|
continued ...
22.
Arnoldo Pérez Arana (Case 10.759)
Facts
alleged
91.
According to the petition received December 12, 1990, on November 16,
1990, in the hamlet of Monte Redondo, municipality of San José Atescatempa,
department of Jutiapa, two armed men, allegedly linked to the State security
forces, entered the victim's home and killed him with firearms. Later, they fled
without taking any object of value. Relatives
of the victim witnessed the facts, which were reported to the local authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
92.
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. On
May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the
Commission on May 21. The Guatemalan State answered on September 3, 1991, and
its response was forwarded to the petitioner on September 20, 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, whereupon the Commission
also requested information on any progress in the proceedings initiated in the
domestic jurisdiction. The State
submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on March 18, 1993, which
was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993 for observations.
On December 1, 1993, the Commission asked the State to clarify a
contradiction in its communications of September 3, 1991, and March 18, 1993.
This request was reiterated on September 27, 1995.
93.
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
94.
In its initial answer, the State asserted that case 2714-90 had been
initiated in this matter before the Second Court of First Instance for the
department of Jutiapa, and remained in the investigative phase.
The State requested that the Commission declare the case before it
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
However, in its subsequent observations, the State indicated that the
Second Court of First Instance had reviewed the records from 1990 and had not
found any proceeding in which the victim appeared as offended party, in view of
which the State pointed to the need to receive more information from the
petitioners in order to investigate the case.
23. Jorge
Simaj Saquil, María Azurdia, and Jorge Luis Simaj Azurdia (Case 10.763)
Facts
alleged
95.
According to the petition received December 12, 1990, on December 3,
1990, in the Cantón of Nazareno, zone
3 of the city of Chimaltenango, armed men, allegedly linked to the State
security forces, captured husband and wife Jorge Simaj Saquil and María Azurdia,
and their two-year-old son, at 3 p.m. in the central park. They were taken to an undisclosed destination.
Two hours later, the victims' corpses were found, the husband and wife
with their throats cut, and the child hung.
The facts alleged were reported to the competent authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
96.
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. 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 September 3, 1991, and its answer was forwarded to
the petitioner on September 20, 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, whereupon the Commission also requested information on any progress in
the proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction.
The State submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on March
18, 1993. That reply was forwarded
to the petitioner on March 19, 1993 for observations.
The State provided additional information on June 13, 1994, which was
forwarded to the petitioner on June 21, 1994, for observations.
The Commission reiterated its request for observations from the
petitioner on September 27, 1995. On April 3, 1996, the Commission once again
requested that the State provide information on any progress in the domestic
proceedings. The Commission
received no response.
97.
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
98.
In its initial answer, the State reported that case 065-91 was before the
Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters for the department of
Chimaltenango, and remained in the investigative phase. Consequently, it had
requested that the case before the Commission be declared inadmissible for
failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In its observations, the State referred to
case 2327 before the First Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of
the department, and reported that the Public Ministry had requested that a
statement be taken and that a medical examiner's report be sought.
24.
Félix Tizul Piruch (Case 10.764)
Facts alleged
99.
According to the petition received December 12, 1990, on November 14,
1990, in the Cantón of Santa Ana,
municipality of Momostenango, department of Totonicapán, Mr. Tizul Piruch was
captured at his home by several armed men in civilian dress, allegedly linked to
the State security forces. Hours
later, his corpse was found on the outskirts of the Cantón
with gunshot wounds in the thorax and signs of having been beaten.
A relative of the victim reported the alleged acts to the local
authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
100.
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. That request
was reiterated 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 September 3, 1991, and that answer was forwarded
to the petitioner on September 20, 1991 for observations.
The request was reiterated on March 5, 1992.
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,
whereupon the Commission also requested information on any progress in the
proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction.
The State submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on May 7,
1993, which was forwarded to the petitioner on May 18, 1993 for observations.
The State provided additional information on September 6, 1994, which was
forwarded to the petitioner on September 16, 1994 for observations.
The Commission reiterated its request for observations from the
petitioner on September 27, 1995. On April 24, 1996, the Commission once again
requested that the State provide information on any progress in the domestic
proceedings. The Commission
received no response.
101.
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
102.
The State indicated that in respect of this matter case number 894-90 was
before the Court of First Instance for the department of Totonicapán, and
remained in the investigative phase. In
its observations, the State reported that, pursuant to the new Code of Criminal
Procedure, the proceedings had been placed before the Office of the Attorney
General of the Nation to continue the inquiry.
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.
25.
Víctor Segura (Case 10.777)
Facts alleged
103.
According to the petition received January 15, 1991, on December 11.
1990, in the village of El Chilar Dos, municipality of Flores, department of El
Petén, a group of unidentified armed men, allegedly linked to the State
security forces, shot and killed Mr. Víctor Segura inside his home, and in the
presence of his family. The facts
described were reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
104.
On February 7, 1991, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the
pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting that it
provide information on the facts alleged. This
request was reiterated on March 5, 1992. The
Guatemalan State responded on May 7, 1993, and its answer was forwarded to the
petitioner on May 19, 1993 for observations.
On March 9, 1994, the Commission requested the State to provide
information on any progress in the proceedings begun in the domestic
jurisdiction. This request was
reiterated on September 27, 1995, and April 24, 1996. In the interim, on September 27, 1995, the Commission
reiterated its request to the petitioners for observations.
105.
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
106.
The State reported that, based on the complaint lodged by the victim's
father, proceedings were under way before the First Court of First Instance for
the department, in San Benito, Petén. The
report by the medical examiner had confirmed that the victim died from gunshot
wounds. According to the State’s
report, the proceedings remained in the investigative phase.
26.
Gloria Patzay Vicente (Case 10.780)
Facts
alleged
107.
According to the petition dated January 28, 1991, on January 20, 1991, in
the Cantón of Sicutzán, Chicacao,
department of Suchitepéquez, several armed men, allegedly linked to the State
security forces, captured Mrs. Gloria Patzay Vicente and took her to an
undisclosed destination. Later, her
corpse appeared floating in the Cutzán river, showing signs of having been
beaten and tortured. The facts
alleged were reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
108.
On February 7, 1991, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the
pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting that it
provide information on the facts alleged. On
May 8, 1991, the State requested a 30-day extension for providing its answer.
This extension was granted by the Commission on May 21.
The Guatemalan State responded on September 3, 1991, and its answer was
forwarded to the petitioner on September 20, 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,
whereupon the Commission also requested information on any progress in the
proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction. The Guatemalan State
submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on May 7, 1993. That reply
was forwarded to the petitioner on May 19, 1993, for observations.
On December 1, 1993, the Commission once again requested that the State
provide information on any progress in the proceedings begun in the domestic
jurisdiction. On May 16, 1994, the State provided additional information,
which was forwarded to the petitioner on June 6, 1994 for observations.
On September 27, 1995, the Commission once again asked the State for
information on progress in the domestic proceedings, and reiterated its request
to the petitioner for observations. The
State provided that information on November 6, 1995, and it was forwarded to the
petitioner on November 13, 1995, for observations.
That request was reiterated on March 7, 1996.
109.
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
110.
In its initial answer, the State indicated that case 221-91 was pending
in this matter before the Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of
Suchitepéquez, and remained in the investigative phase.
The State asserted that the case before the Commission should therefore
be considered inadmissible, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
In its subsequent observations, however, the State reported that, after
reviewing the records of the pertinent courts, no case file had been found
related to the victim. In its
additional observations, the State referred once again to case 221-91, before
the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation.
It added that the victim's corpse showed signs of having been beaten on
different parts of the body. The
victim's mother had presented a statement and named two people as being
responsible for the killing "who were subpoenaed to make statements ... and
as of this time they have not been located, which is why no arrest warrant has
issued."
27.
Omar Caín Carvajal Leiva (Case 10.782)
Facts alleged
111.
According to the petition received January 29, 1991, on January 2, 1991,
in Puerto Barrios, department of Izabal, several armed men, linked to the State
security forces, captured Mr. Omar Caín Carvajal Leiva when he left his home in
his car. His corpse was found days
later along the road that leads from Puerto Barrios to Quirigua, also in the
department of Izabal. The body bore
bullet wounds and signs of torture. His
wife lodged a complaint with the police authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
112.
On February 7, 1991, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the
pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information
on the facts alleged. 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 September 3, 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
December 18, 1992, and these were forwarded to the State on January 15, 1993,
whereupon the Commission also requested information on any progress in the
proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction.
The Guatemalan State submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations
on March 18, 1993, and this was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993
for observations. The
Commission reiterated its request for observations from the petitioner on
September 27, 1995. On April 24, 1996, the Commission once again requested that
the State provide information on any progress in the domestic proceedings.
113.
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
114.
The State indicated that case number 87-91, initiated based on the
complaint lodged by the victim's wife, was pending before the Second Court of
First Instance for Criminal Investigation for the department of Izabal, in the
investigative phase. In view of the
pendency of this domestic proceeding, the State requested that the case before
the Commission be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic
remedies.
28.
Juana Coche Tacaxoy and José Pospoy Mendoza (Case 10.784)
Facts
alleged
115.
According to the petition dated January 14, 1991, on December 21, 1990,
at kilometer 14 of the road that runs from Santiago Atitlán to San Lucas Tolimán,
department of Sololá, armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces,
entered the home where the victims were, and killed them with firearms.
According to the petition, the victims were relatives of some of the
peasants who were killed by the Guatemalan Army the morning of December 2, 1990,
in the village of Panabaj, municipality of Santiago Atitlán.
The facts described were reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
116.
On February 7, 1991, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the
pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information
on the facts alleged. 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 September 3, 1991, and its answer was forwarded to
the petitioner on September 20, 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,
whereupon the Commission also requested information on any progress in the
proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction.
The Guatemalan State submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations
on March 18, 1993, and this was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993
for observations. On March 9,
1994, the Commission once again requested that the State provide information on
any progress in the domestic proceedings. On November 8, 1995, the State
provided that information, which was forwarded to the petitioner on November 13,
1995 for observations.
117.
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
118.
The State indicated that case number 1224-90 had been initiated on
December 20, 1990, and was pending before the Court of First Instance for the
department of Sololá in the investigative phase.
Consequently, the State asked that the Commission declare the case before
it inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
In its observations, the State reported that the proceedings remained in
the investigative phase, and further stated that "pursuant to the indicia
produced in the initial investigation, it is of the view that the facts should
be attributed to common crime, and not to the Guatemalan State or members of its
security forces, which is why the case should be found inadmissible."
29.
Marco Tulio Collado Pardo (Case 10.785)
Facts alleged
119.
According to the petition received on January 15, 1991, on January 4,
1991, in the city of Escuintla, Mr. Marco Tulio Collado Pardo, who was mayor of
Escuintla and a leader of the Christian Democracy Party (Partido
Democracia Cristiana), was killed with firearms by several armed men,
allegedly linked to the State security forces.
These men had been in a silver-gray pick-up truck, with which they pulled
alongside the vehicle in which the victim was travelling.
The facts described were reported to the corresponding authorities.
According to the petition, in 1980, when mayor, the victim "received death
threats and later survived an assassination attempt by the security forces, in
which he and others accompanying him were wounded and one member of the security
staff killed." As a result, the victim went into exile in Costa Rica and
Mexico. He returned and was elected
mayor in 1985.
Processing
before the Commission
120.
On February 7, 1991, 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 September 20, 1991, and its answer was forwarded
to the petitioner on October 17, 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,
whereupon the Commission also requested information on any progress in the
proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction. The Government submitted its reply to the petitioner's
observations on March 18, 1993, which was forwarded to the petitioner on March
19, 1993 for observations. On December 1, 1993, the Commission once again
requested that the State provide information on any progress in the domestic
proceedings. On September 6, 1994,
the State provided additional information, which was forwarded to the petitioner
on September 16, 1994, for observations. On
September 27, 1995, the Commission reiterated that request to the petitioner.
121.
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
122.
The State indicated that case 94-91 was pending in this matter in the
investigative phase before the First Court of First Instance of Escuintla.
Consequently, it asked that the case before the Commission be declared
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. After the entry into
force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings had been forwarded
to the Office of the Attorney General, and remained pending.
30.
Oscar Aguilar Saquic (Case 10.787)
Facts alleged
123.
According to the petition dated January 14, 1991, on December 28, 1990,
in the Cantón of Justo Rufino
Barrios, Olintepeque, department of Quetzaltenango, several armed men, allegedly
linked to the State security services, captured the child Oscar Aguilar Saquic,
13 years of age, and took him to an undisclosed destination.
Later, the victim's body appeared in the same Cantón
Justo Rufino Barrios, with several gunshot wounds. The facts alleged were
reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
124.
On February 7, 1991, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the
pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information
on the facts alleged. On May 8,
1991, the State requested a 30-day extension, which extension was granted by the
Commission on May 21. The
Guatemalan State answered on September 3, 1991.
Its 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 Guatemalan State submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations
on November 6, 1995, which was forwarded to the petitioner on November 13, 1995.
On March 8, 1996, the Commission requested that the State provide
information on any progress in the domestic proceedings.
The State submitted that information on May 13, 1996.
125.
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
126.
In its initial submission, the State reported that a case was pending in
this matter before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation
for the department of Quetzaltenango. Based
on the accusation made by the victim's father, the Public Ministry had requested
the arrest of two people as alleged perpetrators. For this reason, the State requested that the Commission
declare the petition inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
In its later observations, the State reported that, in the course of
those proceedings, the First Court had handed down a judgment of acquittal on
March 12, 1992, in favor of an accused (who was not named) based on lack of
evidence. That judgment had been
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The
evidence, the statements made by the parents, the investigator, the accused and
others, had been dismissed by both courts, in some cases ostensibly on the basis
of grounds of absolute disqualification and in others on the basis of lack of
personal knowledge. The State
requested that the Commission dismiss the case on the basis that no State agent
had been accused.
31. Cristóbal
Chico López, Wenceslao Santiago Saavedra, and Marvin Estuardo Castillo Saavedra
(Case 10.788)
Facts alleged
127.
According to the petition, on January 15, 1991, the victims were captured
by a group of armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces. Days
later, the victims' corpses were found on the grounds of the Pantaleón farm,
bearing gunshot wounds and signs of torture.
According to the petition, the facts described were denounced to the
corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
128.
On February 7, 1991, the Commission opened the case and forwarded the
pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, requesting information
on the facts alleged. 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 September 3, 1991, and this answer was forwarded
to the petitioner on September 20, 1991 for observations.
The petitioner submitted its observations to the State's answer on
December 18, 1992, and these were forwarded to the State on January 15, 1993,
whereupon the Commission also requested information on any progress in the
proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction.
The Government submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on
March 18, 1993, which was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993 for
observations. On December 1,
1993, the Commission once again requested that the State provide information on
any progress in the domestic proceedings. On
September 6, 1994, the State provided additional information, which was
forwarded to the petitioner on September 16, 1994, for observations.
On September 27, 1995, the Commission reiterated that request to the
petitioner. On April 24, 1996, the
Commission once again requested information from the State on advances in those
proceedings.
129.
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
130.
The State indicated that case 311-91 was pending in relation to this
matter before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters for the
department of Escuintla, in the investigative phase.
On this basis, the State requested that the case before the IACHR be
declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
In its subsequent observations, however, the State indicated that there
was no case under that number in relation to these victims, and consequently the
State considered it important to obtain further information.
In later observations, the State once again referred to case 311-91
before the Second Court, which had been transferred to the Office of the
Attorney General, under the new Code of Criminal Procedure, to continue the
investigations.
32.
Víctor Manuel Chiquín (Chanquín) (Case 10.789)
Facts
alleged
131.
According to the petition dated January 28, 1991, on January 13, 1991, at
calle 20, in zone 5 of Guatemala City, armed men allegedly linked to the State
security forces attacked Mr. Víctor Manuel Chiquín with firearms. After the
attack, the victim was taken to the Hospital San Juan de Dios, where he died as
a result of the wounds. The
incident was reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
132.
On February 13, 1991, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the
pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested
information on the facts alleged. The
Guatemalan State responded on September 9, 1991, and this answer was forwarded
to the petitioner on September 20, 1991 for observations.
The petitioner submitted those observations on December 18, 1992, and
these were forwarded to the State on January 15, 1993, whereupon the Commission
also requested information on any progress in the proceedings initiated in the
domestic jurisdiction. The State
submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on March 18, 1993, which
was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993 for observations.
On December 1, 1993, the Commission once again requested that the State
provide information on any progress in the domestic proceedings.
That request was reiterated on October 2, 1995.
That same day, the Commission reiterated its request to the petitioner
for observations. On November 6,
1995, the petitioner provided additional information, which was forwarded to the
State on December 4, 1995. The
State submitted the information requested on February 16, 1996, and it was
forwarded to the petitioner for observations on March 5, 1996.
133.
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
134.
The State indicated that case 191-91 was pending in this matter before
the Fifth Court of First Instance for Criminal, Drug-related, and Environmental
Offenses, where, according to the indicia produced in the investigation, it had
been shown that the offense had been motivated by common crime, and therefore
lay beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. In
addition, the State asserted that this case should be deemed inadmissible for
failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
33.
Ricardo Rivera Ovando (Case 10.852)
Facts alleged
135.
According to the petition dated April 4, 1991, on February 17, 1991, in
the city of Quetzaltenango, several armed men, allegedly linked to State
security forces, captured Mr. Ricardo Rivera Ovando as he was walking with his
wife along 10th Avenida zone 1.
On March 2 the victim's corpse was found at kilometer 185 of the road
that runs from the city of Quetzaltenango to San Felipe Retalhuleu.
The body bore several gunshot wounds and signs of beating and
strangulation. These events were
reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
136.
On April 10,1991, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the pertinent
parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested information on the
facts alleged. The Guatemalan State
responded on September 20, 1991, and its answer was forwarded to the petitioner
on October 17, 1991 for observations. The
petitioner submitted those observations on December 18, 1992, and these were
forwarded to the State on January 15, 1993, whereupon the Commission also
requested information on any progress in the proceedings initiated in the
domestic jurisdiction. The State
submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on March 18, 1993, which
was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993 for observations. On December 17, 1993, the Commission asked that the
State clarify a contradiction in the information contained in its last two
communications. On February 10,
1994, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the
Commission on February 17, 1994. On
March 11, 1994, the State provided additional information, which was forwarded
to the petitioner on March 23, 1994, for observations. On October 2, 1994, the Commission reiterated that request to
the petitioner. On April 24, 1996,
the Commission again requested information from the State on any progress in the
internal proceedings on this case.
137.
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
138.
In its initial answer, the State reported that case 318-91 had been
opened before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters for the
department of Retalhuleu, and was in the investigative phase.
On this basis, the State asked that the case before the Commission be
declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
In its subsequent observations, the State provided contradictory
information to the effect that, having reviewed the Court's records, it could
not find any information referring to the victim as an offended party.
In later observations, the State once again made reference to case 318-91
before the Second Court, which remained in the investigative phase. According to
this investigation, the death had been caused by anoxia and asphyxia due to
strangulation.
34.
Pedro García Chuc (Case 10.855)
Facts alleged
139.
According to the petition of April 2, 1991, on March 5, 1991, at
kilometer 135 of the road to the West, in the municipality of Sololá,
department of Sololá, several armed men, allegedly linked to the State security
forces, captured Mr. Pedro García Chuc. Two days later, the victim's corpse was
found at the same site where he was captured, bearing several gunshot wounds.
The victim had been president of the San Juan Argueta R.L. Cooperative. The
facts alleged were reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
140.
On April 10. 1991, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the
pertinent parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested
information on the facts alleged. The
Guatemalan State responded on December 5, 1991, and this answer was forwarded to
the petitioner on the same day for observations.
The petitioner submitted its observations on March 25, 1993, and these
were forwarded to the State on August 31, 1993.
The State submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on
November 15, 1995, which was forwarded to the petitioner on November 21, 1995
for observations. The case
file also contains a copy of the report of the Ombudsman for Human Rights of
Guatemala, dated August 2, 1995, in relation to the facts alleged.
141.
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
142.
The State indicated that a judicial proceeding was ongoing in this matter
before the Court of First Instance for the department of Sololá, with respect
to which, according to the indicia produced in the investigation, "two
persons appear to be the alleged perpetrators."
The State asserted that the case before the Commission should be deemed
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In its further
observations, the State reported that on March 4, 1991, a relative had reported
the victim's disappearance to the Ombudsman for Human Rights, and that same day
the Office of the Ombudsman had filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Court of First Instance of the department.
The State asserted that "in view of the very delicate activities
[the victim] was involved in ... as president of the cooperative..., based on
the indicia .. in connection with the case, it is presumed that the incident has
criminal implications," and therefore falls outside of the Commission's
jurisdiction.
35.
Carlos Evercio Melgar Pocón (Case 10.858)
Facts alleged
143.
According to the petition received April 4, 1991, on March 18, 1991, six
armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces, removed Mr. Carlos
Evercio Pocón from his pharmacy located at 16 avenida A and 20 calle, zone 1,
in Guatemala City. Later, the
victim's corpse was located in the municipality of Villa Nueva, department of
Guatemala. According to the
petition, a relative reported these facts to the National Police and the Office
of the Ombudsman for Human Rights.
Processing
before the Commission
144.
On April 10, 1991, 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 March 5, 1992, and November 19, 1993. On December 14,
1993, the Guatemalan State requested a 30-day extension for providing its
answer. The Commission, on January
13, 1994, agreed to grant that extension. On
February 10, 1994, the Guatemalan State requested another 30-day extension.
On February 17, 1994, the Commission once again granted the extension
sought. The Guatemalan State
answered on September 27, 1994, and that answer was forwarded to the petitioner
for the corresponding observations on October 3, 1994.
This request was reiterated to the petitioner on October 2, 1995.
145.
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
146.
The State reported that case 77-91 had been initiated in this matter in
the domestic jurisdiction before the Court of First Instance for the
municipality of Amatitlán. As regards the complaint lodged by a relative of the
victim, the State indicated that the accusation that the crime could have been
committed "by elements of the National Police was based on confusion, due
to the presence of two investigators" who arrived at the pharmacy, without
identifying themselves, the day of the disappearance to speak with the victim
about his vehicle, which had supposedly been seen at the site of a crime.
Finally, the State reported that the proceedings had been transferred to
the Office of the Attorney General to continue the investigation.
36.
María del Carmen Anabisca Secáida (Case 10.861)
Facts alleged
147.
According to the petition dated April 2, 1991, on March 11, 1991, at the
Olga María farm, municipality of Tiquisate, department of Escuintla, several
members of the National Police evicted peasants who had occupied that farm to
demand that lands be returned to them. During
the eviction the police fired their weapons and caused the death of Mrs. María
del Carmen Anabisca Secáida. According
to the petition, a group of 30 National Police and 70 antiriot police came to
the farm "without the proper judicial order, surrounded the peasants, and
warned them to leave, which the peasants refused to do, at which point the
antiriot police fired tear-gas canisters. The
National Police shot at the peasants, causing [the victim's] death by one shot
to the forehead, in addition to arresting many people.”
Local residents and international observers witnessed the incident, which
was reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
148.
On April 10, 1991, 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 March 5, 1992, and November 19, 1993. The Guatemalan
State responded on February 14, 1994, and the answer was forwarded to the
petitioner on March 3, 1994 for observations.
The Guatemalan State provided additional information on August 22, 1994,
which was sent to the petitioner on February 20, 1995 for observations.
149.
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
150.
The State argued that on March 11. 1991, elements of the National Police
had gone to the farm to verify the situation and to try to convince the
squatters to leave the place, given that it was private property. "Even
though the Police ordered them to leave by peaceful means, the squatters
received them armed with sticks, machetes, and shots from firearms, resulting in
gunshot wounds to three members of the National Police and ... María del Carmen
Anavisca." In relation to this
incident, the State indicated that case 820-92 was pending before the First
Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters of Escuintla, where two Police
agents stood accused in the death for the crimes of homicide and disobedience. On February 6, 1992, the Court in question had handed down a
judgment of acquittal on behalf of the accused for lack of evidence, which had
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals on September 6, 1992, for lack of
sufficient evidence.
37.
Byron Estuardo Polanco (Case 10.869)
Facts alleged
151.
According to the petition, on February 26, 1991, at kilometer 119 of the
Pan American Highway, in the jurisdiction of the departmental capital of Jutiapa,
several armed men, allegedly members of the State security forces, captured
Professor Byron Estuardo Polanco. Later,
the victim's corpse was found inside a vehicle with license plates from
California, United States. The body
bore the coup de grâce. The facts described were reported to the corresponding
authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
152.
On May 1, 1991, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the pertinent
parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested information on the
facts alleged. The Guatemalan State
responded on September 20, 1991, and this answer was forwarded to the petitioner
on October 17, 1991 for observations. The
petitioner submitted those observations on December 18, 1992, and these were
forwarded to the State on January 15, 1993, whereupon the Commission also
requested information on any progress in the proceedings initiated in the
domestic jurisdiction. The State
submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on March 18, 1993, which
was forwarded to the petitioner on March 19, 1993, for observations.
That request was reiterated on October 2, 1995.
On April 24, 1996, the Commission again requested information from the
State on any progress in the internal proceedings on this case.
153.
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
154.
The State reported that case 658-91 was pending in this matter before the
Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of the department of
Jutiapa, in the investigative phase. On
this basis, the State asked that the case before the Commission be declared
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
38. Eulogio
Meléndez Boteo, Pedro Meléndez Galicia, and Noé Meléndez Galicia (Case
10.872)
Facts
alleged
155.
According to the petition received April 30, 1991, on April 16, 1991, at
the Las Riatas farm, La Libertad, El Petén, several armed men in uniform,
allegedly linked to the State security forces, entered and searched the victims'
home. They took the victims to the
back yard by force, and shot and killed them.
Later, they took the wife of Pedro Meléndez Galicia, Mrs. Margarita Chávez,
to an undisclosed destination (see Case 10.873 infra).
A relative witnessed these events and survived the attack.
The facts described were reported to the corresponding authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
156.
On May 6, 1991, 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 March 5, 1992, and November 22,
1993. In addition, on November 22,
1993, the Commission requested further information from the petitioner.
On April 4, 1994, the Guatemalan State requested a 30-day extension,
which was granted by the Commission on April 11, 1994.
The Guatemalan State answered on May 27, 1994.
That answer was forwarded to the petitioner on June 6, 1994, for
observations. That request for observations was reiterated on October 2,
1995.
157.
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
158.
The State indicated that in respect of this matter case number 601-91 was
pending before the First Court of First Instance of the department of Petén, in
the investigative phase. The State
indicated that a relative had made a statement to the effect that the
perpetrators were members of the guerrilla forces, as a result of which the
Court had ordered the National Police to undertake the corresponding
investigations.
39.
Margarita Chávez (Case 10.873)
Facts
alleged
159.
According to the petition of May 7, 1991, on April 27, 1991, at the Las
Riatas farm, municipality of La Libertad, department of El Petén, armed and
uniformed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces, captured Margarita
Chávez and took her to an undisclosed destination.
Days later, the victim's corpse was found in the municipality of Sayaxché,
department of El Petén. The corpse
bore gunshot wounds and signs of torture. The victim's husband had been killed
days earlier (see Case 10.872 supra).
A relative witnessed the events, which were reported to the corresponding
authorities.
Processing
before the Commission
160.
On May 21, 1991, the Commission opened the case, forwarded the pertinent
parts of the complaint to the Guatemalan State, and requested information on the
facts alleged. The Guatemalan State
responded on November 21, 1991, and the answer was forwarded to the petitioner
on December 5, 1991 for observations. The
petitioner submitted those observations on December 18, 1992, and these were
forwarded to the State on January 15, 1993, whereupon the Commission also
requested information on any progress in the proceedings initiated in the
domestic jurisdiction. The
Guatemalan State submitted its reply to the petitioner's observations on May 7,
1993, and that was forwarded to the petitioner on May 19, 1993 for observations.
The Guatemalan State provided additional information on August 22, 1994,
which was sent to the petitioner on August 31, 1994, for observations.
The last request to the petitioner was reiterated on October 2, 1995.
161.
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
162.
The State reported that case number 980-91 was pending in this matter and
joined to criminal case 604-91 before the local Justice of Peace of Sayaxché,
department of El Petén, where it remained in the investigative phase. On this
basis, the State requested that the case before the Commission be declared
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
... continued
[ Table of Contents |
Previous |
Next ]
|
