In a landmark decision, a human rights body has held U.S. Border Patrol culpable for the death and torture of a migrant in custody.
The case, Anastasio Hernández Rojas and Family v. United States, is a resounding defense of the dignity and rights of asylum seekers and migrants who experience abuse at the hands of border enforcement agents.
Anastasio Hernández Rojas
The father of five children, Anastasio tried to support his family by picking up work in construction and demolition. Unable to make ends meet, he shoplifted food from a Los Angeles grocery store. Caught, he was taken into law enforcement custody. When the officers discovered he lacked papers to stay in the United States, he was quickly deported to Mexico.
Hoping to reunite with his family, Anastasio and his brother attempted to reenter the United States in 2010. Intercepted by police officers in San Diego, he was transferred to the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station and driven almost immediately to the ‘deportation gate’ at San Ysidro. There, Anastasio was abused, sustaining injuries that would ultimately kill him.
One of the agents involved in Anastasio’s death claimed that he attacked them after they removed his handcuffs—an allegation not even supported by other officers present. What is clear is that Anastasio was beaten with a steel baton, kicked repeatedly in the rips, and tased in the chest. An audio recording captured Anastasio pleading for help. In the background of the record, a bystander asks, “Why are you guys using excessive force on him? He is not resisting!”
Medical personnel were called after Anastasio stopped breathing. His injuries too grave to repair, he died two days later of a heart attack.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) decided not to prosecute any of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officials responsible for Anastasio’s death.
Anastasio Hernández Rojas and Family v. United States
Seeking justice, Anastasio’s family petitioned the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR), on grounds that CBP had violated key human rights guarantees, including the prohibition on torture and the rights to life and health.
The IACHR presides over the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the governing framework for the Organization of American States (OAS). Unlike its sister body, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of which the United States is not a member, the IACHR decision’s do not carry legally binding force. Soft law courts like the IACHR, however, hold moral and political sway, and can encourage the creation of hard law protections.
During the case, the IACHR heard powerful testimony from Maria Puga, Anastasio’s wife. “I still hear the cries of my husband calling for help,” she said, referring the video recording that a passerby took in the moments before his death. “The border agents who killed him must have thought he didn’t have a family or a community. They were wrong. Here we are, and we will fight for justice for Anastasio and all the other victims of border agents until the system changes.”
After nearly a decade of proceedings, the Commission decided in favor of Anastasio’s family last week. They ruled that the U.S. had violated the rights to life, health, justice, personal integrity, and humane treatment during deprivation of freedom.
Anastasio, they also state in their final ruling, was subjected to torture. They came to this conclusion in part on account of the use of a taser in drive stun mode, which is as painful as receiving an electrical shock and recognized as torture by leading international human rights bodies.
Moving forward, the Commission recommended that the U.S. reopen the DOJ investigation into Anastasio’s death and guarantee that the crimes committed against the Rojas family are not repeated.
The IACHR’s findings are meaningful not just for Anastasio’s family, but for all migrants who have been the subject of abuse at the hands of Border Patrol. Since Anastasio’s death in 2010, 250 people in CBP custody have died. No CBP officer has ever been convicted in U.S. courts for the death of a migrant. The IACHR’s ruling is a resounding alarm against this extrajudicial killing and abuse.
