UN Experts: Perpetrators of Repression in Nicaragua Identified
We have the names and testimonies
Reed Brody: The Army was ordered to “neutralize and annihilate protesters… Nicaragua cannot evade responsibility by withdrawing”
Por Carlos F. Chamorro (Confidencial)
HAVANA TIMES – The confirmation that the Nicaraguan Army actively participated in the repression of civic protests between April and July 2018 has been the most striking revelation of the latest Report of the UN Group of Experts on Human Rights on Nicaragua (GHREN), presented in Geneva on February 26, 2025.
“This international report disproves the Army’s official claims that it was only dedicated to protecting physical installations, and this will have an impact because some high-ranking officers of Military Intelligence and Counterintelligence and of the Defense Information Directorate feel they have been exposed,” a former National Police officer told CONFIDENCIAL.
The GHREN report does not mention names of Army officers involved in the repression, but the information could be revealed in the next 30 days. “We have many sources from different levels who gave us their testimonies. They are people who participated in the repression at different times,” says attorney Reed Brody, a member of the GHREN. “We already have the names, but we wanted to give the government and the people named a chance to respond,” he added.
Reed explained that at the end of the session of the Human Rights Council being held this month in Geneva, GHREN will publish a 200-page report with details on how the repression was carried out. He also said it was possible that active or retired Army officers might contact the GHREN privately and confidentially, to give their version of events.
Two days after the publication of the initial report, the Nicaraguan regime reiterated its non-recognition of the GHREN’s mandate, which was established in March 2021 by the UN Human Rights Council. The Nicaraguan government issued a statement using virulent language to announce its withdrawal from the Council, despite the fact that Nicaragua was not even a member of that body.
A group of nine countries made up of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay, lamented Nicaragua’s decision. “By trying to evade compliance with its international human rights obligations, this act constitutes an alarming sign of isolation,” according to the group’s statement read by the representative of Ecuador.In an interview with Esta Semana –broadcast on CONFIDENCIAL’s YouTube channel due to television censorship in Nicaragua–, the GHREN researcher Reed Brody, known as “the dictator hunter” for his career as a criminal investigator of the dictatorships of Chile, Haiti, Chad, and the genocide in Rwanda, insisted that Nicaragua’s withdrawal “does not in any way exempt them [the dictatorial couple] from their responsibilities. It does not save them from the institutional, eventually criminal, consequences of their actions.”
The order was to “annihilate”
One of the most striking findings of the UN Human Rights Expert Group Report is the confirmation that the Nicaraguan Army had an active participation in the repression of 2018. These were facts that had already been investigated by Nicaragua’s independent press and human rights defenders, but which the Army has always denied, alleging that they limited themselves to providing physical protection to public institutions. What is the evidence provided by this investigation?
It is true that the Army has always denied any participation in the repression. We have many sources from different levels who gave us their testimonies.
As has been mentioned by other groups, weapons were used that were exclusively for military use as well as the use of snipers. There were many indications separate from the testimonies [from inside sources] that indicated the direct participation of the Army. But what we have now are testimonies from people who participated in the repression at different levels and at different times.
All of this satisfies the evidentiary threshold that allows us to conclude that there was a coordinated operation between the Army, the Police, and armed paramilitary groups, and that the Army participated directly, provided weapons, intelligence, and training to the paramilitaries. Soldiers dressed in police uniforms or civilian clothes to cover up their participation. All of this [evidence] permits us to affirm [the Army’s] participation.
On April 20, or two days after the beginning of the protests, high military commanders met, and the Army Chief of Staff read an order from the Presidency instructing the military units to neutralize the demonstrators, and the word “annihilate” was used, not in this [particular] order, but in another order that was issued. In that same meeting there was talk of the need to wear disguises to cover up the participation of the military.
The report does not mention names of high-ranking officers involved in these activities. It points to an institutional responsibility in which there is a role for the Army’s chain of command. The president of the Group of Experts, Jan Michael Simon, said that on April 1 a fuller version of this investigation will be presented, individualizing the responsibilities of some officers. Has the Nicaraguan Army had any participation in this investigation? Are they part of this process? Can they appear before the GHREN to present their version of these events?
What my colleague Jan Simon said on this program is that what we submitted now is a very short report, in part because of the page limitations imposed on us by the UN. We already have the names, but we wanted to give the Government and the persons named the opportunity to respond. Right now we’re preparing the letters that will go to the Government and, as far as possible, to the people that have been identified, so that they can give us their versions. At the end of the current session [of the Human Rights Council] being held in Geneva –that is, at the end of this month–, we are going to publish everything in a report that will be much more extensive, with many more details. It could be about 200 very detailed pages.
The problem is that, as you know, over the last four years the Government has never responded to our requests, and it completely ignores the recommendations. It withdrew from the Human Rights Council. Even though it was not a member of the Council, it left. The best thing in any situation is for there to be dialogue, so we lament that the Government has never responded to our group. The best response to a report with which you disagree is not to turn your back on the debate, but to participate, to give your arguments, your evidence, and to participate in the discussion. We know that the truth can be uncomfortable, but it is necessary, and we would have liked to visit Nicaragua, to talk to the Government, to talk to the Army.
We have carried out our work in strict adherence to the highest international standards. We have done more than 1,500 interviews, not exclusively on this particular subject, but in general, and we can only lament that there has not been an exchange, a dialogue with the Government.
But in fact, this is an institutional response from the Nicaraguan regime, ignoring this commission, the Council, and the High Commissioner, while you are moving forward in a process that could also lead to the identification of individual responsibilities. Can these people –be they active army officers, senior government officials or retired army or government officials– be in contact with the GHREN?
Obviously that’s what we would have wanted. It would be very interesting if a senior Army officer would agree to talk to us privately, and we could facilitate that. Obviously that person does not have to indicate to the Command that he or she is going to talk to the GHREN. We are going to provide all the conditions so that the person can talk to us privately. But we are realistic in our thinking about how difficult it is going to be to achieve that [kind of contact].
What does the withdrawal of the Government of Nicaragua from the Human Rights Council and these UN bodies mean? Can Nicaragua evade its responsibilities or its commitment to the international human rights treaties it has signed?
In no way does this exempt them from their responsibilities. In the Human Rights Council, after presenting our report, we heard the reactions of the States, which above all emphasized the withdrawal of Nicaragua. There was a very strong statement from the so-called Core Group, which are the nine countries in charge of dealing with the situation in Nicaragua, including Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, and Ecuador. [The statement] was read by the Ambassador of Ecuador, in which they lamented Nicaragua’s withdrawal and self-isolation. But [withdrawal]t does not save [Nicaragua] from the institutional, and eventually criminal, consequences of its actions.
Is it possible to compare in any way the Ortega-Murillo family dictatorship –a totalitarian regime that, in addition to repressing political freedoms and democratic liberties, persecutes the Catholic Church, massively eliminates civil associations, and also promotes the denationalization and statelessness of hundreds of citizens– with other current or former authoritarian regimes or dictatorships?
I never like –and no human rights professional likes– to make comparisons, because every situation is very different. I have said before on your program that the [new] Constitution seems to me to be that of an absolute monarchy.
In no other country in the world is the tool of arbitrary stripping of nationality for political reasons used as has been done in Nicaragua. The situation that you [Carlos Fernando] are experiencing, and that more than 453 people are experiencing, there’s no other country that does this. This is the quintessential violation by Nicaragua, the decision to denationalize so-called “traitors to the homeland,” which is now something that even has constitutional backing.
There are other countries in which more people have been killed. There are other countries where there is more torture. But unfortunately, Nicaragua is moving towards a complete dictatorship, without any dissident voices, without NGOs, without any independent press. So the outlook is very discouraging. I worked in Nicaragua in another era, when there was hope for a very positive change towards the future. But the same Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo, who once fought against a family dictatorship, have now perfected –have institutionalized– their own family dictatorship. It is a very sad landscape, but I am not going to compare it with other situations, since each one is different.
The International Court of Justice
The recommendations made in the report include calls for countries and governments to initiate justice processes under the principle of universal justice –as has been done in Argentina–, and also to appeal to the International Court of Justice for violations of conventions such as the prevention of torture. Do you think this is feasible? That is, is it possible to prosecute the State in Nicaragua, in this Court in which Ortega and the State of Nicaragua have won several international trials and therefore recognizes its international jurisprudence? Are there Latin American and European nations that in this context could make the decision to go to the Court to prosecute Nicaragua?
We hope so. The people and the current government of Nicaragua can be satisfied with its record at the International Court of Justice. Since the historic case of 1984 against the United States, in which Nicaragua succeeded in condemning the United States for aggression against Nicaragua, it has been the country that has brought the most cases to the International Court of Justice, that has won the most cases in the International Court of Justice, and it is a legitimate source of pride for Nicaragua.
We are working on it. If we could bring a case before the International Court of Justice for violation of the Convention against Torture or the Convention against Statelessness, it would be very important. Nicaragua withdraws from the Inter-American Commission, it withdraws from the ILO [International Labor Organization], where there is an ongoing procedure. But withdrawing from these conventions takes time. It cannot withdraw now and impede a case that is brought. [Withdrawal] takes a year.
Nicaragua is perhaps going to denounce these treaties, as it is denouncing all its international commitments, but [withdrawal] doesn’t take effect for a certain period of time in the case of these treaties, because they are all for one year.
Another recommendation is directed to international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, and treaties such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA), to enforce a conditionality of respect for human rights or democratic clauses, if they exist. Is this more viable or less viable now, with the Trump Administration in the United States?
In terms of its rhetoric, the Trump Administration has a very tough position against Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela. I have been very critical of many things in the first month of Donald Trump’s administration, but especially the cutting of aid to Nicaraguans who are facing the violations [of their rights]: the independent press, NGOs. In Geneva, normally when the Group presents its report, there are many Nicaraguans participating in the work of the Council. This year most of them did not ask to attend, because of lack of funding.
All the groups that are documenting human rights violations that are trying to do the work of free, independent press, such as CONFIDENTIAL and others are in a very difficult situation and the government of Daniel Ortega is boasting that Donald Trump has turned off the tap to “terrorists.”
Also the immigration situation in the United States is going to be very difficult for Nicaragua, and even the people who have fled Nicaragua to the United States are facing a very uncertain situation.
But as far as trade is concerned, I think there are now some possibilities that the new government might be more concerned with the democracy and human rights clauses. We are going to Washington with my colleague Jan Simon next week, and we are going to have those discussions with the financial institutions and with the inter-American organizations.