The following letter was originally sent on October 14, 2014
Ambassador Todd Robinson U.S. Embassy
Guatemala City, Guatemala
Dear Ambassador Robinson:
We write to congratulate you on your recent appointment as the United States ambassador to Guatemala, and we recognize your extensive experience and service in country as well as throughout the Western hemisphere. As U.S.-based human rights and policy organizations, we closely follow the human rights situation in Guatemala and the impacts of U.S. policy in the region.
We appreciate the steps the U.S. Embassy has taken in recent years to support justice and accountability in Guatemala and fervently believe that the protection of human rights must continue to be a top priority.
Unfortunately, over the last two years, the human rights situation has been deteriorating. As you are well aware, Guatemala currently suffers from increasing violence, organized criminal activity, intense conflict over land and natural resources, high rates of poverty and unemployment, and minimal social spending. When addressing these challenges, the Guatemalan government should implement policies that improve the common good; its institutions and public officials should act within the rule of law, and be held accountable when they do not. However, the Guatemalan government, through militarized policies and ineffective mechanisms for civil society dialogue, has exacerbated social conflict. Impunity rates for all crimes remains high –particularly in cases relating to human rights defenders, indigenous peoples, women, and LGBTQ individuals–and corruption within the government has not been effectively addressed.
Showing posts with label IACHR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IACHR. Show all posts
Friday, December 19, 2014
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
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 victims3.."
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
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Guatemalan Indigenous Organizations File Complaint over Mining Law with Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Sources: Western Peoples' Council (CPO) - Network in Solidarity with the
People of Guatemala (NISGUA) - MiningWatch Canada – Center for
International Environmental Law (CIEL)
(Guatemala City/Ottawa/Washington) Tuesday, Guatemala's Western Peoples' Council of Mayan organizations (CPO) filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) alleging that the country’s mining law was approved without their prior consultation as required under both national and international law. The IACHR is the last resort for the CPO, which has exhausted all domestic recourse to halt violations as a result of current mining legislation.
The CPO first challenged the constitutionality of the 1997 Mining Law in a July 2012 suit filed with Guatemala’s Constitutional Court. In March 2013, however, the Constitutional Court upheld the mining law, contradicting Guatemala's legal obligations to consult with indigenous peoples before the approval of policies that will significantly impact their territories.
“We believe that Constitutional Court’s decision is illegal and contradictory, given that the same court ruled in 2011 that consultation is a constitutional right of indigenous peoples in Guatemala. Indigenous peoples were not consulted on the Mining Law despite its implications for our way of life and the state’s commitment to respect the collective rights of indigenous people under international legal instruments such as the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169,” said Lucia Xiloj, attorney and member of the CPO legal team.
With over 360 mining licenses issued and more than 600 pending, Guatemala’s mining sector has been in the spotlight for increasing conflict and violence across the country. At the root of these conflicts is the lack of respect for free, prior and informed consent of affected communities at the project and policy level.
Nearly a million people have voted against mining on their territories in 78 community referenda held throughout Guatemala since 2005. A public opinion survey published in January 2013 further demonstrated that some 66% of Guatemalans are opposed to mining. Nonetheless, neither the government nor the mining companies have respected community decisions; instead repression against those opposed to mining has intensified.
“The conflict, which has at its root the violation of the right to consultation, has resulted in targeted attacks and death, as well as the criminalization and persecution of community leaders,” said Lolita Chavez, member of the CPO and a signatory on the IACHR complaint.
According to the Agreement on Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala’s Peace Accords, the American Convention on Human Rights, the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Guatemala is obliged to respect the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent for any project that could adversely impact them, and to consult with them before passing laws or administrative initiatives that would affect their rights.
“A favorable response from the Inter-American Commission on this case is vitally important, given that the current mining law has allowed Canadian and U.S. mining companies in particular to exploit indigenous territories with complete disregard for indigenous peoples' decision-making processes regarding their lands and resources,” said Kris Genovese, Senior Attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law in Washington D.C.
The Western People’s Council is a coalition of indigenous authorities and institutions from seven departments of Guatemala. The complaint filed in the IACHR has 32 signatories representing 8 indigenous groups that make up the Western Peoples’ Council. Each signatory was elected during community assemblies carried out during the weeks leading up to the filing.
Contacts
Background
In May, the military was sent into indigenous and non-indigenous communities in the area of Tahoe Resources’ Escobal silver project south of Guatemala City, following increased violence in the region, including a shooting against protesters demonstrating peacefully outside the mine site. The company’s head of security and his advisor are currently awaiting trial for their alleged involvement in ordering and then covering up evidence of the attack.
Tahoe Resources is a spin-off from Goldcorp, which sold the Escobal project to Tahoe in 2010 and which now holds 40% of Tahoe’s shares and multiple positions on its board of directors. Goldcorp’s Marlin mine in the northwestern highlands of Guatemala has been the source of continuing tensions over lack of respect for indigenous rights and land, and impacts on water supplies and public health.
For nearly a year and a half, community members in La Puya, just north of Guatemala City, have been peacefully blocking entry to the Tambor mine project currently in the hands of Kappes Cassidy & Associates, which took over the project from Vancouver-based Radius Gold in August 2012 following the shooting of Yolanda Oquelí. Community members opposing the project have faced repeated threats from company workers during the last ten months, despite entering into a high-level dialogue with the government in June.
In August, Rights Action reported that female plaintiffs are facing intimidation and harassment for having brought three lawsuits against Toronto-based Hudbay Minerals regarding the gang rape of a group of women during a forced eviction in 2007 and shootings in 2009 in the eastern municipality of El Estor. The lawsuits are taking place in an Ontario court and mark the first time that alleged human rights abuses regarding a foreign-owned subsidiary have been admitted against a parent company in Canada.
CPO Communiqué: The Council of Maya and Xinca Peoples Denounces the Guatemala State in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
On February 28, 2013, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court dismissed the Council’s challenge of unconstitutionality filed against the mining law on March 12, 2012.
As a result of leaving the current Mining Law in force, the State of Guatemala violates its responsibilities under international law, under which it is obliged to guarantee the effective exercise of our rights to political participation, consultation and consent regarding such legislation.
The collective and individual human rights that have been violated by the State of Guatemala are:
a. Political Rights – the rights to participation, consultation and consent as recognized in article 23.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (The Convention).
b. Right to equality under the law as recognized in article 24 of the Convention.
c. Right to legal guarantees and judicial protection – right to access to justice – as per articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention.
Based on the description of the facts and declaration of the rights that have been violated; we request that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
a. Proceed with the analysis of our case and request the relevant observations from the state of Guatemala;
b. Emit the pertinent report regarding admissibility of the case;
c. Determine the responsibility of the state of Guatemala for violation of articles 23.1.a., 24, 8.1, and 25.1, related to articles 1.1 y 2 of the Convention through the elaboration of an in-depth report.
(Guatemala City/Ottawa/Washington) Tuesday, Guatemala's Western Peoples' Council of Mayan organizations (CPO) filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) alleging that the country’s mining law was approved without their prior consultation as required under both national and international law. The IACHR is the last resort for the CPO, which has exhausted all domestic recourse to halt violations as a result of current mining legislation.
The CPO first challenged the constitutionality of the 1997 Mining Law in a July 2012 suit filed with Guatemala’s Constitutional Court. In March 2013, however, the Constitutional Court upheld the mining law, contradicting Guatemala's legal obligations to consult with indigenous peoples before the approval of policies that will significantly impact their territories.
“We believe that Constitutional Court’s decision is illegal and contradictory, given that the same court ruled in 2011 that consultation is a constitutional right of indigenous peoples in Guatemala. Indigenous peoples were not consulted on the Mining Law despite its implications for our way of life and the state’s commitment to respect the collective rights of indigenous people under international legal instruments such as the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169,” said Lucia Xiloj, attorney and member of the CPO legal team.
With over 360 mining licenses issued and more than 600 pending, Guatemala’s mining sector has been in the spotlight for increasing conflict and violence across the country. At the root of these conflicts is the lack of respect for free, prior and informed consent of affected communities at the project and policy level.
Nearly a million people have voted against mining on their territories in 78 community referenda held throughout Guatemala since 2005. A public opinion survey published in January 2013 further demonstrated that some 66% of Guatemalans are opposed to mining. Nonetheless, neither the government nor the mining companies have respected community decisions; instead repression against those opposed to mining has intensified.
“The conflict, which has at its root the violation of the right to consultation, has resulted in targeted attacks and death, as well as the criminalization and persecution of community leaders,” said Lolita Chavez, member of the CPO and a signatory on the IACHR complaint.
According to the Agreement on Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala’s Peace Accords, the American Convention on Human Rights, the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Guatemala is obliged to respect the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent for any project that could adversely impact them, and to consult with them before passing laws or administrative initiatives that would affect their rights.
“A favorable response from the Inter-American Commission on this case is vitally important, given that the current mining law has allowed Canadian and U.S. mining companies in particular to exploit indigenous territories with complete disregard for indigenous peoples' decision-making processes regarding their lands and resources,” said Kris Genovese, Senior Attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law in Washington D.C.
The Western People’s Council is a coalition of indigenous authorities and institutions from seven departments of Guatemala. The complaint filed in the IACHR has 32 signatories representing 8 indigenous groups that make up the Western Peoples’ Council. Each signatory was elected during community assemblies carried out during the weeks leading up to the filing.
Contacts
- Ellen Moore, NISGUA, ellen(at)nisgua.org, (510) 868-0612
- Jen Moore, MiningWatch Canada, jen(at)miningwatch.ca, (613) 569-3439
- Amanda Kistler, Center for International Environmental Law, akistler(at)ciel.org, (202) 742-5832
Background
In May, the military was sent into indigenous and non-indigenous communities in the area of Tahoe Resources’ Escobal silver project south of Guatemala City, following increased violence in the region, including a shooting against protesters demonstrating peacefully outside the mine site. The company’s head of security and his advisor are currently awaiting trial for their alleged involvement in ordering and then covering up evidence of the attack.
Tahoe Resources is a spin-off from Goldcorp, which sold the Escobal project to Tahoe in 2010 and which now holds 40% of Tahoe’s shares and multiple positions on its board of directors. Goldcorp’s Marlin mine in the northwestern highlands of Guatemala has been the source of continuing tensions over lack of respect for indigenous rights and land, and impacts on water supplies and public health.
For nearly a year and a half, community members in La Puya, just north of Guatemala City, have been peacefully blocking entry to the Tambor mine project currently in the hands of Kappes Cassidy & Associates, which took over the project from Vancouver-based Radius Gold in August 2012 following the shooting of Yolanda Oquelí. Community members opposing the project have faced repeated threats from company workers during the last ten months, despite entering into a high-level dialogue with the government in June.
In August, Rights Action reported that female plaintiffs are facing intimidation and harassment for having brought three lawsuits against Toronto-based Hudbay Minerals regarding the gang rape of a group of women during a forced eviction in 2007 and shootings in 2009 in the eastern municipality of El Estor. The lawsuits are taking place in an Ontario court and mark the first time that alleged human rights abuses regarding a foreign-owned subsidiary have been admitted against a parent company in Canada.
CPO Communiqué: The Council of Maya and Xinca Peoples Denounces the Guatemala State in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
On February 28, 2013, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court dismissed the Council’s challenge of unconstitutionality filed against the mining law on March 12, 2012.
As a result of leaving the current Mining Law in force, the State of Guatemala violates its responsibilities under international law, under which it is obliged to guarantee the effective exercise of our rights to political participation, consultation and consent regarding such legislation.
The collective and individual human rights that have been violated by the State of Guatemala are:
a. Political Rights – the rights to participation, consultation and consent as recognized in article 23.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (The Convention).
b. Right to equality under the law as recognized in article 24 of the Convention.
c. Right to legal guarantees and judicial protection – right to access to justice – as per articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention.
Based on the description of the facts and declaration of the rights that have been violated; we request that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
a. Proceed with the analysis of our case and request the relevant observations from the state of Guatemala;
b. Emit the pertinent report regarding admissibility of the case;
c. Determine the responsibility of the state of Guatemala for violation of articles 23.1.a., 24, 8.1, and 25.1, related to articles 1.1 y 2 of the Convention through the elaboration of an in-depth report.
The Council of Maya and Xinca Peoples denounces the Guatemalan State in the IACHR
 |
| The Council presents their demand on September 3, 2013. Photo: CPO |
THE COUNCIL OF MAYA AND XINCA PEOPLES DENOUNCES THE GUATEMALAN STATE IN THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
On February 28, 2013, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court dismissed the Council’s challenge of unconstitutionality filed against the mining law on March 12, 2012.
As a result of leaving the current Mining Law in force, the State of Guatemala violates its responsibilities under international law, under which it is obliged to guarantee the effective exercise of our rights to political participation, consultation and consent regarding such legislation.
The collective and individual human rights that have been violated by the State of Guatemala are:
a. Political Rights – the rights to participation, consultation and consent as recognized in article 23.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (The Convention).
b. Right to equality under the law as recognized in article 24 of the Convention.
c. Right to legal guarantees and judicial protection – right to access to justice – as per articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention.
Based on the description of the facts and declaration of the rights that have been violated; we request that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
a. Proceed with the analysis of our case and request the relevant observations from the state of Guatemala;
b. Emit the pertinent report regarding admissibility of the case;
c. Determine the responsibility of the state of Guatemala for violation of articles 23.1.a., 24, 8.1, and 25.1, related to articles 1.1 y 2 of the Convention through the elaboration of an in-depth report.
Guatemala City, September 3, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)