Home » Our Cases » Current Cases

Case Documents

View Attached Documents

Take Action

Shut Down Guantánamo on its 10th Anniversary!

Please join us in Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, and London to demand that…

Related Cases

What's New

Federal Appeals Court Permits Suits Against Private Military Contractors for Torture and War Crimes at Abu Ghraib to Proceed

May 11, 2012, Richmond, VA – Today, a federal appellate court dismissed the appeals of…

Rights Groups Issue Statement in Support of Students’ Right to Speak on Palestinian Human Rights

April 25, 2012, New York—Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights and other Rights Groups issued…

Related Resources

Mamani, et al. v. Sánchez de Lozada / Mamani, et al. v. Sánchez Berzain

Synopsis

On September 26, 2007, two cases were filed, one in U.S. federal court in the District of Maryland against Sánchez de Lozada, the former President of Bolivia, and the other in the Southern District of Florida against Sánchez Berzaín, the former Minister of Defense, charging both men for their roles in extrajudicial killings of Aymara citizens, an indigenous group in Bolivia, between September and October of 2003.

Status

Oral argument took place on May 17, 2011 and the 11th Circuit has since ruled in favor of the Defendants-Appellants. Plaintiffs-Appellees subsequently filed a petition for rehearing and were denied.

Description

Mamani, et al. v. Sánchez de Lozada and Mamani, et al. v. Sánchez Berzain are two cases that filed aginst the former President of Bolivia Gonzalo Daniel Sánchez de Lozada Sánchez Bustamante and the former Minister of Defense Jose Carlos Sánchez Berzaín for their roles in the killing of civilians during popular protests against the Bolivian government in September and October 2003.

The suits, which seek compensatory and punitive damages under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) charge Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín with extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity for their roles in the massacre of unarmed civilians, including children. In September and October 2003, Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín ordered Bolivian security forces to use deadly force, including the use of high-powered rifles and machine guns, to suppress popular civilian protests against government policies.In all, during those two months forces under their leadership killed 67 men, women, and children and injured more than 400, almost all from indigenous Aymara communities.

Each of the ten Plaintiffs, who are Aymara natives of Bolivia, survives the individuals killed by forces under Sánchez de Lozada's and Sánchez Berzaín's command. Among the ten Plaintiffs are Eloy Rojas Mamani and Etelvina Ramos Mamani, whose 8-year-old daughter was killed in her mother's bedroom when a single shot was fired through the window; Teofilo Baltazar Cerro, whose pregnant wife was killed after a bullet was fired through the wall of a house, killing her and her unborn child; Felicidad Rosa Huanca Quispe, whose 69-year-old father was shot and killed along a roadside; and Gonzalo Mamani Aguilar, whose father was shot and killed.

The legal team includes CCR Senior Attorney Jennie Green and CCR cooperating attorneys Judith Chomsky, Beth Stephens, and David Rudovsky; Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman; Steven Schulman, John Van Sickle and Jeremy Bollinger from the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; James Cavallaro and Tyler Giannini from the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School; and Miami attorneys Ira Kurzban and Geoffrey Hoffman.

Timeline

On September 26, 2007, the two cases were filed, one in U.S. federal court in the District of Maryland against Sánchez de Lozada and the other in the Southern District of Florida against Sánchez Berzaín.

In May 2008, CCR's case against Sanchez de Lozada in the Maryland District Court was consolidated with the Sanchez Berzain case in the Southern District of Florida for pre-trial purposes. Subsequently, Plaintiffs amended their complaint in the Southern District of Florida to include charges against Sanchez de Lozada.

On October 24, 2008, CCR argued in opposition of the Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss in the Southern District of Florida. On December 19, 2008, Defendants filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the Joint Motion to Dismiss.

On November 9, 2009, the judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. This decision ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor, allowing claims for crimes against humanity and extrajudicial killings to move forward against the Defendants. The judgment reaffirmed that the U.S. courts can hear actions brought against those who commit human rights abuses and that foreign heads of state cannot act with impunity.

On December 9, 2009, the Defendants filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and a Motion for Certificate of Appealability with Judge Jordan.

In January 2010, Plaintiffs filed responses in opposition to Defendants’ motions, as well as filed a Motion to Certify Defendants’ Appeal as Frivolous, and in February 2010, Defendants filed responses in support of both of their motions.

On March 16, 2010, Judge Jordan granted the Defendants' motion to stay the case pending appeal.

Defendants filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on July 15, 2010.

On October 1, 2010, Defendants/Appellants filed their opening brief. In their brief, they argued that the district court erred by denying a relevant part of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On December 16, 2010, Plaintiffs/Appellees filed their brief, arguing that because the Bolivian government waived Defendants/Appellants’ immunity, there is no basis for their claim to immunity from the lawsuit. Even in in the absence of the waiver, Defendants/Appellants are not entitled to immunity because they were not foreign officials at the time of the suit. Additionally, Plaintiffs/Appellees asserted that they have claims for extrajudicial killing and crimes against humanity actionable under the ATS, and those claims do not present a nonjusticiable political question and the resolution of ATS claims will not require the court to review any actions of decisions of other branches of government.

Defendants/Appellants filed their reply on February 3, 2011.

Oral argument took place on May 17, 2011 and the 11^th Circuit has since ruled in favor of the Defendants-Appellants, and Plaintiffs-Appellees subsequently filed a petition for rehearing and were denied.

Sign Up for Our Mailing List

Our Cases