REPORT Nº 39/00
CASE 10.586 ET AL[1]
Extrajudicial Executions
GUATEMALA[2]
April 13, 2000

  

          I.       SUMMARY 

          1.       In 1990 and 1991 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission") received 46 petitions alleging that the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter the "State" or "Guatemala") violated the human rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention") of the following 71 men, women, and children: Joaquín Ortega, Teodoro Mejía Aguilar, Arcadio Mejía Velásquez, Efraín Ventura Cifuentes, Luis Ventura, Fidelino Raúl Tobías Aparicio, Miguel Angel Rianca Sicay, Gregorio Ramírez y Ramírez, Juan Pablo Quiejuy, Mateo de la Cruz, Aldo Tomás Sicaja, Francisco Alfredo Yuman, Mario Gómez Castillo, Emilio Santiago Ronquillo Peralta, Miguel Angel de León García, Jorge Adalberto Girón, Arturo Martínez Rodríguez, Alfredo Ubido Segura, Ricardo Alberto Ajcajbón, Juan Cristino Rodríguez, Sara Rodríguez, Mercedes Oxlaj, Dominga Rodríguez Chet, Guilgo Teodoro Zapeta Vásquez, Alberto Paron Boche, Pedro Rivera Matom, Magdalena Efranin Fray Santos, David Gutiérrez Morales, Everardo Boteo Morales, Juan Orellana Chacón, Israel Chacón Aquino, Orlando Estuardo Alvarado Morales, Salvador Sosof Vásquez, Baltazar Pablo Mendoza, Pedro Chávez, Martín Quic Ratzán, Urbano Efraín Alvarado Mejía, Toribio López, Tiburcio Carrillo, Arnoldo Pérez Arana, Jorge Simaj Saquil, María Azurdia, Jorge Luis Simaj Azurdia, Félix Tizul Piruch, Víctor Segura, Gloria Patzay Vicente, Omar Cain Carvajal Leiva, Juana Coche Tacaxoy, José Pospoy Mendoza, Marco Tulio Collado Pardo, Oscar Aguilar Saquic, Cristóbal Chico López, Wenceslao Santiago Saavedra, Marvin Estuardo Castillo Saavedra, Víctor Manuel Chiquín (Chanquín), Ricardo Rivera Ovando, Pedro García Chuc, Carlos Evercio Melgar Pocón, María del Carmen Anabisca Secáida, Byron Estuardo Polanco, Eulogio Meléndez Boteo, Pedro Meléndez Galicia, Noé Meléndez Galicia, Margarita Chávez, Dinora Pérez Valdez, Felicito Cristóbal Samayoa, Leandro Barillas, Oswaldo Luna Aceituno, Tomás Ventura Chon, Julio Quevedo Quezada and Raúl Sao Villagrán.  Specifically, in each case the petitioners allege that the victim or victims had been extrajudicially executed by members of the security forces of the Guatemalan State or persons linked to them. 

          2.       The above-mentioned cases were opened pursuant to receipt of those complaints, and processed in accordance with the provisions of the American Convention and the Commission's Regulations.  In the course of this processing, after determining that each of the cases referred to an allegation of extrajudicial execution of persons at the hands of the security forces or persons linked to them, and considering the character and time frame common to the complaints in question, the Commission decided, pursuant to Article 40 of its Regulations, to combine these cases and to proceed to resolve them together. This report examines the issue of whether the Republic of Guatemala has incurred international responsibility for the arbitrary execution of the victims that has been alleged, and the corresponding violation of the rights to life and judicial protection and guarantees, as well as the other related rights enshrined in the American Convention. 

          3.       The State, for its part, responded to the Commission's requests for information in 41 of the 46 cases.  In summary, in 29 of these 41 cases, as will be analyzed in detail below, the State answered that domestic proceedings were ongoing and that they remained in the investigative stage.  Accordingly, with respect to those cases, the State argued expressly that the petition before the Commission was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  In four of these 41 cases, the State asserted, based on indicia from the investigations, that the violations alleged were acts of common crime.  As the facts alleged could not be attributed to the State or its forces, the State argued, they were inadmissible as falling outside the Commission's jurisdiction.  In several cases, the State asserted that it required additional information to be in a position to investigate the facts alleged, or that the lack of information provided by the victims, their family members, and/or witnesses had impeded their efforts to investigate. 

          4.       In accordance with what is established below, after examining the statements of the parties, the Commission decided to admit this case and to declare that the State bears responsibility for violations of the rights to life, and to judicial guarantees and protection of the victims identified, and for its failure to duly investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators, as established in Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, as well as, in the relevant cases, the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, and measures of protection required for minors, established at Articles 5, 7, and 19 of the Convention.  In addition, the State is responsible for failing in the duty imposed by Article 1(1) to respect and guarantee those rights. Accordingly, the Commission recommended to the State that it carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the victims' executions and to punish those responsible pursuant to the terms of internal legislation, and to ensure that the victims' family members receive fair and prompt compensation for the human rights violations set forth.   

          II.       FACTS ALLEGED, PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND POSITION OF THE STATE 

1.     Joaquín Ortega, Teodoro Mejía Aguilar, Arcadio Mejía Velásquez, Efraín Ventura Cifuentes, and Luis Ventura (Case 10.586) 

          Facts alleged 

          5.       According to the petition dated March 24, 1990, on March 15, 1990, peasants Joaquín Ortega, Teodoro Mejía Aguilar, Arcadio Mejía Velásquez, Efraín Ventura Cifuentes, and Luis Ventura were captured by 12 armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces.  The perpetrators, aboard a truck with registration number C-14366, had intercepted the vehicle in which the victims were riding on the highway between Malacatán and Tejutla, San Marcos.  Hours later, the corpses of the five victims were found at two different sites: the corpse of Joaquín Ortega was found in the village of Morazán, department of San Marcos, while the other four were found in the village of Malacatán in San Marcos.  The facts alleged were reported to the National Police.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          6.       On July 30, 1990, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested that it provide information on the facts alleged.  The request was reiterated on January 28, 1991, and on March 9, 1994.  The Guatemalan State responded on August 22, 1994, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner on August 31, 1994 for observations.  On February 20, 1996, the Commission requested that the State provide observations on any developments in the proceedings that were initiated in this matter in the domestic jurisdiction. 

          7.       On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information on the case.  In addition, in this last communication the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties for the purpose of pursuing a friendly settlement, giving each of the parties 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          8.       In its answer of August 22, 1994, the State indicated that, as a result of the complaint filed with the National Police by one of the relatives of the victims, a proceeding identified as case number 691-90 had been initiated in the domestic jurisdiction before the Second Court of the Criminal Court of Investigation of First Instance for the department of San Marcos.  It also indicated that the Public Ministry had asked that Court to issue arrest warrants for the owner of the truck used by the criminals, and for the person who sold it to him.  Those persons had been questioned and released on personal recognizance, when it was confirmed that they had acquired the vehicle in question legally.  

          2.         Fidelino Raúl Tobías Aparicio, Miguel Angel Rianca Sicay, Gregorio Ramírez y Ramírez, and Juan Pablo Quiejuy (Case 10.609)

           Facts alleged 

          9.       According to the petition dated May 31, 1990, on May 22, 1990, Messrs. Fidelino Raúl Tobías Aparicio, Miguel Angel Rianca Sicay, Gregorio Ramírez y Ramírez, and Juan Pablo Quiejuy were captured in the villages of Xechiboy, Pamacoj, Achichoy, and Cheritaj, respectively, all in the municipality of Santiago Atitlán, department of Sololá, by armed men dressed as soldiers. Two days later, on May 24, 1990, the victims' corpses were found in the village of Cerro de Oro, also in the municipality of Santiago Atitlán, department of Sololá.  The corpses bore signs of torture, strangulation, and gunshot wounds.   

          Processing before the Commission 

          10.     On August 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  The State responded on January 23, 1991, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner on January 29, 1991 for observations.  On March 9, 1994, the Commission asked the Guatemalan State to provide information on the progress in the proceedings opened on this case in the domestic jurisdiction.  It reiterated that request on July 19, 1994.  On August 23, 1994, the State answered and the information was forwarded to the petitioner on August 31, 1994 for the corresponding observations.  That request was reiterated on September 26, 1995. 

          11.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission asked both parties to provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission made itself available to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each of the parties 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          12.     The State reported that domestic proceedings in this case, identified as case number 480-90, had been initiated on May 22, 1990, based on the finding of four corpses and a complaint filed by a relative before the Court of First Instance of Sololá.  It noted that no one had come before the court to lodge a formal accusation, thus those proceedings remained in the investigative phase.  In view of the pendency of those proceedings, the State asked that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          3.         Mateo de la Cruz (Case 10.610) 

            Facts alleged 

          13.     According to the petition dated March 31, 1990, on May 27, 1990, the corpse of agricultural worker Mateo de la Cruz was found in the village of El Rincón, municipality of Amatitlán, department of Guatemala.  The victim's throat had been cut and his body bore signs of torture.  Days earlier, according to the complaint, Mr. de la Cruz had been captured by unidentified men, allegedly members of the State security forces.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          14.     On August 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  The State responded on January 23, 1991, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner on January 29, 1991 for observations.  The petitioner submitted additional information on December 18, 1992.  On January 15, 1993, the Commission forwarded that additional information to the State and requested information on progress in the proceedings brought in the domestic jurisdiction.  The Government of Guatemala submitted the information requested on March 18, 1993, and it was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19 for observations.  This request was reiterated on September 26, 1995.  On April 3, 1996, the Commission once again asked the Guatemalan State for additional information on progress in the proceedings. 

          15.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission asked both parties to provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission made itself available to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each of the parties 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          16.     The State indicated that domestic proceedings had been initiated in this matter before the Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of the municipality of Amatitlán, department of Guatemala, and that the case, number 1174-90, remained in the investigative phase.  Accordingly, the State requested that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible on the basis of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          4.         Aldo Tomás Sicaja and Francisco Alfredo Yuman (Case 10.611) 

          Facts alleged 

          17.     Based on the petition dated May 31, 1980, on May 21, 1990, in the city of Escuintla, agricultural workers Aldo Tomás Sicaja and Francisco Alfredo Yuman were captured by armed men in civilian dress, allegedly linked to the State security forces, who placed the victims in a yellow pick-up truck and took them to an undisclosed destination. Three days later, on May 24, the peasants' bodies were found at the San Bernardo farm, kilometer 50 of the Pacific coast highway, department of Escuintla, bearing multiple bullet wounds and the coup de grâce.  A complaint had been lodged with the domestic authorities based on the facts described.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          18.     On August 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  The Guatemalan State responded on January 23, 1991, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner on February 8, 1991 for observations.  The petitioner submitted additional information on December 18, 1992.  On January 15, 1993, the Commission forwarded that additional information to the State and requested information on progress in the proceedings brought in the domestic jurisdiction.  The Government submitted the information requested on March 19, 1993, and it was forwarded to the petitioner on May 5, 1993, for observations.  This request was reiterated on August 26, 1995.  On April 1, 1996, the Commission once again asked the Guatemalan State for additional information on any progress in the proceedings in the domestic jurisdiction. 

          19.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission asked both parties to provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission made itself available to the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each of the parties 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          20.     The State indicated that domestic proceedings had been initiated in this case before the Second Court of First Instance of the department of Escuintla as case number 2664-90.  Accordingly, it requested that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          5.         Mario Gómez Castillo (Case 10.612) 

          Facts alleged 

          21.     According to the petition received June 8, 1990, Mr. Mario Gómez Castillo had been captured on June 2, 1990, as he and his wife were travelling along a highway in the municipality of Palín, department of Escuintla.  The abduction was carried out by several armed men, allegedly members of the State security forces, who were driving a pick-up truck.  One day later, on June 3, the victim's corpse was found at the María Santísima farm, also in the municipality of Palín.  A complaint alleging the facts described was filed with the local authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          22.     On August 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  The Guatemalan State responded on January 23, 1991, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner on February 8, 1991 for observations.  The petitioner submitted additional information on December 18, 1992.  On January 12, 1993, the Commission forwarded that additional information to the State and also requested additional information on progress in the proceedings brought on this case in the domestic jurisdiction.  On March 18, 1993, and May 11, 1994, the Government provided the information requested, which was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993, and June 7, 1994, respectively, for observations.  Those requests were reiterated on September 26, 1995.  On April 1, 1996, the Commission once again requested information from the Guatemalan State on progress in the proceedings. 

          23.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          24.     The State reported that proceedings, identified as case number 2506-90, had been initiated in the domestic jurisdiction with respect to this matter before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of the department of Escuintla. Accordingly, it requested that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The State later reported that case 2551-90 was before this Court by virtue of a complaint lodged on June 2, 1990 by a relative of the victim, and that the proceedings remained in the investigative stage.

          6.         Emilio Santiago Ronquillo Peralta (Case 10.614) 

          Facts alleged 

          25.     According to the petition, on June 6, 1990, Mr. Emilio Santiago Ronquillo Peralta was captured along the highway that runs from Palín to San Vicente Pacaya by armed men in civilian dress, allegedly members of the State security forces.  He was travelling with his family in a pick-up truck when those men took him by force, along with his nephew, whom they released a few kilometers down the road.  The victim's corpse was located the next day at the "La Compañía" farm.  The facts alleged were reported to the local authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          26.     On August 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  On January 23, 1991, the Guatemalan State responded, and that answer was conveyed to the petitioner on February 8, 1991 for observations.  That request was reiterated on June 16, 1992.  On April 11, 1994, the State provided additional information, which was forwarded to the petitioner on May 6 of that same year.  This request was reiterated on July 21, 1994.  On April 3, 1996, the Commission requested information from the State on progress in the proceedings initiated on this case in the domestic jurisdiction. 

          27.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          28.     The State reported that proceedings had been initiated on this matter in the domestic jurisdiction before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of the department of Escuintla as case number 2614-90. That case had been opened based on the complaint lodged by a relative, who indicated that the assailants had been driving a yellow Nissan van.  The matter remained in the inquiry stage.  In view of the pendency of that proceeding, the State requested that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          7.         Miguel Angel de León García and Jorge Adalberto Girón (Case 10.618) 

          Facts alleged 

          29.     According to the petition dated June 21, 1990, the victims were arrested by unidentified armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces. Days later, on June 14, 1990, their corpses were located near the María Luz farm, San Rafael Pie de la Cuesta, department of San Marcos.  Both corpses bore multiple gunshot wounds.  The facts alleged were the subject of a complaint lodged with the local authorities.

          Processing before the Commission 

          30.     On August 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  That request was reiterated on January 28, 1991.  The Guatemalan State requested a 30-day extension on May 8, 1991, which was granted by the Commission on May 21, 1991.  The Guatemalan State submitted its response on June 28, 1991, which was forwarded to the petitioner on July 17, 1991 for observations.  On November 19, 1993, the Commission requested that the State provide information on progress in the proceedings begun in the domestic jurisdiction.  The State, in a note of February 10, 1994, requested another 30-day extension to provide the information sought by the Commission. That request was granted on February 17.  On March 11, 1994, the Guatemalan State provided the information requested, which was sent to the petitioner on March 23, 1994, for observations.  This request was reiterated on July 20, 1994.  On April 3, 1996, the Commission again asked the State for information about progress in the proceedings. 

          31.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          32.     The State reported that proceedings, identified by number 1491-90, had been initiated in this matter in the domestic jurisdiction before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of the department of San Marcos, and remained in the investigative phase.  Through the investigation, it had been established that both victims died as the result of bullet wounds, and the Judge had charged the Department of Criminological Investigations and the National Police with determining the classification of the firearms used by the assailants.  In view of the pendency of those proceedings, the State requested that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          8.         Arturo Martínez Rodríguez and Alfredo Ubido Segura (Case 10.622) 

          Facts alleged 

          33.     According to the petition received on July 2, 1990, the victims, who were riding in a pick-up truck transporting merchandise and carrying license plates P-41052, were captured in the vicinity of the Centro Universitario de Occidente by unidentified individuals, allegedly linked to the State security forces.  The vehicle and merchandise were not touched by the assailants.  The victims' corpses were found a few days later, on June 21, 1990, at the Cantón of Parraxquí, municipality of Nahualá, department of Sololá.  The bodies bore signs of torture and strangulation.  The facts described were set forth in a complaint lodged with the local authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission         

          34.     On August 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  This request was reiterated on January 28, 1991.  The Guatemalan State responded on March 21, 1991, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner on April 2, 1991 for observations.  That request was reiterated on July 20, 1994.  The State provided additional information on April 12, 1994, which was forwarded to the petitioner on May 6, 1994.  On April 3, 1996, the Commission asked the State for information on progress in the proceedings initiated in this case in the domestic jurisdiction. 

          35.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          36.     The State reported that a proceeding had been initiated in relation to this matter in the domestic jurisdiction on June 22, 1990, before the Criminal Court of First Instance for Sololá.  The case, identified as number 567-90, remained in the investigative stage.  According to the medical examiner's report, the cause of death had been respiratory failure/asphyxia due to strangulation.  

          9.         Ricardo Alberto Ajcajbón (Case 10.653) 

          Facts alleged 

          37.     According to the petition received on September 20, 1990, on August 27, 1990, the victim was captured in the town of Villa Nueva, department of Guatemala, by four armed individuals, allegedly linked to the State security forces, who were dressed in civilian clothes and driving a beige rural-type truck.  On August 29, the victim's corpse was found between the towns of Santa María and the municipal seat of Palín, department of Escuintla. The victim's corpse bore gunshot wounds.  The facts described were set forth in a complaint lodged with the local authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          38.     On September 28, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  This request was reiterated on January 28, 1991.  On May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the Commission on May 21. The Guatemalan State responded on June 20, 1991, and the answer was forwarded to the petitioner on June 25 for observations.  The petitioner provided its observations on the State's response on March 25, 1993, and these were forwarded to the Guatemalan State on August 17, 1993, with pertinent information requested within 30 days.  This request was reiterated on September 26, 1995.  On November 3, 1995, the State submitted its observations to the petitioner's reply.  On April 3, 1996, the Commission requested that the State provide information on any progress in the proceedings initiated within the domestic jurisdiction. 

          39.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          40.     The Guatemalan State reported that case 2004-90 had been initiated on August 29, 1990, before the Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of the municipality of Amatitlán, department of Guatemala, on the basis that the victim's father had gone to the Police sub-station to report that his son had been kidnapped.  On August 31, 1990, the victim's father appeared before the judge in charge of the proceedings to reiterate his report of the crime and to add that, on August 29, 1990, he had learned that his son's corpse had appeared at the morgue.  The State indicated that, based on the indicia turned up in the investigation, the activity reported should be attributed to common criminals, and not to the Guatemalan State or members of its security forces; therefore, the case before the Commission should be deemed inadmissible.  

          10.      Juan Cristino Rodríguez, Sara Rodríguez, Mercedes Oxlaj, and Dominga Rodríguez Chet (Case 10.657) 

          41.     According to the petition received on September 20, 1990, on September 1, 1990, in the municipality of Santo Domingo, department of Suchitepéquez, armed men in civilian dress, allegedly linked to the State security forces, entered the victims' home and killed them with firearms. According to the complaint, two other people who lived there were seriously wounded.  In its observations on the State's answer, the petitioner emphasized that, in the judgment of acquittal favorable to the only person accused, the judge recognized that the Identification Bureau of the National Police and local military base had refused to collaborate in collecting bullet casings and projectiles and determining the type or types of arms used.  Therefore, the judge did not have adequate material or human resources for the investigation.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          42.     On September 28, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  This request was reiterated on January 28, 1991.  On May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the Commission on May 21. The Guatemalan State responded on July 18, 1991, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner on May 2, 1991 for observations.  On March 9, 1994, the Commission asked the Guatemalan State to provide information on advances in the proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction.  This request was reiterated on July 22, 1994.  On August 31, 1994, the State responded to that request, and its answer was forwarded to the petitioner on October 12, 1995.  The petitioners submitted additional information on November 17, 1995, which was forwarded to the State on December 4, 1995.

          43.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          44.     The Guatemalan State reported that case 2520-90 had been initiated in this matter before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation for the department of Suchitepéquez.  First, according to the report, it had been established that a minor child had survived the events and described what happened in detail.  In addition, the State reported that it had tried a person accused by the private accuser as one of the persons responsible, who was later acquitted for lack of convincing evidence.  That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.   

          11.      Guilgo Teodoro Zapeta Vásquez (Case 10.658) 

          Facts alleged 

          45.     According to the petition received September 20, 1990, on March 24, 1990, Mr. Zapeta was captured by seven armed men in civilian dress, allegedly members of the State security forces, who forced the victim into a brown pick-up truck, and took him to an undisclosed location.  At least one witness saw what happened.  The next day, the victim's corpse was found in the town of San Francisco El Alto, department of Totonicapán.  The events described were reported to the local authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          46.     On September 28, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  This request was reiterated on January 28, 1991.  On May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension to submit its answer.  That extension was granted by the Commission on May 21.  The Guatemalan State responded on July 18, 1991, and its answer was forwarded to the petitioner on August 2, 1991.  The petitioner presented its observations to the State's answer on March 25, 1993, and these were forwarded to the Government on August 17, 1993, with a request that it submit its observations.  The latter request was reiterated on July 22, 1994. On August 23, 1994, the State submitted its observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners on August 3, 1994 for observations. The Commission reiterated that request on September 26, 1995.  On April 3, 1996, the Commission asked the State for information on progress in the proceedings begun in the domestic jurisdiction. 

          47.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.   

          Position of the State 

          48.     The State asserted that proceedings had been initiated in relation to this matter in the domestic jurisdiction, identified as case 738-90, before the Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters for the department of Totonicapán, by virtue of which it asked that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  In its initial response, the State indicated that a person had been accused of responsibility in the case, and that an arrest warrant had been issued.  In its later observations, the State merely reported that several witnesses had failed to come forward to offer their statements, and that the file was with the Public Ministry.  Based on the existence of these domestic proceedings, the State requested that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          12.      Alberto Parón Boche (Case 10.660) 

          Facts alleged 

          49.     According to the petition of September 1, 1990, on August 19, 1990, several armed men in civilian dress, allegedly linked to the State security forces, arrived in a vehicle, searched the home of Mr. Parón, and then shot and killed him.  The facts described were reported to the local authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          50.     Based on that complaint, on September 28, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  This request was reiterated on January 28, 1991.  On May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the Commission on May 21.  The Guatemalan State responded on July 18, 1991, and its answer was forwarded to the petitioner on August 2, 1991.  The petitioner presented its observations to the State's answer on March 25, 1993, and these were forwarded to the Government on August 17, 1993.  On August 23, 1994, the State submitted its answer to the petitioner's observations, which was forwarded to the petitioners on August 31, 1994. 

          51.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested that both parties provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          52.     The State indicated that proceedings, identified as case 598-90, had been initiated in the domestic jurisdiction in this matter before the First Court of First Instance for the department of El Progreso.  Accordingly, it requested that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 

          53.     Later, the State reported that the proceedings involved one person accused by the private accuser, who was the victim's father.  The accused had implicated four persons as the direct perpetrators of the assassination.  An arrest warrant had been issued for those persons to have them brought them before the court.  According to the State's report, five accused had been arrested on August 24, 1990.  Four had later been released "on the grounds that there was no evidence against them."  The Public Ministry requested that in respect of the fifth accused "the provisional arrest warrant not be amended, considering that his statement in the inquiry could be characterized as an improper confession of his participation in the act."  In addition, the police agents involved had noted in their statements that, while the others had accompanied the accused at the time of the event, it was the accused who bore responsibility for the death of Mr. Parón Boche.  On May 10. 1991, the court had acquitted the accused.  This judgment had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, "on grounds that there is not sufficient evidence."  

          13.      Pedro Rivera Matom (Case 10.667)

            Facts alleged 

          54.     According to the petition of September 1, 1990, Mr. Rivera was captured on August 3, 1990 by troops of the Guatemalan Army quartered at the base in Amacchel, El Quiché.  According to the petition:  "The soldiers removed his eyes, cut off his ears, torturing him to the point of killing him." The facts alleged were reported to the local authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          55.     On September 28, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged. This request was reiterated on January 28, 1991.  On June 18, the Commission requested additional information from the petitioner. 

          56.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission asked both parties to provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          57.     The State has not provided any comment or observation on this case. 

          14.      Magdalena Efranin Fray Santos (Case 10.687) 

            Facts alleged

          58.     According to the petition of September 24, 1990, on August 30, 1990, troops from the Guatemalan Army quartered at the base in the village of Amacchel, Ixcán, El Quiché, opened fire against  a group of local residents.  As a result of this attack, Magdalena Efranin Fray Santos, a 12-year-old girl, was killed.  The facts alleged were reported to the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          59.     On October 24, 1990, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested information on the facts alleged. This request was reiterated on January 30, 1991.  On June 18, 1992, the Commission requested additional information from the petitioner. 

          60.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission asked both parties to provide updated information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.  

          Position of the State 

          61.     The State did not provide any comment or observation on this case. 

          15.      David Gutiérrez Morales, Everardo Boteo Morales, Juan Orellana Chacón and Israel Chacón Aquino (Case 10.692) 

          Facts alleged 

          62.     According to the petition dated October 10. 1990, in May of 1990 the four victims, members of the "La Flor de la Esperanza" ("The Flower of Hope") Cooperative, were captured by men allegedly linked to the State security forces who were bearing firearms.  The corpses of the four peasants were found floating in the Usumacinta river, in the municipality of La Libertad, department of El Petén.  A relative filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights.   

          Processing before the Commission 

          63.     On October 24, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  This request was reiterated on January 30, 1991.  On May 8 of that year, the State requested a 30-day extension for its response, and this was granted by the Commission on May 21. The State responded on August 13, 1991, and its answer was forwarded to the petitioner on August 21, 1991 for observations.  The Guatemalan State submitted additional information on May 7, 1993.  The petitioner submitted its observations on the Government's answer on August 11, 1993.  Those were forwarded to the State on August 20, 1993 for observations.  That request was reiterated on September 26, 1995.  The State submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on May 27, 1994, and it was forwarded to the petitioner on June 6, 1995 for observations. 

          64.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission asked both parties to provide additional information.  In this last communication, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to pursue a friendly settlement, giving each party 30 days to accept its offer.

          Position of the State 

          65.     The State reported that, based on a complaint by a relative of one of the victims, case 1254-89 had been initiated before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters of the department of El Petén, and remained in the investigative phase.  In its initial answer, the State indicated that "the evidence to date [not identified] leads to the presumption that the events were carried out by members of the irregular armed groups that operate in areas of the department of El Petén."  In its subsequent observations, the State added that the persons allegedly responsible had been dressed in camouflage.  The State reported that after the corpses had been found, they had been buried without any order from a judge with jurisdiction, under the responsibility of the local deputy mayor. Once the case had been placed before the judicial authorities, the Public Ministry had asked that a statement be taken from the deputy mayor, who, according to the report, may have participated in the facts alleged in this complaint, and that an investigation be undertaken into why the burial had been authorized without a judicial order.  Finally, the State reported that the judge had ordered the exhumation of the corpses, in due course, in order to enter the respective death certificates.   

          16.      Orlando Estuardo Alvarado Morales (Case 10.714) 

            Facts alleged 

          66.     According to the petition received October 20, 1990, Professor Orlando Estuardo Alvarez Morales was captured by heavily armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces, at Calle 16 between Avenidas 1 and 2 in Zone 1, as he returned from a mass.  The assailants were in a gray, four-door vehicle, with polarized glass and registration number P-98638.  They beat Professor Alvarez and forced him into the vehicle, taking him to an undisclosed destination.  Local residents witnessed the events and confirmed these details, in addition to reporting that the kidnappers threatened all the witnesses. 

          67.     The victim's family filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of Justice on October 22, 1990, and reported his disappearance to the Police, the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights, and other courts, all with no response.  The victim's corpse appeared in the area known as Playa los Cushinales, municipality of Amatitlán, department of Guatemala, on November 1, 1990, bearing signs of torture and bullet wounds.  The victim had been a professor of physics and mathematics, and a university leader and participant in a 1989 teachers' strike.  A few years before, his brother had been disappeared and executed.   

          Processing before the Commission 

          68.     On October 30, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State by telegram, requesting that it provide information on the facts alleged as soon as possible.  This request was repeated on February 4, 1991.  The petitioner sent additional information on November 26, 1990, and February 2, 1991.  On June 17, 1992, the Commission reiterated to the Government that it should provide its answer.  On October 10, 1995, the Commission requested updated information on the case from the petitioner. 

          69.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested updated information on the case from both the State and the petitioners.  In addition, it made itself available to the parties for the purpose of facilitating a friendly settlement, pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention if the parties wanted to make use of that procedure.  The parties were asked to respond to both inquiries within 30 days.  On December 17, 1998, the State requested a one-month extension to submit the corresponding information.  By note of December 28, 1998, the Commission granted an extension that expired on January 30, 1999.  On January 20, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension in order to collect and present information.  The Commission replied by note of January 27, 1999, and granted a 60-day extension.  By note of March 30, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension.  The Commission answered on April 9, 1999, indicating that, in view of the extensions already granted, as well as its work program, it was not possible to grant another extension.  

          Position of the State 

          70.     The State did not provide any comment or observation on this case.

 

          17.      Salvador Sosof Vásquez and Baltazar Pablo Mendoza (Case 10.725) 

            Facts alleged 

          71.     According to the petition dated October 30, 1990, on October 15, 1990, six armed individuals in civilian dress, allegedly linked to the State security forces, their faces concealed by ski caps, arrived on foot and entered the victims' house, situated in the Cantón of Panul, municipality of Santiago Atitlán, department of Sololá, and shot and killed them.  Relatives of the victims witnessed the facts alleged and reported them to the local authorities.

          Processing before the Commission 

          72.     On November 12, 1990, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested information on the facts alleged.  This request was reiterated on February 19, 1991.  On May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the Commission on May 21. The Guatemalan State responded on August 23, 1991, and its answer was forwarded to the petitioner on September 10, 1991 for observations.  The petitioner submitted its observations to the Government's answer on December 18, 1992, and these were forwarded to the State on January 15, 1993, with a request for information regarding any progress in the proceedings on this case begun in the domestic jurisdiction.  The Guatemalan State presented the information requested on March 18, 1993, which was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993 for observations.  The State provided additional information on March 2, 1994, which was forwarded to the petitioner on March 23, 1994 for observations.  That request for observations was reiterated on September 26, 1995. 

          73.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested updated information on the case from both the State and the petitioners.  In addition, it made itself available to the parties for the purpose of facilitating a friendly settlement, pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, if the parties wanted to make use of that procedure.  The parties were asked to respond to both inquiries within 30 days.  On December 17, 1998, the State requested a one-month extension to submit the corresponding information.  By note of December 28, 1998, the Commission granted an extension that expired on January 30, 1999.  On January 20, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension, to collect and present information.  The Commission replied by note of January 27, 1999, and granted a 60-day extension.  By note of March 30, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension.  The Commission answered on April 9, 1999, indicating that given the extensions already granted, as well as its work program, it was not possible to grant another extension.  

          Position of the State 

          74.     The State reported that in relation to this case, and based on the complaint filed by a relative of the victims, criminal case 985-90 had been opened before the Court of First Instance of the department of Sololá, and remained in the investigative phase. Accordingly, the State asked that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          18.      Pedro Chávez (Case 10.730) 

            Facts alleged 

          75.     According to the petition dated November 8, 1990, on October 10, 1990, Guatemalan Army troops quartered at the base in the village of Amacchel shot and killed peasant Pedro Chávez.  According to the petition, local residents witnessed the events, which were reported to the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          76.     On November 12, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  This request was repeated on February 19, 1991.  On June 19, 1992, the Commission sought additional information from the petitioner. 

          77.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested updated information on the case from both the State and the petitioners.  In addition, it made itself available to the parties for the purpose of facilitating a friendly settlement, pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, if the parties wanted to make use of that procedure.  The parties were asked to respond to both inquiries within 30 days.  On December 17, 1998, the State requested a one-month extension to submit the corresponding information.  By note of December 28, 1998, the Commission granted an extension that expired on January 30, 1999.  On January 20, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension, to collect and present information.  The Commission replied by note of January 27, 1999, and granted a 60-day extension.  By note of March 30, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension.  The Commission answered on April 9, 1999, indicating that in view of the extensions already granted, as well as its work program, it was not possible to grant another extension.  

          Position of the State 

          78.     The State did not provide any comment or observation on this case.  

          19.      Martín Quic Ratzán (Case 10.731) 

            Facts alleged 

          79.     According to the petition received on November 12, 1990, on October 23, 1990, in the municipal seat of Santiago Atitlán, department of Sololá, several armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces, killed Mr. Martín Quic Ratzán, who had been a member of the brotherhood of the Cantón of Pachichaj.  The assailants arrived at the home where a meeting was being held to analyze matters related to the brotherhood, entered with violent force, and killed the victim using automatic firearms.  Other members of the brotherhood witnessed the facts, which were reported to the local authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          80.     On November 12, 1990, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested information on the facts alleged; this request was reiterated on February 19, 1991.  On May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the Commission on May 21. The Guatemalan State responded on August 28, 1991, and its answer was forwarded to the petitioner on December 20, 1991 for observations.  The petitioner submitted its observations to the Government's answer on December 18, 1992, which were forwarded to the State on January 15, 1993, with a request for information regarding any progress in the proceedings on this case begun in the domestic jurisdiction.  The State presented its reply to the petitioner's observations on March 19, 1993, which was forwarded to the petitioner on March 26, 1993 for observations.  The request for observations was reiterated on September 26, 1995. 

          81.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested updated information on the case from both the State and the petitioners.  In addition, it made itself available to the parties for the purpose of facilitating a friendly settlement, pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, if the parties wanted to make use of that procedure.  The parties were asked to respond to both inquiries within 30 days.  On December 17, 1998, the State requested a one-month extension to submit the corresponding information.  By note of December 28, 1998, the Commission granted an extension that expired on January 30, 1999.  On January 20, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension, to collect and present information.  The Commission replied by note of January 27, 1999, and granted a 60-day extension.  By note of March 30, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension.  The Commission answered on April 9, 1999, indicating that, in view of the extensions already granted, as well as its work program, it was not possible to grant another extension.  

          Position of the State 

          82.     The State indicated in relation to this matter that, based on the complaint filed by a relative of the victims, criminal case 1028-90 was being pursued in the Court of First Instance of the department of Sololá, and remained in the investigative phase. Accordingly, the State asked that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          20.      Urbano Efraín Alvarado Mejía (Case 10.747) 

            Facts alleged 

          83.     According to the petition dated November 12, 1990, on October 29, 1990, in the village of Gáldez, municipality of Costa Cuca, department of Quetzaltenango, Urbano Efraín Alvarado Mejía was killed with firearms by several armed men in civilian dress, allegedly linked to the State security forces, who raided his home.  Relatives of the victim witnessed the alleged facts and reported them to the pertinent local authorities.  The victim was the brother of Sergio Alvarado, a student at the Centro Universitario de Occidente (CUNOC) who had been killed in 1987 after having been captured by six members of the police.  After an investigation advised by Harvard University with respect to the execution of Sergio Alvarado, the police agents had been convicted and sentenced; however, in August 1990, the Fourth Chamber of Appeals had acquitted them. During those proceedings, the relatives of Sergio Alvarado had been harassed and threatened.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          84.     On December 19, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information on the facts alleged.  This request was repeated on April 9, 1991.  On May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the Commission on May 21.  The Guatemalan State responded on August 28, 1991, and this answer was forwarded to the petitioner on September 20, 1991 for observations.  The petitioner submitted its observations to the Government's answer on March 25, 1993, and these were forwarded to the State on August 20, 1993.  The Commission asked the Government to submit its reply to those observations within 30 days.  This request was reiterated on September 27, 1995, with no response received.  

          85.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested updated information on the case from both the State and the petitioners.  In addition, it made itself available to the parties for the purpose of facilitating a friendly settlement, pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, if the parties wanted to make use of that procedure.  The parties were asked to respond to both inquiries within 30 days.  On December 17, 1998, the State requested a one-month extension to submit the corresponding information.  By note of December 28, 1998, the Commission granted an extension that expired on January 30, 1999.  On January 20, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension, to collect and present information.  The Commission replied by note of January 27, 1999, and granted a 60-day extension.  By note of March 30, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension.  The Commission answered on April 9, 1999, indicating that in view of the extensions already granted, as well as its work program, it was not possible to grant another extension.  

          Position of the State 

          86.     The State asserted that proceedings were underway in relation to this case before the Regional Justice of the Peace of Costa Cuca, Quetzaltenango.  In relation to that process, one person had been detained and accused of having participated in the planning of the robbery and assassination of the victim, on the basis of a direct accusation by his relatives.  Since the matter remained pending, the State asked that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  

          21.      Toribio López and Tiburcio Carrillo (Case 10.755) 

            Facts alleged 

          87.     According to the petition dated December 11, 1990, on November 4, 1990, troops of the Guatemalan Army quartered at Amacchel, in the municipality of San Gaspar Chajul, El Quiché, attacked the inhabitants of the villages of Santa Clara and San Antonio, also in the department of El Quiché, with artillery fire.  In that attack, the soldiers killed Toribio López and Tiburcio Carrillo, 16 and 14 years old, respectively.  The soldiers then rammed a stick through their backs and left them half-buried.  Local residents witnessed the alleged acts, which were reported to the corresponding authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission 

          88.     On December 19, 1990, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, asking that it provide information on the facts alleged.  That request was reiterated on April 9, 1991, December 1, 1993, and September 12, 1994.  In the interim, on June 19, 1992, the Commission requested additional information from the petitioner.  The Guatemalan State responded on November 14, 1994, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner on November 22, 1994 for observations.  That request was repeated on March 7, 1996. 

          89.     On December 4, 1998, the Commission requested updated information on the case from both the State and the petitioners.  In addition, it made itself available to the parties for the purpose of facilitating a friendly settlement, pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, if the parties wanted to make use of that procedure.  The parties were asked to respond to both inquiries within 30 days.  On December 17, 1998, the State requested a one-month extension to submit the corresponding information.  By note of December 28, 1998, the Commission granted an extension that expired on January 30, 1999.  On January 20, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension, to collect and present information.  The Commission replied by note of January 27, 1999, and granted a 60-day extension.  By note of March 30, 1999, the State requested an additional 60-day extension.  The Commission answered on April 9, 1999, indicating that in view of the extensions already granted, as well as its work program, it was not possible to grant another extension.  

          Position of the State 

          90.     The State reported that no complaint had been lodged regarding the facts alleged in the courts of the department, nor was there any proceeding before the Justice of Peace.  In addition, although the National Police had tried to go the village in question to investigate, "they have run up against many obstacles, for since it is a zone of conflict, access is dangerous and risky."  As a result of the brevity of the information provided by the petitioners, the State indicated that it had not been possible to undertake an investigation aimed at clarifying the facts alleged. 

continued...

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]


[1] Cases 10.586, 10.609, 10.611. 10.612, 10.614, 10.618, 10.622, 10.653, 10.657, 10.658, 10.660, 10.667, 10.687, 10.692, 10.714, 10.725, 10.730, 10.731, 10.747, 10.755, 10.759, 10.763, 10.764, 10.777, 10.780, 10.782, 10.784, 10.785, 10.787, 10.788, 10.789, 10.852, 10.855, 10.858, 10.861, 10.869, 10.872, 10.873, 10.875, 10.891, 10.903, 10.920, 10.922, 10.935, 10.936.

[2] Marta Altolaguirre, member of the Commission, of Guatemalan nationality, did not participate in the discussion or the vote on this Report, pursuant to Article 19(2) of the IACHR’s Regulations.