Monthly Update

Monthly Bulletin: July/August 2004

The relationship between party propaganda and electoral violence in El Salvador is often an intimate one. Several individuals and entities attempted to curb the use of illegal propaganda and its resultant violence during the 2004 Presidential Campaign. Their efforts, however, were outweighed by the conduct of the contending parties and the mainstream news media, the result of which was an electoral climate charged with fear.

Full Text:

Propaganda Fuels Violence During the Electoral Campaign ^[1]

By Alix Arquilliere

In El Salvador, electoral propaganda and physical violence are often closely linked. During the presidential campaign period in El Salvador, most physical violence was provoked by electoral propaganda activities such as painting, poster hanging, or party rallies. In a number of cases electoral propaganda led to verbal violence (often constituting it), which in turn generated physical violence. The majority of that violence was manifested in confrontations between the two major political parties: the Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA) and the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN).

The news media shared a certain complicity in in shaping this climate, providing inflammatory coverage, and selling advertising space to groups not legally entitled to disseminate electoral propaganda. The press and television stations permitted the publication or airing of propaganda that clearly violated the electoral code.

The Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), charged with overseeing the electoral process and punishing violations of the electoral code, proved unable to quell the aggressive and tense climate of the electoral campaign. In response, initiatives arose to pacify the verbal and physical confrontations between party militants. These efforts, however, were also insufficient. Propaganda frequently violated the electoral law, fomenting violence and fear and weakening the electoral system.

Prevalent Electoral Violence

Numerous confrontations between party militants arose throughout the electoral campaign, resulting in destruction of party propaganda, damage to party offices and injurty or death of party activists. The political parties presented more than fifty denunciations to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) about cases of electoral violence and other violations of the electoral law.

For the months of February and March there was an average of one violent act related to the electoral campaign every three days. The following table details the types of acts committed. It is not comprehensive, and is based primarily on incidents reported in La Prensa Gráfica and El Diario de Hoy.

Date	Acts of Violence
1/02	Damage to ARENA office in Mejicanos**
1/02	ARENA member injured by a bullet, supposedly fired by an FMLN member, in Mejicanos
10/02	ARENA militant killed in Cojutepeque*
12/02	Bus employees injured by ARENA militants
13/02	Damage to ARENA office in San Marcos**
16/02	FMLN and ARENA destroy each other's propaganda and confrontations ensue
18/02	Attack on a human rights promoter*
21/02	Confrontations between PCN and ARENA militants over painting and posters
21/02	ARENA members attack FMLN militants
22/02	ARENA office in San Martín vandalized**
25/02	Confrontations between ARENA and FMLN members in San Antonio Los Ranchos
3/03	30 ARENA activists detained for confrontations with police
12/03	One person injured by a bullet in Tony Saca’s caravan in Usulután*
16/03	Home of an FMLN councilmember vandalized**
19/03	One dead during close of ARENA campaign*
19/03	Destruction of ARENA propaganda**
20/03	ARENA militant killed in own home*
20/03	Municipal cleaning employees assaulted by ARENA members

* In these cases, it is difficult to know if the crime is of a political nature or just common crime.

** In these cases, it was not determined who was responsible for the damage.

Leaders of both major parties consistently denied that the use of violence was a party strategy. That said, each party is responsible for the behavior of its militants. It does not, however, make sense to simply blame a few fanatic militants when the discourse of party leaders continues to encourage violence.

There were policy initiatives to prevent violence between party activists, such as a restriction on painting and poster hanging, or requiring notification of municipal authorities before a rally. These initiatives, however, produced minimal results.

	In San Antonio los Ranchos, for example, the FMLN Government and ARENA representatives concluded a "gentlemen’s agreement" to avoid confrontations during an ARENA rally in the town. Both parties, however, broke the agreement. On February 25, there were violent confrontations between FMLN and ARENA militants during an ARENA march.
	In San Salvador, the city ordinance that restricted propaganda painting and poster hanging in certain areas of the city was not respected. City employees repeatedly had to take down FMLN and ARENA propaganda.

Insinuating Violence and Promoting Fear

Beyond strictly electoral violence, other incidents of day-to-day violence, in addition to public discussion of the Anti-gang Law, contributed to the climate of fear. The media’s contribution to generating and maintaining this climate highlighted the sometimes-blurry line between news and propaganda. Party candidates in turn exploited the the tension and fear to their advantage.

TSE Magistrates Julio Hernandez and Pablo Cerna denounced "the campaign of terror or fear," and said that, "if one votes with fear or stricken with terror, it cannot be said that the vote is free and conscientious." ^[2]

The ARENA party emphasized, in much of its discourse, the "terror" of the FMLN. In exhorting the public to "not to fear the FMLN," ARENA Presidential Candidate Antonio Saca was insinuating quite the opposite, suggested that Salvadorans did indeed have something to fear. ^[3] El Diario de Hoy quoted Saca the same day as saying, in reference to the purported threat represented by the FMLN, "the homeland is in danger." ^[4]

The 288 guns supposedly destined for the FMLN Municipal Government of Mejicanos presents a prime example of the sowing of fear to discredit a political party. The story was given extensive coverage (articles running from February 3 to 28), despite clarifications given by the Forjas Taurus Brazil and Hunter’s Gun companies, the municipal governments of Mejicanos and Antiguo Cuscatlan, as well as the Human Rights Ombudswoman, demonstrating that the guns were not ordered by the Mejicanos Municipal Government.

This coverage gave voice to speculation about the weapons’ intended use, some suggesting that the Municipal Government of Mejicanos was going to arm gang members or commit violence on Election Day. Rene Figueroa, of ARENA, was quoted in La Prensa Gráfica as asking, "Could it be that the FMLN wants to arm its activists to increase violence?" ^[5] Rene Aguiluz, of the CDU-PDC, said that, "it should be investigated whether the FMLN prepared a boycott of the presidential elections." ^[6] This type of public reaction is indicative of the level of distrust and fear reached in the electoral campaign.

Threats of Fraud and Disruption of the Electoral Process

ARENA and the FMLN both accused the other of planning to commit fraud or generate disturbances on Election Day. These threats and accusations of fraud or violence generated fear and distrust among the electorate. An article by Lawyer Ernesto Alfonso Buitrago in CoLatino said:

Note to Salvadorans and foreign observers: fraud has already been committed… what is certain is the cowardice with which they have offended and robbed the Salvadoran national consciousness… fraud has already been committed… Without pointing out other vile tricks that, without a doubt, they are going to employ, fraud has already been committed. ^[7]

An opinion article in La Prensa Gráfica read:

Technical fraud in sight… TSE infected by the FMLN… their technical capacity is not doubted, but their impartiality is, given that the FMLN cannot be trusted… [they are people of] little morality. ^[8]

ARENA warned of the threat of a boycott by the FMLN. El Diario de Hoy ran the front-page headline, "They Warn of a Boycott." ^[9] The following day the same periodical ran an article headlined, "Plan to Boycott Elections," that implicitly accused the FMLN. ^[10]

These examples illustrate the levels of slander and defamation reached during the electoral campaign.

Violence and Public Opinion

La Prensa Gráfica published opinion polls about the electoral campaign. Of those polled, 79% thought that the campaign was violent and 69% thought it was superficial. To the question "Which party has been the most violent?" 51% responded "the FMLN," with 23% answering "ARENA." ^[11]

The very words used by pollsters can influence the results of public opinion polls. El Diario de Hoy published a poll to show how people characterized the candidates. People chose adjectives like "ill-mannered," "corrupt" and "repugnant" from the words provided to describe FMLN candidate Schafik Hándal while the adjectives proposed in the poll for ARENA candidate Tony Saca were less harsh (the most derogatory being "angers easily," "arrogant" and "liar.") ^[12] This type of manipulation encouraged perceptions of the FMLN candidate as an immoral and aggressive person.

Despite public perception about the party most responsible for perpetrating violence, the March 5, 2004 edition of El Mundo reported that the FMLN had filed twenty-three denunciations against ARENA for cases of electoral violence, while ARENA had presented twenty-two denunciations against the FMLN. This would suggest that, in reality, the violence generated by the FMLN was equal or less than that generated by ARENA.

Campaign Propaganda

Propaganda constituted a central problem during the electoral campaign. A substantial portion of it violated Articles 227 and 237 of the Electoral Code, specifying the appropriate times and places for propaganda and the people authorized to disseminate it. The electoral campaign was also marked by "dirty" propaganda that violates Articles 177 and 179 of the Penal Code, dealing with crimes against honor.

In an opinion piece, titled "Propaganda and Information," columnist Carlos Mayora Re proposes an appropriate reflection about propaganda and its impact:

Propaganda is lawful, what is unlawful is to use it to mislead. In fact, the very definition of propaganda, an "action or effect of making something known with the goal of attracting followers or customers," does not present in and of itself any ethical problem. However, when it is used as a vehicle for half-truths… when information… is conspicuous because of its absence, only with difficulty can we vote sensibly, thoughtfully and with discretion… It is tough to separate information from propaganda… [the candidates] often only run through clichés, the commonplace and -- in the worst cases -- seek disqualification their opponents as an electoral strategy. And that is not information… It is also certain that the media play their part in the confusion. In fact, discerning between information and propaganda is of the utmost importance in electoral periods. As some experienced journalists have allowed themselves to be seduced by the ease of clichés and the comfort of stereotypes, we simple radio listeners and television viewers, what can we hope for? ^[13]

Electoral propaganda is unavoidable, but it undermines the rules of the game when it does not respect the regulations defined by the Electoral Code, and when it attacks the reputation of people involved in the electoral process.

Furthermore, it is obviously not just the content of the propaganda that comes into play, but also the quantity. Of the four contending parties, greater financial resources meant that the wealthier parties were able to create and disseminate more propaganda. The ARENA party in particular developed a strategy aimed at overwhelming the national news media with their propaganda, an effort that was made possible in part by the party’s superior financing.

Disguised Propaganda

Propaganda represents a complex issue, raising questions about whether activities outside of a political party’s self-promotion might be considered propaganda. If adopting this lens, the unequal coverage of different parties in the media could be considered a form of disguised propaganda.

During the campaign period, the general distribution of information on the newspaper pages was as follows:

	ARENA candidate Tony Saca was covered on more pages than any other party's or coalition's candidate.
	Rarely were all the parties and coalitions in contention mentioned on the pages that cover election news.
	When several parties were mentioned on one page, there was an unequal distribution of page space: in general, 3/4 of the page covered ARENA, 1/4 covered the FMLN, or less than 1/4 if the other parties shared the rest of the page.
	The articles about Tony Saca tended to occupy the top part of the page in La Prensa Gráfica and El Diario de Hoy.

The words used to present information often reflect a biased position, thereby constituting a form of disguised propaganda. La Prensa Gráfica, for example, carried a headline that read, "Red Tide Invades Mejicanos," to cover an FMLN rally in that city. ^[14]

Colombian journalist Javier Restrepo, professor at Pontificia Javeriana University and the University of the Andes, one of the most notable proponents of journalistic integrity in Latin America, says, "In taking sides for good or bad, the press is losing that guarantee called credibility." It is worth mentioning that La Prensa Gráfica and El Diario de Hoy offered a substantial amount of print space to anti-communists like Fidel Castro's daughter and the Cuban writer Carlos Alberto Montaner. Both compared El Salvador to Cuba and predicted a "horrible tragedy," involving "conflicts with the military, with society, and the collapse of all productive potential" if the FMLN won. ^[15]

The role of journalists is to contribute to public knowledge, not to generate fear through flimsy analogies and doubtful associations. In this sense, the analogy drawn between the Venezuelan crisis and possible conditions under an FMLN government is highly speculative, as are the links between the FMLN and the March 11 attacks in Madrid questionable.

In El Diario de Hoy, after a front-page article titled, "Chavez Sinks Venezuela into Chaos," and three pages about the Venezuelan crisis, there was a photo of Schafik Handal with Hugo Chavez. ^[16] Handal and Chavez are indeed acquaintances. If taken as an isolated incident, publishing this photo after a special report on the Venezuelan crisis could reasonably be considered a neutral act. If taken within the larger context of FMLN treatment in the media, use of the image seems less innocent. It suggests that the events in Venezuela will occur in El Salvador if Handal wins.

In an article about the March 11 bombing in Madrid, El Diario de Hoy also pointed out past links between the ETA and the FMLN, effectively insinuating that the had been FMLN involved in the attack. ^[17] Despite the Spanish Government’s repeated assertions about ETA responsibility for the attacks, no proof ever surfaced to substantiate the claim. Furthermore, the article takes advantage of the tragedy to bring up the links between the FMLN and ETA during the 1980s, when the FMLN was a guerrilla organization and not a legitimate political party as it is today. Review of history in order to analyze the present is relevant, but the historical evolution of the parties mentioned must also be taken into account. The links between ETA and the FMLN in the 1980's could indeed be true. What is questionable is to imply a direct link, in the headline, between the FMLN and the attacks in Madrid.

Illegal Propaganda

The majority of violations involving electoral propaganda, however, were much more obvious and serious. Throughout the country there were violations of Article 232 of the Electoral Code. Article 232 reads:

Propaganda cannot be hung or painted on buildings, public monuments, trees, works of art or traffic signals on the streets and highways, nor on the walls of private homes without permission from the owner. ^[18]

A great deal of electoral propaganda, especially television advertisements, violated Article 232 of the Electoral Code, which reads:

Political parties and Coalitions cannot, in any instance, use the symbols, colors, slogans, songs or the images or photographs of the candidates of other parties in their electoral propaganda. ^[19]

Examples of these violations are as follow:

ARENA distributed a small book during the campaign that contained cartoon images of FMLN candidate Schafik Handal.

Television advertisements - Handal denounced a dirty campaign from the right and filed a complaint against Rafael Antonio Menjívar, representative of the Liberty Foundation (Fundación Libertad): beginning on February 26, it ran advertisements that made attacks on Handal’s honor and image. One advertisement states, "Schafik Handal is a cynical kidnapper who intends to govern the country." The FMLN candidate also requested an investigation into the sources of funding for the these advertisements.

The political parties, particularly ARENA, did not respect the legal campaign periods. Painting and posters hanging began several months before the legal date set by the TSE. Propaganda in the media ran until March 21, Election Day. These are violations of Article 230 of the Electoral Code, which reads:

Political parties, Coalitions, communication media and all individuals are prohibited from distributing propaganda in the press, on the radio, on television, at rallies, at demonstrations, with flyers, loudspeakers, painting or posters in public places before the initiation of the propaganda period set by Article 81 of the Constitution, and during the three days prior to the election and on Election Day. ^[20]

In the press, propaganda dissemination continued through March 18, 19, 20, and 21 in spite of the prohibition, and even intensified. For example, on Election Day, the Woman for Freedom (Mujeres por la Libertad) association published the same three pages of advertisements against the FMLN in each of the two major newspapers.

Dirty Propaganda

Propaganda disseminated by institutions that were not political parties or coalitions was a serious problem, as it violates Article 227 of the Electoral Code, which reads:

The right to propaganda corresponds only to the contending political parties and coalitions, which can be disseminated through all legal media without any further limitations than those established by the law, morality and good custom. ^[21]

In other words, all paid advertisements placed by Women for Freedom or by the Revolutionary Tendency of the FMLN (Tendencia Revolucionaria) were illegal. The associations that published these advertisements are closely linked to political parties, suggesting that their activities were part of a larger party strategy. Furthermore, the advertisements generally constituted insulting propaganda. Many of them could be considered violations of Article 228 of the Electoral Code, which reads:

It is prohibited to damage the morality, honor or private life of candidates or leaders, living or dead, through electoral propaganda. ^[22]

In this way, political parties were instigators and accomplices to illegal and dirty propaganda. This type of illegal and defamatory propaganda reached a climax with an advertisement in El Diario de Hoy on March 18 and 19, taken out by unknown individuals in the name of the National Association of FMLN War Veterans of El Salvador (Asociación Nacional de Veteranos de Guerra del FMLN El Salvador). This press release mentioned clandestine armed groups closely linked with the FMLN, the Cuban Government and gangs. "We blame the Salvadoran Communist Party FMLN for any attack that journalists might suffer in our country." ^[23] The advertisement was illegal because of the dates it was published, because it was not taken out by a political party, and because it was defamatory.

On March 20, Mauricio González Ayala, coordinator of the FMLN War Veterans, published a response in CoLatino, La Prensa Gráfica, and El Diario de Hoy, in which he demonstrated his disgust for the publications:

in which the name of the sector is unduly used … The name of the sector is being used to lie and defame… The people that sign the publication are false and the ID numbers do not correspond to their names. ^[24]

The FMLN presented a denunciation before the TSE, for violation of the Electoral Code Articles 230 and 284.

Illegal and dirty propaganda primarily concerned ARENA and the FMLN (two other notable examples being a flyer showing Tony Saca dressed as a woman, with the slogan, "The best is behind," and a pamphlet published by ARENA comparing the supposed values of the FMLN with those of ARENA). But ARENA launched a propaganda strategy much broader and more insulting that that of the FMLN.

Beyond the paid advertisements, dirty propaganda also arose in opinion articles and editorials that constituted obvious attacks on the honor of certain candidates. El Diario de Hoy carried an article titled, "Reasons Not to Vote for the Communists." Among the fifty-two propositions, all defamatory, were the following:

Because their current leader is a bitter fanatic, disrespectful and of poor character… Because the influence of one bearded man over another would accelerate the communist damage…. Because he is, in conclusion, treacherous, hidden, back-stabbing, traitorous, and, finally, cowardly. ^[25]

These examples of illegal and dirty propaganda demonstrate neglect for the basic rules of democracy, lack of regard for the laws that regulate the electoral process and lack of respect for political adversaries. They also represent a lack of respect for the electorate, since the dirty campaign served as a means of avoiding debate over each party’s platform.

Initiatives for an Electoral Campaign Respectful of the Law and the Democratic Process

Within the disrespectful and often violent context of the electoral campaign, some institutions and sectors of the population made calls for peace and respect. These reactions to violence and dirty propaganda were meant to calm the electoral climate. Although insufficient, they demonstrate a commitment to democracy on the part of important sectors of Salvadoran society.

The following examples are noteworthy:

On February 11 the Legislative Assembly recommended that a ruling be issued to obligate the Ministries of Health, Public Works and Governance to "stop pressuring their employees and workers to affiliate with the governing party in exchange for obtaining or maintaining jobs." ^[26]

The proposal made by Julio Hernandez, Magistrate for the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), backed by Magistrates Juan José Martell and Pablo Antonio Cerna, for:

…all communication media to abstain from publishing any type of publicity that constitutes political propaganda and is not backed by the contending political parties or coalitions, during the present electoral process. ^[27]

The Human Rights Ombudswoman (PDDH), Dr. Beatrice de Carrillo, issued reports about respect for political rights during the campaign. In its second report, the PDDH denounced the violations of the democratic process:

We trusted that the political parties were not leaders in promoting shameful and serious acts of violence and absolute disrespect for their adversaries and that they adhered strictly to the Constitution, the Electoral Code and the other legal norms applicable during the electoral campaign. We also had the expectation that the institutions in charge of the development and control of the process, like the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Attorney General of the Republic, were more effective and efficient than in the past when faced with the multiple anomalies denounced in these months thereby generating greater credibility of the electoral process among the citizenry.

On March 2, La Prensa Gráfica published a press release by the Deans of the University of El Salvador, the José Simeón Cañas Central American University (UCA) and the Technological University:

With great concern we have agreed that the electoral campaign has taken an unexpected turn towards insults and psychological aggression, with which, as it grows, increases the risk of verbal confrontation that can serve as a prelude to greater confrontation which is not desired by the Salvadoran people… We want to remember that any violent or derogatory message is a threat that deepens fear and revives the fears of the past… This campaign, so plagued by insults and aggression, does not add anything to that value of democracy that is the trust of people in their institutions, their leaders and their future, nor does it give guarantees that we can act together to confront the still-serious problems of poverty, institutional weakness and low levels of social development… Candidates and leaders of the different political institutions of the country, we exhort you to: Assume a more rational and more constructive posture, that can encourage citizen voting; Strengthen the necessary Central American democratic coexistence to achieve an atmosphere of healthy and respectful understanding, that allows us to exercise our rights and find the paths that lead to unified efforts, in favor of peace and jobs. ^[28]

On March 19, thanks to an initiative on the part of those three Universities, the four presidential candidates met to sign a non-aggression pact.

Several organizations that protect human rights mobilized to denounce the violent turn of the electoral campaign. The Human Rights Consortium and other organizations such as CESTA, APROCSAL, FUNDASAL, and FESPAD issued a declaration stating that:

the early electoral campaign, the violence between the parties, the spread of fear and terror (in television spots), the partiality of some communication media, the economic waste by the official party and the lack of responsibility of the TSE are only some of the aspects that concern us in the strengthening of a culture of peace, that are costing more and more as March 21 [Election Day] approaches. ^[29]

The Madeleine Lagadec Human Rights Promotion Center urged people to vote free of fear:

We regret that the present electoral campaign has been filled with acts of violence by the political parties and fueled by the media, affecting a sector of the population lacking education and objective information from the media… We call on the voting population to massively demonstrate, with the vote, their rejection of the campaign that seeks to sow fear, and to exercise their right to freely elect their government. ^[30]

A press release from the Technological University, entitled "Mr. President," went one step further than a simple denouncement of the dirty electoral campaign, and appealed for reforms to the electoral system to guarantee and strengthen democracy:

It is urgent to revise and propose a new electoral system, one that returns confidence and credibility to the institutions that guarantee the democratic process - the political parties and citizens…. Finally, it is imperative that the State guarantees the Rule of Law that gives sense and life to democratic society. Freedom, respect for legal norms, democracy, the legal transfer of power and social peace, are nourished with the law as a guide and practice and coexistence between the members of the political electorate... ^[31]

Sadly, all these calls were necessary, due to widespread violations of the electoral code and numerous acts of violence. Even though these calls did not have the desired effect, they show the sensitivity of important sectors of the Salvadoran population to the basic norms and rules of the democratic process.

Conclusion

The electoral campaign was characterized by violence and violations of the laws that regulate the electoral process. The political parties, especially ARENA and the FMLN, were responsible for generating a climate of fear and disrespect. During this electoral campaign, just as Joaquín Samaoya pointed out in his La Prensa Gráfica article, "Fear Does Not Allow Us to Think," the political parties did not contribute to the strengthening of democratic values:

On one hand, in the interviews of the morning and evening, the party representatives seduce us with smiles, nice suits, soft voices respectful behavior and even a good idea or two. On the other hand, in the street, in the plaza and in assemblies of employees at some businesses, threats, demagogy, intolerance, stupidity and aggression abound… The political parties have contributed little to educating the public… preventing the people from using their intelligence. ^[32]

The 2004 presidential campaign did not strengthen a democratic culture. The insults, threats and use of the past prevailed in the speeches by the ARENA and FMLN candidates, and supplanted a true debate over their respective political platforms. The mainstream media was an accomplice to this process. The consequences are evident: citizen denial of the right to be informed and vote free of fear and intimidation.

Notes:

[1] This article was adapted from Section 4 of the 2004 CIS International Election Observation Mission Final Report. The full report is available at:

http://cis-elsalvador.org/election_observers_finalreport2004.htm

[2] CoLatino. March 8, 2004.

NOTE: The CIS is responsible for translation of all quotes drawn from Spanish-language publications.

[3] La Prensa Gráfica. February 22, 2004.

[4] El Diario de Hoy. February 22, 2004.

[5] La Prensa Gráfica. February 23, 2004.

[6] La Prensa Gráfica. February 23, 2004.

[7] CoLatino. March 19, 2004.

[8] La Prensa Gráfica. March 4, 2004.

[9] El Diario de Hoy. March 7, 2004.

[10] El Diario de Hoy. March 8, 2004.

[11] La Prensa Gráfica. March 2, 2004.

[12] El Diario de Hoy. March 7, 2004.

[13] El Diario de Hoy. March 20, 2004.

[14] La Prensa Gráfica. March 2, 2004

[15] El Diario de Hoy. March 10, 2004.

[16] El Diario de Hoy, March 10, 2004.

[17] El Diario de Hoy. March 14, 2004.

[18] Código Electoral. Article 232.

[19] Código Electoral. Article 232.

[20] Código Electoral. Article 230.

[21] Código Electoral. Article 227.

[22] Código Electoral. Article 228.

[23] El Diario de Hoy. March 18, 2004.

[24] El Diario de Hoy. March 20, 2004.

[25] El Diario de Hoy. March 16, 2004.

[26] CoLatino. February 12, 2004.

[27] TSE Act. February 19, 2004.

[28] La Prensa Gráfica. March 2, 2004.

[29] CoLatino. March 3, 2004.

[30] CoLatino. March 19, 2004.

[31] Señor Presidente. Universidad Tecnológica. March 20, 2004.

[32] La Prensa Gráfica. March 1, 2004.

Return to top

Corrections:

The May-June CIS Bulletin featured an article entitled "Statements by United States Government Officials Intimidate Salvadoran Voters," which listed U.S. Congressional Representatives Raul Grijalva and Xavier Becerra as U.S. Senators. Raul M. Grijalva and Xavier Becerra represent the 7^th District of Arizona and the 31^st District of California, respectively.

Return to top

[ home ]

[ history & mission ]

[ action alerts ]

[ human rights network ]

[ election observers ]

[ monthly bulletin ]

[ archive ]

[ delegations & brigades ]

[ integrated development

[ language school ]

[ solidarity crafts ]

[ volunteers ]

[ links ]