|
|
|
Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR (Continuation)
CASE 11.625, Report N° 4/01, María Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala)
354. In Report N° 4/01, dated January 19, 2001, the Commission concluded that the Guatemalan State was responsible for violating the rights of María Eugenia Morales de Sierra to equal protection, respect for family life, and respect for private life established in Articles 24, 17, and 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to the heading and paragraph one of Article 110 and paragraph four of Article 317. The Commission accordingly found the State responsible for having failed to uphold its Article 1 obligation to respect and ensure those rights under the Convention, as well as its Article 2 obligation to adopt the legislative and other measures necessary to give effect to those rights of the victim.
355. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:
1. Adapt the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code to balance the legal recognition of the reciprocal duties of women and men in marriage and take the legislative and other measures necessary to amend Article 317 of the Civil Code so as to bring national law into conformity with the norms of the American Convention and give full effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed to María Eugenia Morales de Sierra therein.
2. Redress and adequately compensate María Eugenia Morales de Sierra for the damages done by the violations established in this Report.
356. On March 3, 2006, the petitioners and the State of Guatemala signed an “Agreement for Specific Compliance with Recommendations,” the purpose being to formalize the State’s obligations to comply with the Commission’s recommendations in Report N° 4/01. The agreement signed states that María Eugenia Morales de Sierra expressly waived the financial compensation that the IACHR had recommended she receive as a victim of human rights violations because “her cause was to win recognition of women’s dignity.” The Commission will continue to monitor the fulfillment of the commitments established in the aforesaid Agreement for Compliance.
357. On November 1, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the state of compliance with the agreement. On November 26, 2007, the petitioners reported that the relevant provisions of the Civil Code had not been amended to balance the legal recognition of the reciprocal duties of women and men within marriage. The petitioners also reported that legislative measures for amending Article 317 of the Civil Code had not been adopted. As for the compensation, the petitioners stated that formalities were underway with the country’s tax registers for the formal registration of the María Eugenia Morales Aceña de Sierra Foundation for Dignity (FUNDADIG).
358. On December 11, 2007, the State informed the Commission that it had taken a series of actions to implement the recommendations contained in Report N° 4/01, referring to the formalities discharged in order for the FUNDADIG to begin operations. The State also informed the Commission that compliance with some of the commitments was still pending and that coordination was underway with government agencies to implement the recommendations in this case, to which end the functioning of the FUNDADIG was necessary.
359. The Commission concludes that there is partial compliance with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 9207, Report N° 58/01, Oscar Manuel Gramajo López (Guatemala)
360. In Report N° 58/01, dated April 4, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the State of Guatemala had violated the rights of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López to life (Article 4), personal integrity (Article 5), personal liberty (Article 7), and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25), as well as the obligation to guarantee the rights protected in the Convention, as established in Article 1(1) thereof.
361. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:
1. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation of the facts reported to determine the circumstances and fate of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López, which would establish the identity of those responsible for his disappearance and punish them in accordance with due process of law.
2. Adopt measures for full reparation of the violations determined, including: steps to locate the remains of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López; the necessary arrangements to accommodate the family’s wishes in respect of his final resting place; and proper and timely reparations for the victim’s family.
362. On November 1, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the status of compliance with the recommendations issued in this case. On December 11, 2007, the State reported that it had been unable to contact the petitioners in order to reach an agreement on redress and implement the recommendations set out in Report N° 58/01. At the same time, the State presented no further information regarding the recommendation of conducting an impartial and effective investigation.
363. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 10.626 Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez; CASE 10.627 Pedro Tau Cac; CASE 11.198(A) José María Ixcaya Pixtay et al.; CASE 10.799 Catalino Chochoy et al.; CASE 10.751 Juan Galicia Hernández et al., and CASE 10.901 Antulio Delgado, Report N° 59/01 (Guatemala)
364.
In Report N° 59/01, dated April 7, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the
Guatemalan State was responsible for violating the following rights: (1)
the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the American convention, in
the cases of Remigio Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac,
José María Ixcaya Pictay, José Vicente García, Mateo Sarat Ixcoy,
Celestino Julaj Vicente, Miguel Calel, Pedro Raguez, Pablo Ajiataz,
Manuel Ajiataz Chivalán, Catrino Chanchavac Larios, Miguel Tiu Imul,
Camilo Ajquí Gimon and Juan Tzunux Us; (2) the right to personal liberty
recognized in Article 7 of the American Convention, in the cases of
Remigio Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac and Camilo Ajqui
Gimon; (3) the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5 of the
American Convention and articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, in the cases of Remigio
Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac and Camilo Ajqui Gimon,
victims of extrajudicial execution, and the right to respect for one’s
physical integrity, also recognized in Article 5 of the American
Convention, in the cases of Catalino Chochoy, José Corino, Abelino
Baycaj, Antulio Delgado, Juan Galicia Hernández, Andrés Abelino Galicia
Gutierrez and Orlando Adelso Galicia Gutiérrez, victims of attempted
extrajudicial execution; (4) the rights of the child recognized in
Article 19 of the American Convention, in the cases of minors Rafael
Sánchez and Andrés Abelicio Galicia Gutiérrez; (5) the right to judicial
guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8 and 25
of the American Convention, respectively, in the case of all the victims
of extrajudicial and attempted extrajudicial execution; (6) in all these
cases the State was also found responsible for failing to honor its
obligation under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, which is the
duty to respect and ensure the rights and freedoms that the Convention
protects.
365. The Commission made the following recommendations to the State:
1. That it conduct a thorough, impartial and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and attempted extrajudicial executions of each victim and the attendant violations, and punish those responsible.
2. That it takes the necessary measures so that the next-of-kin of the victims of the extrajudicial executions might receive adequate and prompt compensation for the violations herein established.
3. That it takes the necessary measures so that the victims of the attempted extrajudicial executions might receive adequate and prompt compensation for the violations herein established.
4. That it effectively prevents a resurgence and reorganization of the Self-defense Civil Patrols.
5. That in Guatemala the principles established in the United Nations “Declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and institutions to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms” be promoted and that the necessary measures be taken to ensure that the right of those who work to secure respect for fundamental rights is respected and that their life and personal integrity are protected.
366. On November 1, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the implementation of the recommendations set out in Report N° 59/01. The following sections describe the implementation of the recommendations in each of the cases joindered under Report N° 59/01.
Case 10.626 Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez (Guatemala)
367. The Inter-American Commission, in Resolution 1/06 of April 24, 2006, resolved to amend Report N° 59/01, adopted and published on April 7, 2001, to declare that on June 28, 1990, Messrs. Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez were detained by members of the Civil Self-Defense Patrols; later that same day, they were both taken to a hospital in Huehuetenango to receive treatment for multiple cuts and abrasions; and they were released from that hospital on July 3, 1990. The resolution in question resolved that the State violated the right to humane treatment of Messrs. Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez.
Case 10.627 Pedro Tiu Cac (Guatemala)
368. According to the facts reported in Case 10.627, on July 2, 1990, in the village of Chiop, Santa María Chiquimula, Totonicapán, Pedro Tiu Cac, an indigenous Maya and member of the Runujel Junan Council of Ethnic Communities, was attacked while working his fields by men in civilian clothing who were presumably members of the PACs; they abducted him and took him to an unknown location. Some days later, his body was found in an empty lot, showing signs of torture.
369. On February 18, 2005, the petitioners and the State of Guatemala signed an agreement on recommendation compliance in order to formalize the State’s obligations regarding compliance with the recommendations contained in IACHR Report on Merits No. 59/01. In that agreement, the State acknowledged its institutional responsibility for violating the right to life, to personal liberty, to humane treatment, and to a fair trial and judicial protection, and for not having abided by the general obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected by the American Convention, with respect to Pedro Tiu Cac. Likewise, the State acknowledged that the years from 1990 to 1992 were marked by systematic violations of the right to life in the form of forced executions and attacks on individuals’ physical integrity carried out by state agents.
370. On November 1, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the implementation of the recommendations set out in Report N° 59/01. On November 26, 2007, the petitioners reported that in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the guilty, the State agreed to pursue the necessary formalities with the Public Prosecution Service in order for a responsible investigation of the allegations to be effected. Regarding reparations, the State acknowledged that its acceptance of international responsibility for the violations of the victim’s human rights implied the responsibility of paying fair compensation to the petitioners, in accordance with the guidelines set by domestic and international law. The State also agreed to publicly acknowledge its institutional responsibility for the violations of the Pedro Tiu Cac’s human rights and to offer an apology to his family at a public ceremony. Similarly, the State agreed to adopt measures to honor the victim’s memory.
371. On December 9, 2005, the parties signed an agreement on monetary compensation. During 2005 the State gave the compensation payments agreed on to victim’s next-of-kin and, on December 21, 2006, the State reported that at the request of the victim’s family, the State’s apology to them had been made at a private ceremony. On July 29, 2007, a ceremony was held to unveil a plaque in Mr. Pedro Tiu Cac’s memory at the parish church of Santa María de Chiquimula municipality, in the department of Totonicapán.
372. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the agreement.
Case 11.198(A) José María Ixcaya Pixtay et al. (Guatemala)
373. On February 18, 2005, the petitioners and the State of Guatemala signed an agreement on recommendation compliance in order to formalize the State’s obligations regarding compliance with the recommendations contained in IACHR Report on Merits No. 59/01. In that agreement, the State acknowledged its institutional responsibility for the violations of the right to life, to personal liberty, to humane treatment, and to a fair trial and judicial protection, and for having failed to observe the general obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected by American Convention, with respect to José María Ixcaya Pixtay, José Vicente García, Mateo Sarat Ixcoy, Celestino Julaj Vicente, Miguel Tzoy Calel, Pedro Raguez, Pablo Ajiataz, Manuel Ajiataz Chivalan, Catrino Chanchavac Larios, Miguel Tiu Imul, Camilo Ajquí Gimon, and Juan Tzunux Us. Likewise, the State acknowledged that the years from 1990 to 1992 were marked by systematic violations of the right to life in the form of forced executions and attacks on individuals’ physical integrity carried out by state agents.
374. The information furnished by the parties indicates that the State has complied with providing the economic redress due to the victims’ next-of-kin, although delivery of that redress to the families of Mateo Sarat Ixcoy, Camilo Ajquí Gimon, and Juan Tzunux Us is still pending. Regarding the measures to restore dignity, the unveiling of the plaque commemorating Miguel Tiu Imul is still pending.
375. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the agreement.
Case 10.799 Catalino Chochoy et al. (Guatemala)
376. At the Commission’s request, on December 27, 2006, the State reported that it had been unable to contact the petitioners in order to reach a redress agreement for implementing the recommendations set out in Report N° 59/01. On January 18, 2007, the IACHR forwarded the petitioners’ contact details to the State, and it trusts that the State will continue to make the efforts necessary to ensure that the victims’ next-of-kin receive due redress.
Case 10.751 Juan Galicia Hernández et al. (Guatemala)
377. At the Commission’s request, on December 27, 2006, the State reported that it had been unable to contact the petitioners in order to reach a redress agreement for implementing the recommendations set out in Report N° 59/01. On January 18, 2007, the IACHR forwarded the petitioners’ contact details to the State, and it trusts that the State will continue to make the efforts necessary to ensure that the victims’ next-of-kin receive due redress.
Case 10.901 Antulio Delgado (Guatemala)
378. On November 1, 2007, the Commission asked the parties to submit up-to-date information on the status of compliance in this case; however, the parties submitted no information on steps taken to implement the recommendations issued in the case.
CASE 9111, Report N° 60/01, Ileana del Rosario
Solares Castillo et al.
379. In Report N° 60/01, dated April 4, 2001, the IACHR concluded that with respect to Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, the State of Guatemala had violated their right to life (Article 4), to humane treatment (Article 5), to personal liberty (article 7), to a fair trial (Article 8), and to judicial protection (Article 25), in conjunction with the obligation of ensuring the rights protected by the Convention set forth in Article 1(1) thereof.
380. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation into the facts of this complaint to determine the whereabouts and condition of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, to identify the persons responsible for their disappearance, and to punish them in accordance with the rules of due legal process.
2. Take steps to make full amends for the proven violations, including measures to locate the remains of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, the arrangements necessary to fulfill their families’ wishes regarding the final resting place of their remains, and adequate and timely compensation for the victims’ relatives.
381. On November 1, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the implementation of the recommendations set out in Report N° 60/01. On December 3 and 5, 2007, the State reported that it had held various meetings with a view toward signing a compliance agreement for the recommendations issued in this case. As regards the obligation of conducting an impartial and effective investigation, the State reported that in the proceedings for the case of Luz Hernández Agustín and Ana Maria López Rodríguez, statements had been taken from Mirtala del Rosario Fernández Agustín, Jorge Hernández López, Eldan Ramírez López, and Valentina Agustín Santos; a request had been made for the appearance of police officer Eldan Ramírez Pérez; and the head of the National Civilian Police’s personnel department had been asked to provide additional information on National Police officers Isabel Antonio Nova Gómez and Hildo Hernán Mazariegos Zaldaña. At the same time, the State reported that the investigation into the case of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo was still underway.
382.
The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the
aforementioned recommendations. CASE 11.382, Report N° 57/02, The Workers on the Finca “La Exacta” (Guatemala)
383. In Report N° 57/02, dated October 21, 2002, the IACHR concluded that the Guatemalan State had failed to fulfill the obligations which it has under Article 1(1) of the Convention and has violated, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention: the right to life, recognized in Article 4 of the Convention, with respect to Efraín Recinos Gómez, Basilio Guzmán Juárez and Diego Orozco; the right to humane treatment, recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, with respect to Diego Orozco, the entire group of workers who occupied the estate and their families, who suffered the attack of August 24, 1994, and, in particular, the 11 persons who suffered serious injuries: Pedro Carreto Loayes, Efraín Guzmán Lucero, Ignacio Carreto Loayes, Daniel Pérez Guzmán, Marcelino López, José Juárez Quinil, Hugo René Jiménez López, Luciano Lorenzo Pérez, Felix Orozco Huinil, Pedro García Guzmán, and Genaro López Rodas; the right to freedom of association, recognized in Article 16 of the Convention, with respect to the workers on Finca “La Exacta” who organized themselves into a labor union to convey their labor demands to the owners and administrators of Finca “La Exacta” and to the Guatemalan courts and who suffered reprisals for this reason; the right of children to special protection, recognized in Article 19 of the Convention, with respect to the minors who were present during the raid of August 24, 1994; and the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, with respect to the organized workers who sought access to legal remedies in connection with their labor demands and with respect to the victims of the events of August 24, 1994 and their relatives who sought justice in connection with these events. The State of Guatemala also violated Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Convention against Torture in connection with the torture suffered by Diego Orozco.
384. The IACHR made the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:
1. That it begins a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of the events that took place on August 24, 1994 to be able to detail, in an official report, the circumstances of and responsibility for the use of excessive force on that date.
2. That it takes the necessary steps to subject the persons responsible for the acts of August 24, 1994 to the appropriate judicial proceedings, which should be based on a full and effective investigation of the case.
3. That it makes reparations for the consequences of the violations of the rights listed, including the payment of fair compensation to the victims or their families.
4. That it takes the necessary measures to ensure that violations of the type that took place in this case do not recur in future.
385. At the Commission’s request, on December 28, 2006 the State reported that the sum of seven hundred thirty-five thousand quetzals (735,000) was turned over for the purchase of a piece of land selected by the members of the San Juan El Horizonte Workers Union, Empresa La Exacta S.A. The State also reported that certain points of the Reparations Agreement that the parties concluded on October 23, 2003, have still to be negotiated.
386. On November 1, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the status of compliance with the recommendations issued in this case. On November 28, 2007, the petitioners reported that by means of information furnished by the State on March 3, 2006, they learned that Harry Omar Hernández, identified as the gunman who shot Diego Orozco, had not been arrested. As regards the redress measures, the petitioners reported that they gave the State a proposal for how to comply with the commitments still pending implementation, containing: (1) details of the kind of houses that the beneficiaries require to be built on a plot of land purchased by the State to resolve their housing problem, (2) schooling for the workers’ children, and (3) construction of a monument to dignify the victims’ memory. In addition, the petitioners stated that impunity still prevails in this case, since there has been no proper criminal investigation, prosecution, or punishment of the guilty, and no effective measures have been adopted to prevent the recurrence of similar violations.
387. In a communication dated December 11, 2007, the State reported that it was engaged in negotiations with the competent government agencies regarding the commitments acquired for housing the beneficiaries, for providing access to drinking water and schooling for the workers’ children, and for the construction of a monument to dignify the victims’ memory. The State provided no substantive information regarding the obligation of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the guilty.
388. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations. CASE 11.312, Report N° 66/03, Emilio Tec Pop (Guatemala)
389. On October 10, 2003 the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the Emilio Tec Pop case. In summary, during the early hours of January 31, 1994, Emilio Tec Pop, age 16, was traveling from El Estor, in the Department of lzabal, to the departmental capital of Cobán, in Alta Verapaz, when he was detained by unknown persons. Some 32 days later, on March 3 of that year, the authorities from El Estor military post returned the young man to his family. The petitioners in this case stated that the youth had been held against his will and was physically and mentally mistreated. The petitioners also reported that the soldiers threatened Emilio with death and stabbed him in the hands with a knife.
390. On June 16, 2003, the State signed a friendly settlement agreement. One of the commitments the State made in that agreement was to acknowledge its institutional responsibility for the facts that occurred.
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:
1. Pay compensation. 2. Take steps to get the investigation into these events back on course and to be able to punish those responsible.
391. As for the commitment to investigate the events and punish those responsible, the State reported that the case is under direction of the Izabal Prosecutor’s Office, case 52-94 of the El Estor Justice of Peace; the case was transferred to the current Criminal Court of First Instance of Izabal, classified as case 325-94. The State informed that there is a suspect and the case is now in the investigative phase. It also reported that steps had been taken with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock to honor the commitment of giving Mr. Tec Pop an adequate amount of basic grain seed; however, the State was uncertain of his current address.
392. On November 5, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement contained in Report N° 66/03. On November 30, 2007, the petitioners told the IACHR that they had lost contact with Mr. Emilio Tec Pop, and that the State had issued no information regarding follow-up or specific actions being pursued by the Public Prosecution Service and the Supreme Court of Justice for the effective implementation of the IACHR’s recommendations. The petitioners also reported that the State had not met its commitment of providing capital in the form of basic grain seeds after a visit to Mr. Emilio Tec Pop’s home.
393. Later, on December 11, 2007, the State reported that it had unsuccessfully pursued a series of actions through the COPREDEH in an attempt to locate Mr. Emilio Tec Pop. As regards the commitment to provide capital in the form of basic grain seeds, the State reiterated its willingness to meet this obligation as soon as Mr. Emilio Tec Pop contacts the COPREDEH or his representatives. Regarding the commitment to investigate the incident and punish the guilty, the State reported that proceedings before the Criminal First-Instance Court of Izabal were at the investigation phase.
394. The IACHR concludes that the recommendations in the friendly settlement agreement have been partially carried out.
CASE 11.766, Report N° 67/03, Irma Flaquer (Guatemala)
395. On October 10, 2003 the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the Irma Flaquer case. In summary and according to the background of this case, journalist Irma Flaquer Azurdia was driving her car in Guatemala City on October 16, 1980 when she was abducted. Also in the car was her son, Fernando Valle Flaquer, who was injured and later died at the Hospital General San Juan de Dios. Irma Flaquer’s whereabouts have been unknown since that day.
396. In Friendly Settlement Report 67/03, dated October 10, 2003, the Commission stated that it had been informed that the petitioners in the case – the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) – were satisfied with the implementation of the great majority of the points of the agreement. However, the following three points were still pending: (1) the establishment of a scholarship for the study of journalism; (2) the creation of a university chair on the history of journalism; and (3) the writing of a letter to family members asking for forgiveness.Still pending in this case is the State’s obligation to investigate the forced disappearance of the journalist Irma Flaquer Azurdia and the extrajudicial killing of Fernando Valle Flaquer.
397. On November 5, 2007, the Commission asked the parties to submit up-to-date information on compliance with the recommendations set out in Report N° 67/03. On November 15, 2007, the petitioners said they believed that “the agreements can not be considered fully implemented until the Government of Guatemala provides information on the progress with the judicial investigations, as it undertook to do.”
398. In turn, on December 5, 2007, the State reported that the obligation to create a scholarship for journalism studies was still pending compliance. Regarding the creation of a university chair on the history of journalism, it reported that “the ‘Guatemalan Journalism’ course taught at the Communication Science School of the University of San Carlos of Guatemala currently includes a specific section about the journalist Irma Flaquer.” In connection with the letter asking the relatives for their forgiveness, the State said that “within each of the agreements on economic redress in the case dealing with the forced disappearance of the journalist Irma Marina Flaquer Azurdia, under the aegis of the friendly settlement agreement entered into on February 27, 2001, in IACHR case 11.766, signed with the petitioners, the State acknowledged its institutional responsibility for the events that occurred.” With respect to legal actions, it detailed a series of formalities being pursued by the Public Prosecution Service and stated that, “specifically, making progress with the investigation is difficult, on account of the time that has passed since the incident (1980) and of the difficulties in locating those individuals who could provide information for casting light on the case; however, to date the investigation continues.”
399. The IACHR concludes that the recommendations in the friendly settlement agreement have been partially carried out. CASE 11.197, Report N° 68/03, Community of San Vicente de Los Cimientos (Guatemala)
400. On October 10, 2003 the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the Comunidad San Vicente de los Cimientos case. In summary, on August 24, 1993, the Human Rights Legal Action Center (CLADH) and the Runujel Junam Council of Ethnic Communities (CERJ) (hereinafter “the petitioners”), representing 233 indigenous families, lodged a petition with the Commission. There they alleged that during the armed conflict, the area known as Los Cimientos -located in El Chajul, Quiché department, and home to 672 indigenous families who were the owners of that tract- was invaded by the Guatemalan Army, which established a barracks there. Threatened with shelling and in the wake of the murder of two of its members, the people of Los Cimientos were forced to flee their land in February 1982, abandoning their livestock and their corn, bean, and coffee crops. One month after the exodus, a number of families returned to the place, only to find that their homes had been burned down and their belongings stolen. The Los Cimientos community was forced off its land again in 1994. On June 25, 2001, the community’s lands –of which it was the legal owner- were violently taken from them by neighbors and others, apparently with the Government’s support.
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:
1. Purchase, on behalf of all the members of the Los Cimientos Quiché community comprising the civic association “Community Association of Residents of Los Cimientos Xetzununchaj,” the San Vicente Osuna estate, and its annex, the Las Delicias estate, which are adjacent to each other and are located in the municipality of Siquinalá, Escuintla department.
2. The community of Los Cimientos, through the Community Association of Residents of Los Cimientos Xetzununchaj civic association, and the Government, shall identify and negotiate, within sixty days following the settlement of the community, urgent projects to reactivate its productive, economic, and social capacities, with a view to fostering the community’s development and wellbeing, and in consideration of the agrological study carried out and the record of the landmarks and limits of the San Vicente Osuna estate and its annex, the Las Delicias estate.
3. The individual land owners, land holders, and assigns of the estates comprising the Los Cimientos community, as a part of the commitments arising from the government’s purchase on their behalf of the estates known as San Vicente Osuna and its annex, the Las Delicias estate, shall cede their current rights of ownership, holding, and inheritance to the Land Fund, in compliance with the provisions of Article 8(h) of the Land Fund Law, Decree No. 24-99.
4. The State shall be responsible for relocating the 233 families of the community of Los Cimientos, Quiché, together with their property, from the village of Batzulá Churrancho, Santa María Cunén municipality, Quiché department, to the San Vicente Osuna estate and its annex, the Las Delicias estate, located in Siquinalá municipality, Escuintla department.
5. The government shall provide the resources necessary to feed the 233 families during their transfer to and settlement in their new homes, and it shall accompany them with a duly equipped mobile unit for the duration of the transfer and until such time as a formal health facility is established in their settlement, in order to cater for any emergency that may arise.
6. For the community’s location and resettlement, the government of the Republic will provide humanitarian assistance, minimal housing, and basic services.
7. The government of Guatemala agrees to organize the creation of a promotion committee that will be responsible for monitoring progress with the legal proceedings initiated against the individuals involved in the events of June 25, 2001, perpetrated against the owners of the Los Cimientos and Xetzununchaj estates.
401. On December 28, 2006, the State reported that most of the commitments had been met, but that the Promotion Committee, charged with checking progress with the legal proceedings against those involved in the incident, was still pending creation, although a meeting had been held between the petitioners, the Public Prosecution Service, and the community’s members.
402. On November 5, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement contained in Report N° 68/03. On November 29, 2007, the petitioners stated that a level of progress of 50% had been made with the agreement’s implementation, with specific actions having been taken in pursuit of its points. They reiterated, however, that within the redress process, the actions directly benefiting the community should be tackled as a priority on a global and continuous basis. Specifically, they referred to the construction of the health center and school, since those two projects would not have been abandoned if efforts had continued with the planned and proposed project for housing construction; however, the interruption of the compliance process prevented maximum advantage from being taken from those two structures.
403. The IACHR concludes that the recommendations formulated in the friendly settlement agreement have been partially carried out.
PETITION 9168, Report N° 29/04, Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz (Guatemala)
404. The Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement with regard to the Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz petition on March 11, 2004. In summary and according to the background of the petition, on August 12, 1983, Mr. Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz was detained while driving between Teculutan and Guatemala City. To date, his whereabouts remain unknown. On August 18, 1983, the IACHR received a petition that his wife, Blanca Vargas de Rosal, brought against the Guatemalan State alleging her husband’s forced disappearance.
405. The parties signed a friendly settlement agreement in Guatemala City on January 9, 2004, the terms of which the IACHR approved on March 11, 2004. In the agreement the State acknowledged its institutional responsibility for failure to comply with its obligation under Article 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the Convention and for its violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19 and 25 of that Convention. It further stated that the primary purpose of the agreement reached in this case was to get at the truth and ensure that justice is done, to honor the victim’s memory, make reparations for the violations of the victim’s rights and to strengthen the regional system for the protection of human rights.
406. In a note sent to the Commission on February 15, 2006, Mrs. Blanca Vargas de Rosal reported that the only commitment honored by the State was the one related to the payment of financial compensation. The commitments pertaining to education, measures to honor the victim’s memory, housing, investigation and justice had not been complied with.
407. On November 5, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement contained in Report N° 29/04. On December 7, 2007, the State reported that in connection with investigating the incident and bringing justice to bear, the case was transferred to the office of the Attorney for Human Rights and that efforts remain underway to implement the pending commitments of the friendly settlement agreement. Regarding the redress due to the beneficiaries, the State reports that by means of Ministerial Decree No. 32-2007 of January 26, 2007, as a way to dignify the victim’s memory, the name “Agronomist Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz y Paz” was given to the departmental office of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food in Zacapa. The State also reports that it has taken the steps necessary to meet the commitment of providing Mrs. Blanca Elvira Vargas Cordón de Rosal with a home and of granting academic scholarships to the victim’s children.
408. The IACHR concludes that the recommendations issued in the friendly settlement agreement have been partially carried out.
PETITION 133/04, Report N° 99/05, José Miguel Mérida Escobar (Guatemala)
409. On October 27, 2005, the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the José Miguel Mérida petition. In summary, on February 19, 2004, the IACHR received a petition that Amanda Gertrudis Escobar Ruiz, Fernando Nicolás Mérida Fernández, Amparo Antonieta Mérida Escobar, Rosmel Omar Mérida Escobar, Ever Obdulio Mérida Escobar, William Ramírez Fernández, Nadezhda Vásquez Cucho and Helen Mack Chang brought against the Guatemalan State for the extrajudicial execution of José Miguel Mérida Escobar on August 5, 1991. The petition states that Mr. Mérida Escobar was serving as Chief of the Homicide Division of the Department of Criminological Investigation of the National Police. He was in charge of the investigation into the murder of anthropologist Myrna Mack Chang on September 29, 1990. He had concluded that the main suspect in the anthropologist’s murder was a member of the Security Department of the Presidential Staff of the Guatemalan Army. Mérida Escobar was killed on August 5, 1991, having been shot in the head, the neck, left torso and left arm. He died instantly.
410. In the agreement, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention.
411. On December 21, 2006, the State reported that the ceremony to unveil the plaque in memory of José Mérida Escobar took place at National Civil Police Headquarters on November 30, 2006. In attendance was the Director General of the National Civil Police, who was there to represent the State, and the Chairman of COPREDEH. It also reported that in Decree No. 59-2006, the municipality of San José el Golfo named the street where the victim and his family lived in his memory, so that it is now José Miguel Mérida Escobar Street. The State reported that the rules to govern the “José Miguel Mérida Escobar” scholarship are awaiting approval. Finally, the victim’s youngest son, Edilsar Omar Mérida Alvarado, would be hired, starting January, under the program “Mi Primer Empleo” [My First Job].
412. On November 5, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement contained in Report N° 99/05. On December 6, 2007, the State reported that it continues to follow up on the commitments to provide the victim’s parents with a lifetime pension and to create a scholarship for police studies in the name of Officer José Miguel Mérida Escobar.
413. The IACHR concludes that the measures spelled out in the friendly settlement agreement have been partially carried out.
[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT] |
