaborate information about Berta’s murder. Then Bustillo made several calls to Castillo, and through a third person, requested the last 50% of the payment. Bustillo was the intermediary between Castillo and the hit team that killed Berta.

• The investigations established the role of each accused individual, seven of which are now convicted. Investigators conducted raids on DESA’s office and in the home of Emerson Duarte, the brother of Edilson Duarte, where they found the weapon that had been used to commit the murder.

• In representation of the Attorney General’s office, we will prove the crime of murder which carries a penalty of 25 to 30 years in prison.

Opening Remarks By Private Accuser #1

• We formalize the accusation against David Castillo for the murder of Berta Cáceres on March 2, 2016 in her residence in La Esperanza. The crime against Berta is relevant for the national and international community - she was a Lenca woman, a feminist, a person who demanded respect for human rights and the Lenca people. Berta was an obstacle for Castillo and DESA because she opposed the construction of the Agua Zarca dam.

• What happened on March 2, 2016, began in 2010 when DESA - a company that was created through corruption and to attack the Lenca people - was granted a dam concession. DESA is being investigated for this corruption in the “Fraud on the Gualcarque” case [conducted by the Office of the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor (UFERCO)].

• The installation of the dam project in Lenca territory violated free, prior, and informed consent. The communities, led by Berta, carried out several actions in defense of their territory. As a result, the President of DESA, David Castillo, and other company executives, got involved with members of state security forces and people inside the communities, to carry out a series of aggressive actions against Berta, including criminalizing her and other COPINH members, in an attempt to hamper their struggle.

• Unable to deter Berta and these actions, on November 20, 2015, Castillo wrote to Bustillo. They began to form a criminal structure to coordinate and carry out Berta’s murder. Originally, they planned for the murder to occur on February 5 or 6, 2016, but efforts were frustrated by the lack of logistics. This led Bustillo to continue to monitor Berta but also communicate to Castillo, days before March 2.

• Castillo is responsible for the crime against Berta Cáceres. As President of DESA and alongside other DESA employees and executives, he conducted actions prior and after the murder, to carry out the illegal act. For these reasons mentioned above, we request that Castillo be convicted as co-author of Berta’s murder.

Opening Remarks by Private Accuser #2 (Representing Berta and Laura Zúniga and Austra Berta Flores)

• We formalize the accusation against David Castillo for the murder of Berta Cáceres. Berta was murdered for fighting for the rights of the Lenca people.

• DESA was formed in 2009, and in 2010, obtained a concession to construct the Agua Zarca hydroelectric project that violated international human rights standards, especially those of indigenous peoples outlined in ILO169. To impose the project, DESA’s executives carried out a serious of illegal actions based in corruption, human rights violations, and criminalization. The Honduran government and the international community knew about these actions, and despite this, DESA continued to harass people in Rio Blanco.

• DESA’s executives identified the struggle for the rights of the Lenca people as being an obstacle. This struggle was led by Berta Cáceres. As a result, they began to monitor and criminalize her, and destroy the social fabric in the communities in Rio Blanco. As the President of DESA and a trained member of the Armed Forces, Castillo monitored Berta, and in parallel, maintained communication with Bustillo to carry out, plan, and coordinate her murder.

• Castillo gave Bustillo a job. He was to form the entire structure that would carry out the assassination, which was originally planned to occur on February 5 and 6, 2016. Castillo knew about this. On March 2, 2016, the murderers entered Berta’s home in La Esperanza and murdered her. Castillo knew about the actions before and after. He was a key actor between DESA’s executives, the political structure of DESA, and the hit team that carried out the murder. As a result of these efforts, Castillo is responsible for murder.

Opening Remarks by the Defense

• We have listened to the formalization of the accusation by the prosecutors and the private accusers. We are going to answer both, as well as the facts that back up the formal accusations against Castillo’s participation in the crime.

• The defense rejects all of the facts and the accusations by the prosecutors and private accusers. Their presentations do not match the evidence that has been entered in this case.

• The defense will establish that state investigators did not conduct an adequate investigation that led to credible and objective evidence to determine the author of this crime. Instead, the Honduran state through their investigators, came to an agreement about what the result of the investigations, should be.

• The defense will establish and provide proof that there was a process of evidence manipulation. This manipulation occurred in the short term in order to provide the national and international community and the victims the impression that the Honduran state was getting to the bottom of the crime. We are going to present evidence that demonstrates this manipulation. Secondly, we are going to show, that in the short term, investigators did not investigate three lines of investigation. There was insufficient follow up to truly establish who murdered Berta Cáceres. David Castillo is a double victim as a result of this manipulation and because of the accusation against him.

• We will show that there were several telephone calls within 24 hours of the murder that were not investigated. Why did the Honduran government not investigate the participation of these people? The defense will show that agents involved in the investigation eliminated a series of information that show dates and moments that are relevant and important to the murder.

Private Accusers Make Another Request to Allow for Participation of the Victims

• Private accusers #1 ask the court yet again and present a reposición (motion to reconsider) to allow Laura Zúniga, one of Berta’s daughters, in her condition as a victim in the process, to observe the trial.

• Private accusers #2 argue that Laura has come to Tegucigalpa to observe the trial and will have the opportunity to speak at the end of the trial. She would like to do this in person. The request is not being made for a general member of society, but instead a victim who has special rights in this process.

• The defense objects to the request stating that if Laura can come in, why can’t Castillo’s mother or other members of the public?

• Court agrees to allow one additional chair on each side of the courtroom - one for the private accusers and another for the defense, indicating that Laura Zúniga and Castillo’s mom will be permitted to enter the court to observe.

Initiate Review of the Documents in Evidence

Taking advantage of the time, the court asks the prosecutors to begin presenting the documents admitted as evidence in the case. Approximately 10 documents, many of which, outlined the involvement of Sergio Rodriguez, Mariano Díaz Chavez, and Roberto David Castillo in the Honduran military, were presented and partially read to the court.

DAY THREE: Trial Against David Castillo, Co-Author of Berta Cáceres' murder

Main Points of the Day:

• The trial started again for its third day after a 12 business-day delay. The opening remarks have still not taken place. The parties continue to present new evidence and objections or clarifications of evidence presented to the court on day one and two.

• Castillo’s defense team objects to the following evidence presented on day two by the private accusers (acusador privado) representing the Cáceres family:

  • All three of the expert analyses

  • The documents that demonstrate Castillo’s legal role in the Panamanian company PEMSA and object to the document demonstrating the approx. $1.2 million dollar bank transfer authorized by Daniel Atala to PEMSA (directed by David Castillo) days before Berta was murdered.

• The defense presents 11 new pieces of evidence, most of which are objected to by the prosecutors and the private accusers, and presents three nulidades (legal objections) to evidence presented by the prosecutors and private accusers as well as the court’s resolution of the evidentiary hearing. The proceedings will start again tomorrow at 9 am and the court will rule on newly presented evidence and objections presented today.

More Details

General Context

The trial has started again, this time after a 12 business-day delay. On April 7th (day two of the trial), David Castillo’s legal team recused the court. The recusal was sent to the Appeals Court for a ruling. The motion was denied and the case was sent back to the same Sentencing Court. Today’s proceedings were convened for 1 pm and began at approximately 2:15 pm and continued until 6:45 when it was suspended for “20 minutes for dinner” but didn’t start again until 8 pm. The court went to deliberate at 9 pm and at 9:35, informed the attorneys that the trial was suspended for the day. It will start again at 9 am tomorrow.

The proceedings were broadcast on Facebook using Zoom. The audio quality was overall much better but it was very difficult to hear one of Castillo’s defense attorneys at several points throughout the afternoon. The signal also failed several times including ending the transmission twice for approximately 5 minutes.

Once again, the victims and international observers from Peace Brigades International (PBI) and the UN High Commissioner’s Office were denied entry into the court to observe the trial.

The presiding judge warned that the trial proceedings could be held outside of regular business hours including up to 9 pm and on Saturdays.

Defense Objects to Evidence Presented on Day Two, Including:

NOTE: Under each argument or piece of evidence, the response of either the prosecutors and/or the private accusers (the Cáceres family attorneys) is noted. In all cases, both ask the court to deny the newly presented evidence or deny the requests and motions presented by the defense. Private accusers A refers to the attorneys representing Berta Cáceres’ son, Salvador Zúniga. And the private accusers B refers to the attorneys representing Berta and Laura Zúniga and Berta’s mother, Austra Bertha Flores.

Objects to Evidence presented by prosecutors:

• Two cell phones - one black and one blue - presented by the prosecutors on day two and seized during a physical search of Castillo, arguing that the cell phones don’t have serial numbers.

  • Prosecutor’s response: All evidence including the documents outlining the seizure of the phones from Castillo were presented. Don’t understand why defense is objecting.

• Participation of the technical consultant, Jose Eduardo Sierra arguing that his expertise was not credited and his CV was not presented to the court.

  • Prosecutor’s response: Sierra has acted in previous trials as an expert witness and has been sworn in.

Objects to Evidence presented by the private accusers:

• Rejects the objection of the private accusers regarding the testimony of the expert witness proposed by the defense, Rubén Chapa.

• The expert witness Gladys Tzul and analysis called “The analysis of the situation and condition of violence experienced by indigenous women and women human rights defenders” arguing that the analysis is a political topic based on subjective elements citing sources in the bibliography that are from the internet. Defense believes the analysis to be speculative, not based in facts and that the issue of gender is “not an issue of debate here.”

  • Private accusers A argue that the abundant bibliography demonstrates the level of seriousness and rigor that the expert used to conduct her analysis. The objection to this expert testimony is being made outside of established legal procedures.

• The document dated February 6, 2019, presented by the private accusers demonstrating David Castillo’s condition as a legal representative of PEMSA (Potencia y Energía de Mesoamerica S.A.) arguing that the document was obtained in Panama and not correctly verified by a notary. The defense also questions the ability of Castillo to be named as a legal representative on a date when he was already imprisoned and his ability to be named as a legal representative given that he’s not a lawyer.

  • Private accusers B present a document that outlines an extraordinary assembly held in Tamara [the location of the prison where Castillo is in pre-trial detention] with company shareholders that reaffirms Castillo’s legal authority to represent PEMSA.

• The bank transfer request signed by Daniel Atala from CONCASA (Concretos del Caribe) to PEMSA arguing that its a transfer request which does not demonstrate that the transfer actually occurred. The defense argues that bank transactions are standard business procedures. The document is a copy and the original is in the possession of the anti-corruption prosecution office (UFERCO). The document has nothing to do with David Castillo and is speculative.

  • Private accusers B argue that this was not a standard bank transfer as it occurred in the context of conversations days before Berta’s murder between Castillo and convicted murderer Douglas Bustillo, who then later coordinated the group of hitman that killed Berta Cáceres. The transactions show how CONCASA, a company directed by Daniel Atala, who is also DESA’s financial manager, made transfers that corresponded to aggressive actions against people in Rio Blanco and other incidents.

• Expert testimony of Harald Waxenecker arguing that his focuses is too broad and questioning the argument that Castillo has a lot of power in Honduras.

  • Private accusers B argue that Waxenecker has worked extensively in Central America and his expertise is about economic power in Honduras. His testimony will show Castillo’s power as the President of DESA but also in the role he held in the National Electrical Energy Company (ENEE). It will also show Castillo’s relationship with state security forces.

• Expert testimony and analysis by Andrés Arrieta arguing that the analysis was written by three other collaborators that have not been sworn in by the court. Also argue that Arrieta was given information in 2018 before he was sworn in by the court.

  • Private accusers B argue that Arrieta had assistance from a team of individuals that assisted him.

Defense Proposes Additional Evidence

• Testimony of Mariano Díaz Chavez (convicted and sentenced for murdering Berta Cáceres) (and Jose Paloma? This is unclear).

  • Prosecutors argue that Mariano Díaz Chavez has been convicted of a crime and has never given a court testimony.

  • Private accusers B argue that this testimony is irrelevant.

• A document containing Castillo’s migratory record arguing that it contradicts testimony presented by the prosecutor’s witness, Brenda Barahona about Castillo’s physical location.

  • Prosecutors argue that this piece of evidence is vague and the defense does not specify the specific dates they are referencing.

  • Private accusers B argue that this evidence is irrelevant because Castillo was never the person coordinating the activities from the community and did not have to be physically present in one specific place to be linked to the crime.

• Testimony by Aristides Mejía who will testify as to David Castillo’s location during moment(s) relevant to Cáceres’ murder.

  • Prosecutors argue that they have never established Castillo to be in another location and that his whereabouts at the time of the murder is irrelevant given his status as an intellectual author.

  • Private accusers A argue that this declaration is useless as Castillo’s location is irrelevant.

• A document written by the Honduran Armed Forces that states that David Castillo was never assigned to the same brigades or military assignments as convicted murderers and former military officials, Douglas Bustillo and Mariano Díaz Chavez.

  • Prosecutors argue that this document is insufficient in arguing whether or not Castillo knew and was associated with Bustillo and Chavez.

  • Private accusers A have not seen or been able to verify this document.

  • Private accusers B argue that such evidence cannot be presented at this moment of the proceedings.

• Copies of documents outlining the chain of custody and seizure of an LG black telephone. The defense states that the originals are in another investigative and judicial file located in a court in La Esperanza. The documents compliments the below testimony.

  • Prosecutors argue that this should not be accepted as evidence as it cannot be verified whether these cell phones were in Castillo’s possession and the defense has not indicated where the original copy of the document can be found.

• Testimony of DPI agent Juan Carlos Cruz (NOTE: Who is accused, along with another DPI agent, of manipulating investigative evidence related to Berta Cáceres’ murder). Juan Carlos Cruz worked alongside agents assigned to the investigation by the US Embassy and will testify about a recording discussing a red, Frontier truck related to the initial investigation. This testimony shows that Castillo is a victim of a poor investigation.

  • Prosecutors argue that Juan Carlos Cruz is being accused by the office of a special prosecutor for manipulating the information on the LG phone.

  • Private accusers B argue that Cruz will not contradict his defense being used in the legal proceedings against him and thus does not have a credible testimony. His testimony will also not add any new or relevant elements to the case.

• An email dated February 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm written by David Castillo and sent to Elvin Santos. In this email, Castillo is discussing the hydroelectric project named Estación Santa Lucía del Sur referring to security threats against the project. This email attempts to credit the argument that Castillo continued to work with Bustillo and the conversations discussing specific plans believed to be about Berta’s murder, were in fact related to the project mentioned above.

  • Prosecutors argue that the defense has not followed the correct legal procedural manner to present such electronic evidence in the trial.

  • Private accusers A and B argue that this evidence has not been introduced following the correct procedural required for electronic evidence.

• Expert analysis by Hugo Alberto Rivas García (already sworn in) who will show that the messages and communications presented by prosecutor’s witness Brenda Barahona, were manipulated, some erased, and/or excluded by the prosecutors.

  • Prosecutors argue Rivas García uses sources that were not made clear to the court when he was sworn in as an expert and includes personal pictures obtained from the prosecutor’s expert witness, Brenda Barahona’s Facebook page. He also references the defense’s expert witnesses Shaun Vodden and Jonathan Langtong, who were not sworn in to provide an analysis but instead extract telephone data.

  • Private accusers A argue that this is an illegal piece of evidence and the analysis was done on the expert analysis of Barahona, instead of the actual evidence that Barahona presents.

  • Private accusers B argue that this evidence was not presented in a manner that gives the parties sufficient time to analyze it (the document is 90 pages).

• Proposes a document outlining the data extracted from a grey LG phone conducted by Jonathan Murillo. This expert analysis will show that chats were deleted and that the whole truth about Cáceres’ murder is not being revealed (NOTE. It is unclear where and from whom this phone was seized or belonged to).

  • Prosecutors argue that they have not seen the data and whether or not it is relevant and legally admissible evidence.

• Two certificates - one dated April 13, 2021 that shows that the Panamanian company PEMSA received a loan of approximately $1.2 million. The certificate is issued by BAC Bank (NOTE: Jose Eduardo Atala Zablah is President of BAC Bank). The second certificate demonstrates that on February 29, 2016, the money was returned. These documents show that the bank transactions were standard procedure.

  • Prosecutors argue that the certificates do not include the names of the individuals that provided the certificates. It is unclear if the certificates were scanned and do not follow the correct way of presenting financial information.

  • Private accusers B argue that the documents do not include the names of the individuals that issued the certificates.

• Documents issued by a court in the District of Mississippi dated September 24, 2020. The court sentence in the case demonstrates that no transactions were carried out between PEMSA and David Castillo.

  • Prosecutors argue that this evidence was previously presented during the evidentiary hearing and declared inadmissible.

  • Private accusers B clarify that this evidence is irrelevant as their argument has nothing to do with Castillo’s personal transactions but instead transactions related to PEMSA and DESA.

Defense Proposes 3 Legal Objections

• Objects to the expert testimony of prosecutor’s expert Brenda Barahona, who will analyze Whatsapp chat conversations and other data extracted from telephone communications. The defense argues that the contexts of the conversations were manipulated.

  • Prosecutors argue that the defense has used these same arguments several times throughout the legal proceedings. These arguments have previously been declared without merit.

  • Private accusers A argue that Barahona’s participation is not the extraction of the phone data but instead the messages that the telephone(s) contain. Barahona’s expert testimony does not violate procedural norms.

  • Private accusers B note that this motion was presented previously and was rejected.

• Objects to the wiretaps ordered from March 14, 2016 to end of July 2016 of attorney Juan Carlos Sanchez (one of Castillo’s lawyers). The defense argues that this shows an irregular and excessive move by the prosecutors.

  • Prosecutors argue that a court determined the necessity to wiretap certain communications that were relevant to the investigation. Prosecutors were unaware that Sanchez was the attorney for Castillo at the time the taps were requested. The prosecutors note that this motion is another attempt by the defense to delay the trial process.

  • Private accusers A argue that it is not the correct procedural moment to present such objection.

• Objects to the court resolution of the evidentiary hearing arguing that the court had previously heard and been exposed to the same evidence in the previous trial against the 7 men convicted of murdering Berta Cáceres.

  • Prosecutors argue that the hearing was conducted within the parameters of objectivity.

  • Private accusers A argue that similar arguments have been made to superior courts who have confirmed the decision of the Sentencing court to hear the case. This objection is another example of how the defense is abusing their rights to use the legal resources at their disposal to simply delay the trial from moving forward.