By: Lilian Srour, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL
Guatemala’s recent history, and specifically the period between 1960 and 1996, is marked by a long and violent internal armed conflict, within which the rights of the indigenous Mayan population have systematically been violated. The Historical Clarification Commission was established in 1994 to determine the human rights violations that took place during the war and to clarify the history of the events that ensued. It concluded that 80% of the casualties of the conflict belonged to indigenous communities and 93% of the acts were attributable to the authorities.
Recently, on January 24, 2022, a High Risk Court in Guatemala sentenced five ex-paramilitary Civil Self-Defense Patrols to 30 years in prison each for the commission of crimes against humanity in the form of sexual violence against the Maya Achi indigenous women in the early 1980s. This short piece considers how elements of the case align with the aims of international and regional human rights law frameworks, as well as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). While non-binding, the UNDRIP is considered the most comprehensive instrument outlining the rights of indigenous peoples in international law, setting minimum standards for the recognition, promotion, and protection of these rights.
The right of access to justice
The right of access to justice and an effective remedy for human rights violations is enshrined in numerous instruments under international law, such as Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This right requires that perpetrators be brought to justice whilst also providing appropriate reparations for victims. Article 40 of the UNDRIP affirms the right of indigenous peoples to access justice, namely through “access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures […] as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights.” As noted in a study by the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, elements of access to justice necessarily “include the right to an effective remedy, procedural fairness, and the need for States to take positive measures to enable access to justice.” At the regional level, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has reaffirmed the obligation of governments to guarantee the right to judicial protection of indigenous peoples and to consider the particularities of their economic and social characteristics, as well as their special vulnerability and their values and customs.
Persevering in the fight for justice
Despite the legal framework and previous efforts, the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights has commented that indigenous peoples continue to face structural racism and social exclusion, arguably undermining their fundamental rights, including the right of access to justice. In this environment, the Maya Achi women overcame many barriers to access justice, including economic barriers, discrimination, a lack of adequate protection, and delays in the administration of justice. When the case was first filed, the assistant prosecutor questioned the credibility of the survivors, asking why they chose to come forward 40 years later, ultimately expressing that these cases should not be investigated. Furthermore, when the plaintiffs successfully petitioned the pre-trial judge to hear their testimonies and admit them as evidence in 2016, this was done in a manner that has been described as traumatizing for the victims. This is because they were far from home and their communities in Guatemala City, an unfamiliar environment, where they were held alone in a room for hours prior to giving testimony. These circumstances do not consider the particular vulnerability of indigenous peoples and the economic barriers incurred due to traveling costs.
Another development hindering access to justice ensued when Judge Dominguez dismissed the central evidence that identified the perpetrators – the testimonies of the women – based on what has been described as a technicality. She noted that the document within which the victims’ lawyers requested permission to interview the women in the offices of a law firm in Rabinal, rather than the office of the Attorney General, was dated after the women had given their testimonies. Judge Dominguez also pointed to the Attorney General for not taking the women’s testimonies at their offices, even though it is common practice for prosecutors to take testimony in places they deem appropriate. The victims’ lawyer, Haydeé Valey, explained that the women were afraid to be seen going into the Attorney General’s Office in Rabinal and emphasized that the steps taken were to protect witnesses from reprisals and revictimization. Notwithstanding, those detained were released, and it was not long before they went on to threaten the women. In terms of an effective remedy and the protection of the victims, these developments do not consider their special vulnerability, and do not further their right to effective access to justice and appropriate remedies and protections.
The plaintiffs successfully moved to recuse the judge, whom they accused of displaying anti-indigenous bias. The recusal motion noted that the decision to dismiss the charges against the accused was arbitrary and left the victims in vulnerable circumstances because their aggressors were set free without taking any safety measures to protect the women from reprisals. Ultimately, the case was assigned to Judge Miguel Ángel Gálvez of High Risk Court B and the trial began on January 5, 2022, leading to the conviction of the accused several weeks later.
Conclusion
This case highlights two notions. First, that justice has no expiry date. In other words, the courts remain a venue for the conviction of perpetrators of international crimes, even if several decades have passed. Second, this case represents the importance of effective access to justice for indigenous peoples, especially those affected by the internal conflict in Guatemala. As the Special Rapporteur has previously noted, the disregard for the adverse impact of violations perpetrated against indigenous women negatively affects their efforts to fight for their rights and further contributes to cyclical negative patterns that perpetuate further violations against them. This also undermines the goals of the UNDRIP, and human rights law more generally, which requires that indigenous peoples are to be treated equally and should be protected. This is particularly the case because, as emphasized by the Special Rapporteur, justice is an essential component of truth, reparation and reconciliation processes.
Whilst this trial has been said to deliver “incomplete justice,” this case and the perseverance of the plaintiffs and their representatives has been welcomed by many. Commentators have specifically emphasized the importance of securing the rights of indigenous peoples and facilitating access to justice, to allow for the respect of their fundamental rights.