(EST PUB DATE) HONDURAN SECURITY/INTELLIGENCE SERVICE INVOLVEMENT IN HUMAN RIGHTS INCIDENTS

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0001338913
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: June 23, 2015
• Document Release Date: September 16, 2010
• Case Number: F-2001-01650
• Publication Date: January 1, 1984

Honduran Security/Intelligence Service Involvement
in Human Rights Incidents
Some officers reported that it was common knowledge that the 316th Battalion--and other
nits--committed abuses, but other officers said they recall having no concerns that
was involved in any human rights violations. Such inconsistencies in responses are
is ur ing. They raise rather than answer questions. The responses also cause the
Working Group to wonder how so man fficers could know about the bad
human rights reputations o nd fail to gather
information and report on practices--goo or a .
The Respondents -- How Forthcoming Were They?
The information respondents provided was extremely limited. Most of the respondents
aid they had little memory of what happened
related to human rights issues there.
The notion that so many people recall so little about such important issues raises questions
about whether additional information is being withheld. The Working Group does not
know whether this is intentional or because it did not ask the right questions or perhaps
people who would have better memories.
What Did the Working Group Learn?
Even though most respondents did not provide much detail on security/intelligence service
involvement in human rights abuses, some important information emerged.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE^ DATE:
29-Jun-2010
V
57
 Other information the respondents offered appears problematic in places:
0 No one
did not report. Nonetheless,
keported observing or hearing of any abuses that they
did not report it.
Li Some officers had concerns about~nga in g in abuses, but
reported that they could provide no specific evidence of such abuses.
Respondents made several interesting comments relative to the 316th Battalion:
0 Some officers noted that it was common knowledge that the 316th Battalion
committed human rights abuses in the 1980s
^ Another officer reported that the 316th Battalion was created for the explicit purpose
umt under rigorous an a ective mnm nary comman an
control. The wntten record indicates the Hondurans, formed
the 316th because the Special Unit of FUSEP was not pe ornung its mission
effectively.
^ One respondent reported new information that several Honduran leftists captured with
Salvadoran insurgent leader Montenegro in 1983 apparently disappeared after the
316th Battalion had taken custody of them. The 316th was created in January 1984.
The respondent may have been off on his date or the unit he was talking about could
have been the FUSEP Special Unit, the forerunner of the 316th.
knew
Headquarters had concerns that might not have been fully reporting what it
0 Another officer wrote that in the mid-1980s then DDO, Dick Stoltz, questioned him
several times in private about the 316th and its reputation. This private approach
directly to an officer rather than throw h anagement suggests that
^ Finally, one respondent reported that the allegations were "in major part
a perception management operation by the Cubans/ an inis as. Such a possibility has
 been raised before--most notably to Congre s during the late 1980s--but the Working
Group discovered no specific evidence of such an operation nor did the respondent
provide any specific details to support his assertion.
DI respondents provided little new, but one analyst wrote that he and other analysts felt
that reporting on human right as inadequate and that collectors were not digging
as deeply as they might have.
What Gaps Remain?
Serious gaps remain relative to the question o uman rights abuses.
In particular:
w y i t ey discover nothing a out a eged
human rights abuses--either to prove or isprove them?
^ How could ave followed up o LACH--
F pursuing additional ln ea s--i no one other than a few people
repo owing o 1 s existence? I sked or
information on ELACH, why can they remember not ng about it'? The ACH
reports were deemed sufficiently important to notify to Congress about, but
officers can provide no additional information about what they did to pursue lea son
ELACH? Why do they not remember?
0 How can it be common knowledge that the 316th Battalion committed abuses in the
1980s, but none of the respondents,
a memories or speci cs.
 ^ Were some Honduran officers transferred out of either the 316th Battalion or the CI
Division in the mid-1980s because they had committed abuses? Does this have any
connection to the ELACH reporting? Why do only a few officers remember
this information?
^ If ELACH had contacts in the 316th, why did
hof find out about the abuses?
^ It is not clear if and howl was involved in the ELACH incident.
^ What did reports officers who served in the 1980s know about the human rights
situation? According to one officer an information on human rights abuses was to be
provided in a written re ort to ho would coordinate it
or dissemination.