Last update: 8:30 pm, January 20, 2022
Main Points of the Day
- Santos Omar Garcia Hernandez, an individual that works with security supervisor Santos Hernandez Correa, testified today. Garcia admitted that he was present on September 7, 2018 around the mining company’s plant to take pictures and film the people protesting, with a drone. He testified that he was scared when he heard gun shots in the mountains as community members began arriving that day to protest their presence, but that Hernandez had told him that that sounds were just firecrackers. This contradicts Hernandez’s court testimony who told the court they were gun shots. Garcia also said that he had witnessed when people lit the company’s two large containers when only one was burned. Other aspects of his testimony were factually impossible; such as how gas was obtained to allegedly light the car and containers on fire; saying he ran 20 meters in 15 to 20 minutes when he allegedly fled the area; and that Hernandez had been detained and taken far into the mountain.
- In the afternoon, the prosecutors called on forestry engineer Carlos Mauricio Echeverría, an expert witness to ratify a technical environmental report. Echeverría works in the prosecutor’s office in La Ceiba and inspected whether the road built by Inversiones Los Pinares followed correct environmental procedures outlined in the environmental license granted to the mining company, and whether the correct mitigation measures were implemented by the company. The defense objected to the evidence because the prosecutors and the court did not follow the correct legal procedures to admit the witness as an expert or the corresponding report. This is important in order to establish the parameters of the inspection and the report and to ensure the impartiality of the expert. After deliberations, the judge allowed the forestry engineer to testify, but as a witness, not as an expert citing that correct judicial controls were not followed.
- Throughout his testimony and the rigorous questioning of the witness, the partiality of the engineer in favor of the mining company became increasingly clear. The engineer admitted that he had not reviewed the mitigation measures outlined in the environmental license prior to conducting the site visit where he concluded that the water from the Guapinol watershed was not affected by the mining operation. He also admitted that he had not consulted any of the local population, the community water management councils or the individuals that filed complaints about the contamination of the river when conducting his analysis. The engineer only coordinated with two individuals working with or appointed by the municipality of Tocoa, the principal government body that has ignored community consultations rejecting mining and criminalized the water defenders. The engineer did admit, that open-pit mining on a global level leaves negative environmental impacts, and that the mine and the access road is located at a higher altitude than the community water source, which would heighten the chance of contamination.
- The trial ended this evening at 7:30 pm and is convened tomorrow at 9 am.