|
|
|
GUATEMALA
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decided at its 65th
session to include in its annual report to the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States a special chapter on the status of human
rights in Guatemala. This chapter, which is based particularly on the
on-site observation mission in May to that country, updates the
Commission’s previous reports on Guatemala, without prejudice to the
preparation of a special report that will be sent to the Guatemalan
Government for comment. To that end, a communication was sent on July
11, 1985, to the Guatemalan Government, requesting that it send promptly
any supplementary or additional reports it felt should be included in
this report. Unfortunately, the Commission has received no reply to that
note.
The Commission has continued to follow carefully the development
of the human rights situation in Guatemala for several years, because of
the widespread violence that has been occurring in that country and the
many and repeated complaints about human rights violations received by
the Commission, which have been attributed to the authority and
responsibility of the Guatemalan Government’s agents themselves. To
that end, the Commission has published two special reports on the status
of human rights in Guatemala. The first (OEA/Ser.L/II.53 doc. 21, rev.
2), approved by the Commission on October 13, 1981, covers the status of
human rights in Guatemala up to that date, and the second
(OEA/Ser.L/II.61 doc. 47), approved by the Commission on October 5,
1983, covers the status of human rights since March 23, 1982, when the
coup occurred that made General Efraín Ríos Montt President.
After publication of the second special IACHR report on the
situation of human rights in Guatemala, which, as indicated, covers the
period from March 23, 1982, to August 8, 1983, when General Ríos Montt
was deposed and General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores took command of
the government as Chief of State, the Commission submitted in late 1984,
in its General Report to the General Assembly of the OAS on the
situation of human rights in a number of countries, a report on the
events that occurred on this field from September 1983 to September 1984
under the administration of the present Guatemalan Government.
At its sixty-third session (September 27 to October 5, 1984), in
which the IACHR approved the presentation of its 1983-1984 annual report
to the General Assembly, it also decided to request the approval of the
Guatemalan Government for a new on-site visit to that country, taking
into consideration the following facts among others: the renewed
outbreak of violence in urban areas and the reappearance of the death
squads; the continuous kidnappings, murders, and disappearances of
persons; the lack of information about the status of persons tried by
the Special Courts, who had not been sentenced and therefore did not
come under the amnesty law decreed by the Guatemalan Government; the
ineffectiveness of habeas corpus remedies; and continual
complaints about harassment of most of the Indian population in rural
areas who are also now forced to establish residence outside their
places of origin in the so-called model towns or development polls
(Polos de Desarrollo) and who are forced to become an integral and
active part of the Civil Defense Patrols to defend those towns and fight
against subversion.
In response to the Commission’s note sent October 3, 1984, and
dated October 5, the Government of Guatemala invited the IACHR to make
an on-site visit to Guatemala to determine reliably, according to the
terms of the note, the progress being made in the human rights field by
the administration of General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores.
At the end of that visit, which took place May 6-10, 1985, the
Special Commission, composed of César Sepúlveda, Chairman; and
members, Drs. Andrés Aguilar, Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra and Mr. Bruce
McColm, submitted to the Chief of State, General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores,
in the final interview with him at the Government House on Friday, May
10, a confidential document containing the preliminary recommendations
made by the Commission as a result of its on-site visit.
In addition, the Special Commission had the opportunity during
that interview to comment to the Chief of State on some of the points in
the preliminary recommendations, and stressed its concern at the status
of missing persons in Guatemala, and the need to designate a magistrate
at the highest level to investigate the many acts of kidnapping and
disappearances and to punish those responsible. The Special Commission
also stressed its concern at the status of the Mutual Support Group and
requested that special and priority attention and protection be accorded
its members.
Since the IACHR will issue a special report on the status of
human rights in Guatemala, this report will refer only to the most
important problems that have occurred from September 1984 to date. These
problems are, in the Commission’s opinion, the legal and political
situation, the problem of disappearances, and the way the so-called
“development polls,” “Civil Defense Patrols,” and the
“Interinstitutional Coordinators,” systems affect the Indian and
rural population.
Legal and Political Situation in Guatemala
During the government of General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores,
the political and legal situation in Guatemala has maintained the same
legal structure established by the “Fundamental Government Statute”
of General Efraín Ríos Montt, and thus will continue up to January 14,
1986, when the new Political Constitution of the Guatemalan Republic
approved by the Constituent National Assembly on May 31, 1985, will
enter into effect.
The new Guatemalan Constitution, approved by the Constituent
National Assembly, has a different structure from the country’s
previous constitutions and reflects the real importance the legislatures
have attached to human beings and individual rights in a new conception
of the organization of the State and the political and normative system
“affirming the primacy of human beings as the subject and purpose of
social order,” and the decision to “promote full respect for human
rights in a stable, permanent and popular institutional order, where the
governed and the governors are absolutely bound by the law.” The
Constitution consists of 7 titles and 281 articles that are part of the
main text and one title, VIII, which consists of 22 articles containing
temporary and final provisions.
The topic of human rights, their protection and defense, is fully
dealt with in the new Guatemalan Constitution, primarily in Titles I, II
and III. The individual rights that the Constitution specifies are the
right to life; the right to liberty and equality of all human beings;
the right to freedom of action; illegal or arbitrary arrests are
forbidden; prisoners must be brought before a competent judge within six
hours, and may not be subject to any other authority; every imprisoned
person must be immediately notified of the reasons for his detention,
the authority that ordered it and the place where he will be detained,
and the person designated by him must be informed of these circumstances
by the quickest means; the right of all prisoners to be assisted by a
counsel who shall be present at all judicial and police proceedings, and
the prisoner may not be compelled to testify except before a judge
within a period not to exceed 24 hours; extrajudicial interrogations are
not admissible as evidence; no one may be taken to places of detention,
arrest or imprisonment other than those that are legally and publicly
designated for that purpose, and those who violate this rule shall be
held responsible; persons arrested for offenses or violations must not
be held if their identity can be established by documents, by the
testimony of a known person, or by the authorities themselves; and no
one may be sentenced or deprived of his rights without having been
summoned, tried and convicted in a legal trial before a competent and
pre-established judge or court.
The Guatemalan Constitution also forbids special or secret courts
and procedures that are not legally pre-established; it also affirms the
principle of presumed innocence, public trials, nonretroactive laws, no
crime or penalty without a previous law, and no debtor prisons.
It provides that the death penalty may not be imposed on the
basis of presumptive evidence, nor on women or persons older than 60
years of age, nor on those accused of political crimes or common crimes
connected with politics, nor on accused persons whose extradition has
been granted on the condition that these prohibitions will be respected.
It also provides that the Congress may abolish the death penalty.
Regarding international relations, the new Guatemalan
Constitution provides that Guatemala shall govern its relations with
other States in accordance with international principles, rules and
practices in order to contribute to the maintenance of peace, freedom
and respect and defense of human rights, the strengthening of democratic
processes and international institutions that ensure fair and mutual
benefits between states.
Also noteworthy is the fact that in Title II, Chapter II, Third
Section, the treatment given to the rights of Indians and Indian
communities, whose right of cultural identity is recognized in
accordance with their values, language and customs. The State declares
that it recognizes, respects and promotes their way of life, customs,
traditions, forms of social organization, the use of Indian dress,
languages and dialects, and protects their cooperative and communal
lands and their family property (patrimonio familiar), and ensures that
the system will be maintained, by providing for special promotion and
development programs and measures to avoid discriminatory treatment in
payment of their wages when they work outside their communities. It
likewise calls for the enactment of a specific law to regulate all
aspects of the protection and defense of such rights.
Title VI establishes the “Constitutional Guarantees and Defense
of the Constitution Order.” These guarantees include first the writ of
habeas corpus, which can be filed by any one who is illegally
arrested or deprived in any way of his individual freedom, or is
mistreated even though his arrest was based on the law. If the person
for whom the writ is filed cannot be found, the court must order that
the case be investigated until the facts are fully determined. The
Constitution also provides for the remedy of amparo to protect
persons whose rights are threatened and to restore the observance of
those rights when such violation has occurred.
Likewise, legal action may be brought to declare laws,
regulations or general provisions that totally or partially violate the
Constitution to be declared unconstitutional. The new Constitution
establishes a standing Court of Constitutionality to defend the
constitutional order, acting as a collegial court independent of other
State agencies.
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the Guatemalan
Constitution also establishes a Human Rights Commission of the Congress
to be composed of a deputy from each political party. This Commission
will nominate three candidates for the election of a prosecutor
(Procurador) who will have the qualifications of a Supreme Court
justice. The law will regulate the powers of this Commission and of the
Human Rights Prosecutor, who will act as a commissioner of this body to
defend human rights and monitor public administration. He will serve for
five years, and must submit annual reports to the plenary session of
Congress, with which he is connected through the Human Rights
Commission.
The duties of the Human Rights Prosecutor are as follows: a)
promote the proper operation and streamline the administration of the
government in human rights matters; b) investigate and bring charges
regarding administrative actions that are injurious to the interests of
persons; c) investigate all kinds of complaints of human rights
violations; d) recommend changes in the administrative actions of
officials against whom complaints are lodged; e) publicly censure acts
or behavior that violate constitutional rights; f) promote
administrative or judicial remedies or actions when appropriate; and g)
take any other actions assigned to him by the law. The Prosecutor is
also responsible in cases of suspension of guarantees for seeing to it
that all rights that have not been expressly restricted are fully
guaranteed.
Regarding the status of human rights, the Commission has
previously underscored the progress made in this area under the
administration of General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores, and under the
presidency of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal of Arturo Herbruger
Asturias, which was given concrete implementation on August 1, 1984,
with the completion of the first stage of the Political Cronogram
(Cronograma Político), which consisted of installing the Constituent
National Assembly to write the new Constitution of the Republic of
Guatemala.
On May 21, 1985, the Chief of State announced that military
personnel discharged from the army to take posts in the military
government would return to their previous positions of military command
in order to give the administration a more civilian image before the
change of administration, so as to ensure that the Chief of State would
be the only military officer remaining in the government until the
change of administration. On May 31, when the new text of the
Constitution was received for publication in the Official Gazette, the
Chief of State announced that the army and the government would keep
their promises not to support any group or candidate in the next
elections.
The new Electoral Law for the general elections next November and
December was enacted on June 3, and on the following day, the military
governor of Guatemala scheduled presidential, legislative and municipal
elections for November 3, and if an absolute majority was not obtained
in the presidential election, the runoff election would be held on
December 3. In the legislative elections, 100 deputies will be elected
(75 district and 25 national). The electoral schedule provides that the
president-elect will take office on January 14, 1986, and will serve for
a five-year term. His election will mark the end of 14 years of military
regimes.
The citizen’s Electoral Register (Registro Electoral) indicates
that 14 political parties will participate in the coming general
elections, and all of them have met the requirements established by the
current Political Organizations Law, including the submission of
signatures of 4,000 members and having a party organization in 50
municipalities.
The eight candidates for the president and vice president of the
Republic of Guatemala, registered by the August 15 deadline for filing
of candidates are as follows:
Mario Solórzano Martínez and Luis Zurita Tablada, of the Social
Democratic Party (PSD), who are running for the first time in an
election; Lionel Sisniega Otero and Julio Benjamín Sultán, of the
Anticommunist Unification Party (POA), the National Unity Front (FUN)
and the Emerging Movement of Harmony (Movimiento Emergente de Concordia)
(MEC); Jorge Elías Serrano and Mario Fuentes Pieruccini, of the
Democratic Party of National Cooperation (PDCN) and the Revolutionary
Party (PR); Mario Sandoval Alarcón and Jaime Cáceres Knox of the
National Liberation Movement (MLN), and the Democratic Institutional
Party (PID), they are also supported by the Popular Democratic Force
(FDP) but that party did not register them officially; Alejandro
Maldonado Aguirre and Mauricio Quixtan, of the National Renewal Party
(PNR); Mario David García and Carlos Molina Mencos, of the
Nationalistic Authentic Central Party (Central Auténtica Nacionalista
(CAN); Vinicio Cerezo Arévalo and Roberto Carpio Nicole, of the
Guatemalan Christian Democratic Party (the Democratic Civic Front
(FCD-5) also supported them but did not register them officially); Jorge
Carpio Nicolle and Ramiro De León Carpio, of the Union of the National
Center (UCN).
In addition, candidates were recorded for 100 seats (curules) in
the National Congress and 327 for mayors and municipal corporations.
Forced Disappearance of persons
Unfortunately, the forced disappearance of persons is nothing new
in the gamut of human rights violations in the hemisphere, and precisely
because of its extreme seriousness, it has been considered and condemned
by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States as a
crime against humanity (delito de lesa humanidad). However, although
this crime has different characteristics in every country where it
occurs, there appears to be a common denominator that typifies and
characterizes this practice.
Analysis of the information in the possession of the Commission
on the names, dates, data, ages, sex, professions or activities of
victims, common characteristics of the attacks and other studies on the
problem, it is clear, without determining the exact number of missing
persons, which under the administration of General Oscar Humberto Mejía
Víctores is over 1,000, that the situation is extremely serious. This
problem is dealt with fully and in detail in the special report
submitted by the IACHR to the Government of Guatemala.
As
a matter of fact, some of these cases of forced disappearance of persons
took place during the on-site visit of the IACHR Special Commission to
Guatemala. In fact, from May 3 when Executive Secretariat personnel
began to arrive to May 10 when the visit was completed, Messrs. Oswaldo
Rodríguez Cabrera, Jorge Humberto Granados Hernández and Juan Carlos
Alfaro Alvarez were kidnapped and disappeared. Only the last of these
persons reappeared, and he said that the Department of Technical
Investigations (DIT) was the agency responsible for his apprehension.
Absence of Legal Measures for Protection
It is frequently true that, when illegal arrest, kidnapping and
disappearance of persons not investigated or punished properly occur in
a country, the remedy of habeas corpus is almost always an
ineffective weapon to counteract this situation. That also seems to be
the case in Guatemala, where for a number of years, the remedy of habeas
corpus, the only legal guarantee provided for in the Government’s
Fundamental Statute to defend the freedom, security and life of human
beings, has become ineffective and inoperative.
In view of the many complaints received about the inoperativeness
of the habeas corpus remedy, the Commission has repeatedly
requested the Government of General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores to
take the necessary steps to make this important legal instrument for
protection and defense of human rights fully effective.
In its last report to the General Assembly of the Organization of
American States (1983-1984), the Commission pointed out in this
connection:
The inefficacy of judicial institutions to protect the population
from abuse by government authorities, such as the writ of habeas
corpus, which the Commission’s past reports strongly recommended
be strengthened, has again become apparent under this government, which
makes it necessary to emphasize the need to provide the Judiciary with
the independence and appropriate means to enforce respect for the law
and the reign of justice.
The Commission is aware that in the period covered by this
report, hundreds of habeas corpus writs have been rejected by the
courts, based entirely on the police reports that the missing persons
were not held in any of the country’s detention centers. The IACHR
Special Commission founds in its on-site visit that such fact finding
had not been made at the national level and no real investigation had
been made by the police, who did no more than check the names of persons
booked at the DIT local offices in Guatemala City, so that the efforts
of the victims’ families to find them were thwarted.
The Mutual Support Group Working for the Reappearance Alive of
our
Sons, Spouses, Parents and Sisters and Brothers (GAM)
There was no organization of parents or family members of missing
detainees in Guatemala, and the first committees that were organized
were broken up one after another by previous administrations until the
appearance on June 4, 1984, of the GAM or “Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo por el
reaparecimiento con Vida de Nuestros Hijos, Esposos, Padres y
hermanos,” an organization set up under the right of freedom of
association. Twelve months after it was established, the GAM membership
consisted of 640 families with 538 cases of missing detainees from 1980
to 1985, who included: men from 18 to 40, usually workmen, trade
unionists, students and professional workers; women 18 to 35, usually
mothers who are pregnant and devoted to their homes, farm women,
students, and women workers; and children from 6 to 16, mainly peasants
and primary and secondary school students. Most are women, and almost
80% are of Indian origin.
To make its action effective, the GAM began in defiance of
government authority to hold protest demonstrations. After peacefully
taking over the building of the National Congress, the members of the
GAM have been received on various occasions by the Chief of State and
some of his cabinet ministers, who have heard their complaints about
lack of attention to their appeals. They have been asked for proof and
evidence of abuses, illegal arrests, kidnapping, torture and other acts
committed against their loved ones and—as they have told the
IACHR—knowing that they were turning over evidence that would
jeopardize them personally and directly, at the risk of their own
safety, they have given the names, description and characteristics of
officials and other persons implicated in such actions. They explained
that this information had been revealed to them secretly by friendly
officials or family members that had seen the kidnapped persons alive in
their secret places of imprisonment.
In the face of so much evidence made public, the Government of
General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores ordered the establishment of a
high level commission to hear all of the complaints, testimony and
declarations submitted. The Commission, known as the “Tripartite
Commission” was composed of representatives of three sectors: the
Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of the Interior and the Attorney
General’s office.
Several months after it was established, the Tripartite
Commission informed the Chief of State of its findings. The GAM has
publicly expressed its frustration, disappointment and disagreement with
the findings in the Tripartite Commission’s report, which denies the
existence of secret prisons, rejects the charge that missing persons are
imprisoned by the security forces, and claims that there is not enough
information on Guatemalans who have emigrated to Mexico to determine
whether the missing persons are among them. The GAM repeats its
conviction that its loved ones are imprisoned somewhere in the country,
promises to continue its struggle until their family members reappear
safe and sound, indignantly rejects the report, and asserts that the GAM
has again been the victim of cover up, deceit and falsity. It denies the
accusation that it has not cooperated with the government, and asserts
that it has given every kind of confidential details, including the
names of the kidnappers, the places of detention, identification of
vehicles, and detailed descriptions in each case.
In an interview with the IACHR Special Commission during its
on-site visit, the GAM, presided over by Ms. Nineth Montenegro de García,
wife of the missing labor leader Edgar Fernando García, submitted a
list of 457 missing persons, with respect to whom the IACHR has
requested the Guatemalan Government to conduct a special investigation.
Regarding the document containing the findings of the
investigation conducted by the Tripartite Commission, the IACHR, which
recognizes the nature of the evidence provided by the GAM, considers
that a genuine investigation has not been conducted, because if not all,
at least some of the cases submitted could have been immediately cleared
up, particularly those where the names of officers and identification
numbers of official vehicles taking part in the kidnapping were
submitted. Even when the complaints are about specific cases, the
Tripartite Commission’s report is vague. That explains why the Special
Commission, aware of the nature of the report, recommended that the
Chief of State assign that task to an ad hoc magistrate whose
independence and reputation are above suspicion.
The GAM was carrying out its activities normally in spite of
constant threats of death against its leaders until March 14, 1985, when
in an official ceremony at the military base of the Department of
Jutiapa, which was carried on television, the Chief of State, General
Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores, made certain allegations that the GAM
was being manipulated by subversion and by an international group and
that, in that context, its efforts to have the missing persons reappear
alive was a subversive act and steps would be taken to counteract it.
Immediately after these statements, the GAM began to be seriously
harassed. Its members began to be followed by State security agents.
Death threats by telephone and in writing against its leaders increased.
On the night of March 16, DIT members appeared at the home of Angel
Edulfo Reyes to seize him, but they did not succeed because he was not
there at the time. Two weeks after the statements of the Chief of State,
the first extrajudicial execution of one of the GAM members occurred. On
March 30, Hector Orlando Gómez Calito, a baker, was seized in public at
the corner of Third Avenue and Twentieth Street in Zone 1 of the
capital, as he was leaving a GAM meeting and was preparing to get on an
out-of-town bus to Amatitlán where he lived. Two days later, his body
was found bound hand and foot at kilometer 27 on the highway to the
Pacific.
A few days later, on April 4, the disappearance of an entire
family of a GAM leader was reported, and they were later found dead
under strange circumstances. In fact, at mid-day on Thursday the fourth,
the day before Holy Friday, Professor María del Rosario Godoy Aldana de
Cuevas, accompanied by her three year old son, and her twenty-one year
old brother René Godoy Aldana, left their home in Zone 13 of Guatemala
City in a station wagon to buy food and supplies in the supermarket
“Centro Comercial Montufar” in Zone 9. When they did not return and
were not heard from, the family reported their disappearance to the DIT.
On the following day, the bodies of the three were found at the bottom
of a ravine at kilometer 19 of the highway to Villa Canales. The
National Police called their death a traffic accident.
As a result of this campaign of violence against the GAM, the
number of their leaders has been reduced by the deaths mentioned, and
others, terrorized by the continuous threats, harassment and
persecution, have chosen to flee abroad, so the Commission has requested
special guarantees and protection for the organization’s leaders.
Effects on the Indian Population of the Development Polls
System, Interinstitutional Coordinators and Civil Defense
Patrols Development Polls
The Development Polls, whose immediate predecessors were the
so-called “Model Towns” created by the Government of General Efraín
Ríos Montt, were legally instituted by the administration of General
Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores through Decree Law Nº 65-84 of June 26,
1984.
The highest officers of the army are responsible for organizing
and coordinating the Development Polls, and the program is under the
Deputy Chief of State and Chief of Staff of National Defense. Monitoring
of the programs is the responsibility of the Interinstitutional
Coordinators, which are required to report to the Chief of Staff of
National Defense.
The action plan of the Development Polls, known as the Highest
Priority Action Plan, is contained in Government Agreement 801-84, a
decree issued on September 12, 1984, establishing three stages of
overall conduct of the program.
“First Stage: Basic Assistance for Displaced Persons. A.
Census, identification and classification by ethnic group,
dialect, place of origin and family group. B.
Distribution of food supplies and cooking equipment and
utensils. C.
Preventive and curative medical care. D.
Community organization. E.
Social service to widows and orphans. F.
Construction of temporary housing. G.
Service infrastructure.
Second
Stage : Follow-up.
Third Stage: Consolidation.”
According to information gathered by the Commission, the schedule
for the Development Polls, each of which groups together a number of
Model Towns, has not been fully achieved, unlike the political schedule.
The deadlines for the first stage have been partially met at the expense
of great effort, and the second and third stages are far from even being
attempted.
Although there is no specific official definition of the
Development Polls, there is no doubt that the program involves
resettlement of displaced Indian and rural populations in a group of
“Model Towns” and these programs are being organized and financed
under the development, protection and military security plans that have
been assigned to them by the National Defense Staff, which exercises
direct control, supervision and execution of them through the
Interinstitutional Coordinators and the Civil Defense Patrols.
National System of Interinstitutional Coordination
The National System of Interinstitutional Coordination for
Reconstruction and Development is provided for in Decree Law 111-84 of
November 26, 1984. The objective of the system is to guide and
coordinate actions of the public sector and nongovernmental
organizations in programs for national, departmental, municipal and
local reconstruction and development, through the establishment of an
Interinstitutional Coordinator at each of these levels.
The Civil Defense Patrols
These patrols were set up under the administration of General
Romeo Lucas García in 1981 and implemented later by the administration
of General Efraín Ríos Montt and General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores.
They are regulated by various legal provisions, regulations and higher
military orders.
Civil Defense Patrols are military organizations set up by the
Guatemalan Army to establish and bring into operation within the
civilian rural and Indian population of each country, small bodies
organized militarily to carry out in their towns, mainly patrol, defense
and control of guerrilla movements. Each of these groups is a Civil
Defense Patrol, which is to say the system as a whole bears the name of
its operating mechanism. Civil Defense does not operate in Guatemala
City, and its activity in several Department capitals like Huehetenango,
Santa Cruz del Quiché and Cobán is limited. It mainly operates in the
conflict areas as they are called, in the municipalities, small towns
and the Development Polls.
The Civil Defense Organization, which strictly speaking is not a
paramilitary entity, has been increasing in size and in importance, and
is currently estimated to group together, control and direct about one
million members. Guatemala now has a total estimated population of 8
million members. Guatemala now has a total estimated population of 8
million, of which 65% or 5,200,000, including men, women, old people and
children, live in rural areas. Consequently, if women, old people and
children under 18 are not counted, the huge proportion of male Indian
and rural population enlisted in these Civil Defense Patrols is clear.
The patrols operate under the control of the local military
command and a responsible person known as the “Comisionado.” Each of
them also has a patrol chief designated in each locality by the military
commander or the “Comisionado,” who are required to report directly
all events occurring in their jurisdiction.
All men from 18 to 60 must participate in the patrols. They are
composed of peasants and other mestizos (ladinos) and Indians, who
receive no financial remuneration or compensation for their services,
because the work is considered to be a “voluntary service provided
free of charge.” The tasks to be carried out are ordered by the Patrol
Chief. Patrol members are under his orders and are required to report on
their missions.
Guard duty varies with each patrol. In some cases, members serve
for two weeks, and in others a month, while in others they serve three
to four days a week. Members of the Civil Defense Patrol cannot fail to
carry out their commitment to participate nor to perform their periodic
guard duties. To be excused from service or guard duty requires prior
authorization from the Patrol Chief, and patrol members must in every
case give reasons why they cannot perform the service. Usually, a member
who cannot carry out a patrol duty must seek a replacement, and even,
according to the reports, pay the replacement to service in his place.
Members of the Civil Defense Patrols receive continuous, although
rudimentary military training. Mostly they are provided with machetes,
and in some cases old rifles, but not modern weapons. Aside from their
usefulness as a shock force to prevent surprise attacks or to counteract
small insurgent assaults, their service is very useful to the government
in providing regular reports on what goes on in their towns: the
behavior of the population, daily events, the arrival of a stranger,
novel or unusual occurrences, suspicious behavior of neighbors, and even
jokes. To act as the eyes and ears of the army, reporting everything
that might be useful or valuable.
While the government gives assurances that participation in the
Civil Defense Patrols is free and voluntary, anybody who refuses to join
or to take an active part in them is immediately segregated,
investigated, harassed and even worse, accused of being an alleged
sympathizer of subversion or an undercover subversive.
The three institutions whose legal structure has been described
above constitute the base of the military administration pyramid of the
joint project. At the top, as maximum authority responsible for
direction, coordination, control and execution is the Chief of Staff of
National Defense. The programs for development, security and military
defense, which constitute its objective, affect the lifestyles, safety
and human rights of the persons for whose protection and help they are
supposed to be designed. In the opinion of the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, a program that is presented as a solution is instead
part of the problem.
How these programs affect the Indian and rural population
The following are the general features that show how the overall
system affects basic human rights:
The compulsory nature of the program makes it a military
emergency plan in which the group for which it is designed is not
consulted, instead the program is imposed on them;
Although the program is intended to be a comprehensive system for
protection and defense of the rural and Indian population in order to
restore their lost peace and security, the plan instead jeopardizes
their peace and security and directly involves them in the armed
conflict;
By virtue of its military emergency nature, which is
characteristic of states of emergency, the program directly or
indirectly curtails, restricts, and in some cases deprives those it
seeks to benefit of their basic human rights.
The legal framework serving as the context of the program, the
concentration of power in the leadership of all levels of the military
administrative apparatus, especially lower echelon officers operating in
the most remote places in the municipalities and towns, and the fact
that local judges are appointed by the military authorities gives rise
to uncontrollable cases of abuse of power, most of which are
attributable to the army and the Civil Defense Patrols, and the
population affected does not have the means to defend itself because of
the lack of proper legal remedies or the lack of authority of officials
called upon to investigate and punish such actions.
Right to Life, Humane Treatment, Security and Personal Freedom
According to information in the possession of the Commission, the
rights to life, humane treatment, security and personal freedom, set
forth in Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
are unquestionably those that are most affected by the abuses and
excesses of power in the rural and Indian areas.
Right of Freedom of Movement and Residence
The Commission has received complaints that the rights of freedom
of movement and residence, set forth in Articles 22 and 24 of the
American Convention, are restricted and curtailed in practice, because
the population groups located in the Development Polls and subject to
civic and military service of the Civil Defense Patrols do not fully
enjoy the legitimate right of freedom of movement throughout the
territory of their country and of deciding on their place of residence.
It is a well known fact that entry into and departure from the
Development Polls is controlled by the army and the Civil Defense
Patrols, and to leave or enter the perimeter of these Polls people must
apply for and obtain special authorization, which is not always granted.
Entry and departure of residents of the Acamal Poll is almost entirely
prohibited.
Likewise, this right is affected by the continuous and close
supervision and control exercised on the roads by members of the Civil
Defense Patrols, who wield an almost uncontrolled power in a threatening
manner. They are armed and sometimes drunk, and frequently detain
passersby to search their belongings and ask them where they are going
and the reasons for their travel. Aside from the fright such practices
cause rural people, the Commission has knowledge that not infrequently
irremediable tragedies have nearly occurred in these routine inspections
when international officials, journalists or foreign tourists have been
detained by illiterate patrols who were unable to determine the identity
of these persons by their documents or to communicate with them because
the patrol members did not know Spanish.
The degree of security under which certain Development Polls are
maintained in the conflict areas resembles—according to some of their
residents—concentration camps more than refugee camps.
Rights of Assembly and Association
The right of assembly and freedom of association, considered in
Articles 15 and 16 of the American Convention, are also restricted and
curtailed, because existing security measures in the Development Polls
and the strict supervision of the Civil Defense Patrols inhibit
residents from taking part in any social, ideological, cultural or other
assemblies or associations. All such meetings, when they do occur, are
subject to surveillance, supervision and control by the authorities, so
they do not enjoy the freedom implied by such rights.
Rights to Due Process of Law and Judicial Guarantees
The rights to guarantees of due process and judicial protection,
provided for in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, are not
effective or enforced according to reports. This is mainly due to the
fact that those who exercise the judicial functions are selected and
appointed by the same local military authorities against whom complaints
and denunciations are filed for violations of human rights, so the same
lack of protection and of the remedy of habeas corpus, indicated
as one of the serious deficiencies of the Guatemalan judicial system
when the status of persons who have used this measure in the capital of
the country were considered, prevails also in the rural, peasant and
Indian areas, in cases of acts of abuse by the Civil Defense Patrols and
members of the Guatemalan Armed Forces.
Rights of Children
In addition, the Commission has received complaints of violations
of the rights of children, who are protected by Article 18 of the
American Convention. According to these complaints, many minors have
been affected. In some cases they have been wounded severely and in
others they have been killed in connection with their compulsory
participation in the Civil Defense Patrols. There have also been many
cases of fatal accidents, because of minors’ inexperience or lack of
skill in handling machetes and firearms, and there have been other
complaints about abuses of various kinds by adults against minors in the
collective participation on patrol activities in the rural areas. The
Commission has likewise been informed that in many localities Indian
children under 18 who, because of deficiencies in the civil records
cannot prove they are under the legal minimum age, are enrolled in
patrol activities despite the protests of their parents.
Rights to Equal Protection Before the Law
Another right considered in the American Convention on Human
Rights, which is also affected, is the right to equal protection before
the law (Article 24). Most of the population of the country, which
consists of mestizos (ladinos) and Indians living in rural areas of
Guatemala, state that they are discriminated against before the law and
are not given the same protection, guarantees, and rights as those
living in urban areas, especially in Guatemala City.
The Guatemalan Indian population, according to some of their
leaders, has historically demanded recognition of their identity that is
essentially different from the Spanish culture that shaped the Republic
of Guatemala. They assert that there has always existed, and in fact
still exists a linguistic, racial, social and cultural difference that,
because it has not been taken into consideration, constitutes a problem
hampering the process of integration in the country and in practice
causing the discriminatory treatment complained of by the Indians.
In addition to the human rights limitations mentioned, members of
the Indian rural population in Guatemala say that in practice exercise
of the following rights are being curtailed among them: freedom of
conscience and religion (Article 12 of the American Convention) because
of harassment of catechists and destruction or takeover of Catholic
churches where the people met to pray, many of which are still used as
barracks, freedom of thought and expression (Article 13 of the American
Convention); the right to protection of the family (Article 17 of the
Convention), which is seriously affected by the forced enrollment of
males in the Civil Defense Patrols; and the right to progressive
development and preservation of their identity (Article 26 of the
American Convention), because the atmosphere of terror existing in rural
areas has had adverse effects and has virtually paralyzed the conduct of
development and social promotion activities of nongovernmental and
religious organizations.
Conclusions and Recommendations
a.
Regarding political rights, it is a cause of special satisfaction
for the Commission to note that, despite the many difficulties that have
occurred, the political schedule of the government of General Oscar
Humberto Mejía Víctores is being carried out, and political
associations, public institutions and the general public are
participating in re-establishing the democratic and constitutional
regime in the country, and in so doing are ensuring respect for human
rights;
b.
During the period covered by this report, the main problem
confronting Guatemala in the human rights area continues to be the
forced disappearance of persons, who were previously victims of illegal
seizure and detention attributable in almost all cases to the government
security forces. This situation, as stated in the last IACHR Annual
Report, deserves more attention from the Guatemalan Government because
of the climate of fear, insecurity and anguish generated in the
population, and should be thoroughly investigated. Also, because of its
magnitude, and the urgent measures required by this situation should be
taken immediately to put a final end to the problem, and those
responsible should be tried and punished;
c.
As already indicated by the Commission, the problem of missing
persons affects the right of freedom and personal safety, in addition to
the right to life, so if such rights were not violated by illegal
arrests and kidnapping, disappearance of persons would be difficult.
Consequently, the Government of Guatemala is again urged to see to it
that, where such actions are warranted, arrests of persons shall be
carried out in strict accordance to the laws, prisoners shall be held in
official detention centers, and the fact of their imprisonment shall not
be withheld from their families;
d.
The inoperativeness of the habeas corpus remedy, whose
strengthening was particularly recommended in the Commission’s
previous reports, was still in evidence during this observation period,
so it is necessary to stress again the need to set up a national central
control registry of prisoners and to take any other measures needed to
see that it is used effectively in human rights cases;
e.
The Commission cannot evaluate the overall results attained by
the government programs known as “Development Polls,”
Interinstitutional Coordinators and Civil Defense Patrols, in terms of
their achievements in development, security and military defense, but
must confine itself to the human rights area. In that regard, the
Commission is concerned about the way these programs directly and
indirectly affect the Indian and rural population for which they are
designed, especially with regard to the right to life; integrity,
security and personal freedom; the right to freedom of movement and
residence; the right to assembly and association; the rights of children
and the family; and in the context, the Commission regrets that these
programs cause serious and severe violations to these guarantees,
freedoms and rights;
f.
The Commission recommends that the legal personality of
organizations representing Indians be recognized, and that conditions be
provided so their members will be protected when they freely report on
the needs and aspirations of the Indian populations and that they be
given the opportunity to express, without fear of reprisal, their
opinions to international agencies involved in promoting and protecting
human rights;
g.
The IACHR repeats the recommendations it made in its last report
to the OAS General Assembly in 1984, especially with regard to the need
to investigate and punish with the full force of the law those
responsible for illegal executions, disappearances, arbitrary arrests
and torture, and it regrets that the Guatemalan Government has not
provided the information expressly requested of it in a note of July 11,
1985, to include, in this report, its own views about the human rights
situation in that country.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |
