176.    On July 22, 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 15, 1993.  In addition, on November 15, 1993, the Commission asked that the petitioner provide further information.  The Guatemalan State responded on January 26, 1994, and its reply was forwarded to the petitioner on January 31, 1994 for observations.   

          177.    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  

          178.    The State reported that case 994-91 was pending in this matter before the Sixth Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, in the investigative phase.   

          44.      Tomás Ventura Chon (Case 10.922)  

            Facts alleged  

          179.    According to the petition dated July 13, 1991, in the hamlet of Quiejel, municipality of Chichicastenango, department of El Quiché, several armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces, killed Mr. Tomás Ventura Chon, who was a member of the Council of Ethnic Communities Runujel Junam (CERJ: Consejo de Comunidades Etnicas Runujel Junam) using a sharp instrument.  Local residents witnessed the incident, which was reported to the corresponding authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission  

          180.    On July 22, 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 16, 1993.  In addition, on November 16, 1993, the Commission asked the petitioner to provide additional information.  On April 4, 1994, the State requested a 30-day extension, which was granted by the Commission on April 11.  The Guatemalan State submitted its answer on April 12, 1994, and this was forwarded to the petitioner on May 6, 1994 for observations.  That request was reiterated on October 2, 1995.  

          181.    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  

          182.    The State reported that there was no record whatsoever in which the victim's name appeared as either perpetrator or victim of a crime, thus additional information was needed to continue the investigation.  

          45.      Julio Quevedo Quezada (Case 10.935)  

          Facts alleged  

          183.    According to the petition dated July 30, 1991, on July 15, 1991, in the departmental capital of Santa Cruz de El Quiché, several armed men in civilian dress, allegedly linked to the State security forces, killed Mr. Julio Quevedo Quezada with firearms as he was walking in the streets of Santa Cruz with his family.  It happened four blocks from the National Police station in Santa Cruz.  The victim had been in charge of the Social Pastoral office of the Catholic Church of El Quiché.  Several residents witnessed the incident, which was reported to the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights and other authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission  

          184.    On August 23, 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 17, 1993.  In addition, on November 17, 1993, the Commission asked the petitioner to provide further information.  The Guatemalan State submitted its answer on January 25, 1994, and this was forwarded to the petitioner on January 28, 1994 for observations.  That request was reiterated on October 2, 1995.  

          185.    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  

          186.    The State reported that, in relation to the attack, it was presumed that the victim had received several death threats by a group that identified itself as the Fundación para la Justicia, apparently with reference to his work to improve the standard of living of peasants affected by the consequences of the internal conflict.  The State noted that case 884-91 was pending in this matter before the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Investigation of the department of El Quiché, in the investigative phase.   

          46.      Raúl Sao Villagrán (Case 10.936)  

            Facts alleged  

          187.    According to the petition dated July 29, 1991, on July 8, 1991, in zone 11 of Guatemala City, several armed men, allegedly linked to the State security forces, captured Mr. Raúl Sao Villagrán and took him to an undisclosed destination.  Two days later, the victim's corpse was found at the place known as the "body dump," El Campanero, municipality of Mixco, department of Guatemala.  The body bore signs of torture and beating.  The victim had been president of a Court of Appeals in the city of Antigua, department of Sacatepéquez.  Several family members witnessed the victim being captured, and filed a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf in Antigua and in Guatemala City, and reported the incident to other authorities.  

          Processing before the Commission  

          188.    On August 23, 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 17, 1993.  In addition, on December 2, 1993, the Commission asked the petitioner to provide additional information.   

          189.    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  

          190.    The State provided no comment or observation on this case.  

          Accumulation of the cases  

          191.    As indicated in Section I, as a procedural matter the Commission decided, pursuant to Article 40 of its Regulations, to combine these cases and treat them in a single report.  In the course of processing these cases, the Commission was able to determine that each related to an alleged extrajudicial execution at the hands of members of or persons linked to the security forces.  Therefore the allegations referred to facts similar in nature, in a common time frame.    

          III.      ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY  

            A.        Competence of the Commission  

          192.    According to its mandate, the Commission has jurisdiction to examine the subject matter of this complaint, which refers to alleged violations of rights set forth in Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 25 of the American Convention.  Guatemala is a State party to this Convention as of the date of its ratification--May 25, 1978--and this treaty entered into force for all the parties on July 18, 1978.  The complaints in question refer to facts after those dates.  The petitioners have standing to appear, pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention.  In their submissions the petitioners have set forth certain complaints which, if they meet other requirements and are shown to be true, may provide the basis for proving the violation of a right protected by the American Convention.  

          B.        Requirements to admit a petition  

          193.    As the Commission has jurisdiction to hear these cases, i.e. the petitions under study meet the basic conditions to invoke its international function of pronouncing judgment on alleged violations of human rights, the Commission will now determine whether the conditions set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention have been met.  

          194.    The petitions include the information required in Article 32 of the Commission's Regulations and meet the conditions established in Article 46(1)(c) of the American Convention and Article 39 of the Commission's Regulations, since according to the record the subject matter is not pending resolution in any other intergovernmental procedure, nor do they essentially duplicate a petition or petitions pending or previously considered by the Commission.

          Exhaustion of domestic remedies  

          195.    Article 46 of the American Convention provides that in order for a case may be admitted, it must meet the following requirement:  "that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." At the same time, this Article sets forth a series of exceptions to this requirement that are applied when domestic remedies are not available de facto or de jure.^[3]  

          196.    To validly oppose the admissibility of a complaint, the State must invoke the rule of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies expressly and in timely fashion before the Commission.  According to generally accepted principles of international law, the rule of prior exhaustion "is a prerequisite that is established in favor of the State, which may waive its right, even tacitly, and this occurs, inter alia, when it is not timely invoked."^[4]  As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has explained, the failure of a State to raise the objection of inadmissibility on this ground or to offer information to respond to a complaint has final effect.  

          197.    In five of the 46 cases under study, the Commission received no response from the State to its requests for information.^[5]  In 12 additional cases, the State submitted no express argument with respect to the non-exhaustion of remedies.^[6]  Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the State waived any argument with respect to the requirements of Article 46 concerning these 17 cases.  

          198.    With respect to each of the remaining 29 cases, the State expressly argued that its authorities were properly seized of the matters raised, and that, as judicial procedures remained pending, domestic remedies had not been exhausted as required.  The record with respect to these cases reflects that none has resulted in the issuance of a final decision resolving the claims raised and the corresponding responsibility.  As it is evident that internal remedies have not been exhausted, the admissibility analysis must turn to whether these cases fall within one of the grounds excusing compliance with this requirement set forth in Article 46.  

          199.    Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes that this objection applies if, in a country's domestic legislation, there is no due process of law for protecting the right or rights which, according to the allegations, have been violated; if the person injured is denied access to domestic remedies; or if there has been an unwarranted delay in the adoption of a final decision. Consequently, when a complaint argues that for reasons of law or of fact a petitioner has not had access to domestic remedies, Article 37 of the Commission's Regulations places the burden of showing what domestic remedies remain to be exhausted, and of offering an effective remedy to make reparations for the alleged damage, on the State.^[7]  

          200. With respect to these 29 cases, the State rested its arguments on the pendency and presumed efficacy of the judicial processes seeking to establish criminal responsibility in relation to the deaths of these victims.  In an alleged case of extrajudicial execution, a criminal investigation and judicial process would normally constitute an applicable and appropriate remedy, and the State has presented no argument to the effect that other remedies should have been or remain to be invoked.  

          201.    What the record in these 29 cases indicates as an objective matter is that from eight to nine years have passed since criminal proceedings were initiated, and that in no case has a final decision clarifying the alleged facts and corresponding responsibility been issued.  With this passage of time since these criminal proceedings were initiated, the question of undue delay necessarily arises under the terms of Article 46(2).  While a full criminal investigation necessarily has its own requirements: "The rule of prior exhaustion must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless [alleged] victim ineffective."^[8]  As a general rule, a criminal investigation must be carried out promptly, not only to protect the interests of the victim, but to safeguard the rights of all persons who, in the context of the investigation, are considered suspects.  The Commission considers that the extended pendency of these proceedings, which has neither been explained nor justified by the State in any way, is a sufficient basis for these 29 cases to fall within the exception set forth in Article 46 for undue delay.  

          202.    In addition, the Commission must bear in mind the conditions prevailing with respect to the availability and efficacy of judicial remedies for addressing alleged extrajudicial executions during the period in question.  In its Annual Reports for 1990-91 and 1991, the Commission expressed serious concern over the phenomenon of extrajudicial executions and torture in Guatemala and the inability of the judiciary to respond.^[9]  The Commission reported that judicial procedures with respect to those violations were “not accompanied by an exhaustive investigation that seeks to identify and penalize the guilty parties in accordance with the gravity of the acts."^[10]   The UN Independent Expert for Guatemala characterized the response of the police and judiciary to violations of the right to life during the period as "highly unsatisfactory."^[11]  In most cases, these entities failed to identify the culprits.  In the few cases where a presumed perpetrator was identified, no judicial sanction was imposed, thus encouraging the persistence of impunity.^[12]  The Commission for Historical Clarification made a similar finding when it indicated that judicial investigations on cases of human rights violations were deficient from 1986 to 1996^[13], and that: "The country's judicial system, due either to induced or deliberate ineffectiveness, failed to guarantee the application of the law, tolerating, and even facilitating, violence...."^[14]  

          203.    In addition, as this Commission has already reported, and as has been confirmed by other reliable sources, at that time there was generalized fear not only on the part of the population affected by human rights violations, but also on the part of judges and other judicial officers who effectively rendered null access to domestic remedies for the affected persons or their representatives. In this regard, the Commission stated in its report for 1989-1990: "The judges of this system simply do not conduct thorough investigations because they have been terrorized by what has happened to others who have performed investigations and acted bravely against terrorism.  As a result, these judges have become victims...."^[15]  Similarly, the Commission for Historical Clarification stated in this regard that various persons who were involved in the judicial process suffered threats and attacks, which provoked a climate of intimidation and "an increase in the inaction of the courts and impunity."^[16]  In many cases, given the lack of security, relatives and colleagues of the victims were afraid to investigate the facts, and "in the few cases in which an investigation was initiated, many witnesses and lawyers refused to participate in proceedings against members of the Army or any other State institution."^[17]  In addition, "many judges were forced to compromise their independence as a first step to avoid assassination.”^[18]  

          204.    The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not require pursuing a remedy when that does not offer any chance of success or when that might endanger the physical integrity of the petitioner.^[19]  In this context, the Commission finds that there were factual reasons in Guatemala that impeded the access of the injured parties or their representatives to domestic remedies, and, therefore, it was not necessary to exhaust them.  For this reason, and also bearing in mind that the domestic remedies initiated had been subject to unwarranted delay, the Commission concludes that the exception to the prior exhaustion requirement set forth in Article 46 of the Convention applies.  

          Timeliness  

          205.    Pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, petitions must be submitted in timely fashion, i.e. within six months from the date on which a person whose rights have allegedly been violated has been notified of the final decision in the domestic system.  This provision guarantees certainty and juridical stability once a decision has been adopted. When there is not a final judgment, as in the cases under study, Article 46(2) indicates that, to the extent that this may be attributed to the lack of due process, denial of access to remedies, or unjustified delay, the six-months rule does not apply.  In that case, Article 38 of the Commission's Regulations establishes that the time frame for submission "shall be within a reasonable period of time, in the Commission's judgment, from the date on which the alleged violation of rights has occurred, considering the circumstances of each specific case."  

          206.    The complaints set forth in these 46 cases were submitted to the Commission promptly--within a period of several weeks to several months from the date of the extrajudicial executions alleged--and the State presented no objection whatsoever in this respect.  The petitioners stated that they had pursued domestic remedies, the availability and effectiveness of which are analyzed above.  Although the Guatemalan state had the obligation to investigate the proceedings begun and to process the corresponding cases, more than eight or nine years have elapsed with no final disposition. In those circumstances, the Commission considers that the requirement of timely submission was met.  

            The nature of the claims alleged  

          207.    Article 47 of the American Convention prohibits the admission of any petition which fails to meet the requirements set forth in Article 46, or which either (1) fails to state facts tending to establish a violation or (2) is demonstrated to be manifestly groundless.  Each of the 46 cases under study involves the alleged extrajudicial execution of one or more persons at the hands of members of or persons linked to the security forces of the State.  With respect to four of these cases,^[20] the State expressly opposed their admissibility on the basis that the results of its initial investigations indicated that those killings had been perpetrated by non-State actors, thereby placing the subject matter beyond the competence of the Commission.  As noted in the section recounting the proceedings before the Commission, the State sustained that the killings at issue in cases 10.653, 10.784, 10.789 and 10.855 were the result of common crime, and therefore not imputable to the State or members of its security forces.  

          208.    In the first place, the Commission observes that the State provided little, if any information, and no evidence whatsoever in support of this position. With respect to case 10.653, the State indicated that, in the initial investigation, family members had attributed the killing of the victim to personal vengeance.  The State added that a "probable witness" to the crime had himself been killed when about to reveal the names of those involved.  The State did not specify which family members gave this information, nor how, when, or to whom it was given.  Nor did it report any steps to investigate it, or to investigate the killing of the "probable witness."  With respect to case 10.784, the State reported only one specific action within the judicial process: the taking of declarations from four named persons who were reportedly unable to provide information as to the motive or identity of those responsible.  The State then affirmed, without citing any basis, that the initial investigation pointed to common crime as the motive for the killings.  In relation to case 10.789, the State again affirmed that the initial investigation pointed to common crime as the motive for the killing, without citing any basis for its assertion.  Finally, in relation to case 10.855, the State contended that the killing of the victim was linked to criminal activity, an assertion which it based solely on the nature of his "very delicate activities" as president of a cooperative.  

          209.    Further, the State's contention that these cases are inadmissible for failing to state a cognizable claim is based exclusively on its assertion that the killings were not imputable to State agents.  Even putting that question aside, these four cases raise further issues relating to, inter alia, judicial protection and guarantees, and the full scope of the State's duties pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention.  The State's contentions about the nature of the underlying crimes have no bearing on the admissibility of these additional claims.  

          210.    The determination of the actual involvement of State agents or persons linked to such agents is not an issue to be decided at the admissibility stage.  The Commission will proceed to draw its conclusions concerning any State responsibility, either direct or imputed, in the analysis of the merits which follows. At this stage of its analysis, the Commission finds that the conclusory arguments of the State do not provide a sufficient basis in fact or law to show that these four cases are inadmissible.  The petitions state facts which, if consistent with other requirements and shown to be true, could establish a violation of the Convention, and the State has not shown these claims to be out of order or manifestly groundless pursuant to Article 47 of the Convention.  

          IV.       FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT  

          211.    Pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention, in each of the cases analyzed, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the interested parties with a view to trying to reach a friendly settlement grounded in respect for the human rights recognized in the Convention.  None of them expressed such interest within the time frame they were given. Accordingly, as the parties were given the opportunity to avail themselves of the procedure and effectively rejected it, the Commission moves on to analyze the merits of the matter before it.  

          V.        ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS  

          A.        Initial considerations  

          212.    As established earlier, the Commission agreed to combine the cases under study, considering that the facts alleged by the petitioners address a series of alleged extrajudicial executions committed by agents of the Guatemalan State or persons linked to such agents, carried out with similar characteristics and in a common time frame.  The analysis which follows therefore examines these cases taking into account these common factors.  Further, this analysis cannot divorce itself from the overall context of the observance of the right to life in Guatemala during the period under study.  

          213.    In Guatemala, the years 1990 and 1991 were marked by systematic violations of the right to life in the form of extrajudicial executions and disappearances carried out by State agents.  The present section will provide an overview of extrajudicial executions during the period, including an analysis of the characteristics of the practice, and the nature of those persons targeted as victims.  

    The characteristics of extrajudicial executions in Guatemala in 1990-1991  

          214.    Extrajudicial executions were employed throughout the period of the armed conflict in Guatemala:          

Through the systematic practice of arbitrary execution, State agents physically eliminated their opponents, seeking at the same time to repress, silence, and control the population as  a whole, through terror, in both urban and rural areas.^[21]  

As will be described, such executions were carried out with regular frequency during 1990 and 1991, following procedures with common, identifiable characteristics.   

          215.    Reports from this period reflect the precariousness of the right to life.  In its Annual Report for 1989-90, the Commission highlighted that the period covered by the report had witnessed "the most serious increase in violence and human rights violations during the term of President Cerezo."^[22]  The Commission referred both to the many complaints it had received and to the number of reports of kidnappings, disappearances, and extrajudicial executions, almost daily, and in certain cases with multiple victims.^[23] Once again in its Annual Report 1990-91, the Commission reported that the human rights situation in the country had deteriorated,^[24] and that the majority of cases opened in relation to Guatemala involved allegations of extrajudicial executions, disappearances, and unlawful detentions.^[25]  At the national level, the Ombudsman for Human Rights reported processing 556 complaints concerning extrajudicial deaths in 1990, and 432 such complaints in 1991.^[26]  The statistics on extrajudicial executions reported by nongovernmental organizations were either consistent with these figures or substantially higher.^[27]  

          216.    While some executions were perpetrated indiscriminately, without regard to the sex, age, ethnicity, political opinion or other distinction pertaining to the victim, "in the period from 1990 to 1996, the tendency noted in the late 1980s persisted, i.e., the practice of selective arbitrary executions...."^[28]  The selective executions occurred "... when the victim was defined or chosen clearly and specifically ... it could be an individual, a community, or a sector...."^[29]  The report Guatemala: Nunca Más spells out certain characteristics:  "The executions have constituted a common criminal practice for eliminating pre-selected individuals....  The commandos that carried them out were made up of teams of five to eight individuals ... and the vehicles and weapons they used had no registration that would suggest the origin of the operation."^[30]  On many occasions, the execution involved "a discreet surveillance plan ... that entailed establishing habitual points of reference in the victim's movements, for example his or her home or place of work ... and an investigation of his or her close and likely circle of relationships...."^[31]  

          217.    The cases and reports of this period reflect a common modus operandi in violations of the right to life:  

they are carried out openly at any time of day or night, in any place of Guatemala, and without any concern for eyewitnesses.  The kidnappers use cars or trucks without license plates or with stolen plates.  Nobody, and even less the police, does anything to prevent such acts.  The investigations do not lead anywhere and the responsible organs blame each other for the failure of the investigations.^[32]  

"The corpses found were located in different parts of the country, the majority with bullet or knife wounds, some with signs of torture...."^[33]  

          218.  In urban areas, the finding of these bodies, usually bearing signs of torture or mutilation, was publicized through the press.  "The dissemination of these images consolidated a constant reminder of violence even for those who were not directly involved in the political struggle.  In the urban area, it was common for corpses to appear in ravines, streets, and highways, discovered by workers or local residents."^[34]  The practice of abandoning bodies along roads, thoroughfares and other places where they would be discovered by local residents was equally common in rural areas.^[35]   The perpetrators not only intended to heighten the terror of those who saw the bodies or learned of the torture, but also to further degrade the dignity and humanity of the victims.  

          219.    Extrajudicial executions were generally carried out in one of two ways.  In some cases, a group of unidentified armed men, either in civilian clothing or occasionally in uniform, would approach the victim in his or her home, workplace or in a public street, often in the presence of witnesses, and carry out the attack on the spot.  Alternatively, the victim would be captured from such a place, again, often in the presence of witnesses, and the body would be discovered within hours or days, in many cases bearing signs of torture. As described by the UN Independent Expert for Guatemala, "summary or arbitrary execution is generally the final result of a process that begins with the violent kidnapping or forced disappearance of the victim, who is taken to a secret detention center, subjected to interrogation under severe torture, and finally executed and his or her body left in a public place with clear signs of physical torture...."^[36]  In addition, as the CEH reported, "most of the arbitrary executions committed by State agents were supplemented by other acts and maneuvers aimed at avoiding or thwarting investigations of judges, thereby intensifying the climate of impunity."^[37]  

          2.         The involvement of state agents  

          220.    Notwithstanding the failure of the judiciary to respond to these violations as required, the participation of State agents in this practice has been firmly established through the characteristics of the executions and how they were carried out, the denunciations and declarations of witnesses, numerous testimonies collected and analyzed pursuant to the signing of the firm and lasting peace in December of 1996 (including those of victimizers), and reliable fact-finding reports issued at the time and subsequently.  In assessing the nature and extent of State responsibility for this practice during the conflict, the Commission for Historical Clarification concluded that "the Guatemalan State repeatedly and systematically violated the right to life ... aggravated in numerous cases by the application of extreme ruthlessness, as occurred, for example, in situations in which bodies were abandoned with clear signs of torture, mutilation, multiple gunshot wounds or burns."  Overall, according to the data, "the Army was responsible for 86% of all arbitrary executions."^[38]  “The PAC’s were responsible for 21%, and the military commissioners 11%..." of the total, in many cases in collaboration with the Army, and "other State security forces (National Police, Treasury Guard, and others), for 4%."^[39]  (This percentage is based on all arbitrary executions, without assessing whether the act was individual or in collaboration with another actor).  

          221.    These general conclusions are consistent with the characteristics of the executions and reports for the specific period under study.  For example, the Ombudsman for Human Rights reported in July 1990 that "... the majority of the complaints presented to his office involved accusations against the Army, the National Police, and the Civil Patrols."^[40]  In its Annual Report for 1991, the Commission expressed its concern over the number of complaints received concerning violations of the right to life at the hands of the Army, and the inability of the pertinent authorities to control or punish members of the security forces, which appear to have had direct involvement in a number of human rights violations.^[41]  The UN Independent Expert reported that, because those responsible for violations of the right to life--presumed to pertain or be linked to the security forces-- escaped all sanction, they were able to act with virtually total impunity.^[42]

          222.    An essential aspect of this practice, and one which encouraged its perpetuation, was the lack of ability or will on the part of the pertinent authorities to respond to the executions as required by law.  During this period, the Commission noted that with respect to human rights violations, the organs of the administration of justice called on to investigate and punish such incidents did not act, making clear their ineffectiveness in preventing or responding to such violations.^[43]  The judicial investigations initiated by reason of the repeated reports of summary executions "have not yielded positive results in practice, in that in most cases the courts or security agencies do not determine the identity of the perpetrators of such violent acts."^[44]  The few individuals who have been brought before the courts accused of participating in violations of the right to life were not punished, "sometimes for lack of political will, other times due to deficiencies in the administration of justice."^[45]  

          3.         The targeting of victims  

          223.    Many of the selective extrajudicial executions during 1990-91 were carried out against victims who were targeted for their involvement in social and political organizations.^[46]  The Commission and other sources reported during this period on the persistence of campaigns of violence and intimidation against: human rights defenders,^[47] particularly members of the CERJ;^[48] members of trade and labor organizations;^[49] members of university communities;^[50] the indigenous population, especially in rural areas;^[51] the campesino population;^[52] the press;^[53] members of political parties and persons otherwise involved in the political life of the country;^[54] members of community service and religious organizations;^[55] and judicial personnel.^[56]  In many cases, those killed and/or persons close to them had been subjected to prior threats.^[57] Notwithstanding precautions, such as periods of exile in a number of cases, those threats were eventually realized.^[58]  

          224.    Such targeting was part of the larger policy aimed at spreading terror among the population.  As the Commission for Historical Clarification reported with respect to the more urban areas of the country:  

It would appear that state terrorism has held among its most valued criteria, for liquidating a person, that he or she be well-known [and] respected....  This has been done for the simple reason that it generates more fear....  By assassinating or disappearing leaders, in one way or another the greatest sense of lack of protection, lack of direction, and, of course, disorganization can be generated.^[59]  

The same terror tactics were used in rural areas.  "In the interior of the country, the systematic elimination of traditional leaders, catechists, and cooperative members left sequelae of the dismantling of community structures, lack of protection, and disorganization within the community."^[60]  

          225.    In other cases, these violations were less selective insofar as the victims included men, women, the elderly and children.^[61] The vast majority of those executed during the course of the conflict, approximately 86.56% of the victims, were members of the Mayan population.^[62]  A large percentage of the victims were members of rural communities, including agricultural workers and subsistence farmers.^[63]  Over the course of the armed conflict, thousands of persons were summarily executed on the basis of accusations that they had some connection with the guerrillas, without the accusation ever having been clarified.^[64]  Victims were not always targeted in relation to their own presumed activities; in some cases, they were selected in connection with the political or social activities of their relatives, or simply because they were present when unknown armed men showed up at a home or workplace looking for a relative.^[65]  Conversely, in some cases individuals were targeted precisely because they had never participated in any kind of political activity.  This was also a way of sowing terror, by provoking the reaction that, if they kill such a person, "who can't they kill."^[66]  

          B.        The facts established with respect to the 46 cases at issue  

          1.         The weighing of the evidence  

          226.    In weighing the evidence and establishing the facts, the Commission has taken into account the totality of the information offered by the parties, particularly references to the statements of witnesses and family members and to any investigations initiated, as well as the foregoing information with respect to the practice of extrajudicial executions in Guatemala at the time of the facts.  As the Inter-American Court has established:  "direct evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, is not the only type of evidence that may be legitimately considered....  Circumstantial evidence, indicia, and presumptions may be considered, so long as they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts."^[67]  

          227.    Circumstantial elements of proof may be of particular importance when addressing a violation or set of violations which were carried out in such a way as to impede any establishment of responsibility.^[68]  As stated above with respect to the practice of extrajudicial executions generally, "they were complemented by other acts and maneuvers aimed at avoiding or thwarting the investigation of judges, intensifying the climate of impunity,"^[69] and the judiciary proved unwilling and unable to discharge its role in identifying, prosecuting and punishing those responsible.  Where such a practice, attributable to the State or with respect to which it acquiesced, can be established, and the particular case can be linked to that practice, that linkage further defines the nature and scope of the claims raised,^[70] and aids in establishing the veracity of the facts alleged.^[71]  

          228.    The starting point for evaluating the evidence and establishing the facts in the cases under study--and which is not in dispute--is that the 71 men, women and children named as victims in the 46 cases under study were violently killed.  The petitioners alleged that the victims' bodies respectively bore bullet wounds, knife wounds, marks of strangulation, and, in 13 cases, signs of torture.  The State never controverted those allegations; in several cases, the information it submitted confirmed the cause of death alleged.  

          2.      The facts presented and their relationship to the pattern of extrajudicial executions  

          229.    As described above, during 1990 and 1991, hundreds of persons were extrajudicially executed in Guatemala.  The executions followed a similar pattern, and were carried out in a systematic manner, with the victims usually having been targeted for their social or political activities.  It was known that they were perpetrated by members of the security forces or persons acting at their behest or with their acquiescence. Further, the legal remedies in existence at the time were not effective in guaranteeing either the right to life or related fundamental rights such as the right to liberty.  

          230.    The extrajudicial executions alleged in the 46 cases under study were perpetrated following the two basic patterns prevalent at the time.  In both instances, several individuals committed the unlawful act, they were in civilian dress in most of the cases, and invariably they were heavily armed and acted with apparent impunity.  In 20 of these cases, the modus operandi that the persons responsible for the extrajudicial executions followed was to go to the place where the victim was, even when the victim was accompanied by other persons, and to execute him or her immediately.^[72]  

          231.    In 26 cases, the modus operandi was to first capture the victim, and take him or her to an undisclosed location.  Hours or days later the corpses were found near the place where the victim had been captured, or in a public place.^[73]  In 13 of those 26 cases, the bodies bore clear signs of having been tortured prior to being killed.^[74]  To the extent the marks are described, for example, those indicating that the victims had been beaten, they are consistent with the forms of torture practiced and reported during the period in question.  

          232.    In each of the 46 cases, the petitioners alleged the participation of agents of the State security forces or persons linked with such forces.  The State expressly disputed that claim in four cases, and argued more generally that grounds for State responsibility had not been established in 29 cases.  With respect to the four cases, 10.653, 10.784, 10.789 and 10.855,^[75] the State expressly argued that the petitions were inadmissible because the killings were attributable to common crime and not to its agents.  As detailed in the admissibility analysis above, however, the State provided no specific bases or evidence in support of that position.  In 29 cases, the State expressly argued that the cases were inadmissible because its authorities were engaged in judicial processes designed to clarify the facts of and responsibility for the killings.  In five cases, the State submitted no answer, and in the remainder offered no arguments on the specific question of State responsibility.  

          233.    With respect to indicators of the involvement of State agents arising in the record of these cases, the Commission notes that in seven cases, the petitioners expressly described the perpetrators as having been members of a security force, usually the Army. Four of these seven cases, 10.667, 10.687, 10.730 and 10.755, share the common factor that the perpetrators were described as Army soldiers quartered in the village of Amacchel in El Quiché. Case 10.667 concerns allegations that soldiers captured the victim, and tortured him to death.  Case 10.687 involved claims that soldiers fired on a group of local inhabitants, killing the minor victim.  Case 10.730 involves allegations that soldiers shot and killed the victim.  Case 10.755 concerns claims that soldiers attacked two villages with artillery fire, executing two minor victims, whose bodies they then mutilated.  With respect to the three remaining cases, the killing in case 10.789 reportedly involved members of the security forces, while the shooting death of the victim in case 10.861 allegedly involved members of the National Police attempting to evict people from a farm they were occupying.  The killing in case 10.903 reportedly involved a named soldier of the Guatemala Army.  In three additional cases, 10.609, 10.872 and 10.873, the petitioners indicated that witnesses described the perpetrators as having been dressed in military clothing or "uniformed."  In the remaining cases, the petitioners alleged the participation of persons linked to the security forces.  The Commission understands this to refer to members of such forces, or persons acting at their behest or with their acquiescence.   

          234.    As the Inter-American Court has established, in order to establish that there has been a violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention, it is not necessary to determine the culpability of the perpetrators or their intentions, nor is it necessary to identify the agents to whom the violative act is attributed.  In such cases, it is sufficient to show that there was been support or tolerance by the authorities in the infraction of the rights recognized in the Convention, or failure to adopt the measures needed to identify and punish the perpetrators of those violations.^[76]

^continued...

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]