U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–175 2012

S. HRG. 111–1141 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND THE RULE OF LAW: 

MEXICO AND COLOMBIA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 18, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–92 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Chief Counsel 

BROOKE BACAK, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 90 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

WITNESSES 

Breuer, Lanny A., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ................................................................ 3 

Johnson, David T., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics 

and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC .. 5 

King, Gary K., Attorney General State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico 17 

Morera, Marı ́a Elena, Executive Director, Causa en Comu ́n, Mexico City, 

Mexico ................................................................................................................... 21 

Vivanco, Jos ́e Miguel, Director, Americas Division, Human Rights Watch, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 19 

Wasden, Lawrence G., Attorney General, State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho .............. 15 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of David T. Johnson to questions submitted by Senators Feingold 

and Coburn ........................................................................................................... 29 

Responses of Gary K. King to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ............. 66 

Responses of Lawrence G. Wasden to questions submitted by Senator Coburn 70 

Questions submitted by Senators Feingold and Coburn to Lanny A. Breuer 

(Note: Responses to questions were not received as of the time of printing, 

October 15, 2012.) 73 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Breuer, Lanny A., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement ............................................. 78 

International Center for Transitional Justice, New York, New York, statement ...................................................................................................................... 94 

Johnson, David T., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics 

and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 99 

King, Gary K., Attorney General State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 114 

Latin America Working Group Education Fund, Washington, DC and Washington Office on Latin America, Washington, DC, May 17, 2010, joint letter 121 

Latin America Working Group Education Fund, Washington, DC, May 17, 

2010, memo ........................................................................................................... 123 

Morera, Marı ́a Elena, Executive Director, Causa en Comu ́n, Mexico City, 

Mexico, statement ................................................................................................ 132 

Vivanco, Jos ́e Miguel, Director, Americas Division, Human Rights Watch, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 136 

Wasden, Lawrence G., Attorney General, State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho, statement ...................................................................................................................... 147 

(1) 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND THE RULE OF 

LAW: MEXICO AND COLOMBIA 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. Good morning. This hearing of the Judiciary 

Committee’s Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law will 

come to order, and the title of the hearing today is ‘‘Drug Enforcement and the Rule of Law: Mexico and Colombia.’’ After a few 

opening remarks, we will recognize any Senators in attendance and 

then turn to our panel of witnesses. 

In the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, we have 

learned that effective law enforcement and the rule of law go hand 

in hand. Contrary to many Hollywood depictions of police violence, 

human rights violations undermine efforts to combat drug trafficking and other organized crime. 

Human rights protections from law enforcement abuses are embedded in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. For years, our Government has sought to export those principles to other countries. 

Though hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on these 

efforts, there has been precious little Congressional oversight. In 

fact, this is the first Congressional hearing to focus specifically on 

U.S. rule of law assistance to foreign drug enforcement efforts. 

It is logical to begin our oversight with Mexico and Colombia, 

which have received the bulk of U.S. rule of law assistance and 

which are the source of most illegal drugs in the United States. 

More than a year ago, in March of 2009, I chaired the first hearing of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee in the 111th Congress, 

which focused on the Mexican drug cartels. The situation was so 

dire at the time that the military was deployed into regions of Mexico, such as Ciudad Juarez, where law enforcement was no longer 

able to maintain order. 

It is understandable that some view this as simply a quantitative 

problem—too many criminals and too few police—but, as we will 

learn today, it is more than numbers that drive this move to a mili-
2 

tary alternative. And the military in Mexico in many instances operates with virtual impunity, resulting in limited success stemming 

drug violence and human rights abuses that often rival and surpass the corruption of the law enforcement system they were sent 

to replace. 

Over a year after the military deployment, the death toll from 

drug-related violence in Mexico has grown worse. Despite the military presence, the bloodshed in Ciudad Juarez has surged, with 

over 2,600 murders just last year, an increase from approximately 

1,600 in the year before. 

Earlier this year, the military handed over control of the city to 

the elite Federal police forces. Sadly, these developments come as 

no surprise. As I said at an earlier hearing, military occupation ‘‘is 

not a long-term fix. Investigating and prosecuting drug-trafficking 

networks is fundamentally a law enforcement challenge.’’ 

In Colombia, the U.S. Government has partnered with the Colombian Government for over a decade to make significant security 

gains and disrupt drug-trafficking operations. 

Despite these extensive efforts, there are still significant challenges in developing an effective judicial system and preventing 

human rights abuses in Colombia. The baseless prosecutions of 

many human rights defenders and the ‘‘false positive’’ cases, where 

innocent civilians were executed by the military and passed off as 

rebel fighters killed in combat, are just two examples. 

In the absence of an effective and fair criminal justice system in 

both Mexico and Colombia, we have relied on the extradition of 

drug traffickers to the United States as a short-term measure to 

disrupt drug trafficking. Since 2002, Colombia alone has extradited 

over 900 suspects to the United States. 

While extradition can be effective in the short term, it is not a 

long-term solution to illegal drug trafficking. It can have other negative effects as well. For example, many of the paramilitary leaders 

extradited to the United States in 2008 were also participating in 

the justice and peace process in Colombia, in connection with their 

involvement in serious human rights atrocities. This process has 

since languished. 

Ultimately, prosecutions in the United States are no replacement 

for the ability to arrest, convict, and detain drug traffickers in Mexico and Colombia. And developing strong judicial systems and respect for human rights requires long-term commitment. 

Let us be clear. Combating drug trafficking in Mexico and Colombia is a vital U.S. national security interest. According to the Justice Department, Mexican drug cartels are active in every State 

and in more than 230 American cities. And while cocaine production fell to an 11-year low in 2009, Colombia remains the world’s 

largest cocaine producer. 

We cannot ignore as well our own responsibility in the United 

States for the drug trafficking and violence in Mexico and Colombia. As I noted at last year’s hearing, ‘‘The insatiable demand for 

illegal drugs in the United States keeps the drug cartels in business.’’ And, according to ATF, more than 90 percent of the guns 

seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced to the 

United States, not to mention the huge sums of money that are 
3 

being sent from this drug trade in the United States down to these 

countries. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what Congress can do to contribute to collaborative efforts by U.S., Mexican, 

and Colombian law enforcement to defeat these drug cartels. 

We are going to turn to our first panel here, and each of the witnesses will have 5 minutes for opening statements before questions 

are asked. And I am going to swear them in at this point, which 

is the custom of this Committee. I would ask Mr. Breuer and Mr. 

Johnson to please stand. 

Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Mr. BREUER. I do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that both 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Our first witness, Lanny Breuer, is Assistant Attorney General 

of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. He oversees the Department’s efforts to promote the rule of law internationally. Previously, Mr. Breuer was a partner in the law firm of Covington & 

Burlington. 

This is Mr. Breuer’s third appearance before us in a little more 

than a year. I thank you for coming and helping us with these 

hearings. 

Just this month, Mr. Breuer established the Human Rights and 

Special Prosecutions Section, the first ever office in the Justice Department dedicated to investigating and prosecuting human rights 

violations. I am proud to say that this new division was a product 

of efforts by Senator Coburn and myself and this Committee. 

Thank you for joining us. 

We also are going to have David Johnson, Assistant Secretary of 

the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs. He oversees the State Department offices responsible for law assistance to Mexico and Colombia. Previously, 

Mr. Johnson served as Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. Embassy in London and Afghan Coordinator for the United States. He 

received his B.A. from Emory University, and we thank him for 

being here. 

Let us open with Mr. Breuer. Please give us your statement, and, 

of course, your entire written statement will be made part of the 

record. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LANNY A. BREUER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BREUER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. First, on a personal 

note, I do want to thank you and Senator Coburn for your steadfast 

support for the Human Rights and Special Prosecution Section. 

Without you, we would not have been able to do this, and so from 

the bottom of my heart, thank you. 

I also thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation to address 

the Subcommittee on the Department of Justice’s work with our 
4 

partners in Mexico and Colombia to advance the rule of law and 

strengthen the criminal justice systems of those countries. The 

stakes could not be higher—either for Mexico and Colombia, or for 

the United States. Our national security, no less than that of those 

countries, depends upon our joint work to advance the rule of law 

and, by so doing, to defeat the drug-trafficking organizations that 

threaten the safety of all our citizens. 

The role the Department of Justice plays in advancing the rule 

of law worldwide is perhaps less well known than our criminal investigations and prosecutions. But the two sides of our work form 

part of a single strategy. Crime and terrorism increasingly know no 

borders, and without strong, stable, and trustworthy foreign law 

enforcement partners, we cannot hope to defeat transnational 

crime. 

This message was brought home to me again last week during 

my visit to Mexico City. There I met with the courageous men and 

women of the Department of Justice, who, with their colleagues 

from other U.S. Government agencies, are working with their Mexican counterparts not simply on criminal cases and investigations, 

but on Mexico’s ambitious steps to revise its legal system and to 

fulfill the promise of the Merida Initiative. In my testimony today, 

I would like to pay tribute to their work, and that of their colleagues engaged in similar endeavors around the globe. 

The Department of Justice has been engaged in rule of law work 

in Colombia for more than 10 years. During that time, and particularly under Plan Colombia, our Federal prosecutors, agents, and 

police experts have played a key role in working with Colombia on 

its ambitious commitment to reform its legal system and to firmly 

establish the rule of law. 

The scope of the work done by the Justice Sector Reform Project 

in Colombia has been staggering, and the results have been equally 

impressive. At the highest level, our prosecutors have assisted Colombia as it has transformed its legal system from an inquisitorial 

one to an adversarial one. This new system has demonstrated its 

promise by significantly increasing the number of convictions and 

decreasing the time to resolve the cases. And the Department of 

Justice also has been intimately involved in the practical implementation of Colombia’s new criminal procedure code. With State 

Department funding over a 10-year period, DOJ has trained over 

100,000 police, prosecutors, judges, forensic experts, and protection 

personnel in areas such as crime scene management, trial techniques, evidence, charging decisions, police/prosecutor cooperation, 

and the use of forensic evidence. The result is that Colombia has 

become a true partner in our fight against these crimes. 

The Department of Justice is now also deeply involved in the 

rule of law work that Mexico has undertaken under the Merida Initiative, a multi-year program that aims to improve law enforcement capabilities to identify and disrupt and dismantle 

transnational drug-trafficking organizations and organized crime. 

We currently have a number of senior Federal prosecutors stationed in Mexico City to work on rule of law issues with their Mexican counterparts. As in Colombia, our work in Mexico runs the 

gamut from high-level advice on criminal code reform—as Mexico 
5 

moves forward on its own decision to create a more adversarial system—to practical training on investigations and prosecutions. 

In 2009, working with U.S. Federal law enforcement agencies 

and the Department of State, we trained nearly 5,500 individuals 

at all ranks—at the state and Federal level—and in the executive 

and judicial branches. 

Mexican prosecutors, in turn, are working with our Department 

of Justice prosecutors on case development, evidence collection, 

trial advocacy, money laundering, and asset forfeiture. Particularly 

through the work of vetted units, our goal is to ensure that Mexico 

is a true partner in this fight. 

In sum, working with Mexico and Colombia to build the rule of 

law—and by so doing to fight the drug cartels and the violence associated with them—is a top priority of the Department of Justice. 

I am so proud of the men and women who have committed themselves to this work, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss their efforts, which make the citizens of all our 

countries safer. 

I will, of course, be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Breuer appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Breuer. 

Mr. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID T. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW 

ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify this morning on drug enforcement and the 

rule of law in Mexico and Colombia. 

As you mentioned in your introduction, as the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, I oversee foreign assistance that supports counternarcotics police training and justice support programs around 

the world, including in the Western Hemisphere. 

Anyone looking at the news from south of our border knows that 

drug-related violence is spiraling out of control, within drug cartels, 

between drug cartels, and against drug cartels. Drug-trafficking organizations have shown time and again that they have no decency 

or respect for the law or for human life, and the increasingly depraved acts of violence we are currently seeing in Mexico are emblematic of these cartels’ historic disregard for anything but profit. 

I cannot overstate the impact that this kind of violence and crime 

can have. The individual tragedies we hear about on a near daily 

basis, such as innocent lives lost in cartel cross fire, rip the fabric 

of families and communities. This undermines public security and 

weakens governing institutions. 

In Colombia and Mexico, however, we have seen great determination to address that downward slide, and this is perhaps one 

of the most, if not the most, important elements in fighting to restore the rule of law. 
6 

In Colombia, former President Pastrana recognized the need to 

intensify Colombia’s efforts to stop the cartels. He provided the political commitment necessary to get Plan Colombia off the ground 

in close coordination with and with assistance from the United 

States. His successor, President Uribe, has expanded this effort 

through democratic security and national consolidation policies 

that seek to address insecurity, narcotics trafficking, and a lack of 

economic opportunities. 

We have also been fortunate in Mexico to launch the Merida Initiative. We have seen in a relatively short period of time a change 

in the attitudes of the Mexican body politic that reflect an understanding that this issue must be faced collectively. 

One of the natural outgrowths of leadership that we saw in Colombia was ownership. The Colombians were partners during the 

design of Plan Colombia and have remained so during its implementation. Mexicans are equally engaged in leading Merida’s planning and implementation process, and bilateral meetings are held 

on a monthly basis to discuss progress on each of the 46 Merida 

projects, which are extensively negotiated each year. 

Next week, in Mexico City, we plan formally to open a joint center to administer Merida, a place where Mexicans and Americans 

work side by side to advance this comprehensive law enforcement 

reform program. In both Colombia and Mexico, the U.S. Government has played a supporting role, seeking to complement strategies rather than developing ones to compete with the government’s 

there. 

As security has begun to be established in Colombia, for example, 

it became possible to address other societal factors contributing to 

narco trafficking and lawlessness. That progression allowed the Colombian Government to expand social services to former conflict regions and establish stronger institutions. This same approach is at 

the heart of our effort in Mexico. 

Our experience in Colombia emphasized the importance of adapting to the changing environment, to recognize and to embrace opportunities when they present themselves. Counternarcotics programs must constantly evolve from the point where they start to 

confront and counter the threat which also adapts constantly. 

In Colombia, for example, criminal gangs have emerged to fill a 

void in the drug-trafficking network left by the demobilization of 

paramilitary organizations and the weakening of the FARC. Tackling these new criminal organizations requires adjustments in how 

we investigate and prosecute their criminal behavior while simultaneously maintaining pressure against the FARC. 

In Mexico, we were approached almost 2 years ago to support a 

new type of investigator cadre specially formed to confront new 

narcotics threats and associated crimes. I can recall sitting in a 

room with my Justice Department and other interagency colleagues 

when we were asked about this to produce training materials, to 

produce officials and trainers within about 90 days for 5,000 new 

Mexican investigators, and we looked at each other and we said, 

‘‘This is impossible, and we have to do it.’’ And we did. We were 

able to recruit U.S. Federal, State, and local law enforcement trainers to address this need in an extremely short amount of time. 
7 

These examples represent mutually beneficial opportunities. In 

both cases, we adjusted our programmatic plans to join specific Colombian and Mexican goals in order to advance our shared one. 

For us, these are win-win situations that we need continuously 

to find and act upon as the environment and our programs, such 

as Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative, continue to evolve. 

Another important lesson learned in Colombia that we are applying in Mexico is recognition that there is no single silver bullet to 

the problems created. We must be flexible and maintain a longterm vision focused on working with our partners to strengthen 

their own institutions. 

Colombia’s judicial transformation to the accusatorial system 

took 4 years. Mexico’s similar path is likely to take even longer. We 

must remain mindful that the payoff for our collective investment 

will only be realized if we take a long view. 

The lessons we learned from our experiences in Colombia, the 

need for public support, the need to establish security that creates 

space for a comprehensive, coordinated Government effort, the need 

to demonstrate adaptability, to take a long-term view in creating 

and entrenching solutions—all of these are reflected in our efforts 

in Mexico. 

We have seen significant positive change in Colombia. Much of 

that change is attributable to the bilateral plan that we worked on 

together for 10 years. We have also witnessed Colombia’s ascendancy to become a regional leader in counternarcotics as well as police training. Colombia’s unique experiences have made it the logical choice to provide advisers and trainers. In fact, Colombia has 

already trained approximately 5,800 Mexican law enforcement and 

court officers on a variety of operational and judicial topics. We applaud this kind of regional collaboration. 

Mexico’s recent high-profile seizures and arrests are clear signs 

that their effort is moving in a positive direction. Mexico’s determination, however, is matched by the drug-trafficking organizations’ determination to maintain their territorial control and profits. We will continue in our commitment to the fight against these 

cartels and to support our partners in their efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to addressing your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks for your testimony. I thought about 

this hearing this morning with the arrival of President Calderon 

this week, and just for the record, it is, in fact, coincidental that 

we are holding the hearing this week. We had hoped to have it earlier but could not because of a scheduling difficulty. 

I also wanted to note that I think it is disingenuous of this Committee, and perhaps of Congress, maybe the American people, to 

stand in critical judgment of the situations in Mexico and Colombia 

without first conceding that our own failure when it comes to drug 

laws and establishing cohesive and effective ways to reduce the demand for drugs has created this situation. In fact, it is our U.S. 

dollars and our U.S. weapons that are fueling this war-like situation in Mexico and instability in many other countries. So let me 

say at the outset, from my personal point of view, we have a spe-
8 

cial responsibility not just to stand in criticism of what is happening in those countries but to acknowledge our own shortcomings 

and failures. 

I would like to ask the first two witnesses, as I step back and 

try to look at this, not being as expert as you are, it seems to me 

that several things are at work here, not only the violence of the 

drug cartels but also a question as to whether or not the system 

of justice, for example, in Mexico has failed, is going through a fundamental transition from one form, the Napoleonic form, to the 

more adversarial form we are familiar with in the United States. 

Is that a fair analysis of the starting point of this conversation, Mr. 

Breuer? 

Mr. BREUER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is. I think that our friends 

in Mexico and President Calderon really are showing extraordinary 

courage and a remarkable commitment, and we cannot say enough 

about that. But there is absolutely no question that as Mexico confronts this remarkable national threat and challenge, it has to reform its judicial system. It does have to move to an adversarial system. Right now, the inquisitorial system of Mexico is too late in 

time. It takes too long. The conviction rate is at about 2 or 3 percent. And there has to be a shift to the adversarial system, which 

is a more nimble system. 

That is why it is so critical for us in the United States and for 

us at the Department of Justice to be working with our partners 

hand in hand and teaching them as they move forward. To Mexico’s credit, they have made the decision to move forward, and they 

have a few years to do it. We at the Department would like them 

to move as quickly as possible, and we remain ready and able with 

our prosecutors and others to be there for them as they make the 

switch. But they have to make that switch. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would ask either one of you, if the conviction rate in Mexico is 1 to 3 percent of those arrested for drug trafficking and the conviction rate in Colombia is closer to 60 percent, 

is there a lesson here? Has the Colombian nation gone through a 

transition to more effective law enforcement? 

Mr. BREUER. I think that is right. Colombia, when it began, Mr. 

Chairman, had a conviction rate also at what Mexico’s is, 2 or 3 

percent. And really, because of Colombia’s commitment and their 

change in process and the work of our people in the United States, 

our prosecutors, other people from agencies, it happened. To my 

right is Paul Vaky who, Mr. Chairman, is really in charge of the 

Department’s efforts in Colombia, and he and other heroes like 

himself have really worked with our counterparts in Colombia to 

make that transition from a 2- or 3-percent conviction rate to now 

a conviction rate well in the 60’s. 

Chairman DURBIN. I recall the only trip I have made to Colombia 

many years ago with Congressman Jack Reed, and we met with 

President Pastrana and his cabinet at the equivalent of their White 

House. And President Pastrana said, ‘‘Just for illustration to you 

as American Senators as to what life and justice are like in Colombia, I would like each member of my cabinet to tell a story that 

they might have of their own personal kidnapping or the kidnapping of someone in their family.’’ Every single person sitting there 

had either been kidnapped or someone in their family had been 
9 

kidnapped, which is a context I have never forgotten in terms of 

justice. 

Now, when we talk about the adversarial system in the United 

States, we envision judges presiding over courtrooms and prosecutors standing publicly and making the accusations with defense attorneys there as well. It struck me, having seen that situation in 

Colombia and having met a number of people who had been terrorized by the drug cartels in Mexico, that this is a dangerous transition from the old Napoleonic inquisitorial approach to the more 

public adversarial approach, and it is understandable that people 

do not just stand up and volunteer to be judges in that context. 

Can you comment on that aspect of the changes taking place? 

Mr. BREUER. Of course, Mr. Chairman. Well, first of all, in the 

year that I have been the Assistant Attorney General, what has 

really struck me on a personal note is the number of heroes both 

here in the United States and in other countries. Next week, for 

instance, I have the honor of going to Italy where the Italians every 

year celebrate the life of Giovanni Falcone, the prosecutor who 

gave his life to combat the Mafia, and, frankly, because of him, he 

in no small part galvanized the Nation in its successful efforts. So 

right now there is no question in Colombia and in Mexico there are 

many, many heroes. 

One of the absolute, essential ingredients to the change is not 

just individual heroism but a commitment by the Government and 

also, frankly, on a very practical level the specialized investigative 

units that are vetted. We need to have vetted units of prosecutors, 

investigators, and, indeed, often even to help with the judges, to 

ensure, one, that we protect judges but, two, that we have abilities 

to prevent the pervasive corruption that these drug-trafficking organizations effect. There has to be a comprehensive approach. 

From the Department of Justice’s perspective, it has to be a colleague-to-colleague approach where our prosecutors team up, our 

investigators team up. We send judges, we send prosecutors, and 

the like. It is a comprehensive process, but that is our view of how 

you have to deal with this. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would like to ask you, Mr. Johnson, I would 

like to hear your take on it, if this analysis is accurate. But it 

would seem that, as I said in my opening statement, moving in 

military forces in an effort to try to stop the drug cartels is not just 

a concession, that there are more potential criminals than there 

are law enforcement officials. But in the case of Mexico, at least, 

is the suggestion that the basic law enforcement system is not 

functioning, that the investigation of the crimes, the prosecution of 

the crimes was not taking place, and that they are trying through 

martial law to control a situation. 

I note that in some areas, like Juarez, they have moved beyond 

the military to the so-called elite Presidential forces or the Federal 

forces, and I do not know if that is an indication that the military 

was not enough. 

Can you talk to me about this quantifiable issue as opposed to 

the underlying question of whether the corruption in law enforcement has led to this progression? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it is clear that the law enforcement and 

judicial institutions in Mexico were not sufficient to deal with the 
10 

challenge that they face from these well-organized drug cartels, 

that, as you mentioned in the statement that you made after our 

opening statements, is fueled significantly by demand in the 

United States for narcotics. 

The President of Mexico made the determination, when he really 

realized the endemic nature of what he was dealing with, that he 

had to use the institutions that he had in order to start this process as rapidly as possible. The Mexican military has a place in 

Mexican society of respect, and it has some capabilities that certainly its law enforcement institutions did not have at the time and 

are in the process of acquiring. So there was certainly significant 

value to the presence on the street the military forces can have in 

order to deter brazen activities as they took place. 

On the other hand, just as any military, the Mexican military is 

not trained law enforcement personnel. They do not have the training for the investigatory techniques, for evidence gathering, and 

participation in the judicial process, which ultimately leads to conviction and incarceration. 

At the same time that the Mexican military was deployed, the 

Mexican Government accelerated a process that they already had 

underway to reform their Federal institutions of police, and they 

have been building that up as rapidly as they could over time. This 

institution is what—it is not called a Presidential Guard, but the 

Federal security institution has been deployed now in Juarez after 

the military has pulled back. 

We believe they are beginning to have an impact. They have 

much better control of where the police authorities are on the 

ground, the ability to track their vehicles, to deploy them in ways 

to investigate and deter crime, in ways that they did not have, and 

using some technologies and techniques that we have jointly helped 

them develop. 

What we still do not have yet in sufficient numbers and we do 

not have in terms of the change in the judicial process is that we 

do not have the type of prosecuting and judging contingent there 

that is ultimately going to be needed as the crimes are detected 

and need to be prosecuted. 

We have an additional challenge in Juarez, and that is that Mexico is a Federal state and the states have been moving toward an 

accusatorial process individually and in some instances quickly. In 

particular, the State of Chihuahua, in which Juarez is located, is 

the only Mexican state that has fully transformed to an adversarial 

process. So you have an adversarial process and the type of investigation that that calls for and the gathering of evidence going on. 

At the same time for Federal level crimes, you still have an inquisitorial process and a quite distinct and different process of gathering evidence there. 

So that is going to be a challenge for them until they have the 

fully formed, Federal-level adversarial process developed, and as 

we all recognize, that is going to take some time. 

But I think we do see a commitment of resources and a commitment of political will in Juarez over the course of the last several 

months that is quite impressive. 

Chairman DURBIN. But there is another aspect to this which I 

would like to ask you about, and it relates to the testimony in the 
11 

next panel from Mr. Vivanco of Human Rights Watch, and that is 

the question of the human rights abuse record of the military. His 

investigation determined, if I have this correctly, that there were 

only three charges of human rights abuse by Mexico’s military as 

part of this and only one case qualifies as a conviction for a human 

rights abuse in which a soldier was sentenced to 9 months in prison for killing a civilian by opening fire at a military checkpoint. 

There have been many allegations and evidence collected of torture, raping, and killing by the military in the course of what is 

happening here. I think similar things occurred in Colombia with 

the false positive cases and the like. 

So I wonder, can you tell me, can either of you comment on this 

aspect that, as they have found the law enforcement system inadequate to the job and moved in the military, they brought in with 

them another challenge in terms of whether or not the military can 

be expected to meet the needs of the society without their own 

abuses being investigated? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Just one comment I would make. We are required 

by the appropriations statutes to report on this process with the 

Mexican military and have done so. I am not in a position to comment on the cases that you referred to, but where we do think that 

progress needs to be made is in the transparency of the system for 

military justice so that the public can see justice being done more 

clearly. 

We have some engagement in military-to-military channels to 

provide advice and example about how our own Uniform Code of 

Military Justice operates and the ability of the public to know that 

if there are accusations against military personnel, they are investigated and there is a judicial process under which they are properly held to account, or judged not guilty if that is the appropriate 

case. And it is the transparency that we are really looking to help 

foster there. 

Chairman DURBIN. In Colombia, the Attorney General’s office is 

investigating over 2,000 false positive cases where innocent civilians were allegedly executed by the military and passed off as rebel 

fighters killed in combat. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on 

Extrajudicial Executions said, ‘‘The sheer number of cases, their geographic spread, and the diversity of military units implicated indicate these killings were carried out in a more or less systematic 

fashion by significant elements within the military.’’ This is in Colombia. 

Given the substantial assistance our Government has provided to 

the Colombian military, I think we have a special responsibility to 

ensure perpetrators of human rights violations are brought to justice. 

What can you tell me about the efforts that are being made in 

this area, Mr. Breuer? 

Mr. BREUER. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I care deeply 

about the issue of human rights and the Human Rights Special 

Prosecution Section is a great representation of that. 

With respect to what is happening in Colombia, of course, the 

Colombians themselves have the justice and peace or the truth and 

reconciliation process, and for the most part, the country is moving 
12 

forward in that process. Obviously, the AUC has been a part of 

that. 

We at the Department of Justice, what we can do and what we 

have done is work as hard as we can with our friends in Colombia 

to make this as robust a process as we can, whether it is training 

our counterparts in these investigations, giving them the tools, 

helping them understand how investigations and prosecutions 

could go forward, and making it clear that from the Department of 

Justice’s perspective, the justice and peace process must go forward, is absolutely essential, and something we support dramatically. 

Moreover, to an unprecedented degree, to the degree that we 

have extradited, because of drug cases, individuals who have been 

a part of that process, we have made them available to this process. We have done that through video link. We have made that 

through individual meetings. And, indeed, there probably has never 

been that level of cooperation in such a system before between the 

United States and another country. 

So we are very supportive of this. We understand that these are 

steps being taken, and we believe that President Uribe and his 

team very much have adopted this. 

Chairman DURBIN. So have there been examples of extraditions 

from Mexico to the United States for prosecution? 

Mr. BREUER. There have. In Mexico, we have an unprecedented 

level of cooperation with the Mexicans. This past year, 2009, we 

had over 100 extraditions from Mexico to the United States. 

Now, it should be clear, and when I was with my friends in Mexico last week, I made it clear that we want to continue this. We 

think it is an essential piece of our partnership with Mexico, and 

we want to, of course, extradite those who are most involved in the 

drug-trafficking organizations. But under President Calderon, there 

is just no question that we have had more extraditions and more 

collaboration than we have ever had before. 

Chairman DURBIN. So this is helpful in the short term, but do 

you agree that ultimately it is much more effective if Mexico and 

Colombia were to arrest and prosecute these drug cartel leaders 

themselves? 

Mr. BREUER. Absolutely. I do think so, but I think we have to 

understand that extraditions are a key piece. If we by extradition 

of high-value individuals are able to take some of the pressure off 

of our friends, and as Mexico is going through the transition—and 

Colombia is much, much farther along, of course. If we in our robust system can take these people, try these people, and convict 

them and put them in jail for long periods of time, it allows our 

friends in Mexico, for instance, to devote more resources to others. 

And that is why we think that we at the Department have to play 

a critical role in helping. 

And so, sure, at some point extraditions may be less important, 

but, of course, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, these were the 

same individuals who are permitting drugs to come into the United 

States. We have a vital interest ourselves, and working collaboratively with our friends, we think it is an essential piece of a comprehensive plan to challenge and attack the cartels. 
13 

Chairman DURBIN. I would like to ask you both to step back for 

a second, if you can, or if you will, and comment on a statement 

that is made in the official submission by one of our next witnesses, Mr. Wasden of Idaho. I would like to read it because it 

struck me this morning as I prepared for this. 

He wrote, ‘‘Mexican citizens are rightfully proud of their heritage, their history, and their country. Those I have spoken to would 

prefer to stay in Mexico. But the lack of personal safety and the 

lack of jobs drives them across our southern border. The U.S. is absolutely entitled to and must have a secure border, and I am not 

here to discuss the advisability of fences or other border devices. 

But the forces which drive Mexicans across our southern border are 

more powerful than technological devices. If you and I faced the 

problems our southern neighbors face, we would do the same thing 

they do. We would vote with our feet. We would not stand for such 

conditions in our country.’’ 

I think that is an interesting observation in light of our National 

debate about immigration, and I would like to ask each of you 

whether you agree with his conclusions or believe that as we view 

this border and how to make certain that it is secure, how much 

needs to be invested in making certain that there is professional 

law enforcement and a rule of law south of the border as well as 

in our country. 

Mr. BREUER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is absolutely critical that 

we do have law enforcement in Mexico, that we help our friends 

in Mexico have the institutions that can protect their people, that 

their people can live in peace, that with living in peace they can 

have economic prosperity. And, of course, if we do not do that and 

if our Mexican friends cannot achieve that, there is no fence large 

enough to prevent the very forces you are describing. We have to 

have a comprehensive approach. We obviously have to have law enforcement. We have to secure our borders. But we absolutely have 

to help our friends in Mexico have vital and effective institutions. 

Chairman DURBIN. For the record, the Mexican-U.S. border, almost 2,000 miles long, is the most frequently crossed international 

border in the world. Two hundred and fifty million people cross annually. One-half million cross illegally. So when there are folks who 

talk about sealing the border, it is like saying, well, we are going 

to go out to I–95 and we are going to guarantee that no narcotics 

and no guns are going to pass illegally on Interstate 95 today. 

Imagine the challenge that would pose to any governmental unit 

trying to enforce it. 

That is not an excuse for lack of effort or focusing efforts, but I 

think what you have said, Mr. Breuer, is that we need to look beyond just the technology and the obstacles to the situation south 

of the border that is creating this force as people move north. 

Mr. Johnson, would you like to comment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have had the privilege in my diplomatic career 

to live on the Mexican border and on the Canadian border, and I 

find border communities extraordinarily vibrant because of that opportunity to share each other’s culture. I think that is something 

that enriches our Nation immeasurably. 

And so as part of the effort that we have underway, within and 

beyond Merida, we would aim to create a border which facilitates 
14 

the type of exchanges that are lawful, that enrich that culture and 

provide us with the ability to deter and defeat those which would 

bring crime into the United States and would undermine the rule 

of law further in Mexico. 

We do need, it is in our own very selfish interest to help Mexico 

develop the institutions that it needs, both law enforcement and 

dispute resolution, both criminal and civil, so that it can support 

the kind of economy that it needs. 

There is immigration going on in Mexico now which is within 

Mexico and away from some of the areas of high crime, which really shows that there is a responsiveness on the part of the public 

to public safety, and it would be in our interest and in Mexico’s interest to work together and we are working together to address this 

problem. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you for your testimony, both of you. I 

know that you have longer statements. They will be made part of 

the record, and if we have any follow-up questions, we will send 

them along, if you could answer them in a timely way. I appreciate 

your being here. 

Mr. BREUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would like to invite the second panel. We 

have four distinguished witnesses here who will share their views. 

I will introduce them as they are taking their places here. 

Our first witness is Lawrence Wasden, the Attorney General of 

Idaho. Mr. Wasden has over 20 years of experience in the Idaho Attorney General’s office. He previously served as chief of staff and 

deputy chief of staff. He is past Chairman of the Conference of 

Western Attorneys General, where he helped found the U.S.-Mexico 

Alliance Partnership to strengthen cooperation between State officials in the United States and Mexico. He holds a bachelor’s degree 

from Brigham Young University and a law degree from the University of Idaho. We thank him for journeying from Boise to be here 

today. 

Our next witness following Mr. Wasden will be Gary King, the 

Attorney General of New Mexico. He previously served in the New 

Mexico House of Representatives, and as vice chair of the Conference of Western Attorneys General. Mr. King has participated in 

the U.S.-Mexico State Alliance Partnership that Attorney General 

Wasden launched. Mr. King holds a bachelor’s degree from New 

Mexico State University, a doctorate in organic chemistry from the 

University of Colorado at Boulder, and a law degree from the University of New Mexico. I thank him for coming from his beautiful 

city of Santa Fe to be with us. 

Our next witness, after these two, will be Jos ́e Miguel Vivanco, 

director of the Human Rights Watch’s Americas Division. He previously worked as an attorney for the Inter-American Commission 

on Human Rights at the Organization of American States. He has 

also been an adjunct professor at the well-respected Georgetown 

University Law Center and the School of Advanced International 

Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He studied law at the University of Chile and Salamanca Law School in Spain, and holds an 

LLM degree from Harvard Law School. Mr. Vivanco, thank you for 

being here. 
15 

Our final witness, Marı ́a Elena Morera, is the director of Causa 

en Comu ́n. She is a prominent civil society advocate in Mexico. Previously, she was the president of Mexico United Against Violence, 

an anti-crime advocacy organization. Ms. Morera, you joined Mexico United Against Violence following the kidnapping of your husband, so we know the issue of violence is very personal to you. We 

thank you for joining us today, and I know that you have a friend 

with you in case some of the translation becomes difficult. But you 

did very well when we said hello this morning. 

So I would ask all four witnesses to please stand and be sworn. 

Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Mr. WASDEN. I do. 

Mr. KING. I do. 

Mr. VIVANCO. I do. 

Ms. MORERA. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect 

that the four witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Wasden, please. We are going to give you 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. Your written statement, as with all other witnesses, will be made part of the record, and then I will ask some 

questions after. Proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE G. WASDEN, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, STATE OF IDAHO, BOISE, IDAHO 

Mr. WASDEN. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I genuinely appreciate 

your willingness to invite me to be here with you today to speak 

about something that I find very important. One of the most important things I have done as Attorney General in my State involves 

my association with the Alliance Partnership, and the opportunity 

to truly make a difference in people’s lives. 

I wanted to echo something that you said a little earlier and that 

is, in this country we buy more illegal drugs, and we pay more for 

those illegal drugs, than any other country on Earth. There is a parade of drugs coming north, and there is a parade of guns and 

money going south. This is not just a Mexican problem, nor is this 

just an American problem. This is a problem for both countries and 

we both have to work together in order to resolve it. 

In my written testimony I talk about how I became aware about 

the need to become involved, and I want to repeat that story. I was 

asked as the Chairman of CWAG to speak to a delegation from 

Mexico, so I traveled to California and met with them. I had a really great speech. It was terrific. But, as I sat listening, I realized 

that my speech was way too theoretical about justice. What I needed to talk about, and what I needed to hear about, were the true 

boots-on-the-ground kind of issues that my colleagues in Mexico 

were dealing with. 

As I finished my speech, there was a woman in the audience who 

came running up to me in the hallway. She was crying and she was 

speaking Spanish very rapidly. I do not listen to Spanish very rapidly, and I did not understand what she was saying. Some interpreters came down the hallway and helped translate what she was 

saying, which was, ‘‘We need you. We need you.’’ She told me she 
16 

was a reporter for a newspaper and that she had been kidnapped 

and tortured because she had been reporting on a child sexual 

abuse ring that was operating in her city. The Governor of her 

state had directed the police to kidnap her in order to shut her up 

in terms of reporting on the children who were being sexually 

abused. The reason the Governor ordered her kidnapping was because his friend was the individual running the child sexual abuse 

ring. 

I will never forget the look on her face, but that was really my 

introduction to the need for us to be involved here. I was kind of 

astounded by her story. It seemed outlandish, but as I began to do 

some research and understand what was happening in Mexico, I 

realized her story was not all that unusual. 

We then traveled to Mexico and I met with a number of individuals from the Mexican Government, the U.S. State Department, 

and USAID. Every single Mexican national that I spoke to had a 

personal story of violence. Every single one of them. As you mentioned, maybe it did no involve them individually, but it involved 

some member of their family. They spoke of something called an 

‘‘express kidnapping’’ where you are kidnapped, forced to take out 

the daily limit on your ATM, held overnight, forced to take out the 

next day’s daily limit, and then you are released. You and I get up 

in the morning and we do not have the slightest clue what that 

kind of an environment would be like. 

I have tremendous respect for my colleagues in Mexico because 

they are willing to stand up with great risk to their own lives, to 

stand up for justice. 

I was traveling in Italy with a delegation from Mexico. We were 

talking about the issues regarding prosecution of organized crime, 

and we were in a community called Stilo. The Mexican citizens 

there told us how upset they were with President Calderon’s basic 

war on the drug cartels. It was a very interesting conversation because the Italian magistrates responded with something that I do 

not think I will ever forget. Italian magistrates are prosecutors, 

they are not judges. The magistrates said, ‘‘Your political will is 

being tested. What you have to expect is an increase in the frequency of violence and an increase in the level of that violence in 

order for you to ultimately win. If you capitulate now, you will 

never win this war.’’ 

I wanted to say one additional thing. I have a friend in Mexico 

whose name is Carlos Pineda. He is not associated with any of the 

law enforcement. He does have a brother-in-law who is an attorney 

and I also know him. Carlos said something very important to me. 

He said, ‘‘Lawrence, please do not leave us. Please do not leave us.’’ 

So, I look at them, and I look across the border, and I see friends. 

I see people willing to stand up for justice at the risk of their own 

lives, and I cannot leave them. 

I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here today and I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasden appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks. 

Attorney General King. 
17 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY K. KING, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the introduction. I had some preliminary comments, but I think that the 

previous panel examined quite a bit what the situation on the border is, and I will say that I thought that that was a good discussion. 

What I would like to discuss today is some experience that we 

have in New Mexico, and as the previous panel said, the first state 

in Mexico that made the transition from the inquisitorial-based 

system to the adversarial-based is Chihuahua, which is the state 

to the south of New Mexico. And so that change started to occur 

about 4 years ago, and since that time, the New Mexico’s Attorney 

General’s office, the New Mexico Public Safety Department, and 

since the advent of the program that we have at CWAG, has been 

training prosecutors and investigators and crime lab personnel in 

Chihuahua and in other places. So I want to talk just a little bit 

about my experience with the State of Chihuahua because we have 

been working with the same Attorney General there in Chihuahua 

for the last 31⁄2 years, and we have had a lot of her prosecutors 

who have come to New Mexico for training, a lot of crime scene 

personnel. And I have had an opportunity to go down and examine 

the court system and their crime labs and such, and they have 

done a wonderful job of building new crime labs and building new 

courthouses, training new judges, and training prosecutors, and I 

think that they have been very effective in trying to deal with the 

overall crime problem in Mexico. And, you know, it is not just the 

drug cartels. 

I had an opportunity to watch one of the trials in Chihuahua and 

was impressed. We were going to go watch a murder trial, and 

there were so many people there watching the murder trial, we 

could not get in. So I went down the hall and watched a trial that 

related to an automobile accident, and very professional judges. I 

think that the ability of the populace to participate in trials and 

defendants to have a say on the stand will in the long run indeed 

have a great effect on bringing the rule of law into Mexico. And I 

just want to commend those folks in Chihuahua. 

When the other states started to make the transition, we had a 

number of Attorneys General who came to us and requested training, and it was clear that in order to train the number of people 

that we needed to train, we needed a much larger initiative. And 

so the Western Attorneys General, I think at the urging of folks in 

Mexico and with the help of USAID, developed a program that we 

are very proud of. The program is larger than just our organization. You have heard us talk about the alliance. There are a number of organizations in the alliance. It includes State treasurers, it 

includes the Council of State Governments, as well as the AGs. 

I am speeding through a little bit, Mr. Chairman, because I know 

that this is a fairly short amount of time, and if you want more, 

I will give you more information. But my office has been participating in Chihuahua in prosecuting what are called Article IV 

prosecutions as well. The Mexican Constitution allows us to prosecute crimes that were committed in the U.S. in Mexico under cer-
18 

tain circumstances, and so I have a staff that has been working 

with Mexican prosecutors to carry out Article IV prosecutions. 

But I think that what I want to bring to your attention and 

hopefully we can talk about more is the fruit of the collaboration 

of the State governments and the Federal Government in the U.S. 

with the state governments and the Federal Government in Mexico. We have seen a lot of positive results from getting resources 

to the state prosecutors. And we are very proud of the Merida Initiative, and I support the Merida Initiative. But I believe that we 

could get a lot of bang for our buck if we can get some more support to those local governments. And through the initiative that the 

Western AGs have, we have in this fiscal year been able to train— 

or by the end of the fiscal year, we will have been able to train 

about 1,500 prosecutors and investigators to carry out those new 

trials in Mexico. And we do that through hands-on training. 

We had a training in New Mexico 2 weeks ago, and we had all 

of those folks at a facility where we could develop a crime scene, 

including—our New Mexico crime scene personnel set up the crime 

scene. They used real human blood so you get the real kind of 

splatter. They use trained people who are—they do not like to be 

called actors, but character players who play the criminals. And so 

they have to analyze the crime scene, develop their case, and then 

come and do a mock trial all in the course of a week. And they develop a lot of experience. 

In this last training, we had not only investigators from a number—five or six states, I believe, and prosecutors from those states, 

but we also had two prosecutors from the Federal AG’s office in 

Mexico, too. And to see those folks working together and developing 

the collaboration, I think that is what it is going to take to successfully attack some of the problems that we have in Mexico. 

So we are very proud of our association with those Mexican law 

enforcement personnel. I think that they are doing the very best 

that they can. 

I have one other story that I would like to point out. We had a 

training in Colorado where the trainers noted that the investigators from Mexico were talking about the fact that at the end of a 

shift they have to take off their bulletproof vest and give it to the 

next person that was coming on for the next shift because they did 

not have enough bulletproof vests. And so at that training in Colorado, the Colorado folks that did the training made sure that everybody that left the training left with a bulletproof vest so that 

they would have their own vest. Those are the kinds of resources 

that I think can be leveraged in that case. 

And, finally, I want to mention—and if you would like, we can 

delve into it more later on. The four border States—Arizona, New 

Mexico, Texas, and California—through a lawsuit that was initiated by the Attorney General in Arizona against Western Union 

have developed a settlement where there is about $90 million that 

is being allocated so that law enforcement on the border can work 

on interdiction of funds that are crossing the border and money 

laundering. And we think that that is going to be a very successful 

program that we are working on, and if you have questions, Mr. 

Chairman, I would be happy to address that, too. 
19 

We feel like there is a lot of progress being made on the border. 

We do feel like it is a very long-term solution, that it will take 10 

years, maybe 20 years. I do not know. I heard discussion about Colombia. But we, the Western Attorneys General, are very dedicated—I will be the Chairman in July-to pursuing this project because I think that it will bear good fruit. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. King appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks a lot, Mr. King. I am trying to wrap 

my mind around the notion of a bulletproof vest as a going-away 

gift. But I certainly can understand why it is appropriate. 

Mr. Vivanco. 

STATEMENT OF JOS ́ E MIGUEL VIVANCO, DIRECTOR, AMERICAS DIVISION, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. VIVANCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The need for more effective law enforcement is a top public concern in Colombia, Mexico, and many countries throughout the region. Too often, local leaders respond to public demand to get tough 

on crime by condoning abusive practices that not only undermine 

the rule of law by violating basic rights, but also fail to curb crime. 

A major reason abuses are widespread in countries like Mexico 

and Colombia is that the perpetrators are rarely brought to justice. 

Unfortunately, there is a commonplace perception that holding law 

enforcement agents accountable for their abuses will only help the 

violent mafias they must confront. But the opposite is true. Fuller 

accountability, though the criminal prosecution of abusive practices, forces police and prosecutors to do their jobs more effectively. 

One of the countries that has faced the highest levels of violence 

in the region in recent years is Colombia. In the context of a decades-old armed conflict, Colombia continues to be plagued by widespread abuses committed by irregular armed groups, including leftwing guerrillas and successor groups to right-wing paramilitaries. 

The Colombia military has also been responsible for serious abuses, 

including widespread extrajudicial killings of civilians. 

A major factor contributing to the ongoing abuses against civilians has been the lack of full accountability of perpetrators. Colombian prosecutors and judges have made determined and sometimes 

successful efforts to bring perpetrators to justice. 

The Colombian Supreme Court, for example, is currently investigating more than 80 members of the Colombian Congress for collaborating with paramilitaries. The Attorney General’s Office is investigating illegal phone tapping, e-mail interception, and surveillance carried out by the Colombian intelligence service, which answers directly to the President of Colombia. It is also investigating 

cases involving extrajudicial executions by the army. 

One important step that Colombia has taken to strengthen the 

rule of law is a sweeping reform of the criminal justice system. 

This effort has received valuable support from the U.S. Government. The challenge of realizing the reform’s full potential in terms 

of strengthening the criminal justice system and ensure due process rights remains very much a work in progress. 

Mexico is another country facing grave challenges in terms of 

public security and human rights. Since taking office in December 
20 

2006, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has relied heavily on the 

armed forces to fight serious drug-related violence and organized 

crime. The need to improve public security in Mexico is absolutely 

clear. During the Calderon administration, complaints of military 

abuses have increased dramatically. Mexico’s official National 

Human Rights Commission has issued a comprehensive report of 

more than 50 cases involving egregious army abuses, including 

killings, rape, and torture, and the commission has reportedly received complaints of nearly 4,000 additional cases. 

Just 2 weeks ago, in a research mission in Tijuana, Human 

Rights Watch found credible allegations of the systematic use of 

torture by the military, including more than 100 cases since 2009 

of individuals who allege they were arbitrarily detained, transported to military bases, and tortured to extract confessions. 

An important reason military abuses persist is that they go 

unpunished. And they go unpunished in significant part because 

most cases end up being investigated and prosecuted by the military justice system, which lacks the independence and the impartiality needed to handle these cases. According to the Mexican Government, only three soldiers have been found guilty of human 

rights crimes committed during the Calderon administration. Yet 

closer scrutiny reveals that only one of these cases actually qualifies as a conviction for human rights abuse. In that case, a soldier 

was sentenced to 9 months in prison for killing a civilian at the 

military checkpoint. 

The U.S. Government became Mexico’s partner in the struggle 

against drug-related violence when it announced the Merida Initiative in 2007 and has since directed more than $1.3 billion to the 

initiative. The U.S. Government conditioned 15 percent of funds to 

the fulfillment of four human rights requirements, which include 

ensuring that military abuses are tried in civilian courts and enforcing the provision on torture. 

In August of 2009, the State Department submitted a report to 

Congress which clearly showed that Mexico was not meeting all 

four requirements. However, despite these findings, the Merida 

funds tied to human rights requirements were released following 

the report. 

The U.S. Government has rightly recognized its shared responsibility for confronting Mexico’s violent cartels. By failing to uphold 

Merida’s human rights conditions, the U.S. Government is shirking 

an important part of this responsibility. 

The U.S. Government has an opportunity to correct this mistake. 

In the coming months, the next 15-percent installment of Merida 

Initiative funds will be up for review. These funds should only be 

released when Mexico has actually met the four human rights requirements. Meeting these requirements would not only benefit 

human rights, but will also make Mexico’s security forces more effective in their efforts to combat violent drug cartels. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to appear 

before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vivanco appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Ms. Morera, thank you very much for being 

with us today. I invite you now to make your statement. 
21 

STATEMENT OF MARI ́A ELENA MORERA, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, CAUSA EN COMU ́ N, MEXICO CITY, MEXICO 

Ms. MORERA. Thank you. Honorable Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, let me express my gratitude for the invitation and the opportunity to be here in this house of freedom and progress. 

I am a Mexican citizen who, like many other hard-working Mexicans who leave their country and all the beautiful things that we 

have to offer, has been a witness of how in recent years the peace 

and the freedom that we used to have in Mexico and that we used 

to enjoy has come to an end. And we are now facing one of the 

most violent eras of our history as a nation in some cities like Tijuana, Juarez, Reynosa, and some others. 

My life as a social activist against crime in Mexico can be traced 

back to September 2001 when my husband Pedro was kidnapped. 

For 29 days my children and I lived the most terrible time of our 

lives in solitude, sorrow, and pain. 

On October 19, Pedro was rescued from his captors, and we 

thought everything was finished. But we were under a big mistake. 

The judicial process of Pedro’s kidnappers taught me about the tortuous ways of justice in Mexico, its complexity, its ‘‘injustice,’’ and 

the terrifying indifference toward the pain of the victims. 

Months went by and I began to help other families that have 

similar experience of kidnapping. By then, Mexico United Against 

Crime, an organization, invited me to make some programs for big 

themes, and then we made programs of prevention. So 2 years 

later, they elected me as president, a position that I held for more 

than 5 years. 

Yet since I was taught forever to keep working, to avoid normal 

families experience the ordeal me and my family went through, and 

after all the work that we do, I knew we have to face the problem 

from another perspective. So a few months ago, with a group of 

committed Mexicans, we started a new organization named Citizens for a Common Cause with three major lines: rule of law, accountability, and citizenship formation. I still help a lot of victims 

of organized crime, and I knew our challenge is daunting because 

the damage created by criminal organizations and drug cartels destroyed the social fabric in our communities. 

As you know, Mexican cartels get their enormous wealth from 

smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S. Obviously, they do not work 

alone, and they have many associates on the U.S. side. And more 

than 90 percent of the weapons confiscated today come from this 

country. 

I praise the steadfast determination of Mexican President 

Calderon to fight all drug cartels in Mexico. This fighting has the 

highest priority, but there are clearly many other tasks of an equal 

magnitude and long-lasting impact like revamping completely the 

police force, reforming institutions, as well reforming cleaning the 

corruption of the judicial and the jail system, work in prevention, 

and some more things. These tasks will require a great deal of attention, much larger budgets, and time to implement. 

While clearly the biggest share of the responsibility lies within 

the Mexican Government, my main objective here is to invite you 

to recognize that both the U.S. and Mexico should work together 
22 

as never before to address the violence problem from its root 

causes. 

The Merida Initiative is good, but it is not enough. While there 

is no doubt that the resources the United States sends to Mexico 

are highly valuable, the problem is much more complex. Mexico 

cannot implement the rule of law and success in this effort if the 

U.S. domestic institutions do not participate by assuming their 

share of the responsibility and focus on two goals: drastically reducing illegal drug consumption and fighting against cross-border 

arms trafficking. 

We do not intend to question by any means the Bill of Rights and 

the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

But I am sure you can find a solution to stop once and for all 

the lethal weapons from getting into the hands of the drug cartels, 

where they are used to kidnap, to extort, threaten, and kill Mexican citizens. 

Failure to do so will translate into chaos in Mexico, which will 

result in an unmanageable border problem where thousands of jobless Mexicans would attempt to flee to the United States to save 

their lives. 

So let me conclude by respectfully saying that I would like to 

leave this House with a commitment, yours and mine, to work 

more strongly in the rightful common cause of eradicating violence 

in Mexico. We need your help to reduce illegal drug consumption 

in the United States and to put legislation and public policies in 

place to stop weapons from getting into the hands of Mexican drug 

cartels. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Morera appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much, and your testimony, I 

am glad, was the conclusion of these panels because it returned us 

to where we started, that before we stand in criticism or in judgment of Mexico, we must accept judgment on ourselves. Our insatiable appetite for drugs and narcotics in this country have created 

this market and led to this violence. And as you mentioned, the 

money and guns which we send into Mexico are fueling the drug 

cartels and the violence taking place there. So, clearly, let us start 

accepting our responsibility; that is the most important starting 

point. 

I thank you for your courage in being here, and I know that you 

have been through a lot personally with your family, and also 

working with so many victims of violence in Mexico. 

Can I ask you if you noticed or have heard of any changes, positive or negative, as the Calderon government has sent military 

forces into some of these areas of drug violence? 

Ms. MORERA. Well, I think that we have some progress in Mexico. Surely we have. But the military intervention, I think that the 

military in Mexico is not prepared to work in a security problem, 

but now we do not have another thing. So I think we have to prepare them better, and I think they are trying to do their best. But 

we have to professionalize our police and our army to get better. 

They stay for a long time in Ciudad Juarez and in some places 

in Michoacan. If things do not get better, I think it is going to be 
23 

the process maybe as Colombia, that it will go worse before it goes 

better. But I hope that the process is not so long. I think that we 

have to find—especially your Government and the Mexican Government have to find another form to attack this problem, because I 

cannot think that if we still have three pears, we can get apples, 

and maybe that is what we are trying to do. 

Chairman DURBIN. So many of the victims that you have worked 

with are obviously living in fear, in fear that there will be some 

retribution against them if they speak up. Have you noticed any 

change, has there been an improvement in the law enforcement in 

Mexico or in the justice system that you think gives these victims 

more confidence to step forward and cooperate? 

Ms. MORERA. Yes, I think that in—well, I think that not in all 

parts of Mexico, but in some parts the victims have more confidence, like, for example, if we are talking about kidnapping victims, if they go with the federal police, they have confidence and 

they think things are going to be—like they are going to be well. 

But I do not think that this is passing in all the cities, especially 

in the north part. Like in Chihuahua, I have a lot of victims over 

there, especially in the area of Levaron, and they are telling me 

that they do not have confidence. Maybe it is because the perception of the new system, the new justice system, is making that 

some people have more fear than before. That does not mean that 

I think there is not good. I think the system is going to be good, 

but it has to implement well. And we have to work much on that, 

and the United States has to work in that, too, because the system 

is going very, very low, and I do not think that we will get to the 

oral system in 6 years that is the time that we have. 

Chairman DURBIN. Attorneys General Wasden and King, thank 

you for being here today, and thank you for the work that you are 

doing beyond your responsibilities in your home States to deal with 

this problem. We have this ongoing issue in the West about whether the Federal Government is doing enough, and in this instance, 

the State governments are doing a lot more than most people realize in Washington, and thank you for your initiative. 

So as I step back and look at this, not having been personally 

involved as both of you have been, it seems to me that we are dealing with two basic fundamental issues in terms of the law enforcement system in Mexico. The first is the issue of corruption where 

there are people who are in positions of power, who frankly will not 

do the right things because they are being paid to do otherwise, 

bribed to do otherwise. Then we have this whole question of competence and security as they change their system from the Napoleonic inquisitorial system to the adversarial system that we are familiar with. As I mentioned earlier, there is a much higher public 

profile in what they are doing. There is much more vulnerability 

in a very violent area. 

So as you weigh both of these, do you find one more than the 

other, or are these valid observations as to what is at the core of 

the problem with law enforcement prosecution? 

Mr. WASDEN. Senator, Mr. Chairman, the answer is both of those 

are really valid observations. At least from my experience, among 

Mexican public officials there is a saying from the drug cartels, 

that is, ‘‘Silver or lead: You can either accept our silver, our money, 
24 

in bribery, or we will deliver lead.’’ And that is true among those 

officials. 

So I am very proud of my colleagues in Mexico who are willing 

to reject the silver and face the lead in order to achieve justice. We 

have to work on both of those things. What we have to do is bring 

light into their judicial system. Once they get light in that judicial 

system, it will begin to operate, and you will see people like Ms. 

Morera who are willing to stand up and to stand for justice. And 

that is exactly what we have to have happen, is we have to help 

them get confidence in their own system, and they are fully capable 

of handling that. We do have to train them. They have to make 

this change. And we need to go forward with what we are doing. 

It is very critical. 

And we are able to expand the money that we get from the 

Merida Initiative by the contributions that States make of time and 

personnel in training them how to change a system. When you 

think about how difficult that is, that is a massive project. And it 

has the greatest potential for ultimately resolving the issues that 

we face here. 

Chairman DURBIN. Attorney General King, address two issues 

that I think are part of this. When I visited some countries, for example, the nation of Georgia, former Soviet Republic, where there 

was rampant corruption—before the new government, they said 

you literally could not drive 1 mile without being pulled over by a 

traffic policeman who would say to you, ‘‘I am going to either write 

up a ticket, or you are going to give me some money.’’ And so they 

started by saying, ‘‘Well, we just are not paying these traffic police 

enough. That is part of the problem.’’ So they increased their salary. It still did not solve the problem. They ended up dismissing 

the entire traffic police force and starting over. 

Can you address that issue in terms of the compensation of legal 

professionals in Mexico and let me add to that efforts made to protect their security, as you mentioned, the bulletproof vests and so 

forth? 

Mr. KING. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will address that to 

the extent that I can, and I do not know that I am totally conversant with salaries. I am aware that—and I think with the help of 

USAID—there has been a great recruitment effort to recruit new 

investigators, new prosecutors, and that there is a vetting process 

and one that we feel like is an important vetting process. Being 

somebody who grew up on the border, I will admit that even in a 

good vetting process there may be ways for people to slip through 

and such. So I am not sort of guaranteeing the vetting process. But 

there continue to be, even with the great threat to the investigators 

and the prosecutors, young people and other people who particularly are willing to take that risk, and I think that they are very 

dedicated to their country. I think they are very dedicated to creating a just society there, and they are willing to do that. 

I had one other story I was going to tell that is sort of indicative 

of that. The Attorney General in Chihuahua, who I work with, was 

in New Mexico along with the Attorneys General from four other 

States, and we were discussing how we could expand the training 

program. And as I talked to each of the other AGs about what we 

could do, perhaps having other States even do some training—and 
25 

I want to make it very clear that I think all of the States in the 

West have been participating in the training. I am talking about 

New Mexico because I know a little bit more about ours. But that 

they needed training, too. So I was talking about the training, and 

then my counterpart said, ‘‘Well, we need more training as well.’’ 

And I was being sort of flippant. And my Spanish is not great, but 

her English is less, so we were speaking in Spanish. So I hope that 

I translated everything right. But I was being a little flippant, and 

I said, ‘‘Well, we just trained all of your folks 3 years ago.’’ And she 

said, ‘‘Yes, but most of them are dead now.’’ 

And certainly, for instance, the head of the crime lab is the last 

person I know of that was killed in Chihuahua of those folks that 

we trained, and that was about 6 months ago. And there have not 

been too many more since then. 

I think that things are improving. I have seen quotes from the 

folks in Juarez that say, you know, this is an interesting measure 

of improvement, but that the deaths per day in Chihuahua have 

been reduced from ten to six. And so, you know, that is a measure 

of improvement, but I think that we need to have a better, stronger 

program to recruit and vet those folks that will be doing that, and 

I think that that is important. 

And the military, I think, probably has a whole different program from the one that is being used to recruit investigators and 

such. 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, that is where I wanted to go next, because I think Mr. Vivanco’s testimony leads me to this question. If 

either of you—or perhaps Mr. Vivanco can testify. Have you talked 

to this, what we would view as the basic judicial part of our system, the prosecutorial part of our system in the United States 

being somewhat separate in its orbit from the military justice system? Now Mr. Vivanco raises the point that once the military 

comes in and has a presence, they become a force in terms of, we 

hope, suppressing crime, but also they can be a force in the wrong 

direction. 

Have either of you as Attorneys General worked with these prosecutors and judges and learned the relationship they have with the 

military once they are involved in trying to suppress drug violence? 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I have had discussions because a lot 

of the military forces went to Juarez and there was—you know, initially there was some suppression of violence in Juarez, and then 

there was some increase. And so there was a lot of discussion in 

Juarez about whether the military presence helped. And so I just 

had some discussion with my counterparts in Mexico who feel like 

indeed that they have and are getting the training that is necessary to address that and that they should be able to address that 

with their police and their prosecutors rather than having the military do it. And so they are very proud of what they think that they 

can do. 

We have not talked at all about—and I thought that the testimony was interesting here today—their ability to prosecute, say, 

somebody military who was accused of a crime. I do not think they 

do very much of that. And so I assume that the system isolates 

them indeed, but I do not know very much about that system. 
26 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Vivanco, can you testify to that? These 

prosecutions for human rights abuses of the military—and as you 

say, three were alleged and only one turned out to be a real human 

rights abuse. Was it done in the criminal courts of Mexico or 

through some military tribunal? 

Mr. VIVANCO. Military tribunals, and according to the Mexican 

practice, as well as the military penal code of Mexico, any human 

rights abuse, any for these purposes common crime, committed by 

a soldier or an officer on duty should be investigated by the military justice system. And that is not what the Constitution of Mexico established, and that is not what the international human 

rights obligations that are binding on Mexico as a result of ratification of international treaties, human rights treaties, established. 

As a matter of fact, back in December, the Inter-American Court 

of Human Rights, which is the top human rights tribunal for Latin 

America, ruled on a case that involved Mexico that they have to reform their military justice systems so in the future any human 

rights violation, anyone should be prosecuted under civilian jurisdiction, not under military jurisdiction. And you need to keep the 

military jurisdiction just for disciplinary actions against soldiers or 

officers that break the rules. 

Now, the Mexican Government—and I think it is important to be 

on the record here—has publicly stated that they will comply in 

full with the rule of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. 

And just recently, the home minister, Mr. Gomez Mont, Fernando 

Gomez Mont, the home minister of Mexico, the second most important authority in the government, publicly pledged that they will 

reform the military system, the military justice system, so they will 

introduce draft legislation by September to shift human rights investigations or human rights prosecutions from military jurisdiction to civilian jurisdiction. 

So hopefully in the near future, human rights violations committed by security forces, especially the army, will be investigated 

by civilian officials in Mexico. 

Chairman DURBIN. There were references in my preparation here 

to the Federal police force as well, and I cannot quite draw an 

analogy. I do not know if that is like the FBI in the United States 

or something comparable to it. But would they be subject to the 

same type of criminal prosecution through the courts of Mexico? 

Mr. VIVANCO. Right. I mean, today the most recalcitrant force or 

institution in Mexico to civilian jurisdiction or even, I would say, 

to subordinate their actions to civilian authorities is the army. Traditionally, the armed forces of Mexico, and specifically the army, 

has been quite an enclave in Mexican democracy. You know, for 

many, many years, the Government of Mexico has had difficulty establishing the rule of law within the army. 

The rest of the security forces, specifically to answer your question, the police, for instance, the Federal police, municipal police, 

state police in Mexico, if they engage in human rights violations, 

those cases are usually investigated by the civilian officials. 

Chairman DURBIN. So, Mr. Wasden, when you were involved in 

this—Mr. King as well—we have talked here about the use of torture and how ultimately some of these practices that are, in fact, 

human rights abuses really do not lend themselves to good police 
27 

work, good criminal investigation, and prosecution. Has this come 

up in the course of your discussion with the investigators and prosecutors and judges? 

Mr. WASDEN. I guess the most conversation I have had about 

these sorts of things has really been with individuals who have 

been the victims of these kinds of crimes, and also in my discussions with Federal officials in Mexico who readily acknowledge that 

there is rife corruption among their law enforcement ranks as well 

as some concerns about the military. So I think it is a problem 

overall that has to be addressed by the general rule of law. This 

is sort of from a very theoretical approach, but, again, shedding 

light on that, giving confidence in the system that will protect the 

rights of the individual is really critical. And that includes abuses 

that may be imposed by military rule. 

Chairman DURBIN. But do they generally concede the point that 

these things that may look good on some television shows do not 

ultimately lead to successful prosecutions and establishing the rule 

of law and order in their society? 

Mr. WASDEN. Yes, actually one of the conversations I had was 

that they told me that they had named a specific police force and 

said that the entire police force was corrupt. They readily admitted 

that. I was kind of shocked that they would so objectively make 

that statement and more shocked that they would make that statement to me, an American citizen. But they were very straightforward in their willingness to acknowledge the level and extent of 

corruption that existed with regard to this issue. 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, I thank this panel for—Mr. King, did 

you have a comment? 

Mr. KING. Can I add, Mr. Chairman, one thing to that, and one 

thing I did not want to let get away today? Those folks that we are 

working with, though, the Attorneys General’s offices in Mexico, 

are really striving to be very professional, and we have gotten to 

where we know a lot of them personally. And I think that they are 

working to develop good crime labs, to develop good techniques. 

They are very hungry for the training that we are giving them, to 

learn that. 

And so none of the people that we work with that I am aware 

of would condone torture, you know, use that as any kind of policy 

or anything. I mean, they are working really hard to do a good job, 

and as a matter of fact, one time when I was traveling down there 

with the head of what we call our Border Violence Unit—I have a 

unit within my agency called the Border Violence Unit. They took 

me to talk to me about some policy things, and they told her they 

had a crime scene that they were scratching their heads over and 

having some problems with, would she be willing to go to the crime 

scene with them and give them ideas about what they ought to be 

looking for and such. 

So the alliance and the work that we are doing is really designed 

to try and drive that professionalism, and I think it is doing a good 

job. And if I could, another 30 seconds, you have mentioned a couple times, Mr. Chairman, the lack of some Federal resources to do 

this. I want to credit some Federal resources that we have. One 

that we have talked about is the USAID grant that we have to do 

this training, around $2.5 million. We, the Attorneys General, have 
28 

provided in-kind services of around $600,000 this year, so, you 

know, it is not big compared even to the amount of the Merida Initiative, but we think that with that we—with that we have trained 

1,500 people, and we think that is good. 

But we also, for instance, have a Department of Justice grant 

that helped me increase the size of my Border Violence Unit by a 

significant amount, and we are using that to fight human trafficking on the border. And there are other Department of Justice 

grants that are helping us to fight arms trafficking on the border, 

which I think is a very important thing. 

So I guess we want to make a pitch that those grants from the 

Department of Justice and from USAID have been beneficial, and 

we would like to continue to see that funding. But it is not that 

there is not anything that the Federal Government is doing here. 

I think they are doing some things. But I think that there are programs that could be improved, too. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. My thanks to this panel. Ms. 

Morera especially, thanks to you for your courage to come here and 

testify. Mr. Vivanco, thank you for the perspective. Attorneys General Wasden and King, thank you as well. 

This little Subcommittee has created, I think, some very fascinating and important hearings, including this one today. We have 

been the authors of at least three new laws that have, I think, substantially improved our ability to prosecute violators of human 

rights who reside in the United States, and as we heard earlier 

from Mr. Breuer, have been part of the effort to create a special 

unit within the Department of Justice relative to human rights. 

When I got started with this Subcommittee, I did not know that 

we would have such an opportunity or such a varied agenda during 

the course of the 3 years or so that we have been in business. I 

will say that one of the reasons that we have been this successful 

is the extraordinary work of my staff, and I want to give particular 

thanks today to a member of my staff who is departing, Heloisa 

Griggs, who has been here from the beginning and is an inspiration 

to all of us. She is returning to her native Brazil, and she is just 

an extraordinarily talented woman that we have been very blessed 

to have as part of our effort here. Heloisa, thank you so much for 

all that you have done. 

We may have some questions that we will follow up and send to 

you along the way in the next day or two, and I hope you can look 

at them and respond in a timely way. But I appreciate your being 

here, and this Subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 

Æ