The Harrington Street Massacre and Bolivia's 1993 Judgment
Eight unarmed MIR leaders were killed in a planned operation; Bolivia's Supreme Court assigned responsibility in 1993.
Read the sourced case file →This evidence-led archive now includes the adjudicated Harrington Street massacre, alongside forced disappearances, political killings and mass-casualty cases whose legal or factual questions remain open.
A final Supreme Court judgment assigned responsibility for the Harrington Street massacre.
Seven files retain unresolved factual, custodial or procedural questions despite substantial official records.
The Truth Commission reconstructed the compromised inquiry, but no case-specific conviction resolved the priest and journalist's murder.
Read the sourced case file →An Army patrol detained Renato in 1980. The Inter-American Court found Bolivia responsible, but his fate remains unknown.
Read the sourced case file →Three men died during a police operation. The IACHR later found grave violations and sent the case to the Inter-American Court.
Read the sourced case file →Twenty-two civilians were fatally shot across two security operations. International findings are extensive, but prosecutions and reparations remain unsettled.
Read the sourced case file →Security forces killed dozens of civilians during the 2003 Gas War. Seven participants were convicted in Bolivia; two former senior officials later faced a U.S. civil judgment and settlement.
Read the sourced case file →At least eleven people were killed near Porvenir. A 2017 homicide judgment was followed by the 2025 annulment of the ordinary proceedings against former prefect Leopoldo Fernández.
Read the sourced case file →Flores Bedregal disappeared during the 17 July 1980 coup. Domestic courts convicted participants in connected crimes, but did not establish his whereabouts or the direct perpetrator; the Inter-American Court later ordered renewed investigation and search.
Read the sourced case file →“Unsolved” is not shorthand for “no court action.” It identifies the unresolved disappearance in the Flores Bedregal file and the absence of a replacement final judgment after the Porvenir ordinary process was annulled.
The trial court itself said the direct perpetrator had not been determined. The convictions addressed participation in the uprising, complicity in murder, terrorism, cover-up and related conduct, but not a complete forced-disappearance investigation.
It establishes Bolivia’s international responsibility and orders investigation, search, access to records and reparations. It is not a substitute for an individual criminal verdict.
The 2017 court imposed homicide sentences, but the Supreme Court annulled the ordinary proceedings against Fernández in 2025 and directed a special trial route.
The flag bands, Andean horizon, empty chair, sealed archive and memorial light are editorial symbols. They do not portray Flores Bedregal, an assailant, military facility, human remains or crime scene as documentary imagery.
Four verified case files are published: the Flores Bedregal disappearance, the Porvenir massacre, the Black October killings, and the Sacaba and Senkata killings.
His whereabouts and identified remains remain unknown, the direct perpetrator was not determined and the specific forced-disappearance investigation remains incomplete.
Yes. Domestic courts convicted several participants for offences connected to the uprising, murder and cover-up. Those judgments did not resolve the disappearance or identify the direct perpetrator.
In 2022 it held Bolivia internationally responsible for the forced disappearance and for related violations affecting Flores Bedregal’s sisters, including failures in investigation, protection and access to information.
No. It is an international human-rights judgment about Bolivia’s state responsibility. It does not replace a domestic criminal trial or establish new individual guilt.
Yes, but only when each case has reliable sources, a clear Bolivian connection and a current legal status that can be described without speculation.
No. It annulled the ordinary process against Fernández on jurisdictional grounds and ordered a different procedural route.
← Return to all country archives