18535: (Chamberlain) Gen. Duperval + Raboteau massacre (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>

Brian Concannon, the US lawyer who put together the Raboteau trial, has
written off-group to nuance my assertion (Feb 5) that Gen. Jean-Claude
Duperval, the former Florida Disney park employee recently deported to
Haiti, "and nearly all the others convicted were not accused of personal
involvement" in the massacre.

I'd forgotten that most of the defendants were not from the army high
command, but were from lower down the ladder and were accused of being
personally involved in the killings.

Here are his comments (posted with his permission):

_____________

Duperval's liability is based on more than the fact that he "belonged to
the
army whose members and armed associates carried out the massacre."  It is
based on two independent theories, command responsibility and complicty.
As a
commander, he is legally responsible for crimes that units under his
control
committed, that he knew or should have known about and did not prevent, or
that he
failed to punish once the crimes came to his attention.  Complicty is based

on the fact that for 2 1/2 years, he had been sending guns, money and
soldiers
to units that had been committing large scale and systematic human rights
violations, knowing full well what those guns, money and soldiers would be
used for.

These theories are almost always the theories for prosecuting top
leadership
in major human rights trials.  From the Nazis to the Argentinian Junta to
the
Serbs, top leaders usually do not get their hands dirty, and do not give
direct written orders to commit atrocities.

No one has been charged, in any Haitian cases I know of, based on mere
membership in any military or paramilitary organization.  There is an
argument
to be made that such membership gives rise to liability under the
"association
de malfaiteurs" statute.  In the US, many are in jail, some even convicted,
on
such a theory.  But we do not think it is appropriate to bring a case
without a
stronger basis for individual liability.

Duperval will have the chance, if he wants, to explain that he was
peripheral
to the military leadership at a new trial.  My guess is it will be
difficult to
explain why a peripheral figure was named Assistant Commander in Chief five

months after the coup.  But I thought that most of the defendants present
at
the Raboteau trial had uphill battles, and 6 of the 22 managed to convince
the
jury to let them off.

Most of the Raboto defendants were, in fact, charged with personal
participation in the massacre.  The only exceptions were the high command,
Michel
Francois, the top FRAPH leadership, and possibly the Colonel in Goniaves.

_____________


        (Greg Chamberlain)