Uncertainty around the Xalalá Hydroelectric Project

Posted on February 28, 2015 by ACOGUATE

Translation by NISGUA

On November 7, 2013, the National Electrification Institute (Instituto Nacional de Electrificación, INDE) signed an Emergency Purchase contract with the Brazilian company Intertechne Consultores, S.A. to conduct the geotechnical, seismic, geological and geophysical feasibility studies for the Xalalá dam, without informing and consulting the affected communities. More than a year later, affected communities organized through the Association of Communities for Development, Defense of Territory and Natural Resources (ACODET) are still waiting for the decision of the Constitutional Court on the irregularities of the contract and the lack of consent.

Photo credit: ACOGUATE archive

Even though the company was unable to begin their groundwork during 2014, tension in the region has increased. On December 12, the Ministry of Energy and Mines declared it would no longer be actively pushing the Xalalá project forward during the current administration, however communities remain concerned about its continued development. ACOGUATE has accompanied ACODET since 2007 and accompanied consultations in the Ixcán and Uspantán in 2007 and 2010.

Legal action against irregularities within the contract and the right to be consulted
The Xalalá dam is currently the largest planned hydroelectric project in Guatemala. With a generating capacity of 181 megawatts, if built, the dam would be the second most powerful in the country after the Chixoy dam. It is estimated to directly affect 58 communities in the region.  The contract signed between INDE and Intertechne Consultores, S.A. on November 7, 2013 is for a period of 12 months,  and is now being questioned due to irregularities in the contract.

On April 10, 2014, the office of the General Comptroller (Contraloría General de Cuentas, CGC) filed a legal complaint against 12 members of the INDE board of directors, noting irregularities in contracting the Brazilian company to conduct the feasibility studies of the Xalalá dam - a contract valued at Q40.8 million.  According to the General Comptroller, Nora Segura: "It is clear that the adjudication process of the feasibility study was not transparent. There are many irregularities and neither the law nor the internal process of INDE were respected, much less the government procurement law, which is why a criminal complaint was filed.”  In particular, the CGC called attention to three irregularities, stating that they infringed upon government procurement law:

• INDE hired Intertechne directly without going through the public bidding process of GUATECOMPRAS, claiming a national emergency,
• INDE paid an advance that was 20% higher than the maximum allowed for the contract, and
• At the time of signing the contract, the Brazilian company did not have headquarters in Guatemala but instead, established a subsidiary company 60 days later.  

A month later, Amilcar Pop, the President of the Congressional Committee on Integrity (CGC), filed a complaint against members of the INDE board of directors - including Minister of Energy and Mines Erick Archila, former INDE Manager Marinus Boer, and INDE Project Manager Widthmark Estrada - for fraud, abuse of authority, embezzlement and failure to report to the Office of Administrative Offences of the Public Prosecutor's Office.  Amilcar Pop found that the contracting process was set out to directly benefit Intertechne. Alongside the CGC, Amilcar Pop found that the lack of offers from interested companies to conduct the feasibility study - leading to the eventual abandoning of the study in March 2013 - was likely due to INDE's requirement that each company pay $10,000 US just for the right to participate in the bidding process. According to Amilcar Pop: "While complying with legal requirements, that condition was put in place to guarantee that no one would participate and therefore, demonstrate the need to award the contract without any competition."

Even President Otto Peréz Molina gave contradictory answers regarding the irregularities. He called for the resignation of INDE’s manager, Marius Boer, who retired a week before being called to present before Congress.  On April 10, Otto Peréz Molina publicly stated that he was in agreement with the cancellation of the contract. He changed his discourse three days later, however, when he said that the feasibility study for the Xalalá hydroelectric dam was of national priority,  and therefore, INDE was exempt from following the Law of Contracts and Purchasing and instead, needed only to follow its own internal decision-making procedures.  Since the start of the project, the government has stated on several occasions that Xalalá is a priority and that feasibility studies would be carried out during Molina's administration. It was not until December 12, 2014 that the Minister of Energy and Mines stated the administration would not actively push the Xalalá project forward, feasibility studies would continue despite ongoing opposition and it would be the next administration which would make a decision.

Photo credit: ACOGUATE archive

The Supreme Court denied the preliminary hearings requested to contract Intertechne. The Attorney General's Office declared itself unfit to rule on the impacts of the contract, arguing that the Office could not intervene in the activities of an autonomous institution like INDE.  On June 12, 2014, affected communities represented by ancestral authorities of the Xalalá and Las Margaritas Copón communities filed an injunction against the irregularities of the INDE contract and Intertechne. On July 22, ancestral authorities went before the Procedural Complaints Court and with legal support from Maya Lawyers and third-party support from Congressman Amílcar Pop, argued the illegality of Intertechne’s contracting process. They also presented arguments around the lack of consultation with the communities before the contract was signed, effectively ignoring the results of the community consultations in the municipalities of Ixcán in 2007 and Uspantán in 2010.  INDE failed to appear at the public hearing.

In its decision, the Court declared the injunction to be of partial merit and recognized the lack of prior and informed consultation with the communities by INDE. However, the Court did not annul the contract, stating that it would be the responsibility of the Public Prosecutor's Office, who defended the contract at the public hearing. In addition, the Court's ruling requested that impacted communities participate in the study, which was subsequently appealed by ancestral authorities, the Congressional Committee on Integrity, and INDE.

In its second public hearing on October 8, 2014 in the Constitutional Court, INDE argued that they did in fact consult communities, presenting the "right to passage" signed by various Community Development Councils (COCODEs) in the region as evidence. However, the ancestral authorities insisted that no consultation process took place and that INDE only came to communities to offer development projects, which cannot replace consultation in accordance with national and international law. Likewise, the chairman of the Congressional Committee on Integrity argued that, "These rights were not respected in the least, and [the contract] threatenes the constitutional right of the Guatemalan people, as outlined in Articles 58, 66 and 67 of the Constitution, where the rights of indigenous peoples are recognized."  He also noted there were already two feasibility studies made in the 1970s, which showed the soil in the region where the dam would be built is too sandy, making it unfit to withstand the planned Xalalá construction. In addition, this puts into question the justification of a new feasibility study, with a demonstrated lack of transparency on part of INDE in relation to the project. A decision on the injunction is still pending from the Constitutional Court.

Strong Impact on Affected Communities

During 2014, tension in communities affected by the Xalalá project increased, leading to divisions within and among communities that have differing opinions on the dam's construction. Although Intertechne has not appeared in the area, affected communities have claimed that INDE and the Ministry of Planning and Programming (SEGEPLAN) have tried to convince people by coopting leaders and COCODEs, conditioning rural electrification on the acceptance of the dam, as well as offering development projects outlined in the "Immediate Action Plan 2013-2014 Xalalá - Investment for Development." Affected communities organized within ACODET have also suffered heavy pressure, militarization and defamation. Community leaders feel greater concern since the signing of the contract in November 2013. As one community member states: "How can one live when under constant threat?"

According to Amnesty International, there has been an increase in military presence in various locations in Guatemala under the current government, especially in regions with a high percentage of indigenous peoples and strong opposition to megaprojects. This militarization is justified through defamation and criminalization, where leaders are accused of being terrorists or drug traffickers.  The army arrived twice in the region in 2014. On February 25, a military and police convoy arrived at the entrance of the Q'eqch'i communities of Las Margaritas Copón and Xalalá, allegedly due to a complaint about the suspected presence of drug traffickers in the Xalalá community.  Yet no one from the community of Xalalá had registered the complaint.  Nevertheless, several news outlets had already circulated the announcement made by the Minister of the Interior about the presence of drug traffickers in Xalalá, linking communities directly with drug trafficking; Prensa Libre tweeted: "An armed command pressures the population of Xalalá, Ixcán, Quiché to get involved in drug trafficking.”

Photo credit: ACOGUATE archive

Given these circumstances, ACODET believes this to be the continuation of a governmental strategy to impose the construction of the Xalalá project: “Under these circumstances, we understand that the government is trying to terrorize our communities, discredit our struggle against the imposition of the Xalalá dam and justify the presence of military troops in our territory."  Two months later on May 5, military and police convoys returned to the neighboring community, Copalá la Esperanza, in the municipality of Cobán, Alta Verapaz. They arrived in the community in the morning, without warning and armed with machine guns,  explaining that the purpose of their presence was to patrol the area and to cross the river. Since Copalá is a community of returned refugees who fled during the internal armed conflict, the unexpected arrival of the army caused much concern and fear among the community. Community members stated:

"The presence of the military in our community without our consent causes us great concern, as they came heavily armed as if they were coming to wage war against us while we are in times of peace. Their presence causes fear, despair, and reminds us of the traumas inflicted during the internal armed conflict. They turned us into victims of war and we continue to be victimized by the threats their presence brings to our territory; just seeing them causes panic..." 

Concern for the Violation of Fundamental Rights

Reacting to the two military incursions, communities of ACODET cite Article 30 of the Declaration of the United Nations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: "No military activities will take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples...”  They affirm that entering without consent into their communities violates their right to self-determination, their territory and their ancestral authorities –rights guaranteed by various international treaties. They demand that this type of activity not be repeated.  “There is concern among communities that INDE could enter by force to conduct the studies. Communities live under constant tension, wondering how and when they might enter. Given the violent evictions by the police in 2014 in other parts of the country such as in La Puya and Monte Olivo, the community leaders of ACODET are worried they could face a similar situation.
The Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman (PDH) also expressed its concern about the situation in May 2014: "With the [construction of] the Xalalá dam, three fundamental rights are being violated: the right to life, to live in a healthy environment and the right to health."  On several occasions, leaders and social organizations in the region who oppose the dam have been slandered by local and national actors.

Communities threatened by the construction of the dam have filed complaints with human rights organizations about the use of the Rural Electrification Project Las Copones (Proyecto de Electrificación Rural Los Copones) to carry out the Xalalá project. It has also been reported that INDE geologists have enterred communities by using the legitimate request for bringing electricity to the communities as a substitute for free, prior and informed consent. This action has caused division and confrontations within communities.  At a meeting held in Ascension Copón, Uspantán in December 2013, shortly after signing the contract with Intertechne, senior staff of INDE (Manager Marinus Boer and Project Development Manager Widthmark Estrada) agreed to begin the feasibility studies for the electrification of nine communities.  However, there has still been no progress made in electrification.

In the same manner, humanitarian aid has been conditioned. In March 2014, Uspantán Mayor Victor Hugo Figueroa conditioned material support and equipment to open up roads after heavy landslides in the Zona Reina, Uspantán, in exchange for the acceptance of the presence of INDE engineers who were to perform the technical studies needed to advance rural electrification.  [In the landslides], 27 families of the community of Playitas Copón lost their homes, their livestock and crops and had to take refuge in neighboring communities, where they lived under plastic tents without access to potable water or plumbing.  Since the communities did not accept these conditions, the mayor delayed the road repairs and waited until seven months later - in October - to deliver rooftops and food.

Due to the lack of official information since 2007 on the possible impact of the dam construction, ACODET has requested meetings with relevant state authorities.  In January 2014, the project development manager of INDE began to talk about a design change for the dam, stating that instead of a large hydroelectric dam, there could be several medium-sized ones on both tributaries (Chixoy and Copón. He subsequently argued that the concerns of affected communities are disproportionate to possible damages.

It is important to note that a meeting was held on November 13, 2013, in San Juan Chactelá, Ixcán, between representatives of INDE and communities from Ixcán, Uspantán and Coban who will be directly or indirectly affected by the construction of the dam. At the meeting, INDE failed to mention that the contract with Intertechne had already been signed six days prior.  The International Mission of FIAN, CIFCA, CIDSE and APRODEV that visited two communities of the region in November 2014 found that, "communities do not have adequate information and have not been adequately consulted," and reminded "the state of its responsibility to provide accurate, complete and objective information on topics of interest to the community."  According to Article 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), ratified by Guatemala in 1996, the state has an obligation to "consult the affected people using appropriate procedures, particularly through their representative institutions, whenever carrying out legislative or administrative activities that may directly affect them."

For a complete list of sources, please see the original article on the ACOGUATE blog.

The Countdown to January 5th, 2015: Genocide retrial on course, but questions remain

“The thousands and thousands of victims will never abandon this struggle. We have to see it through. There are multitudes of victims by my side demanding that I speak out for justice and so I am going to speak out. In no moment will this [struggle] be abandoned. We have already made huge strides… I thank the people from other countries that are here surrounding us. I thank them. We are not alone because there are people that are supporting us.”  - Woman survivor and member of the AJR

Nearly 19 months have passed since the initial conviction and subsequent annulment of the trial proceedings that had resulted in a guilty verdict against Efraín Ríos Montt for genocide and crimes against humanity. During this time, the Association for Justice and Reconciliation (AJR) and their legal team at the Center for Human Rights Legal Action (CALDH) have worked tirelessly to strike down the numerous legal obstacles launched by Montt's defense in order to avoid the retrial, scheduled to begin January 5th, 2015. 

Yesterday, less than three weeks from the programmed start of the retrial, the Constitutional Court resolved that the legal process should not be set back to November 2011. This issue was one of the most significant outstanding obstacles to a January 5th retrial start. Last-ditch efforts by the defense, as well as behind-the-scenes political maneuvers by the economic elite have plagued this process from the beginning. Now, the defense team is welcoming the January 5th retrial, causing concern that the goal of the new trial is to cement impunity rather than truly seek justice. Likewise, the retrial is set to take place after a year of questionable judicial nominations that many postulate have solidified impunity in the courts. Finally, a decision on amnesty for Ríos Montt is still pending in national courts. 

If the legal twists and turns have you confused, rest assured that you are not alone; the confusion is intentional. The complicated and convoluted legal web created by the defense is a tactic put in place ever since the lead-up to the 2013 genocide trial. In lieu of an actual legal strategy, the defense used dilatory tactics and political grandstanding to try to stall the process, exhaust the victims and ultimately maintain impunity. Important questions for the first day of the retrial: If these obstructionist tactics do not continue, is there something else at play? Is this new trial intended to permanently deny the victims justice in national courts?

Throughout the lengthy legal processes within a Guatemalan justice system seemingly unable to find a clear path towards justice, the AJR and their supporters uphold the 2013 genocide verdict and sentence as valid. From a legal standpoint, CALDH has highlighted that the verdict and sentence were emitted by a legitimate Guatemalan tribunal through due process and carried out according to rule of law. In addition, the steps required to annul the sentence were never undertaken by the defense, and as such, the sentence has legal as well as moral standing.

The AJR and CALDH will participate in this new trial, and we will stand with them. To show your ongoing support of their work, we ask that you pause a moment during this holiday season to take a photo with your loved ones and show your commitment to stand with the AJR and the survivors of genocide in Guatemala. If you participated in our photo campaign during the genocide trial, we encourage you to renew your commitment by adding the message “SEGUIMOS CON USTEDES” / “WE ARE STILL WITH YOU” and encourage your friends and family to take the photo.

In the lead up to a new trial, we have compiled a timeline of key legal events in the ongoing search for justice. We will update this timeline as new information becomes available.

March 19, 2013 – Trial opens in Guatemala City against former General Efraín Ríos Montt and former head of military intelligence, José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez. Both are charged with genocide and crimes against humanity for massacres that took place between March 1982 and October 1983 during the de facto government of Ríos Montt. The foundations for this case date back to the genocide charges originally filed in 2001 by the Association for Justice and Reconciliation (AJR) with support from the Center for Human Rights Legal Action (CALDH).

April 18, 2013 – After 20 days of testimony, High Risk Crimes Court Judge Carol Patricia Flores rules that the proceedings should be annulled and the case returned to November 23rd, 2011, before Ríos Montt was indicted. The Flores hearing was ostensibly based on a dispute regarding the acceptance of defense evidence, an issue that was eventually resolved. However, Flores added a separate issue into this proceeding, arguing that in order to restore constitutional rights to CALDH, the proceedings should be regressed to November 23, 2011 and the process returned to her jurisdiction. The ruling is based on a legal process rooted in a recusal originally requested by defense counsel and later appealed by CALDH. 

This appeal was the central issue the Constitutional Court finally resolved on December 18, 2014. A ruling in favor of the defense would have set Ríos Montt free, as he was not charged with the crimes in 2011.

April 19, 2013 –Judge Yassmín Barrios’ response to the Flores decision is that she will not obey “an illegal order” and as such, the April 18 decision will not stop the trial. However, Judge Barrios temporarily suspends the hearings to address other injunctions submitted by the defense.

April 30, 2013 – The trial resumes after nearly two weeks of suspension. 

May 10, 2013 – Efraín Ríos Montt is found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentenced to 80 years in prison. The court ratified all the elements of genocide described by witness and expert testimony, concluding that Ríos Montt had both command authority and "full knowledge of what was happening and did nothing to stop it."

May 20, 2013 – Guatemala's Constitutional Court overturns the genocide sentence based on legal challenges filed by the defense team, claiming technical errors in the trial process. The ruling annuls all testimony given from April 19th onward. 

October 2013 – The Constitutional Court orders a lower court to provide a legal foundation for their prior ruling against amnesty. Human rights groups fear this opens the door to amnesty for war crimes. The Court justifies this move by arguing that due process was not respected in a lower court's decision rejecting the application of wartime amnesty Decree 8-86. The decree was passed during de facto government of Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores and mandated a blanket amnesty for all crimes committed between March 23, 1983 and January 14, 1986. The prosecution appeals by citing national and international laws that clearly invalidate the 1986 “auto-amnesty” decree. 

The question of amnesty for Ríos Montt, which was launched in 2012, remains unresolved. The issue has been pending since the CC returned the matter to the Appeals Courts. An astonishing 61 judges have recused themselves from making the decision. A ruling in favor of amnesty would have wide-reaching consequences for the genocide cases, as well as other cases seeking justice in national courts for crimes during the internal armed conflict.

This same month, Sentencing Tribunal “B” affirms that it has jurisdiction to retry the case and sets a new court date for January 5th, 2015; however, the defense continues to fight for High Risk Crimes Judge “A” (Carol Patricia Flores) to have jurisdiction over the case.

December 31, 2013 – An Appeals Court upholds Judge Flores' April 18th, 2013 ruling to annul the trial and set the process back to November 2011. One of the judges from this same appeals court will be part of the tribunal that decides on amnesty. The prosecution appeals the decision to support Flores’ ruling, sending it to the Constitutional Court for a final ruling.

March 26, 2014 – The Constitutional Court (CC) hears arguments regarding the April 18th, 2013 decision to regress the trial to November 2011. 

December 10, 2014 – The Constitutional Court asks for the case file regarding the April 18th decision. The request causes concern, given arguments as to whether or not to restore Judge Flores’ jurisdiction were already heard in March. 

December 18, 2014 – The Constitutional Court rejects Flores’ April 18th ruling to regress the case back to November 23rd, 2011. This long-awaited ruling means that one of the remaining obstacles preventing a retrial has finally been resolved, and a January 5th genocide case retrial seems likely.

 

December 23 - The Appeals Court tribunal to decide on amnesty for Ríos Montt, an appeal originally filed in 2012, finally forms after 61 judges recused themselves. The five-days granted to the tribunal to issue a ruling has come and gone and there is still no decision on amnesty.

The week before the re-trial date - Luis Rosales, lawyer for Ríos Montt, requests the recusal of Jeannette Valdés, lead judge on the Sentencing Tribunal “B”, based on a thesis she wrote on genocide more than ten years ago. Rosales also requests the recusal of Judge Edith Perez, one of the Appeals Court judges on the newly formed tribunal to decide amnesty. The decision to accept or reject a recusal request rests with the judge, although the ruling can be appealed.

President Otto Pérez Molina speaks out in favor of amnesty stating, “Remember, there is a Reconciliation Law that basically sets out amnesty... It is the courts that should rule [to grant amnesty] and we hope that is what will happen.” Molina also reacts negatively to the recently announced restrictions on US military funding to Guatemala, which are directly linked to advances in human rights and on the investigation and prosecution of current and retired military personnel stating, “We are advancing without needing the United States to tell us what we should do. We have sovereignty to make decisions.”

January 2, 2015 - The defense presents the Sentencing Tribunal a medical excuse claiming Ríos Montt is not physically able to stand trial due to a battery of health issues. This motion, along with the request to recuse Judge Jeannette Valdés will likely be heard during the opening of the re-trial on Monday, January 5^th.

January 5, 2015 -  The genocide retrial begins as scheduled, although without the presence of Ríos Montt or the case file. The proceedings are dismissed for two hours shortly thereafter, to allow time for the file to be transferred from the Appeals Court to the trial gallery. At 11 am, Judge Jeannette Valdés orders Ríos Montt to appear in the courtroom, dismissing the medical excuse presented on January 2nd.

The former head of state arrives in court on a gurney and the hearing reconvenes at 1 pm.

Judge Valdés initially rejects Ríos Montt’s request for her recusal but is forced to reverse her decision when the two other judges on the tribunal vote to uphold the motion to recuse. The trial is suspended indefinitely. As of today, there is no deadline for naming the new judge and, once again, no clear path towards advancing justice for the victims and survivors.

January 13, 2015 - The hearing in which Judge Flores should officially reverse her decision on setting the case back to 2011 in accordance with the December 18th Constitutional Court ruling is suspended due to the absence of Ríos Montt. His lawyers argue that the former general is too sick to appear in court and accuse Flores of violating his right to defense. Judge Flores orders the National Institute of Forensics Science (INACIF) to examine and evaluate Ríos Montt state of health. A new hearing date has not been set. 

For up-to-date news, like us on Facebook and follow us on twitter @NISGUA_Guate  #EyesOnJan5

NISGUA has provided human rights accompaniment to the witness organization, the Association for Justice and Reconciliation, and their lawyers, the Center for Human Rights Legal Action since 2000. Review our archival coverage of the historic genocide trial here.

Guatemala’s Constitutional Court set to hear arguments regarding fate of genocide trial

This morning, the Constitutional Court (CC), Guatemala’s highest court, will hear arguments regarding the April 2013 decision by Judge Carol Patricia Flores to set the genocide case back to a pre-trial phase. The mid-trial ruling cited technical errors in the judicial process and stated that the case should return to November 2011, before Ríos Montt had ever been indicted.

Plaintiffs on the case, the Center for Human Rights Legal Action and the Association for Justice and Reconciliation (AJR), immediately appealed Flores' ruling. One member of the AJR reacted to the controversial decision stating, "[Judge Flores] only wants to help impunity continue to reign in Guatemala and that is why we, the victims, have to break this noose of impunity, this beast that has for so long ruled Guatemala."

If the CC upholds Judge Flores’ ruling, witness and expert testimony that formed the basis for the historic genocide sentence will effectively be erased and Ríos Montt will be free. After hearing arguments by the prosecution and the defense, the CC will have 5 days to come to their final resolution; however, the Court notoriously emits their decision late, leaving the involved parties and the public waiting in suspense.

The 13-year struggle of the survivors did not end with the Constitutional Court’s controversial decision to annul the genocide trial last May. Six months later, the Association for Justice and Reconciliation denounced the Guatemalan State for the denial of justice to the Maya Ixil people by filing a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The complaint cited a number of deficiencies in the genocide trial process, including excessive delays and the denial of the right to justice of the witnesses who gave their testimony in court.

Meanwhile, Guatemala’s justice system continues to feel the impacts of the national and international struggle for historical memory, prompted by the groundbreaking genocide trial. The ongoing legal debate regarding the possibility of amnesty for Ríos Montt, despite national and international laws that prohibit amnesty for war crimes, is just one example. The decision on amnesty, which threatens to permanently undermine survivors’ decades-long work for justice, is yet to be resolved, as nearly one hundred judges have recused themselves from hearing the issue. Furthermore, the February decision to end current Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz's term early has once again called into question the impartiality of the Constitutional Court and has instilled a sense of uncertainty as to the future of human rights cases in national courts.

The AJR commemorates the one year anniversary of the start of genocide trial.
Photo: Cristina Chiqun, March 19, 2014

Despite considerable setbacks since the start of the genocide trial and well beyond the annulment of the verdict, survivors remain positive and committed to ending the reign of impunity in Guatemala. The monumental weight of the genocide sentence continues to validate their struggle in search of truth and justice. 

“When the trial started, I was pleased because I knew that the truth had reached the people of Guatemala, and not just Guatemala but the world. This made me satisfied because what we suffered was acknowledged… They were able to annul the sentence politically but historically no one will take it away from us, the sentence remains in our hearts. One year after the historic trial, we remain strong in order to keep fighting and demanding justice in Guatemala.” - Benjamín Manuel Gerónimo, Vice-President of the Association for Justice and Reconciliation

NISGUA has provided human rights accompaniment to the witness organization, the Association for Justice and Reconciliation, and their lawyers, the Center for Human Rights Legal Action since 2000. Review our archival coverage of the historic genocide trial here. 

Organizations denounce high court decision to remove Attorney General Paz y Paz

Guatemalan Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz
Photo: Ministerio Público

Last week Guatemala's Constitutional Court (CC) emitted a provisional ruling stating that Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz should end her term in May 2014, seven months before schedule. Friday, the CC dismissed an appeal by Paz y Paz to reconsider its ruling.

US Ambassador to Guatemala, Arnold Chacón, immediately released a statement last week announcing that the US Embassy was closely reviewing the ruling and declared: “My government is privileged to have worked with a partner like Dr. Paz y Paz.”

Today, human rights and civil society organizations gathered to express their support for Attorney General Paz y Paz and to call on Congress to uphold the law despite what many consider to be another illegal decision by Guatemala's highest court.

Protest outside Congress Photo: CPR Urbana

Translation by NISGUA

THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC

SHOULD NOT OBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS!

Article 156 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala clearly states that: “No official or public employee, civilian or military is obligated to carry out orders that are manifestly illegal or that imply committing a crime.”

By granting a provisional decision based on false facts, the Constitutional Court is committing the crime of malfeasance (breech of legal duty) typified in the Penal Code: 

“Article 462. Malfeasance. The judge, knowingly dictating resolutions contrary to the law or based on false facts, will be sentenced to prison for two to six years.”

As it has been exhaustively analyzed, the Attorney General of the Republic was named for a period of FOUR years on December 9, 2010, which means her period LEGALLY ends on December 9, 2014.

Any contrary decision is illegal and the judges that support such a decision are committing an illegal act outside of the law.

ENOUGH CORRUPTION AND IMPUNITY!

RESPECT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE!

Citizens for dignity and against corruption and impunity

2/11/14 Update: Yesterday afternoon Congress approved the creation of the committee in charge of nominating candidates for the Attorney General office to replace Paz y Paz in May. While 94 Congress deputies voted in favor, many expressed to Guatemalan media that their vote was a reasoned vote, influenced by outside pressures to comply with the Constitutional Court's resolution.

Genocide retrial set for January 2015; national courts debate possibility of amnesty

On November 5, almost six months since the highly contested decision by Guatemala's Constitutional Court (CC) to annul the genocide sentence, Guatemalan courts announced a date for the retrial of former General Ríos Montt. Guatemala's High Risks Court “B” affirmed that it has the jurisdiction to hear the case but said its calendar is full until January 5, 2015.

The announcement of the retrial date came the same day that the Association for Justice and Reconciliation and their legal team filed a complaint in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) against the Guatemalan state for continued impunity for grave human rights violations committed against the Ixil people. The complaint focuses on the May 10 annulment of the genocide conviction, arguing that survivors have been denied access to the right to justice in national courts.

Constitutional Court decision opens door for Ríos Montt to receive amnesty

On October 22, the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of an appeal presented by Ríos Montt's defense, opening the door to amnesty for war crimes. The appeal, one of many filed by the defense lawyers on the issue of amnesty, argued that due process was not respected in a decision on wartime Decree 8-86. Decree 8-86, dating back to the de facto government of Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores (1983-1986), mandated a blanket amnesty for all crimes committed between March 23, 1982 and January 14, 1986.  Both former military generals Mejía Víctores and Ríos Montt are currently accused of genocide and would benefit from the application of amnesty. 

Ríos Montt's lawyers argued that Judge Miguel Ángel Gálvez Aguilar, who ruled against the possibility of amnesty, based his decision exclusively on Guatemala's 1996 National Reconciliation Law, and did not incorporate analysis of Decree 8-86. The National Reconciliation Law, created in 1996 with the signing of the Peace Accords, explicitly excludes genocide from the application of amnesty.  

Judge Gálvez Aguilar’s decision was immediately contested by the defense; however, an Appeals Court upheld the ruling, denying amnesty for war crimes. Now, the Constitutional Court has ordered the Appeals Court to elaborate in its explanation and provide foundation for its previous decision. While the Constitutional Court ruling alone does not grant amnesty, the decision sends an unequivocal message to lower courts encouraging them to reconsider previous rulings.

The 1996 Reconciliation law, in conjunction with the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights¹. and the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide², both ratified by the state of Guatemala, clearly invalidate the 1986 "auto-amnesty" decree, rendering the decision of the Constitutional Court, "a flagrant violation of international human rights law and the obligation to guarantee the right to truth, justice and reparations for the victims^3.."

At the time of publication, it is unclear when a decision on amnesty will be made as the lower court ordered to review the previous ruling on amnesty has been plagued by delays and recusals by Appeals Court judges. Anselmo Roldán, President of the Association for Justice and Reconciliation, denounced these malicious delay tactics during his recent NISGUA speaker tour and called for and end to the partiality of the national justice system.

1    http://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/Basic4.Amer.Conv.Ratif.htm
2    http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspxsrc=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&  lang=en
3    FIDH, Anulación de la condena al General Ríos Montt: la FIDH solicita a la Corte de Constitucionalided de Guatemala reformar su decisión. Aug. 9 2013. www.fidh.org/anulacion-de-la-condena-al-general-Ríos-montt-la-fidh-solicita-a-la-corte-13809

NISGUA has provided human rights accompaniment to the witness organization, the Association for Justice and Reconciliation, and their lawyers, the Center for Human Rights Legal Action, since 2000.

Original article published on November 25th, 2013 by ACOGUATE

Tahoe Resources on the defense as opposition to the Escobal mine gains ground

While community opposition to Tahoe Resources’ Escobal project grows and wins support from the Constitutional Court, the company remains on the defense trying to convince investors that it enjoys “strong local community support.” However, the record of local votes in neighboring communities and municipalities, betrays a different reality. 

More than half of the communities in the municipality of San Rafael Las Flores, where Tahoe’s Escobal mine is located, have declared opposition to the project. Likewise, thousands of people in the five municipalities closest to San Rafael, in the departments of Santa Rosa and Jalapa, have voted against the mine in municipal referenda. The most recent local vote took place on November 10^th in the municipality of Jalapa, department of Jalapa. A total of 23,152 people participated, with 98.29% voting against the mine and 1.71% in favor.

In early December, communities demanding the right to consultation throughout Guatemala celebrated an important victory when the Constitutional Court (CC) ruled in favor of such a referendum, determining that a vote carried out in Mataquescuintla, Jalapa in November, 2012 was legal. The decision provides support to votes carried out by municipal authorities and underlines the responsibility of the local government in promoting these processes.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court stated: "The popular referenda are important mechanisms to guarantee fundamental rights and are a clear expression of a democratic framework. The residents of the municipalities have the right to express themselves with regard to the use, enjoyment and benefits from the natural resources found within the territory of their municipality."

All five referenda in Santa Rosa and Jalapa held during the past two years regarding the Escobal mine were municipally convened votes.

Community member from Santa Rosa protests Escobal 
mine outside Constitutional Court (Photo: CPR Urbana)

For communities opposing the Escobal project, the CC decision validates the legality and legitimacy of their referenda. A leader from Mataquescuintla remarked on the importance of the decision saying, "It is one more point in favor of those of us who are against the mine. We have to decide how to move forward from here because the company is invading our territory."

Municipal governments, however, do not organize all referenda on large-scale development projects carried out in Guatemala. Some referenda are organized and overseen by indigenous authorities without the support of the local municipal government. While the CC ruling sets an important legal precedent in the struggle for the right to consultation, the granting of concessions is still ultimately the decision of the central government and the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

 Communities stand up against criminalization and persecution

During the last year, more than 70 legal processes have been issued against individuals peacefully resisting Tahoe's Escobal mine. Almost all of them have been absolved of charges, 12 in recent weeks. Only two cases are outstanding. 

On November 21, a Guatemalan judge ruled against further legal action in the case involving five individuals who were arrested and imprisoned more than six months ago for alleged crimes related to their opposition to Tahoe's Escobal mine. One week later, on November 28, arrest warrants were dropped against seven others also accused in the same case. 

The arrest warrants for all twelve people released in November were issued on May 2, 2013, the same day the Guatemalan government declared a state of siege in four municipalities surrounding Tahoe's Escobal mine. The imposition of martial law created terror among the population peacefully defending their right to consultation and ramped up the ongoing criminalization against human rights defenders.

Among the accused and imprisoned during the state of siege were key leaders in the organized community resistance to the Escobal project. Teresa Muñoz, an outspoken leader in defense of territory, was forced to flee into the mountains when the military came to her home.  

Muñoz, a community leader from Jalapa shared: "We are in peaceful resistance, fighting for life and nature, despite knowing what the risks are... the mine security, with support from the government, is almost always there, pointing guns at our heads while our hands are empty. We know that if we lose our life, we fought for something that was worth while." 

Meanwhile, the head of security for Tahoe’s mine at the time of these arrests, Alberto Rotondo, awaits trial for alleged involvement in a shooting on April 27 that injured six. Despite being arrested at Guatemala's international airport while attempting to leave the country, Rotondo was granted house arrest. The priviledge granted to the former Tahoe employee provides a stark contrast to community members who spent over six months in preventative prison only to have all charges against them dropped. 

Support community resistance to the Escobal mine by echoing their voices internationally: Take Action! Write Kevin McArthur, President of Tahoe Resources, to demand the company respect communities' right to self-determination and leave Guatemala!

NISGUA has accompanied communities in opposition to the Tahoe Resources Escobal mine since 2011.

"No Impunity! No Amnesty!": Organizations react to news of CC ruling

Guatemalan newspaper Prensa Libre splashed "CC brings José Efraín Ríos Montt closer to amnesty" across its front page headlines, with the corresponding article publishing excerpts of a leaked ruling issued by the Constitutional Court. Plaintiffs and lawyers still have not received notification of the decision at the time of this writing. The article states that the ruling outlines a legal path for granting amnesty to Efraín Ríos Montt for crimes of genocide. Other major news sources and a spokesperson for the Constitutional Court have since stated the decision does not grant amnesty for Ríos Montt, but directs lower courts to clarify previous rulings that denied him amnesty. The Constitutional Court utilized a similar strategy in annulling the genocide case sentence, providing legal direction towards annulment while ordering a lower court to carry it out.

In a press conference today, the Center for Human Rights Legal Action (CALDH) and representatives from other human rights organizations stressed that genocide and crimes against humanity are not eligible for amnesty as outlined in the 1996 National Reconciliation Law. They highlighted that any resolution granting amnesty for genocide and crimes against humanity would be a political decision not supported by national or international law. Read their press release below for further details.

CALDH representatives issue statement to the press

AMNESTY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

The publication of the article in the [Prensa Libre] newspaper with respect to the supposed decision of the Constitutional Court (CC), has once again taken the Guatemalan people by surprise. It is seen as an attempt to justify the possible granting of amnesty for José Efraín Ríos Montt, who was already convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity, crimes that are NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AMNESTY.

Article 8 of the National Reconciliation Law of 1996 foresees the application of amnesty with respect to political crimes committed during the internal armed conflict and limits the possibility for the application of amnesty in the following way: “The extinction of penal responsibility referred to in this law will not be applicable to the crimes of genocide, torture and forced disappearance, nor to those crimes that do not have a statute of limitations or that do not allow for the extinction of penal responsibility, in accordance with the internal law or the international treaties ratified by Guatemala."

The political constitution and the obligations that are derived from international law indicate that the crimes committed in violation of international human rights and humanitarian law are inadmissible [for amnesty] and cannot go unpunished.

The state of Guatemala has been internationally condemned for not investigating, trying and sanctioning the people that committed acts of torture, extrajudicial executions, forced disappearance, sexual violence and other grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights.

None of the people accused in cases for crimes of genocide, torture, sexual violence, forced disappearance and crimes against humanity committed during the internal armed conflict are subject to the application of amnesty, statute of limitations or the extinction of penal responsibility.

According to Prensa Libre, the supposed decision ordered the High Risk Crimes Court “A” Judge to SUBSTANTIATE the decision related to the decree 8-86*, a decree that Judge Carol Patricia already ruled on in the case against Héctor Mario López Fuentes. She argued that, “whilst the existence of the decree 8-86 has been proven… the content of article 46 of the political constitution of the Republic of Guatemala cannot be dismissed in that it established the general principal that human rights treaties and conventions accepted and ratified by Guatemala have preeminence over internal law…the types of crimes for which the accused were ordered to stand trial are universally prosecuted."

Neither the victims nor the plaintiffs in the case have been notified of the resolution. It is strange and inexplicable that the Constitutional Court should provide the information exclusively to one media outlet and not to the interested parties, the rest of the media and the people of Guatemala in general.

It is our opinion that there may be an erroneous interpretation of the information which could produce harmful consequences for the justice system, given that today the secretary of the same Constitutional Court gave a public declaration to the radio station, Emisoras Unidas, clarifying that the CC is not applying amnesty but rather asking the High Risk Court “A” Judge to substantiate [her previous] decision with respect to decree 8-86.

We ask that the international community observe the fulfillment of the State’s international obligations to human and humanitarian rights so that the acts of barbarism committed against the civilian population do not go unpunished.

We ask that Guatemalan society remain alert to the possible maneuvers of the CC and that it advocate for rapid prosecution based on fulfillment of and respect for the political constitution of the Republic and international law so that delinquent acts of any nature do not go unpunished.

We ask that the Human Rights Ombudsmen observe the actions of the Constitutional Court in order to guarantee the fulfillment of the international obligations of the state with regard to human rights.

The victims of genocide and the people of Guatemala ask: “Does this information respond to the interests and structures of those who have publicly demonstrated their intention to maintain impunity for these cases?" The rulings of the CC with respect to the genocide case against Ríos Montt, have proven that there are judges who continue to pave the road to impunity.

IT WAS PROVEN, THERE WAS GENOCIDE

WE SILENCE THE VOICES OF IMPUNITY

Center for Human Rights Legal Action

Guatemala, October 23, 2013

*8-86 was a wartime decree under the Mejía Victores administration granting general amnesty to all those responsible for, or accused of, political and related common crimes committed between March 23, 1982, and January 14, 1986.