In a short hearing today, Castillo’s defense team raised an issue with the accreditation process of the prosecutor’s technical consultant brought in to assist them in questioning the defense’s data extraction expert, Jonathan Murillo. The court ruled that the consultant would be permitted to participate after his credentials were reviewed by the court. The defense’s expert will continue on the stand on Monday at 9 am.
Last update: June 19 at 12:20 am
The defense presented Honduran lawyer, Jonathan Murillo, to testify as an expert on the topic of cellular data extraction. Murillo extracted data from the LG phone seized by investigative police, including police officer Juan Carlos Cruz (who testified on day 40 and is accused of falsifying evidence). The LG phone contained an audio file that was recovered from protected witnesses in Santa Barbara referring to murdering a woman because she opposed a dam (tiene que reventar esa señora … se opone a un central). Murillo testified that the chain of custody of the LG phone, once in police custody, had been violated and audio files had been deleted and were impossible to recover. It appears that the purpose of his testimony was to advance the defense’s argument that Berta faced threats from other sources and to raise questions about how the investigators handled evidence and made decisions to not explore this line of investigation and it’s relevance to Berta’s murder. There was no mention of David Castillo whatsoever in this analysis.
Trial is convened for tomorrow at 9 am.
NOTE: The live transmission cut out every minute for approximately 15 minutes at the beginning of this presentation.
[NOTE: This defense strategy seems confusing and far-fetched. There was no mention of David Castillo in this analysis. It was focused on an LG phone found by a police team but it is still unclear who the phone belonged to.]
Honduran lawyer Jonathan Murillo presents a data extraction report conducted on an LG phone that a Honduran police investigative team (including two police accused of falsifying evidence) obtained as part of an investigation on what they claim had to do with individuals with information about Berta’s murder.
The LG phone was analyzed and it was found that there were 395 audios on it - 66 had been erased or eliminated and were recovered during the extraction. Murillo determined that once the cell phone was in police custody, the phone was still being used and files were deleted.
Murillo testified to have found three audio files eliminated on April 4th but he was unable to recover because according to the data extraction tool, the files were 0 Gbs, suggesting that they may have been intentionally deleted.
QUESTIONS FROM THE DEFENSE:
Q: What training do you have to do these extractions? A: I’m a lawyer with a Masters in Criminality from the University of Barcelona. I’m trained in Cellbrite (data extraction software or tool) and have a diploma given by the Spanish police.
Q: How long did the extraction take? A: 16 minutes
Q: How many GBs did you extract? A. 1.1 GBs.
Q: What expertise do you have to tell if the files were deleted from the phone? A: If they were in the hands of police or justice operators, they would have had access to deleting them.
Q: From March 14 to April 4, there were 17 files eliminated? A: The chain of custody document began on April 4th and it was given to another person on April 5th. The files were eliminated on April 4th while in the custody of Emerson [missed last name .. a police officer?]
Q: What were the seven activities performed on the phone on April 4th? A: It says that the phone was active but it doesn’t say exactly what was being done. They may have opened a file, changed the volume, opened a photo.
Q: In No. 10 in your conclusions, you found four audio files. What was their status when you located them? A: They were eliminated on April 4th when the phone was in the custody of the authorities and according to the norms, no expert can eliminate evidence or delete files from evidence.
Q: What happens when this occurs? A: It would throw out the evidence, according to what the law says.
The questioning by the prosecution and private accusers will continue tomorrow
At the end of today’s hearing, Castillo’s defense attorneys claim that they are receiving threats. The court responds that they have raised the issue before but that it is out of their power to act and that they need to follow the relevant legal procedures to denounce the threats.
Last update: July 18 at 3:45 pm
Castillo’s defense team made a procedural error in not instructing their technical consultants (consultor tecnicos) to present their conclusions in the correct moment established by law. For the second day, the defense presents motions to insist that the court allow their consultants to present their conclusions – despite this meaning that the court would have to call all expert witnesses back to the court - basically requesting the judges to violate clearly established legal procedures to, according to the defense, ensure Castillo’s right to a defense. The court denies their motions.
The defense presented an analysis written by Ruben Chapas, who did not appear in court. Instead, the report was read by the court secretary. It outlined how the prosecutor’s telecommunications expert Brenda Barahona allegedly manipulated and altered evidence including taking messages out of context and ignoring messages that indicated that Berta was receiving threats from other sources (ex. mining companies). The presentation was complicated and used unintelligible words, making it difficult for observers to understand the details of the analysis.
Two of the defense’s witnesses, Edgardo Jerezano Sarmiento (a lawyer) and Fabiola Zelaya Hernandez, will not give any declarations in the trial as originally planned. According to the defense, this is because they have been threatened.
Trial is convened for 9 am tomorrow.
The defense brought in two technical consultants to help them question the expert witnesses presented by the prosecutors and the private accusers - Jose Antonio Cruz questioned the prosecution’s telecommunications expert, Brenda Barahona on day 22, and controversial Honduran teacher Edgardo Rodriguez questioned the private accuser’s experts, Gladys Tzul and Harald Waxenecker on day 29 and day 35
The role of a technical consultant (according to what I understand as a non-expert, non-lawyer) is that the consultants assist attorneys in understanding an expert witness testimony presented by another side. The technical consultants are able to directly question the expert and then present their conclusions at the end of the expert’s presence in court. The technical consultant is not sworn in and do not have the same weight - in terms of expertise and authority granted by the court - as the experts do.
Yesterday (day forty), the defense asked the court to allow their technical consultants to present their conclusions. It seems like the defense forgot or were negligent at instructing the court and their technical consultants to present their conclusions at the respective moment and missed the opportunity.
In order to reverse this error, the defense petitioned the court to allow the technical consultants to present their conclusions at the end of the trial. The private accusers and prosecutors rejected this saying it violated the clear instructions of a legal note published by the Supreme Court on November 27, 2014 regarding the role and procedures related to technical consultants, experts, etc.
By not being able to present the technical consultants conclusions, the defense argued that the court is violate Castillo’s right to a defense. The court denied the motion and told the defense that Castillo’s attorneys could themselves present the consultants’s conclusions in their own conclusions.
The following day (today), the defense once again presented a motion for the court to reconsider their decision. The prosecutors and private accusers again rejected the defense’s request arguing that it would violate legal procedures and force the judges to act outside of their legal roles. The prosecutors argued that the defense had been negligent and were attempting to correct an error that they themselves had caused.
The court once again, denied the defense’s request and sustained their decision from the previous day.
Ruben Chapas did not appear in court. On day 4, the defense indicated that Chapas would not appear in person to present or answer questions about his presentation arguing that Chapas had been threatened. The private accusers asked the court for the defense to present evidence of the threats, arguing that the report not be accepted. It was admitted but the court will decide at a later date (during the sentencing?) whether it will be considered in their final decision or not.
The presentation was hard to understand and it involved various slides. Those can be read by watching the Facebook live: https://www.facebook.com/PJdeHonduras/videos/488087062425683
[NOTE: This is a very rough summary of the document.]
The practices recommended by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) were not practiced in the correct manner.
There wasn’t an adequate digital forensic investigation that protected and conserved the integrity of the evidence. This could have altered the contents of the evidence which would affect the ability of other expert witnesses to reach the same conclusion as prosecutor’s expert, Brenda Barahona.
International standards were not followed:
There were no images or forensic copies of the acquisition process making it impossible to establish the state of the initial information on the equipment [the telephones used? this is not clear]
The analysis does not use necessary elements to guarantee an appropriate protection against humidity, magnetism, etc. as required by international norm ISO 27037
Issues with the management of evidence in a specific file (names the file)
To extract information from the cell phones, they changed the version of the extraction program’s operating system which could have altered the evidence.
Regarding the use of phone conversations,
1. The messages from Whatsapp chats were not presented in sequence or in order according to the original timelines which violates international norms.
2. On pages 14 and 16 of the legal file, the Whatsapp chat messages were taken from different Whatsapp group conversations and presented in a different order. This forms a new conversation and changes the context.
Examples were given from messages taken from the Whatsapp chat groups: Security PHAZ and PHAZ Coordination [The messages were not read in court and it was impossible to read them on the screen]
The messages taken from the Security PHAZ Whatsapp chat never refer to illicit actions.
In none of the messages did the conversations discuss the planning of Berta Cáceres’s murder. Douglas Bustillo’s messages were taken out of context.
If the conversations are read in order, before and after the crime, you cannot establish David Castillo’s involvement in the crime or the planning of the crime.
Ex. There is no communication between David Castlilo, Henry Hernandez, and Mariano Diaz Chavez.
Conversations between Berta Cáceres and a number assigned to Yanik Sansonnens, discuss mining projects where Berta makes reference to “serious threats.” There are also conversations between Cáceres and another number used by Carlos Juarez Juarez where there are references to someone that had been arrested.
Regarding the friendship between David Castillo and Berta Cáceres, there are 144 conversations from July 2013 to February 18, 2016. Their conversations are open and cordial and show that they support one another.
Conclusions: The reports and examination of the evidence (messages, Whatsapp, text messages, etc) do not show any involvement of David Castillo in criminal elements.
[NOTE: Following the oral dictation of this report, the private accusers reminded the judges about their decision to determine during sentencing whether this report would be considered or not in their final decision]
The defense announced that Edgardo Benjamin Jerezano Sarmiento had been subpoenaed by the court but he has informed the defense that he won’t be testifying because of threats.
The same was announced for the witness Fabiola Esmeralda Zelaya Hernández.
Following the expert testimony of Waxenecker, Castillo’s defense team requested that the court review the evidence that was provided to Waxenecker to carry out his analysis. This is to ensure judicial control of what documents and elements were authorized by the court.
The court reported back about the list of evidence that had been authorized, informing all parties that they were going to review Waxenecker’s report to ensure all included elements were in fact, authorized by the court.
Last Update: June 19 at 12:20 am
The defense’s witness Ramon Rosa Rivera Perdomo finished on the stand testifying that Castillo had a good relationship with communities in San Francisco de Ojüera and admitting that he (Rivera Perdomo) did not have knowledge of the indigenous ancestry of Rio Blanco or San Francisco de Ojüera, creating doubt about his insistence that free, prior, informed consent was obtained in the communities affected by the Agua Zarca dam.
The defense called another witness, investigative police officer Juan Carlos Cruz who explained, in a very confusing manner, a line of investigation involving an audio file that made reference to the murder of a woman that “had problems with mayors in Intibucá” and a red vehicle allegedly used during the crime. Cruz briefly outlined how his team followed this line of investigation but it was later not continued by the Attorney General’s office. This witness seems to be part of the defense’s strategy to show that Honduran investigators did not explore all important and relevant lines of investigation, and instead focused on their client.
Trial is convened for 9 am tomorrow.
SOME QUESTIONS BY THE PRIVATE ACCUSERS
Q: What knowledge do you have about when the project was approved? A: I only know about this aspect for the right side of the river when they changed to SFO in 2014.
Q: You mentioned ILO169, why were the communities not consulted before the project began? A: Because in Honduras it’s not clear whether the consultation has to happen before the construction or before the approval of the project.
Q: You said that there were consultations in SFO in 2014, what public officials were part of this process? A: Just the company and the communities, and the mayor.
Q: What knowledge do you have about the indigenous community that Berta Cáceres was part of? A: I don’t have any knowledge of that
Q: What knowledge do you have about the indigenous communities that Rio Blanco is part of? A: I just know that the community of Rio Blanco has a title that they obtained from a long time ago. That’s all I know.
[NOTE: Juan Carlos Cruz was formally accused, along with another police officer, for falsifying evidence related to the Berta Cáceres murder investigation.]
Cruz sat so close to the microphone and did not speak clearly both in tone and subject. It was hard to hear him and the court had to repeatedly interrupt him to clarify his testimony
DECLARATION:
On the day that the murder occurred - March 2, 2016 - we went to work in La Esperanza, Intibuca. The investigative team I was part of went to the crime scene. There was already an individual that had been detained - Aureliano Molina but later, they ruled out his involvement.
On March 15, a person [unclear if this was a police officer] from Concepción del Sur in the department of Santa Barbara, said that he had information about Berta Cáceres’s murder. He said that a person contacted him with information. The team went to Concepción del Sur and we spoke to the person who began protected witness TT30. This happened on March 30 at 10 pm and the following day, we travelled to La Esperanza. The next day we handed over the cell phone. In the declaration he gave, he talked about an audio from a cell phone that had been passed to someone [unclear who] and then passed to him.
Another protected witness, TT8, had the original audio which had been recorded in a bathing area (balneario) [hot spring or public pool] an was transferred to TT30s cell phone.
We requested wire taps of the cell phone numbers identified in our investigation. We took pictures and offered three witnesses.
DEFENSE QUESTIONS THE WITNESS:
Q: Who was part of the investigative team? A: We were 8 all together with the prosecutors
Q: What knowledge do you have about how many investigative teams went to La Esperanza after the murder? A: We were sent there from our department and there were also teams from ATIC (Technical Criminal Investigation Agency)
Q: What community did you have to go to for the investigation? A: To Concepción del Sur
Q: Who did you go with? A: The investigative team and the technicians
Q: What as the role of David Valladares? A: He was a cell phone extraction technician.
Q: When did you arrive there? A: On March 30 between 2 or 3 pm
Q: What was the name of the bathing area that the protected witness mentioned? A: The Voltosa [hard to hear name]
Q: Who were the people that protected witness TT8 identified? A: He identified someone named Luis, Santos, Tito, Nelson and Velasquez but there was only one person talking in the audio, it was Nelson.
Q: How do you know that Nelson was the person talking in the audio? A: Because of the identification we did through our investigation
Q: What knowledge do you have about what was done with the investigation? A: I don’t know - I don’t know if it was closed or if it’s still open
Q: Can you tell us, if you remember, the exact contents of what was in the audio recording? A: It was a person that was talking about he had to be in Intibucá and mentioned a woman that was opposed to a dam?
Q: What woman were they referring to? A: Berta Cáceres
Q: About the car mentioned in the audio, how dod you know that the car was linked to the municipal authorities in Concepción del Sur? [inaudible answer. It was not possible to hear or understand this part in his declaration].
QUESTIONS FROM THE PROSECUTORS
Q: How long have you worked in the Investigative Police (DPI)? A: 17 years
Q: What date did you arrive in La Esperanza? A: On March 3
Q: Who seized the cell phone? A: Gonzalez [full name inaudible]
Q: What part of the police did you work with? A: The Preventative police
Q: How do you know that the murder that was being discussed in the audio, was referring to Berta Cáceres if they never said her name? I don’t remember well but we thought it was Berta Cáceres.
Q: How was it that you listened to the audio, who was there when you played the audio? All from the team
[I largely gave up noting the questions and answers because it was impossible to hear so many of the witness’s responses]
Last update: June 16 at 7:20 pm
Bertha Zúniga Cáceres, Berta’s daughter and the General Coordinator of COPINH, testified, mentioning her mother’s warnings about how David Castillo was more dangerous than other DESA employees and that prior to the criminalization process against Berta, Castillo had told her mom that DESA would start a legal process against her but not until after Berta returned from Cuba to see her daughter graduate. Zúniga Cáceres testified that the communities of Rio Blanco were not consulted about the Agua Zarca dam. She mentioned how at the end of 2015, her mom began speaking about putting together a will and getting life insurance.
Bertha Zúniga’s testimony concluded the evidence presented by the Cáceres family legal teams (acusadores privados).
Castillo’s defense team called their first witness, Ramon Rosa Rivera Perdomo, a teacher from San Francisco de Ojüera (the location of the dam’s construction when it moved to the other side of the Gualcarque river). Rivera Perdomo is a former DESA employee and since January 2015, part of the DESA-initiated Council for Management and Development of the communities of Northern Intibuca and southern Santa Barbara. Rivera Perdomo’s described the consultation process carried out in the communities around the project and made clear his support for “renewable energy” and DESA’s presence and contributions to development in his municipality. So far, it’s unclear how this witness relates to Castillo and the defense’s strategy, other than trying to show the alleged benefits of and conflicting opinions about the Agua Zarca dam’s construction.
The trial is convened for 9:30 am tomorrow.
[NOTE: There was poor audio quality today and it was hard at times to hear the responses from the witnesses called to testify]
Declaration:
I’m the Coordinator of COPINH and the daughter of Berta Cáceres. My mom was a luchadora social (an activist) during her life. She dedicated her life to defending the rights of Lenca communities.
In July 2013, at the beginning of the month, I was in university in Cuba. My mom traveled to visit me. She told me that the Lenca communities were in a struggle against a hydroelectric project. The project was called Agua Zarca and it was on Lenca territory and that the people were determined to stop it.
When she was criminalized, I asked her what happened and she told me that on her way to the community, she was detained by militaries that were stationed in DESA’s installations and that they accused her of having a gun.
She told me that DESA was the owner of the dam and the President’s name was David Castillo - that he was a military officer who had studied at West Point. She said that the construction company building the dam was Sinohydro, a Chinese company and that it was one of the largest in the world.
She told me with a lot of fear and worry that Castillo told her that the company was going to begin a legal process against her but not until she got back from Cuba and her daughter’s graduation. Few people knew that I was in Cuba and that I was going to graduate. How could he have that information? She told me that the struggle was very complex and she worried about people in the community that were protesting and blocking the road. We were only together for a few days because she had to come back to Honduras. Right when she got back, Tomas García was killed by the Honduran military in DESA’s installations.
I accompanied my mom when she was accused of usurpation (illegal possession of land) in Lenca territory, coercion, and damages to the company for 700 million Lempiras. I accompanied her in La Esperanza for the hearings. I was able to go into the hearings because I was her daughter. Sanchez [the same lawyer representing Castillo] was representing DESA and Sergio Rodriguez and Douglas Bustillo were there.
I have talked to a lot of people that traveled to Rio Blanco. In the beginning, my mom told me that I could not go there. I refused and asked her why since she always encouraged me to get involved in communities. She told me that it was because I didn’t have an idea of the dimension of the danger and harassment and that my presence in Rio Blanco would further expose her to danger. I continued to insist and after a while, she said ok, she would let me go but that I would have to enter the community from Santa Barbara [hard to hear, not sure if this is correct] and San Pedrito where there was compañero from COPINH who would take me with other people. They were going to accompany me from the time I entered and left the area and I was told to introduce myself using a fake name. I went to give trainings about women’s rights and that was my first time going to the community of Rio Blanco.
When I arrived to Honduras, my mom was taking extreme security measures even though in the history of COPINH, she had always defended the rights of communities. COPINH was involved in the struggle against the El Tigre dam and against logging in Intibucá. They also did land reclamation struggles in areas in Lempira and also, struggled against the coup d’état.
2013 was a very complex year. My mom had to travel to various places. By the end of 2013, there was a lot of tension because of the defense of the Gualcarque river. Because of Tomas García’s death, Sinohydro had left and in August 2013, the company continued to insist that they were going to build the dam.
In April 2014, I started to work with the Network of Women Human Rights Defenders. Part of my work was to document and outline the threats against my mom. This information was used to write reports about threats against women human rights defenders.
At one point in 2013, my mom with COPINH coordinators had a meeting with DESA representatives in Utopia [COPINH’s training center in La Esperanza]. I don’t remember the names of the people that were there but I know that David Castillo was. In this meeting, they didn’t arrive to an agreement because their presence in the community violated free, prior and informed consent.
David Castillo offered to pay for projects in Utopía and for the Wellness center - COPINH’s center for women. My mom told me that she understood his offers as a way of bribing her. She also didn’t know how Castillo knew that it was a really important project for her.
In 2013, in Rio Blanco, while COPINH was doing community assemblies, employees of the company wanted to attack her. They were drunk. Also people linked to the company in the communities shot at her vehicle. They also damaged her vehicle’s tires.
My mom also told me another time when Castillo talked to her about her being in a meeting and he said that he liked the skirt she was wearing. It was a meeting with social movement leaders. She understood this to mean that he was monitoring her closely.
She also told me that in January 2015, a man named Alexis was sending her text messages. He told her that DESA engineers had people they were paying inside the COPINH assemblies and meetings. The people gave DESA information about when she and other people were coordinating actions. To confirm whether he was a trustworthy source, she called him once. He didn’t want to answer in the beginning, but she kept calling because she wanted to know if it was a trap or the truth.
In 2014, with the tension in the community, she told me when we passed through Agua Caliente and another area to keep the windows of the vehicle up. In El Barreal where a Madrid family lived, there was always a police check point. We were always detained there - they asked us for our papers, searched the cars, and asked us what our relationship with Berta Cáceres was. That was always the case, and they would always let me pass because I would never say anything about my relationship with my mom.
In April 2015, I went to the US to accompany my grandmother and my mom when she received the prestigious Goldman Prize that they give to environmentalists. She was given the award for her struggle in defending the Gualcarque river. Being there in the US, my mom told me that Castillo had called her to congratulate her for receiving the prize. They were adversaries and he knew they were giving her a prize for struggling against the company that he represented.
In August 2015, the rumors continued that DESA was constructing the dam from the other side of the river. My mom was preparing her house for my sister Laura and brother, Salvador’s visit. They were coming from Argentina. One afternoon, she commented that Castillo was a liar because he had said that she had won and that he would stop the project because Lenca people are very rebellious. My mom was really disappointed because she thought that he’d actually do it. She said that he had lied and also that Douglas Bustillo insulted her. She told me that Bustillo was an hitman and that members of his family were also hitman and were involved in the kidnapping of a President’s son in Honduras. But she told me that she was more scared of David Castillo because he spoke to her kindly.
In October, my mom commented to me that COPINH people were organizing more protest actions against the hydroelectric project on the other side of the river. They were worried about the reactions of the company.
In December 2015, my sister Laura and brother Salvador were in Honduras and my mom told us one afternoon that she wanted to take advantage of the fact that we were all together to write a will. I told her “no”, that we didn’t want to talk about that and she responded that because of the struggle in defense of the Gualcarque river, that anything could happen. But I said no - that she would live for many years.
When Laura was in Honduras, she went with my mom to get a bank card. My mom also went to the bank with her to get life insurance and she told me that if anything happened, she didn’t want us to be left without support.
On December 31, we were preparing for New Years celebrations and I was with her buying food for the evening. We still hadn’t prepared anything and in the central park of La Esperanza, we saw two vehicles that my mom said belonged to DESA. She called people in Rio Blanco to see if they knew why DESA people were in La Esperanza.
In January, I went to visit my father and he told me that a lawyer had come to visit. She didn’t want to leave her name but said that two men had been detained for illegal possession of weapons and for killing a man in Rio Blanco. At the moment of his arrest, one of the men said he worked with DESA to screw over the COPINHes. He was free by the end of the year after paying a bribe to a judge in La Esperanza. I was told that this information was important to tell my mom so that she knew what to do with it. Later, I asked her what she was going to do. She said she didn’t know but she said that they were probably contracted to kill her. She told me that the hitman was freed because of DESA. I was worried that they would do something against her.
In early February, there were some incidents in El Líbano [the neighbourhood where Berta lived and was later murdered]. My mom came home to find the door of the house open and the security guard said that two men were hanging around the neighbourhood. The guard had fired shots in the air as a warning to the men.
My mom denounced the international banks financing the Agua Zarca dam - the FMO, Finnfund, and the CABEI and she mentioned that Ficohsa was linked to DESA.
When I was getting ready to go to Mexico to do my Masters which I was able to do because I won a scholarship, she said goodbye to me. She said that if something happened to her, that it was because of DESA and David Castillo. She said we shouldn’t be scared because in this country, anything can happen. I left pretty scared. I thought she’d be criminalized again. After I left, I was in permanent communication with her.
In February, she told me that with COPINH people, they were going to do strong protest actions in San Francisco de Ojüera. The police wouldn’t let them pass. I was writing her all day. She said that the police wouldn’t let them pass on the buses so they started walking. She wrote me in the evening and confirmed that she had left the area and that everything was ok - that she was with various people and with Sotero [COPINH member and part of the COPINH coordination]
The last time I spoke with her was on March 2, 2016. She told me that they were doing a forum about alternative energy and she was happy because it was in Utopia [COPINH’s training center] and there were 150 people participating. She told me that Gustavo Castro, a marvelous person, had arrived to participate.
QUESTIONS FROM THE PRIVATE ACCUSERS REPRESENTING THE CÁCERES FAMILY
Q: You mentioned that you form part of COPINH, what is COPINH? A: COPINH is a community-based organization that struggles for the rights of indigenous peoples and communities.
Q: Since when has COPINH been involved in these activities? A: Since it’s foundation in 1993.
Q: When did COPINH and your mother arrive to Rio Blanco? A: The first time COPINH went to Rio Blanco was in 2010.
Q: More soon
Ramon Rivera Perdomo is a school teacher from San Francisco de Ojüera (SFO) in the department of Santa Barbara [SFO was the location where DESA moved the Agua Zarca dam construction to after it was expelled from Rio Blanco].
Declaration:
Before I knew anything about renewable energy, I had already met COPINH. I graduated from a school in Santa Barbara and was trained by [Salvador] Zúniga in the Santa Barbara Institute. I got a scholarship to study medicine in Cuba, went there for two years, and then returned to my community. In the early 2000s, I became an activist in favor of renewable energy.
I became part of the elected community leadership (patronato) and was in favor of the development of a hydroelectric project. This was not possible until around 2007 when we received some funds from a government program - Poverty Reduction Strategy - from the government of Manuel Zelaya. By 2009, we had electrical projects in communities in the municipality and it was a huge achievement for the community leadership. I was an activist in the Zelaya government and was a town council member.
When the Zelaya government proposed the Llanitos and Jicatuyo hydroelectric dam projects [these dams were never built but the JOH government is now pushing them forward again], I was in favor of these projects. I believed in the possibilities for the development of SFO and we always saw the possibilities of sustainable sources of work and welcomed opportunities for the community.
Then the coup happened, I was an activist against the coup. That’s how I met Berta Cáceres. In 2010, I continued my work in the community. I’m a teacher and have been since 2005. I’m a father - I have three children.
I became aware that they were developing the Agua Zarca dam project on the right side of the Gualcarque river [the right side is the Rio Blanco, Intibuca side].
In 2004, I was part of the Committee to Protect the Gualcarque River Shed. This was an initiative to seek solutions and protections because of the threats to the river like livestock. That’s when I met the indigenous communities and other communities in San Francisco de Opalaca. In this same period, we consider our organizations and the other in San Francisco de Opalaca as brother organizations.
I met COPINH and knew of them as an environmental organization. At this moment, COPINH was still not active in the region.
In 2013, I found out about the crisis in Rio Blanco and that the Agua Zarca project had been stopped. I heard about it through the media. I understood that it was a small project even though people referred to it as a big dam that would take land away from a lot of people.
At the end of 2013, we went to the community of La Tejera in Rio Blanco. It was a sector of the Rio Blanco community that was against the Agua Zarca project.
That’s when I met Francisco Javier [involved with COPINH and leader in Rio Blanco]. I went to his house, his wife was very friendly. We had dinner with them and slept there.
Then the consultation process began in SFO on the left side of the river. They consulted the communities about moving the project to SFO.
In 2013, consultations were done in the communities of Valle de Angeles, El Barreal, La Tejera [all in Rio Blanco] and also in San Ramon, La Leona and other communities in SFO. This was a process to get consent from the communities. We were able to understand what the Agua Zarca project would give to us.
All was going well and was peaceful. Sinohydro was in DESA’s installations and the project was moving forward. I was a teacher in my community and we saw from the other side of the river that they were building the dam
After that, the project went through a crisis and this caused losses fro the company and for the communities, including COPINH.
I learned about ILO169 during the consultations in SFO. I learned that communities have the right to information presented without being manipulated by third parties.
We, the leaders from SFO, went to La Tejera to talk to the people involved in COPINH. We waited for Berta but she arrived late. She was accompanied by a journalist from CNN. We chatted there and we wanted to know why they were against development. We told them we wanted work.
We signed an agreement with the company that talked about building roads, providing projectors and screens for the school, and a health center. I met Sergio Rodriguez and Engineer Francisco in this process.
People in communities are interested in development and we have the right to it.
I met David Castillo one day when he was walking from the community La Estancia - he was sweating and had a backpack on. On January 5, 2015, I started working with DESA. I was part of the social team for community relations. Sergio Rodriguez, Claudio Erazo and myself were part of the team as well as a civil engineer. He was in charge of paying the salaries. There was a construction compay present in SFO and had an office there. It was under the director of the project manager, Jose Manuel Paiz, who I believe is Spanish.
Our work with the social team was to have good relationships with the communities. There was a permanent consultation process - free, prior, and informed - and I learned that every time I went to the community, I learned how to relate and talk to people. We wanted international funders to support the project in our municipality even despite COPINH’s opposition. We had the majority of the population in SFO on our side and COPINH had a reduced number of people that opposed the project from the community of La Tejera.
In the 15 months we were working, I can remember four events that Berta attended. One time, she arrived to SFO and she went with people to the project site. On February 20, 2016, there was another large protest and people from the communities came in front all over and went to where the project was being built.
The project was doing well until Berta’s murder. We would ask her to let us work.
SOME QUESTIONS BY THE DEFENSE
Q: In 2016, how many communities were in the project’s area of influence? A: In SFO, it was the communities of Santa Fe, La Estancia, San Ramon, La leona, and El Aguatal. And also Santa Ana, Valle de Angeles, El Barreal and others on the other side of the river.
Q: What communities were part of the Council in Northern Intibuca? A: The project was being developed between the municipalities.
Q: How many people were part of the Council? A: there were 11 communities from Intibuca and SFO
Q: How many people worked at the company? A: About 30 people from Valle de Angeles
Q: What information do you have about the payments of informants by the company? I don’t have any knowledge of that.
Q: How far is La Tejera from the project? A: 7 to 8 kms. There is no access from La Tejera to the construction of the project.
Q: What knowledge do you have about the beliefs of the population in the Lenca community about the river? A: The knowledge I have of the Lenca community is that after the project started, they said that it was sacred. But this was after. They didn’t have this concept before that.
Q: Who brought the concept to the community? A: It came with the arrival of COPINH to Rio Blanco
Q: Why did Bustillo stop working with DESA? A: He had behavioural problems. He was drinking and affecting the relationship with a woman close to the project’s property [unclear?]. He was detained in a police post because he had a car accident as well.
Q: How often did David Castillo go to the project? A: I saw him once in the construction contractor’s office.
Q: How was the relationship between Castillo and his employees? A: It was really good and he had a very good relationship with the community
Q: How was Berta Cáceres’s relationship with the mayors? I only know about her relationship with the mayor of SFO and I think it was a good one.
Q: What knowledge do you have about the relationship between Castillo and Berta Cáceres? A: A really good relationship.
SOME QUESTIONS BY THE PRIVATE ACCUSERS
Q: What knowledge do you have about when the project was approved? A: I only know about this aspect for the right side of the river when they changed to SFO in 2014.
Q: You mentioned ILO169, why were the communities not consulted before the project began? A: Because in Honduras it’s not clear whether the consultation has to happen before the construction or before the approval of the project.
Q: You said that there were consultations in SFO in 2014, what public officials were part of this process? A: Just the company and the communities, and the mayor.
Q: What knowledge do you have about the indigenous community that Berta Cáceres was part of? A: I don’t have any knowledge of that
Q: What knowledge do you have about the indigenous communities that Rio Blanco is part of? A: I just know that the community of Rio Blanco has a title that they obtained from a long time ago. That’s all I know.
Civic Council of Popular & Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) WEBSITE & BLOG (SPANISH)
COPINH WEBSITE (English)
Black Fraternal Organization of Honduras (OFRANEH)
BROAD MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE AND DIGNITY (MADJ) (SPANISH)
HONDURAS SOLIDARITY NETWORK (ENGLISH)
SYDNEY WITH HONDURAS (ENGLISH)
