Bámaca Velásquez Case, Judgment of November 25, 2000, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 70 (2000).
In
the Bámaca Velásquez Case,
the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American
Court”), composed of the following judges[1]:
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, President
Máximo Pacheco Gómez, Vice President
Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Judge
Alirio Abreu Burelli, Judge
Sergio García Ramírez, Judge and
Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, Judge;
also
present,
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Secretary
and
Renzo Pomi, Deputy Secretary,
Pursuant
to articles 29 and 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter
"the Rules of Procedure”) delivers the following judgment in the instant
case.
I
Introduction
of the case
1. On August 30, 1996, pursuant to articles
50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”
or “the American Convention”) the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission” or the Inter-American Commission”) submitted
an application to the Court against the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter
“the State” or “Guatemala”), originating from petition No. 11.129, received
by the Secretariat of the Commission.
2. The Commission stated that the purpose
of the application was for the Court to decide whether the State had violated
the following rights of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez:
Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality),
Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty),
Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), Article 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression),
Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) and Article 1 (Obligation to Respect
Rights), all of the American Convention, and also Articles 1, 2 and 6 of
the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article
3 common to the Geneva Conventions.
The
Commission also requested the Court to call on the State to identify and
punish those responsible for the violations mentioned above, to adopt the
"necessary reforms to the training programs and regulations of the
Guatemalan armed forces so that military operations are conducted in conformity
with the laws and customs applicable to internal conflicts", and to
compensate the next of kin of the victim for the violation of the said rights,
in conformity with Article 63(1) of the Convention.
In its final arguments, the Commission also requested the Court to
declare that Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish
Torture had been violated.
II
Competence
of the Court
3. The Court is competent to hear this case.
Guatemala has been a State Party to the Convention since May 25,
1978, accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987,
and ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture
on January 29, 1987.
III
Procedure
before the Commission
4. The Inter-American Commission opened case
No. 11.129 as the result of a complaint filed by the petitioners on March
5, 1993, regarding a request for precautionary measures, based on the detention
and mistreatment inflicted on [Efraín] Bámaca [Velásquez] and other combatants
of the URNG [Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unit (hereinafter “the URNG”)]”.
This request was repeated in a communication of April 6 the same year.
5. On March 17, 1993, the petitioners sent
a memorandum on the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Two days later, they forwarded the Commission information on the
rejection of the petition for habeas
corpus filed before the Supreme Court of Justice in favor of Bámaca
Velásquez and other URNG combatants. On
August 24 and October 4, 1993, the petitioners sent the Commission further
information on the case. On October
5, 1993, the Commission granted the State 30 days in which to submit its
observations on all the documents that had been forwarded to it.
6. On March 31, 1993, the Commission officially opened the case
based on the complaint made by the petitioners. On June 10, July 19 and August 19, 1993, Guatemala requested extensions
for providing information on the case. On October 12, 1993, the State submitted the information requested.
7. On October 4, 1993, the Commission held
a public hearing so that Guatemala could present information on the precautionary
measures. On October 15, 1993, the
Commission reiterated to Guatemala that it should adopt precautionary measures
in favor of the persons named in its communication. On December 15, 1993, the State declared that,
in this case, the precautionary measures were "unnecessary and not
in order because there were no prisoners of war or clandestine detention
centers in Guatemala.”
8. On January 27, 1994, during a public hearing,
various documents were received, including the petitioners' reply.
The latter was forwarded to the State on November 14, 1994.
9. The Commission held various special hearings
to receive the testimony of persons related to the case. Santiago Cabrera López appeared on November
3, 1994, and June 6, 1995. Nery Ángel Urízar García made a statement on
September 7 and 8, 1995. However,
the witness did not appear at a hearing programmed for the same purpose
on November 29, 1995.
10. On November 8, 1994, the Commission requested
the State to provide information on domestic investigations relating to
the case. On November 18, 1994,
the State replied to this request by sending information that had appeared
in the press and, on the following December 12, information on the actions
taken. The petitioners forwarded their observations on this information
on February 9, 1995.
11. On December 19, 1994, the State sent its
answer in the case, while, following an extension, the petitioners submitted
their observations on February 9, 1995.
The State added to its reply a public report and a press communiqué,
forwarded on March 13, 1995, and the petitioners responded to this information
on August 3, 1995.
12. On June 27, 1995, the Commission received
a new request for precautionary measures, this time in favor of Julio E.
Arango Escobar, who was acting as the special prosecutor in the Bámaca Velásquez
Case and had been the victim of an alleged attack owing to his connection
with the case. On July 21 that year,
the State responded to this request. No
further proceedings took place in this respect, because Arango Escobar resigned
from office.
13. On December 20, 1995, the Commission informed
the parties that the Bámaca Velásquez Case would be processed independently
from that of the other URNG combatants. In January 1996, the petitioners sent the Commission a copy of the
documents of the Guatemalan court proceedings in the Bámaca Velásquez Case.
14. On January 17, 1996, the Commission received
a new request for the adoption of precautionary measures in favor of the
persons who “were connected with the investigation and prosecution of the
Bámaca [Velásquez] Case”. The persons
for whom protection was requested were Lesbia Pevalan, Rodolfo Azmitia,
Jennifer Harbury and José E. Pertierra. This request arose owing to the
alleged attack against Pertierra, which occurred on January 5, 1996. On February 27, 1996, the State sent a report
on the precautionary measures that had been adopted.
15. On February 16, 1996, the State sent its
report on the Bámaca Velásquez Case.
16. On March 7, 1996, during its 91st session,
the Commission approved Report No. 7/96, the operative part of which determined
as follows:
1
That, in the lights of the information and observations that have
been presented […,] the State of Guatemala has violated the human rights
to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial and to
judicial protection embodied in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American
Convention and has failed to comply with the obligation established in Article
1.
In addition, it recommended to Guatemala that
a. It accept responsibility for the disappearance, torture
and extrajudicial execution of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
b. It conduct a prompt, impartial and effective investigation
into the facts denounced in order to record in detail, in a duly authenticated,
official report, the specific circumstances in which the crimes against
Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] occurred and the responsibility for the violations
committed, so as to inform the wife of Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez], Jennifer
Harbury, and the other members of his family about his fate and the whereabouts
of his remains.
c. It adopt the necessary measures to submit those responsible
for the violations to competent judicial proceedings and punish all those
responsible for violating human rights in this case.
d. It adopt the necessary reforms of the training programs
and regulations of the Guatemalan armed forces so that they conduct military
operations in conformity with the laws and customs applicable to internal
armed conflicts.
e. It compensate the violation of the above-mentioned rights,
including payment of an adequate compensation to the wife of Mr. Bámaca
[Velásquez], Jennifer Harbury, and to the other members of his family.
Lastly, the Commission decided
3. To transmit this report to the Government of Guatemala
and grant it a period of 60 days to put its recommendations into effect. The 60-day period shall commence on the date
of the transmittal of this report, during which time the Government shall
not be authorized to publish it, pursuant to the provisions of Article 50
of the American Convention.
4. To submit this case to the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, pursuant to the provisions of Article 51 of the American Convention,
if the Government has not implemented the Commission's recommendations within
the period of 60 days following the transmittal of this document.
17. The Commission forwarded this report to
the State on April 5, 1996, with the request that, within a period of 60
days, it should provide information on the measures adopted to resolve the
situation denounced. Although it
requested this period to be extended, the State did not submit the required
information.
IV
Procedure
before the Court
18. In accordance with the decision adopted during its
91st session (supra 16), the Commission filed the application with the Inter-American
Court on August 30, 1996 (supra 1).
The Court summarizes the facts set out in the application as follows:
a. Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, known as “Comandante Everardo”, formed part of the Revolutionary
Organization of the People in Arms (hereinafter "ORPA"), one of
the guerrilla groups that made up the URNG; Bámaca Velásquez led this group's
Luis Ixmatá Front.
b. Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez disappeared on March 12, 1992, after an encounter between
the Army and the guerrilla in the village of Montúfar, near Nuevo San Carlos,
Retalhuleu, in the western part of Guatemala.
c. Bámaca
Velásquez was alive when the Guatemalan armed forces took him prisoner,
and “they imprisoned him secretly in several military installations, where
they tortured and eventually executed him.”
d. Moreover,
the State incurred in denial of justice and concealment, “[by failing to]
provide any legal protection or compensation for the crimes perpetrated
against Efraín Bámaca [Velásquez] and to adequately investigate his disappearance
and death, punishing those responsible.”
19. The Inter-American Commission appointed
Carlos Ayala Corao and Claudio Grossman as its delegates before the Court,
David J. Padilla and Denise Gilman as advisors, and José E. Pertierra as
assistant. In a note of April 7,
1997, the Commission also appointed Viviana Krsticevic, Marcela Matamoros
and Francisco Cox as assistants (infra
42). The last two later resigned as assistants in the case.
20. In a note of October 1, 1996, the Court
notified the State of the application and its annexes, after these had been
examined by the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President").
21. In a communication received by the Court
of October 22, 1996, the State appointed Julio Gándara Valenzuela as its
agent for the case. On April 15,
1998, and April 7, August 7 and November 13, 2000, the State appointed as
its agent, in substitution of the previously named agent, Guillermo Argueta
Villagrán, José Briz Gutiérrez, Enrique Barascout and Jorge Mario García
Laguardia, respectively.
22. On October 31, 1996, the State filed its
brief with preliminary objections, owing to the alleged failure to exhaust
remedies under domestic law.
23. On January 6, 1997, the State presented
its answer to the application in which it stated that “it recognize[d] its
international human rights responsibility in this case, since it had not
been possible, up until this moment, for the competent instances, to identify
the persons or person criminally responsible for the unlawful acts that
were the subject of the application”. Furthermore,
it requested that “it should be considered that the international human
rights responsibility of the Government of Guatemala has been recognized
with regard to the facts outlined under numeral II of the application”.
Moreover, Guatemala requested a period of six months in order to
reach an agreement on reparations with the Inter-American Commission, after
the heirs had been determined, in accordance with the domestic law of Guatemala.
Should no agreement be reached, it requested the Court to open the
reparations stage. Lastly, it advised
that “[t]his recognition [did] not imply that domestic remedies had been
exhausted, since the case [was still] open under the Guatemalan legal system.”
24. On January 20, 1997, the State sent a note
clarifying the document answering the application as follows:
[t]he Government of the Republic
of Guatemala accepts the facts set out in numeral II of the application
in the case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, inasmuch as it has still not been
possible to identify the persons or person criminally responsible for the
unlawful acts against Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] and, thus, clarify his disappearance,
with the reservation as regards the Commission's statement in numeral II,
subparagraph 2, because, it has not been possible to confirm the circumstances
of the disappearance of Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] under the domestic proceeding.
25. On January 28, 1997, the Commission submitted
its observations and affirmed that, since the State had recognized its international
responsibility with regard to “its duty to 'guarantee' (prevent, investigate
and punish)”, this point was not in dispute and, it was necessary to proceed
to the reparations stage in that regard. It also requested clarification as to whether
the State had withdrawn the preliminary objection that it had filed.
26. In a note of January 28, 1997, the Court
requested the State to forward its observations to the Commission's communication
(supra 25) as soon as possible.
On April 7, 1997, the Commission again requested the Court to clarify
whether the State had withdrawn the preliminary objection that it had filed.
On April 16, 1997, the State declared that it had recognized “its
international responsibility and, therefore, it should be understood that
the preliminary objected that it had filed was withdrawn”. In an Order of April 16, 1997, the Court deemed
“the preliminary objection lodged by the State of Guatemala to have been
withdrawn [and ordered] to continue the processing of the merits of the
case.”
27. In an Order of February 5, 1997, the Court
considered that “[f]rom its examination of Guatemalan briefs, [the Court
cannot] conclude that the events indicated in the petition have been accepted
and, therefore, the case must continue
to be heard.”
Therefore,
the Court decided:
1. To take note of the briefs presented by the Government
of the Republic of Guatemala on January 6 and 20, 1997.
2. To continue with the processing of the case.
28. On March 6, 1998, the Commission presented
the names of the witnesses and the expert witness who would declare before
the Court. Likewise, it requested that “additional evidence be admitted,
in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court [because
…], when the application in the present case was filed, [there was] a serious
impediment to the presentation of this documentary and testimonial evidence”.
In this brief, the Commission requested that Ulises Noé Anzueto,
Marco A. Carías Monzón, Salvador Rubio, Mario E. Ovando, Sergio V. Orozco
Orozco, Edwin M. Lemus Vásquez, Héctor René Pérez, Mary Granfield, Mario
Sosa Orellana, Michael Charney, Edmund Mullet and Marylin McAfee should
be eliminated from the list of witnesses; and that, should any of the other
witnesses be unable to appear to give their testimony, they should be substituted
by others. Furthermore, it requested
that Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, Julio Cintrón Gálvez, Acisclo Valladares,
Alberto Gómez, Jesús Efraín Aguirre Loarca (known as Major Aguirre), Gregorio
Ávila, José Víctor Cordero Cardona and Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo should
be called as new witnesses. It also requested that documentation consisting
of two declarations sworn before a Notary on February 22, 1998, by Pedro
Tartón Jutzuy and Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, should be admitted as new
evidence.
29. In an Order of April 2, 1998, the President
invited the Inter-American Commission and the State to a public hearing
to be held at the Court, commencing on June 16, 1998, in order to receive
the declarations of the witnesses and the expert witnesses proposed by the
Commission. The parties were informed
that they could present their final oral arguments on the merits of the
case immediately after this evidence had been received.
30. On May 15, 1998, the Commission advised
that the witness, Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, was in the United States of
America arranging his migratory status, and that “[i]f, for legal reasons,
he was unable to travel to San José, Costa Rica, for the public hearing,
the Commission [would], at the appropriate time, request that a delegation
of the Court be commissioned to take his declaration in the United States”,
or that the exhibition of a videotape with his testimony should be authorized.
31. On June 11, 1998, the Commission reiterated
the possibility that the witness, de la Roca Mendoza, might not be able
to attend the public hearing on the merits of the case, and enclosed a copy
of a videotape containing the testimony that this witness had provided before
the Commission on February 23, 1998. On
April 25, 1998, the Commission also forwarded a copy of the report of the
Inter-Diocesan Recovery of the Historical Memory Project prepared by the
Archbishop of Guatemala's Human Rights Office (hereinafter “the REMHI Report”),
and requested that it should be considered supervening evidence in the case.
The same day, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”),
following the Court's instructions, forwarded these documents to the State
and granted it until June 15, 1998, to present its observations with regard
to their admission as evidence. When
this period had expired, the State indicated that the videotape with the
declaration of de la Roca Mendoza should not be shown, because it would
be against the provisions of Articles 41 and 47 of the Rules of Procedure. With regard to the REMHI Report, it indicated
that the State “did not object to its incorporation as evidence in this
proceeding [...] provided that it is a complete, original version”. On June 16, 1998, the Court issued an Order
rejecting the Commission's request to show the videotape with the declaration
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza.
32. On June 9, 1998, following the Court's instructions,
the Secretariat requested the Commission and the State to provide “any information
they had about the appearance before the Court of the military officers
or Acisclo Valladares Molina” in order to be able to locate and notify them.
In a note of June 10, 1998, the Commission indicated that it did
not have any information about the State officials cited as witnesses.
It also stated that the said witnesses should be presented by the
State.
33. On June 12, 1998, the State indicated that
it had not been notified about a convocation of witnesses, “a fact which
[could] not be inferred from the [O]rder of the President of the Court,
of April 2, 1998, which exclusively convened the representatives of the
Government and the Commission”. It
also reiterated “its willingness to facilitate the execution of the summons”.
Lastly, it indicated that Valladares Molina and Arango Escobar were no longer
State officials.
34. On June 12, 1998, the Commission advised
that the prosecutor assigned to investigate the Bámaca Velásquez Case in
Guatemala, Shilvia Anabella Jerez Romero, had been assassinated on May 20
that year. On July 3, 1998, the
State indicated that the facts communicated by the Commission were not related
to the case sub judice.
35. On June 16, 17 and 18, 1998, the Court held
a public hearing on the merits of the case and, according to the Order issued
by the Court, the same day, it received the testimony of the witnesses and
the expert witness proposed by the Commission on the facts that are the
subject of the application. The
Court also heard the final oral arguments of the parties on the merits of
the case.
There
appeared before the Court:
For
the State of Guatemala:
Guillermo Argueta Villagrán, Agent
Alejandro Sánchez Garrido, Advisor; and
Dennis Alonzo Mazariegos, Advisor.
For
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
Claudio Grossman, Delegate
Denise Gilman, Advisor, and
Viviana Krsticevic, Assistant.
Witnesses
proposed by the Commission:
Santiago Cabrera López
Jennifer Harbury
Julio Arango Escobar
James Harrington
Francis Farenthall
Fernando Moscoso Moller, and
Patricia Davis.
Expert
witness proposed by the Commission:
Helen Mack.
Although
they had been summoned by the Court, the following witnesses did not appear
to declare:
Acisclo Valladares Molina
Federico Reyes López
Stefan Schmidt
Nery Ángel Urízar García
Robert Torricelli
Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza
Julio Cintrón Gálvez
Julio Roberto Alpírez
Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana
Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao
Rolando Edeberto Barahona
Margarito Sarceño Medrano
Simeón Cum Chutá
Alberto Gómez
“Major” Aguirre
Gregorio Ávila
José Víctor Cordero Cardona, and
Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo.
36. On June 17, 1998, the Commission presented
a note from the witness, Robert Torricelli, indicating that he was unable
to be present at the public hearing and providing information about the
facts of the case.
37. The same day, the Commission requested the
Court to require the State to present the following witnesses: Acisclo Valladares
Molina, Julio Cintrón Gálvez, Julio Roberto Alpírez, Mario Ernesto Sosa
Orellana, Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao, Rolando Edeberto Barahona, Margarito
Sarceño Medrano, Simeón Cum Chutá, Alberto Gómez, Major Aguirre, Gregorio
Ávila, José Víctor Cordero Cardona and Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo. It also indicated that “it had always made
it clear that [the Commission] requested the [presentation] of these witnesses”
by the State. It added that, from
the Order of the President of April 2, 1998, and from Article 24 of the
Rules of Procedure, it can be inferred that “the State has an affirmative
responsibility to notify all the witnesses summoned who are under its jurisdiction,
and also to facilitate the execution of the summons” by the Court. Lastly, it advised that the presence of the
above-mentioned witnesses was “extremely important for the examination of
the case”. On July 3, 1998, the
State declared that, with regard to this note, “the Court [...], in plenary,
during the preliminary hearing (sic)
convened on June 16, 1998, heard the arguments of the Commission and the
State.”
38. The same day, the Commission presented documents
related to the facts of the case from various United States Government agencies.
In an Order of June 19, 1998, the Court decided not to admit these
documents, as they were time-barred.
39. On June 30, 1998, the Secretariat, on the
Court's instructions, requested the Commission and the State to present
any information they had no later than July 15, 1998 that would help locate
the witnesses mentioned in the Commission's communication of June 17, 1998. On July 7, 1998, the Commission advised that
it had no information for locating these witnesses.
40. On June 30, 1998, the Court requested the
State to transmit some documents attached to the application, in accordance
with Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure.
On July 30, 1998, the State forwarded these documents.
41. In a note of July 3, 1998, the State reiterated
its point of view about the witnesses proposed by the Commission (supra 33).
42. On July 31, 1998, the petitioners sent a
power of attorney dated June 22, 1998, in favor of the Center for Justice
and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”).
On August 3, 1998, the Commission sent copy of a power of attorney
granted by the petitioners to CEJIL, represented by Viviana Krsticevic,
on June 19, 1998. On August 21,
1998, the President of the Court requested the Commission to provide certain
clarifications about the presentation of the said powers of attorney. In
a communication of August 27, 1998, the Commission indicated that the power
of attorney of June 22, 1998, replaced that of June 19. On September 9, 1998, the State indicated that, at this stage of
the proceeding, the persons named in the power of attorney are not a party,
in accordance with the procedure, and that, in any case, the power of attorney
had not been granted in accordance with the provisions of Guatemalan legislation,
so that “it had the duty to object to the use of legal instruments created
in violation of the laws in force in the country.”
43. On August 29, 1998, the Court summoned the
following witnesses to a public hearing at the seat of the Court on the
following November 22: Acisclo Valladares Molina, Julio Cintrón Gálvez,
Julio Roberto Alpírez, Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana, Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao,
Rolando Edeberto Barahona, Margarito Sarceño Medrano, Simeón Cum Chutá,
Alberto Gómez, Major Aguirre, Gregorio Ávila, José Víctor Cordero Cardona
and Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo. The Court requested the State to notify the
persons summoned by this Order and instructed the Secretariat that, as soon
as it received the addresses and information on how to locate the witnesses,
it should send these to the Commission, so that the latter could comply
with Article 45 of the Court's Rules of Procedure.
44. On September 1, 1998, the Court convened
a public hearing to be held in Washington D.C., United States of America,
on October 15, 1998, in order to hear the witnesses, Nery Ángel Urízar García
and Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza. The Court commissioned three of its members
to take the testimony.
45. On September 30, 1998, the Commission advised
that it had notified the summons to the witness, Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza;
however, it had not been able to summon Urízar García as it had been unable
to find him and, consequently, it reiterated the need to listen to his testimony
on videotape. Moreover, it emphasized that the State should have summoned
the witnesses who were State officials and “who did not appear in [the]
public hearing [in June] and who [...] have had five months to consider
and evaluate the public evidence of the other witnesses, most of which had
been published in the press, before giving their own evidence.”
46. On September 30, 1998, the State sent the
addresses of the witnesses who had been summoned (supra 43).
47. On October 2, 1998, the Secretariat requested
the State to provide information, before October 30 that year, regarding
notification of the Order of August 29, 1998, and to facilitate the appearance
before the Court of the witnesses who were State officials at the time of
the alleged facts. Likewise, it called on the Commission to provide any
information that it had on the witness, Gregorio Ávila, and also about the
steps taken towards locating him and complying with the provisions of Article
45 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
On October 8, 1998, the Commission indicated that “it had no additional
information that [would] help locate the witness.”
48. On October 15, 1998, a public hearing was
held in Washington D.C., United States, for which the Court commissioned
the following judges:
Judge Hernán Salgado Pesantes, President
Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade,
Vice-President; and
Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli.
There
appeared before them:
For
the State of Guatemala:
Guillermo Argueta Villagrán, Agent
Marta Altolaguirre Larraondo, Advisor; and
Dennis Alonzo Mazariegos, Advisor.
For
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
Claudio Grossman, Delegate
Denise Gilman, Advisor
Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Advisor
Viviana Krsticevic, Assistant; and
Raquel Aldana-Pindell, Assistant.
Witness
proposed by the Commission:
Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza.
Although
the Court had summoned him as a witness, Nery Ángel Urízar García, also
proposed by the Commission, did not appear.
49. During the public hearing (supra 48), the Inter-American Commission
presented a copy of the identity document of Cristóbal Che Pérez (infra 91.C).
50. On October 26, 1998, the Secretariat sent
the State the summonses for the witnesses convened by the Court for the
following November 22. On October
30, 1998, the State sent the records of the notification of the said witnesses,
except for those of Julio Roberto Alpírez and Gregorio Ávila. On November
19, 1998, the State sent the record of the notification of Alpírez.
51. On October 30, 1998, the Commission presented
the address of Gregorio Ávila. On
November 2, 1998, the Secretariat sent the State the address and the summons
for Ávila so that it could follow the same steps as in the previous cases.
On November 9, 1998, the State indicated that it had tried to locate
and notify Gregorio Ávila, but this had not been possible.
The Secretariat requested the Commission to send any additional information
about the identity of this witness.
52. On October 30, 1998, Acisclo Valladares
Molina informed the Court of his willingness to attend the public hearing
for which he had been summoned (supra
43).
53. On November 5 and 18, 1998, Cintrón Gálvez,
a witness summoned in this proceeding, stated his position about his participation
in the public hearing of the following November 22, and also about the case
in general. On November 23, 1998,
the Secretariat informed Cintrón Gálvez that the inter-American system did
not provide for the participation of third parties.
54. On November 22 and 23, 1998, a public hearing
on the merits of this case was held at the seat of the Court, when the testimonies
offered by the Commission were received and the final oral arguments of
the parties were heard.
There
appeared before the Court:
For
the State of Guatemala:
Guillermo Argueta Villagrán, Agent
Marta Altolaguirre Larraondo, Advisor
Alejandro Sánchez Garrido, Advisor; and
Dennis Alonzo Mazariegos; Advisor
For
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
David Padilla, Deputy Executive Secretary
Denise Gilman, Advisor
Viviana Krsticevic, Assistant; and
Raquel Aldana-Pindell, Assistant
Witnesses
proposed by the Commission:
Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana
Acisclo Valladares Molina
Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo
Luis Alberto Gómez Guillermo
Jesús Efraín Aguirre Loarca
Simeón Cum Chutá; and
Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao.
Although
they had been summoned by the Court, the following witnesses, proposed by
the Commission, did not appear to give their statements:
Rolando Edeberto Barahona
Margarito Sarceño Medrano
Julio Cintrón Gálvez
Julio Roberto Alpírez
Gregorio Ávila; and
José Víctor Cordero Cardona.
55. During the public hearing held on November
22, 1998, the State presented a copy of a certificate issued by the Civil
Registry of Nuevo San Carlos, Department of Retalhuleu, on October 26, 1998,
and copy of a letter of November 20, 1998, signed by Julio Roberto Alpírez.
56. On December 4, 1998, the State offered as
evidence the documents mentioned by four of the witnesses during the public
hearing of November 22 and 23, 1998. On
December 11, 1998, the Secretariat informed the State that some of the documents
offered were illegible or incomplete. On January 26, 1999, the Secretariat again requested the missing
documents. On February 1 and March 18, 1999, the State sent some of the
missing documents. On February 3 and March 23, 1999, the Secretariat indicated
to Guatemala that some of the documentation offered was missing. At the
time this judgment was issued, the State had not sent any communication
in this regard.
57. On December 4, 1998, the Commission stated
that the documents contributed by Guatemala at the public hearing of November
22, 1998 (supra 54), were not
truly supervening, and that they should have been submitted with the answer
to the application; at the same time it pointed out a series of anomalies
in these documents.
58. With regard to the last point, on December
10, 1998, the President informed the Commission that, during the public
hearing, it had been explained that “any evidence ha[d] to be submitted
through the appropriate channels; and, the documents offered had not been
delivered to the Secretariat of the Court on that occasion”. Moreover, the Commission was informed that,
before any document sent by the State was included, it would be forwarded
to the Commission so that it could make the pertinent observations. On January 12, 1999, the Commission reiterated
the objection set out in its brief of December 4 with regard to the presentation
of new evidence, based on the provisions of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure,
and stated that some of the documents presented were certifications made
by one of the witnesses, who had not appeared at the public hearings to
which he had been summoned
59. On December 21, 1998, the Commission sent
two press cuttings on declarations by agents of the State, “in which it
was indicated that Mrs. Harbury had requested Guatemala to compensate her
with a considerable sum of money.”
60. On March 24, 1999, the Commission requested
the admission as supervening evidence of the final report of the Commission
for the Historical Clarification of the human rights violations and violent
acts that have caused suffering to the Guatemalan People (hereinafter “the
Commission for Historical Clarification”), entitled “Guatemala, Memory of
Silence” and presented a copy of illustrative case No. 81 in this report.
61. On May 20, 1999, the Commission provided
information about an incident involving José León Bámaca Hernández, the
alleged victim's father.
62. On August 20, 1999, the Present granted
a period of one month, from reception of the transcripts of the public hearings
held in this case, for presentation of the final arguments. On August 27 that year, the Commission requested,
on the one hand, an extension of one more month for the presentation of
its final arguments and, on the other, that the Court should determine the
validity of the evidence offered by the State after the statutory time limit
had elapsed, with a view to preparing those arguments. On August 30, 1999, the President granted the
extension requested until the following October 22. On October 6, 1999, the President indicated
that “the Court will evaluate the evidence presented by the parties after
the statutory time limit had elapsed when deliberating and adopting the
judgment on the merits of this case.”
63. On October 22, 1999, the Commission and
the State presented their final arguments in the case.
64. On June 27, 2000, the International Commission
of Jurists presented an amicus curiae
on the right to the truth of the families of victims of forced disappearance.
V
Urgent and
provisional measures
65. On June 24, 1998, the Inter-American Commission
requested the Court to adopt provisional measures, under the provisions
of Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of the Rules
of Procedure, in favor of Santiago Cabrera López, who had provided testimony
in the public hearing on the merits of the case (supra 35). As grounds for its request, it informed the Court that
Cabrera gave testimony [before the
Inter-American Court] on facts that clearly involved the responsibility
of specific State agents in human rights violations. The State agents involved in these facts have not been prosecuted
and are not in prison. Also, they
did not appear before the Court although they had been summoned by this
body. This situation shows that they act with a freedom
that compromises the safety of the said witness. [...] Cabrera lives in
Guatemala and immediately after the hearings of the Court returned to his
home in that country. [...] Cabrera
has requested the Commission to ask the Court to protect his life and personal
safety.
66. In an Order of June 30, 1998, the President
of the Court called on the State to adopt all necessary measures to ensure
the personal safety of Santiago Cabrera López, “so that the Court may examine
the pertinence of the provisional measures requested by the Commission.”
67. On August 21, 1998, the State presented
to the Court the report requested in the Order of the President. In this brief, Guatemala stated that it had
adopted measures to find Cabrera López and provide him with security in
compliance with the said Order.
68. In a brief of August 25, 1998, the Commission
requested the Court to expand the measures adopted in this case in order
to provide protection also to Alfonso Cabrera Viagres, María Victoria López,
Blanca Cabrera, Carmelinda Cabrera, Teresa Aguilar Cabrera, Olga Maldonado
and Carlos Alfonso Cabrera.
69. In an Order of August 29, 1998, the Court
adopted provisional measures, ratified the Order of the President of June
30 that year, and requested the State to maintain the necessary measures
to protect the life and personal safety of Santiago Cabrera López and to
adopt the necessary measures for the protection of Alfonso Cabrera Viagres,
María Victoria López, Blanca Cabrera, Carmelinda Cabrera, Teresa Aguilar
Cabrera, Olga Maldonado and Carlos Alfonso Cabrera. Furthermore, it called
on Guatemala to investigate the facts and to report on the provisional measures
it had taken every two months, and on the Inter-American Commission to forward
its observations on these reports, within six weeks of receiving them.
70. When this judgment was pronounced, the State
and the Inter-American Commission had presented their reports and their
observations on these reports, respectively, in accordance with the Order
of the Court of August 29, 1998. These
provisional measures will be maintained while it is shown that the circumstances
of extreme gravity and urgency that justified their adoption persist.
VI
Domestic proceedings
71. In
continuation, the Court believes it necessary to refer to some domestic
proceedings, the examination of which may help clarify the facts of the
instant case (infra 121m).
72. On
March 13, 1992, a corpse was removed from near the Ixcucua River and an
autopsy was performed. The same
day, in the presence of the Magistrate of Retalhuleu and of Captain Sosa
Orellana, the body was “transferred to the morgue of the general cemetery
of the city of Retalhuleu”. The Magistrate of Retalhuleu opened file No.
395-92 and examined the body that had been found. The description detailed
features similar to those of Bámaca Velásquez.
However, the autopsy that had been performed provided details of
the dead man that did not coincide with either the physical characteristics
of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez or with the cause of his death[2].
73. Through
investigations conducted in 1992, Ramiro de León Carpio, at that time Ombudsman,
discovered that the remains of Bámaca Velásquez might be buried in an XX
grave in Retalhuleu. On May 20, 1992, the Second Criminal Trial Judge of
Retalhuleu ordered the exhumation of the said body. However, the procedure was cancelled owing to the intervention of
the Attorney General, Acisclo Valladares Molina, who arrived at the site
accompanied by about 20 members of the armed forces and questioned the legality
of the exhumation[3].
74. On
April 24, 1992, the URNG sent a note to the Ombudsman, informing him that
the member of the guerrilla who had been killed in combat and buried in
the Retalhuleu cemetery was not Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. In this note, it
assured that Bámaca Velásquez had been captured alive, detained clandestinely
and tortured to obtain information. On
May 11, 1992, the Ombudsman replied to the URNG, providing a detailed description
of the body that had been buried in Retalhuleu, which coincided with the
characteristics of Bámaca Velásquez[4].
75. Based
on the statements of the witness, Santiago Cabrera López, the Guatemalan
Human Rights Commission and Jennifer Harbury filed a petition for habeas corpus in favor of Bámaca Velásquez
against the President of the Republic, in his capacity as Commander in Chief
of the Army, and the Minister of National Defense, on February 22, 1993.
On the following February 25 and 26, in file No. 14/93, the Supreme Court
of Justice declared that this was without merit because the victim had not
been found, and “immediately order[ed] the appropriate investigation, and
that all relevant information should be officially forwarded to a competent
court”. On March 11, 1993, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice
indicated that “current mechanisms for habeas
corpus procedures are inadequate for conducting an effective investigation
under petitions for habeas corpus”,
and suggested that there was a need “to undertake a thorough reform of justice
in Guatemala.”[5]
76. On
August 17, 1993, the Second Criminal Trial Court Judge of Retalhuleu again
ordered an exhumation to be held to determine whether the body removed from
the banks of the Ixcucua River on March 13, 1992, (infra 86 and 93.C.b) was that of Bámaca Velásquez. The corpse exhumed
on August 17, 1993, coincided with the description in the report of the
autopsy performed in March 1992, but not with the physical characteristics
of Bámaca Velásquez[6].
77. Based
on a complaint by Jennifer Harbury, the Office of the Ombudsman opened file
GUA 12-93/DI in January 1994; and in this it placed her testimony together
with that of Santiago Cabrera López and Jaime Adalberto Agustín Recinos,
the last two on videotape[7].
78. On
June 1, 1994, the Attorney General filed a petition for habeas corpus in favor of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez against the President
of the Republic, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Defense,
the Director General of the National Police Force and Guatemalan police
and military authorities[8].
On September 1, 1994, the Supreme Court of Justice declared the petition
for habeas corpus without merit (infra 80) because, on the one hand, the
Ministry of Defense, the Directorate of the National Police Force and the
Directorate of the Treasury Police advised that “they had not received any
judicial order for the detention of [Efraín Bámaca Velásquez]” and, on the
other, visits to public prisons, military posts and substations of the National
Police Force had yielded negative results[9].
79. On
October 27, 1994, as a result of Jennifer Harbury's hunger strike (infra 93.C.b), the President of the Republic
announced that a new investigation would be conducted to discover the whereabouts
of Bámaca Velásquez and appointed the Permanent Representative of Guatemala
to the Organization of American States (hereinafter “OAS”) to head a special
committee that would be in charge of this[10].
80. On
October 31, 1994, the Attorney General submitted a complaint before the
Prosecutor General and the Public Ministry to initiate a criminal action
on the disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez. On the same day, the Prosecutor
General filed a petition for habeas
corpus in the name of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez and 38 other persons who
had allegedly been detained clandestinely.
On November 2 that year, the Supreme Court of Justice appointed the
Second Judge of the Criminal, Narco-activity and Crimes against the Environment
Trial Court of Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango, to head the corresponding investigation.
In the context of this investigation, Harbury testified before the said
court the following day[11]. The same
day, the prosecutor informed Jennifer Harbury that the following day, a
body that it was believed, corresponded to Bámaca Velásquez would be exhumed.
On November 4, 1994, the exhumation was postponed until the following November
10. That day, two young men who
had died from shots in the head were exhumed; they did not correspond to
the remains of Bámaca Velásquez[12].
81. Since
the petition for habeas corpus
presented by the Attorney General had been declared without merit on June
1, 1994 (supra 78), on October
30, 1994, the said Attorney General requested the Supreme Court of Justice
to order a special pre-trial investigation procedure - a procedure introduced
with the reform of the Criminal Procedural Code. On November 8, 1994, the
Supreme Court of Justice ordered the Ombudsman to open the special pre-trial
investigation procedure in order to establish the whereabouts of Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez[13]. On December 2, 5, 6 and 7, 1994, in the course
of procedure No. I-94, the members of the armed forces who were allegedly
connected to the death Bámaca Velásquez were questioned, and they declared
that they knew nothing about the facts[14].
In his report of December 9, 1994, the Ombudsman established that, except
for one or two who were on duty at Santa Ana Berlín, most of the members
of the armed forces who had been questioned were serving in Military Zone
No. 18 in San Marcos at the time of the facts, that none of them knew Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, and that none of them took part in an armed encounter
on the day of the facts. According
to this report, during the investigation, inspections, random visits and
inquiries were carried out “without prior warning, simultaneously and unexpectedly”
in military and police centers. However,
the whereabouts of Bámaca Velásquez could not be established, nor was it
possible “to determine whether he is alive or dead at this time,”[15].
On March 16, 1995, when the procedure had been completed, the Supreme Court
of Justice forwarded the case file to the Office of the Prosecutor General
so that “it could continue with the investigations.”[16]
82. On
November 29, 1994, the Attorney General commenced an action for jactitation
against Jennifer Harbury. Under this procedure, the latter was given 15
days to make the corresponding complaint or, to the contrary, cease to hold
the armed forces responsible for a determined conduct.
On December 2, 1994, the Court prohibited Jennifer Harbury from leaving
Guatemala for the duration of the proceeding; this prohibition was lifted
10 days later[17]. On January
26, 1995, the Sixth Civil Trial Court declared itself incompetent in the
action for jactitation, because this legal figure only applies to cases
of disputes relating to property[18].
83. On
March 29, 1995, the President of the Republic, Ramiro de León Carpio, declared
that, when he assumed the Presidency, Bámaca Velásquez was already dead
and that he was not illegally imprisoned or detained[19].
84. On
March 23, 1995, the Office of the Prosecutor General incorporated various
statements made during proceeding No. I-94 (supra
81), under proceeding No. 2566-94, which was being processed before the
First Criminal, Narco-Activity and Crimes against the Environment Trial
Court of Guatemala. On March 28, 1995, this Court declared itself incompetent
because the proceeding related to crimes or common misdemeanors committed
by members of the armed forces, and forwarded the file to the Retalhuleu
Military Trial Court[20].
85. On
April 5 and 10, 1995, the Retalhuleu Military Trial Court dismissed the
case opened against 13 members of the armed forces, because it considered
that statements made in the testimony of Santiago Cabrera López about the
crimes of “illegal detention, homicide,
assassination, light injuries, serious injuries, very serious injuries,
coercion, threats, crimes against the obligations of humanity, abuse of
authority and abuse against individuals”, to the detriment of Bámaca Velásquez,
had not been proved[21].
The representative of the Public Ministry filed a complaint appeal against
the Retalhuleu Military Trial Court. On
July 17, 1995, the Eleventh Chamber of the Appeals Court of Retalhuleu convened
in Court Martial, declared that the Military Trial Court Judge “had committed
a substantial error, violating essential formalities of the proceeding”,
invalidated the statements of Julio Roberto Alpírez, Julio Alberto Soto
Bilbao and Ulises Noé Anzueto Girón, and annulled the notifications of the
decisions pronounced in the proceeding[22].
On November 22, 1995, the same Eleventh Chamber of the Appeals Court of
Retalhuleu convened in Court Martial revoked the decision of the Retalhuleu
Military Trial Court because “the necessary juridical presumptions that
would justify the dismissal that was granted d[id] not exist, and also the
examination of the crimes under investigation [...] had not been concluded”;
it therefore returned the case file to the said Court[23].
86. In
June that year, the Retalhuleu Military Trial Court, contradicting the statements
made by the forensic experts, and presuming that the corpse found on the
banks of the Ixcucua River corresponded to Bámaca Velásquez, ordered the
latter's death to be officially recorded in the Registry Office of the Municipality
of Nuevo San Carlos, Retalhuleu[24].
87. On
December 5, 1995, the Military Trial Court declared that the case was without
merit and decreed the corresponding simple
liberty of the members of the armed forces under investigation, based
on the same arguments that had been established previously (supra 86) and adding that the death of Bámaca Velásquez had been recorded
in the Registry Office[25].
88. On
May 7, 1995, Julio Arango Escobar was appointed special prosecutor in the
Bámaca Velásquez Case. At that time, a stay of proceedings had been pronounced
for the members of the armed forces who were allegedly involved. The special
prosecutor appealed the stay of proceedings before the Retalhuleu Appeals
Chamber and was able to have it annulled.
Furthermore, he tried to have Jennifer Harbury included as private
prosecutor in the proceeding, but was unsuccessful[26]. In June 1995, the United States Government
provided Arango Escobar with information indicating that the remains of
Bámaca Velásquez were buried in the military detachment of Las Cabañas,
in the village of La Montañita, Municipality of Tecún Umán, Department of
San Marcos. Based on this information, the special prosecutor took the necessary
steps to conduct an exhumation[27]. At the beginning
of June 1995, the Second Judge of the Criminal, Narco-activity and Crimes
against the Environment Trial Court of Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango, authorized
the exhumation in Las Cabañas[28].
On June 13, 1995, on being informed of the measure that was planned, the
Commander in charge of the Las Cabañas military detachment declared that
his superiors had not give him permission to authorize it[29]. The following day, the legal representative
of the Ministry of Defense stated that some of the legal requirements for
conducting the exhumation procedure had not been fulfilled and also, that
the Bámaca Velásquez Case had to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the
Commission for Historical Clarification, in accordance with declarations
of the President of the Republic[30]. On June 19, 1995, as a result of the appeal
filed by Colonel Julio Roberto Alpírez, the Second Criminal, Narco-Activity
and Crimes against the Environment Trial Court of Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango,
suspended the exhumation that was going to be conducted in Las Cabañas until
the appeals court had made a decision[31].
89. Between
May and August 1995, Arango Escobar received pressure and threats and attempts
were made on his life because he was acting as special prosecutor in the
Bámaca Velásquez Case. In particular, he was followed, fired at in his workplace
and received telephone threats. On
August 2, 1995, Arango Escobar resigned from the position of special prosecutor
in the case[32].
90. In
February 1998, the new special prosecutor for the case, Shilvia Anabella
Jerez Romero, requested that an exhumation procedure be conducted in the
Las Cabañas military detachment. However, this procedure was not carried
out[33].
VII
Evidence
a) documentary
evidence
91. The Commission presented documentation on:
a) the
practice of the detention and use of former guerrillas by the Guatemalan
Army[34];
b) the
detention, torture and extrajudicial disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez[35];
c) the
autopsy and the exhumations conducted in the Bámaca Velásquez Case in Guatemala[36];
d) the
petitions for habeas corpus filed
in favor of Bámaca Velásquez[37];
e) the
other judicial proceedings conducted to determine the whereabouts of Bámaca
Velásquez, and also those responsible for the facts[38];
f) the
marriage of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez and Jennifer Harbury, the proceedings
to obtain its recognition and the process of jactitation[39];
g) the
steps taken by Jennifer Harbury to determine the whereabouts of Bámaca Velásquez[40];
h) the
representation[41] of Jennifer
Harbury and the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez in the proceeding before
the inter-American system;
i) the
declarations on compensation made by Jennifer Harbury[42];
and
j) the alleged attacks and threats against
various persons connected with the Bámaca Velásquez Case[43].
* *
*
92. The State presented documents on:
a) the
death of Bámaca Velásquez[44];
b) the activities of the Quetzal Task Force
in the southwestern region of Guatemala at the beginning of 1992[45];
c) the
presence, in 1992, of the Army officer, Luis Alberto Gómez Guillermo, in
a commando course in Colombia[46]
and the Army officer, Jesús Efraín Aguirre Loarca, in the United States[47];
d) Nery
Ángel Urízar García and his criminal record[48];
and
e) Otoniel
de la Roca Mendoza and his criminal record[49].
* *
*
93. In the public hearings on June 16 to 18,
October 15, and November 22 and 23, 1998, the Court received the report
of the expert witness and the statements of the witnesses proposed by the
Inter-American Commission. These
statements are summarized below.
b) expert evidence
a)
Expert testimony of Helen Mack, Guatemalan business
administrator,
on the
administration of justice in Guatemala.
In
Guatemala, justice is “slow, inefficient, it is corrupt, fearful” and partial,
particularly when those with any political power are prosecuted. In particular, as a result of the internal
conflict that Guatemala has experienced over the last three decades, the
judicial system underwent a profound crisis, especially from 1992 to 1996,
particularly with regard to human rights, and this resulted in a weak Judiciary,
which allowed the Executive Branch to commit abuses.
As
a result of corruption and the fear of those who apply justice to “act against
Army officers who still have considerable political power”, 99.9% of cases
of human rights violations go unpunished.
Impunity also exists because many of the violations entail the surrender
of information that is classified as a State secret by the Ministry of Defense
although, according to the Criminal Procedural Code, it is the judge who
should make this classification; because the evidence is adulterated or
disappears, and due to abuse in filing appeals within the judicial proceedings.
“Military
intelligence” has used slander as a strategy to obstruct the exercise of
justice, by diminishing the credibility of the victims of human rights violations
and intimidating those in charge of the criminal prosecution. The most recent example was the crime of Monsignor
Gerardi, which she interprets as a clear message that “any […] person is
vulnerable when conducting a lawsuit in the area of human rights”. For example, in the instant case, an effort
was made to discredit Jennifer Harbury by not recognizing her marriage to
Bámaca Velásquez. Moreover, depending on the case, the Guatemalan press
does not publish information on judicial proceedings, because the journalists
may expose themselves to threats.
In
Guatemala, the remedy of habeas corpus
exists to guarantee the liberty and physical safety of an individual; however,
in cases of human rights violations, “it is rarely successful” and often
depends on the pressure that the plaintiff is able to apply.
There
is a special pre-trial investigation procedure, which is applied when the
remedy of habeas corpus has been
exhausted; this consists of the Supreme Court of Justice designating the
Ombudsman or some human rights organization or person to conduct the investigation.
However, this procedure “has not had positive results”, as it is very bureaucratic.
In
Guatemala, there was a practice of forced disappearances that generally
culminated in the death of those who disappeared, to give the impression
that there were no political prisoners.
The
Constitution of the Republic and the Military Code establish a military
system of justice. After 1996, the
legal system was reformed so that crimes and misdemeanors committed by members
of the armed forces were heard by civil tribunals.
The criminal proceedings processed before the military system of
justice prior to this reform were neither impartial nor effective. Ordinary justice imposes very few sentences
for human rights violations and, of those imposed, none have been against
any high-ranking member of the armed forces or Government official. The only exception has been the case of Michael
Devine.
The
Bámaca Velásquez Case is just one more example of impunity in the Guatemalan
administration of justice. In this case, not only those responsible have
not been found, but also the remains of Bámaca Velásquez have not been located,
because “the bodies were changed.”
As
a result of the Peace Agreements, a Commission to Strengthen Justice was
formed, composed of individuals from different sectors of society. In her
opinion, the Commission has carried out positive work in areas such as judicial
independence that will have results in the medium- or long-term, because,
currently, there are “still some shortcomings that do not allow us [to have]
an independent Judiciary”. The following are some of the problems that existed
in the Guatemalan system of justice: the judges, who in some cases were
not qualified, were appointed for short periods; those who heard human rights
cases were threatened; and access to justice was very expensive, which resulted
in the exclusion of the poor. Currently, prosecutors and judges are still
afraid of involving Army officers in human rights cases, due to what “could
happen to them personally or to their families”.
It is necessary “to dismantle a complete parallel authority [because
while] the Army continues to be present [in the] political authority, it
will be difficult to make progress.”
Those
who present complaints or appear as witnesses in cases that involve State
agents do not receive the necessary protection. Moreover, human rights activists have been seen as people who were
“linked to the guerrilla movement” and “protectors of criminals” and have
been harassed.
* *
*
c) testimonial
evidence
a. Testimony of Santiago Cabrera López, former
URNG combatant
He
was connected with the guerrilla group known as ORPA, part of URNG, since
May 22, 1989. Among other reasons, he joined this group due to “the absence
of justice in [his] country, the lack of education [and] health.”
He
was a combatant in the Luis Ixmatá military front, which was headed by Bámaca
Velásquez, who was known as Comandante Everardo. He operated in the area of the Department of San Marcos during one
year and ten months, until he was detained on March 8, 1991.
He
met Jennifer Harbury in 1990 in the guerrilla camp.
One
year after he had been captured by the Army, when he had won its confidence,
he received payment for services provided to Army “military intelligence”,
G-2. He did not take advantage of
the National Reconciliation Law.
He
was captured by seven or eight “military intelligence” agents from the Department
of San Marcos, and “[t]hey ordered him to stop, when he was carrying a quintal
of rice and they beat [him] severely”. Anastasia López Calvo, known as “Karina”, was captured with him
and they were both taken in a pick-up truck to the military detachment of
Santo Domingo, Municipality of San Pablo, Department of San Marcos.
When
they reached the detachment, they were taken to a room, where his “hands
were tied to the wall above him and one of the men who captured [him] began
to beat [him] with a large brick”. When they had finished torturing him,
they asked for information on his camp and the combatants.
He was able to identify two of the Army officers who tortured him.
Subsequently,
they were transferred to the military detachment of the community of El
Porvenir, Municipality of San Pablo, Department of San Marcos There, they
were put in another room where they were interrogated and received death
threats. During the night, they
were taken to a basement in the detachment, where they were kept for two
days, after which the interrogation continued.
Approximately
10 days later, he was transferred to Military Zone No. 18 in San Marcos,
where the torture and interrogation continued. Here, he could see how the
Army captured and killed civilians. They
obliged those they detained to memorize texts so that they could appear
in public and declare that they had given themselves up to the Army voluntarily,
in order to conceal the military practice of using former guerrillas to
obtain information that was relevant for “military intelligence”, by torturing
them.
He
was kept in shackles for about six months; during this time the Army took
him out dressed in uniform like a soldier to carry out tasks such as “identifying
combatants [...] or those who sympathized with the guerrilla”. After six month, the treatment he received
changed and his restrictions at the base were reduced. During all the time that he was detained he
was never taken before a judge or an authority with any formal charge against
him.
In
February 1992, he was obliged to take part in a unit known as the Quetzal
Task Force which was initially set up at the military bases of San Juan
de Loarca in the Municipality of Tumbador, San Marcos, and then transferred
to Santa Ana Berlín, in Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango; its aim was “to make
an end to all the guerrilla forces”. The
commander of this task force was Ismael Segura Abularach, and Colonel Julio
Roberto Alpírez also took part in it. There
he met other guerrilla combatants who had been captured, among them, one
known as Bayardo (Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza).
On
March 12, 1992, the third battalion of Military Zone No. 18 in San Marcos
captured Bámaca Velásquez, in Montúfar in the Municipality of Nuevo San
Carlos, Retalhuleu. He was able to see him in an office of the detachment
in Santa Ana Berlín de Coatepeque, where he was kept tied up. “Captain Laco”, Major Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana and “Captain Soto”
were with him. The latter tried to obtain all possible information about
the guerrilla from Bámaca Velásquez. The
day following the capture of Bámaca Velásquez, the witness was sent to talk
to him to tell him to collaborate, or otherwise he would be tortured. On that occasion, he spoke to Bámaca Velásquez
alone, and the latter asked the witness, if he was able to escape, to say
that he [Bámaca Velásquez] had been captured alive and was in Santa Ana
Berlín.
He
saw Bámaca Velásquez on many occasions during the approximately one month
that his detention in Santa Ana Berlín lasted. In June 1992, he heard Major
Mario Sosa Orellana say that “Comandante Everardo had escaped from the capital,
but that [...] he had once again been captured and shot because he had tried
to escape”. However, in July, he saw Bámaca Velásquez in Military Zone No.
18 once again, together with Colonel Julio Roberto Alpírez and Major Sosa
Orellana, who told the other detainees that “they could not communicate
with him”. He helped to collect some medical equipment
that was for Bámaca Velásquez and kept guard on the room where he was kept.
Colonel Alpírez told him off for being in that place.
On another occasion, he saw Bámaca Velásquez “lying half-naked on
a bed, with his eyes bandaged and an arm and leg bandaged” and with his
face swollen. Beside him was what appeared to be an oxygen cylinder.
On
about July 22, 1992, he saw Bámaca Velásquez for the last time in Military
Zone No. 18 in San Marcos. On that
occasion, the Army was preparing a military operation in the “El Porvenir”
detachment; to this end, they recorded a guerrilla radio communication and
sent it to him so that he could give it to Bámaca Velásquez for the latter
to disclose what the guerilla were saying in the communication. Later, he
heard from Anastasia López Calvo that, during July, Bámaca Velásquez was
at the Quetzaltenango military base No. 1715 and that his treatment had
been different there, because “they made him do the cleaning where he was
and he was not tied up during the day.”
After
having been detained for one year and ten months, and having obtained the
confidence of the members of the armed forces sufficiently, the witness
used a license to leave with Simeón Cum Chutá and Martín Pérez Cabrera to
spend Christmas with his family, and took advantage of this opportunity
to escape.
b.
Testimony of Jennifer Harbury, United States lawyer
and writer.
She
began to learn about the human rights violations suffered by the Guatemalan
peasants at the beginning of the 1980s, while working as a lawyer near the
border between Mexico and Texas. As
a result of the massacres that were occurring, she decided to visit Guatemala
to try to help more directly. There,
she began to work with victims of torture and people who were trying to
leave the country, among them, people involved with the guerrilla groups. For safety reasons, she returned to her home
in Texas in 1986, and decided to write a book on the situation in Guatemala.
To this end, she visited secret URNG clinics, where those who had
been injured were treated and gathered testimonies for her book.
She sympathized with the URNG, but she did not become a guerrilla.
In order to conduct
the interviews for her book, she spent 30 days with the Luis Ixmatá Front,
which was led by Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, known as Comandante Everardo,
where she also met Santiago Cabrera López. The former protected her there
and arranged the interviews. When
she left, they wrote to each other and, starting in 1991, they began a close
relationship while peace talks regarding the indigenous people were being
held in Mexico City. Afterwards,
they both went to Texas, where they were legally united “by a type of marriage
that is very similar to a common law marriage”.
Bámaca Velásquez subsequently returned to Guatemala.
In
mid-March 1992, she went to Mexico D.F., where she met with members of ORPA,
who told her that Bámaca Velásquez had disappeared after an armed encounter
near Nuevo San Carlos. The day after the events, the Guatemalan press had
informed that the Army had found a corpse dressed in an olive green uniform
there.
According
to the information she was given, following his capture, Bámaca Velásquez
was initially detained at the Santa Ana Berlín detachment, then transferred
to Guatemala City and then to Quetzaltenango and, finally, in July 1992,
he was in San Marcos. According to information from the US State Department,
Bámaca Velásquez was still alive in May 1993, together with 350 other prisoners.
She
spoke by telephone with Ramiro de León Carpio, then Guatemalan Ombudsman,
who later informed her in a letter that a corpse had been found on March
13, 1992, which was subsequently buried in Retalhuleu as XX; according to
the letter, the description of the corpse coincided with that of Bámaca
Velásquez. However, in view of the lack of information received from the
G-2, they doubted that Bámaca Velásquez had died.
Therefore, de León Carpio officially requested that the body buried
in Retalhuleu should be exhumed.
The
exhumation was conducted in May 1992, in the presence of the international
observers Francis Farenthall, James Harrington, Tony Quale, and the witness.
Also present were the local judge, the coroner from the human rights
office, Leonel Gómez, the forensic photographer, the administrator of the
cemetery and two excavators. While they were opening the grave, 25 armed
police arrived; they made those present kneel and said “we are also here
as observers”. The procedure then
continued and when they were about to raise the body, the Attorney General,
Acisclo Valladares, arrived in a helicopter, shouting that they had to halt
the exhumation; after which they could not continue with the procedure.
Valladares stated that, among the reasons for preventing the procedure,
it had not been approved by his office, it could not be conducted owing
to the presence of foreigners and, in order to proceed, it was necessary
for someone from the URNG to be present to identify the corpse.
In view of the discussion, the Attorney General indicated that the
exhumation was not cancelled, but merely postponed for security reasons
and to facilitate the formalities.
Subsequently,
she learned that her husband was still alive at that time, and that he was
being tortured; Attorney General Valladares also had this information. The procedure was cancelled due to pressure
from the Army, as de León Carpio himself later said.
In
order to allow matters to calm down, she traveled to Mexico where she talked
to Santiago Cabrera López, who told her about the Guatemalan Army's practice
of separating certain prisoners and not killing them immediately, but rather
torturing them in order to “break them psychologically” and later forcing
them to work for the Army as informers.
Cabrera also told her that he had seen Bámaca Velásquez with signs
of torture in two military detachments.
She
then returned to Guatemala to continue with the exhumation formalities and,
to this end, she engaged a United States forensic expert, met with the Guatemalan
forensic team and produced a certificate of her civil status, in which she
appeared as married. She traveled
to Retalhuleu to continue examining
the files and learned that both de León Carpio and the local judge had received
death threats.
In
the case file, she found information on the removal by the Magistrate of
a corpse dressed in the URNG uniform from the Ixcucua River on March 13,
1992, , and was surprised by the fact that the report was so detailed that
it stated that the body did not have any moles or scars.
This description, which did not correspond to the body of Bámaca
Velásquez, made her doubt the truth of the report.
The
information contained in the Magistrate's file was totally different from
the report of the autopsy performed on corpse XX by the coroner's office
in Retalhuleu, because the physical appearance, age, height and cause of
death were different. Based on this
information, she concluded that Bámaca Velásquez had been captured alive
and then transferred to a military base in order to torture him and oblige
him to provide information. She also became convinced that the Army had
invented a “deception” to cover up the situation, by burying a person that
they killed near the river, but sending the URNG the description of Comandante
Everardo, and that the Attorney General knew that Bámaca Velásquez was not
in the grave when he cancelled the exhumation in Retalhuleu.
In
August 1993, the exhumation in Retalhuleu was finally carried out in the
presence of Patricia Davis, the judge, the administrator of the cemetery,
“people from the Health Department”, an official from the Office of the
Attorney General, members of the press, the Guatemalan forensic team, the
forensic expert Dr. Charney, members of the Peace Brigade, the expert who
had performed the first autopsy on the body in 1992 and a numerous group
of unknown individuals. A helicopter flew over the site and it was necessary
to examine two other corpses that were buried, because the graves were very
close together. When they found the corresponding corpse, examinations were
carried out to determine its identify and the forensic experts arrived at
the conclusion that it was not Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. Following the exhumation,
she contacted the United States Embassy and the Guatemalan Ministry of Defense,
but did not obtain any information on the whereabouts of her husband.
Faced with the negative attitude
of the Guatemalan authorities, she decided to begin a hunger strike in front
of a military installations, which continued for seven days.
On returning to Washington
D.C., there was considerable interest in her case in the highest political
circles, and she even traveled to Geneva in 1994 to meet with Mónica Pinto,
the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights for Guatemala; all
of which generated “considerable international pressure.”
In
January 1994, discussions with the Guatemalan Minister of Defense, General
Mario Enríquez, were reinitiated for six months. He told her that they had never held her husband, but that they
would start a search in the zone. She
also had meetings with several members of the armed forces who declared
that it was “a very tragic misunderstanding (sic),
but they ha[d] never held him”. Furthermore,
she met with the Head of the National Police Force, Mr. Cifuentes, who expressed
great interest in investigating the case, but feared the action of the armed
forces, to the extent that he resigned from his position.
In June that year, doors began to close.
She
feared for her husband's life owing to the signature of the Peace Agreements,
because she considered that the armed forces would not need any further
information from him. She went to
the offices of the Organization of American States (OAS) and then to the
United Nations, but the Army maintained “a position of international defiance”. In these circumstances, during the first week
of October 1994, she began another hunger strike in front of the National
Palace, which lasted 32 days; she was ready to continue this until she died
and, as a consequence, her heart and kidneys were damaged and she had problems
with her sight.
The
Army threatened her and those who accompanied her. Later, together with Richard Nuccio, an official of the US State
Department in Guatemala, they began to investigate the case, but with little
success. On the thirtieth day of
her hunger strike, Army authorities asked her to attend an exhumation in
Coatepeque the following day; she went, although she knew that it would
be inconclusive. The aim of the
armed forces was to weaken her even more, so that they could take her to
hospital and thus end the hunger strike.
At a certain moment, the CBS program, "60 Minutes" announced
that the United States Embassy in Guatemala had not given Jennifer Harbury
information on the capture of Bámaca Velásquez, despite the existence of
a CIA report. Two days later, the Embassy issued a statement
indicating that, according to the US Government's intelligence information,
Bámaca Velásquez had been captured by the Army and kept prisoner in secret
for an indefinite time. The publication
of this information caused her to cease her hunger strike.
A
criminal proceeding was started on the initiative of the Attorney General,
a special pre-trial investigation procedure was initiated by the Ombudsman
and an Investigation Committee was appointed at the request of the President
of the Republic. The latter was
ineffective and, as a result of the first two proceedings, she had to respond
to questioning during her 32-day hunger strike.
She
began a lawsuit before the United States authorities based on the Freedom
of Information Act, which allowed her to obtain documents and files with
information on the case.
She
started a third hunger strike on March 12, 1995, which lasted 12 days, until
a United States senator, Robert Torricelli, told her that her husband had
been executed on the orders of Colonel Julio Roberto Alpírez, after having
been held prisoner by the Army. She
later obtained a copy of the State Department and CIA files containing information
that Bámaca Velásquez (Comandante Everardo) had been captured and “was clandestinely
detained” and being tortured by members of the G-2, in order to “maximize
his intelligence value”. She obtained
documents indicating that Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao, Mario Ernesto Sosa
Orellana and Julio Roberto Alpírez were those responsible for the abuses.
She also acquired a statement by Acisclo Valladares, which established
that Bámaca Velásquez had given false information to the Army, which had
led it into an ambush, and that was why he had been executed.
The
documents that she obtained from US agencies contained information on clandestine
prisons in Guatemala, where different types of torture were used in order
to make prisoners work as informers for the G-2. These documents established that there were
between 340 and 360 former ORPA combatants under the control of the Army. Another file contained three theories about
the fate of Bámaca Velásquez: that he was buried under the Las Cabañas military
base; that he had been taken up in a helicopter and thrown into the sea
and, finally, that he had been taken to the capital, tortured for a long
time, and then strangled and “cut into pieces.”
In
her opinion, it was impossible that Efraín Bámaca Velásquez would have given
himself up voluntarily to the Army, and this opinion was reinforced in view
of the torture to which he had been submitted.
She
used Guatemalan legal recourses to find her husband. Her first action was to file a petition for habeas corpus in February 1993; she had not done so previously because
she believed that her husband was dead. This petition did not achieve any results; however, as a consequence,
she obtained a note from the President of the Supreme Court of Justice,
which said that this recourse was inadequate for conducting an effective
investigation.
When
she was able to see the file of the investigation being conducted in Retalhuleu,
she observed that it was a small file, without photographs or evidence from
the scene of the crime, and with contradictory descriptions of the body
buried as XX in 1992.
Owing
to the steps taken by the US senator, Robert Torricelli, Julio Arango was
appointed special prosecutor for the case.
Among the actions that the latter took was an interview with Santiago
Cabrera López, and also with a member of the G-2, Nery Ángel Urízar García,
who stated that the Retalhuleu corpse was that of Cristóbal Che Pérez, a
young soldier who was killed to simulate that he was Bámaca Velásquez. A proceedings was also initiated under the
military justice system against several of the members of the armed forces
mentioned by Cabrera, including Colonel Alpírez.
Based
on an action for jactitation filed by Acisclo Valladares, the Guatemalan
authorities issued a writ of ne exeat against her in order to prevent her
from leaving the country. In 1997, Valladares also filed another action
for jactitation when she was about to declare before the Commission for
Historical Clarification.
She received information from the United States Ambassador
about the possibility that Bámaca Velásquez was buried in a military based
called Las Cabañas. Accordingly, in 1995, they visited the site and then
began measures to conduct an exhumation.
However this was cancelled by the prosecutor Ramsés Cuestas, who
subsequently changed his position and said that the procedure would be delayed,
but not cancelled. On the day that
it was to take place, a soldier, accompanied by Julio Cintrón Gálvez, told
her that “they [could] not enter” the installations, firstly because the
prosecutor, Arango, had been “impugned”, and secondly, owing to the presence
of the witness.
That
night they returned to the hotel and heard that the President of Guatemalan
himself had ordered the exhumation to proceed.
The following day, they tried to obtain an authorization from the
Magistrate of Tecún Umán, but he “had gone into hiding”, for fear of collaborating
with the procedure, so that his assistant had to intervene.
On
the same occasion, the prosecutor, Ramsés Cuestas, told them that they only
had permission to excavate for one day when, according to their calculations,
they needed a month to measure and prepare the site. Finally, it was impossible
to conduct the exhumation requested, because the life of the prosecutor
Arango was in danger, and he resigned from his position in September 1995.
Subsequently,
she again tried to have an exhumation conducted in Las Cabañas, this time
with the new prosecutor, Shilvia Jerez, but, once again, this was not possible.
The new prosecutor was assassinated in May 1998.
The
authorities stated that they would “continue to obstruct any exhumation
procedure in Las Cabañas [...] until they receive[d] an amnesty through
the peace talks.”
While
seeking justice in Guatemala, the witness and her supporters were threatened
and attacked, and there was also a campaign to slander them. Among the groups that supported her and were
threatened, were the Mutual Support Group and the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights. A bomb exploded
in the building of the Polytechnic School, during her first hunger strike.
A US Government agency told her that there were “clear messages [coming
from the] network of contacts in Guatemala, which [affirmed that they had]
heard [… ] senior members of the armed forces planning […] to pay someone”
to assassinate her. In January,
a bomb exploded in the car of her lawyer, José E. Pertierra, in Washington
D.C. The witness, Otoniel de la Roca, was also harassed
and threatened.
She
had debts of US$35,000.00 as a result of continuing with the case, but she
had never thought of filing a civil suit for damages, because she was seeking
justice and for the remains of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez to be returned to
her. Should she receive compensation
as a result of the proceeding before the Inter-American Court, she would
like all of it to be given to the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez.
There
was “a total obstruction” of the investigation of this case in Guatemala
and no one has been found responsible.
The criminal action that is being processed in Retalhuleu is still
open.
c.
Testimony of Julio Arango Escobar, former special
prosecutor for the
Bámaca
Velásquez Case, Guatemalan lawyer, Guatemalan Ombudsman.
On
May 7, 1995, he was appointed special prosecutor for the investigation of
the Bámaca Velásquez Case. When the investigation started, the files were
in the Office of the Military Judge of the Department of Retalhuleu and,
under the military system of justice, a final stay of proceedings had been
pronounced in favor of 12 members of the armed forces.
He appealed this before the Retalhuleu Appeals Chamber and had it
declared unfounded, so that the case was reactivated. Despite this, none of the officers were convicted.
A
proceeding was underway in the Retalhuleu departmental court, to discover
the whereabouts of Bámaca Velásquez, which was “more or less filed”. One of the steps he took was to try and have
Jennifer Harbury included as an accuser in the proceeding, because the Public
Ministry “had requested her separation, as she was a foreigner”; however,
the tribunals rejected his petition.
During
the investigation of the case, Nery Ángel Urízar García, a member of “military
intelligence”, came forward spontaneously, and described the capture of
Bámaca Velásquez. Urízar told him
that, once Bámaca Velásquez had been identified, the body of Cristóbal Che
Pérez, a member of the Army and a friend of Urízar was brought to the city
of Mazatenango; “they had disfigured his face [and] dressed him in the green
uniform”, to pass him off as Bámaca Velásquez.
Urízar
said that Pérez had “a deformity in his right hand which was very apparent”,
and this appeared in the autopsy performed on the corpse that had supposedly
been removed from the site of the encounter and then buried as XX. This document was in the Forensic Department
and had been incorporated into the proceeding before the Retalhuleu tribunals.
He then explained that the autopsy performed in Retalhuleu contained a description
of a corpse that did not correspond in any way to the characteristics of
Bámaca Velásquez.
He
interviewed Santiago Cabrera in Washington D.C., and the latter described
the military detachments where he had seen Bámaca Velásquez, where and how
he had been tortured, and the occasion “when they put him in a helicopter
and nothing more was ever heard about him.”
He
obtained a document from the US State Department, which said that the body
of Bámaca Velásquez was buried in the Las Cabañas detachment. With this
information, he went there to conduct an exhumation. On the second day of his visit to this detachment, he encountered
a great many people, who manifested against his presence there. Despite this, preparations for the procedure
continued. However, the following
day, they met Julio Cintrón Gálvez, Leopoldo Guerra and Julio Contreras,
lawyers for the Army, who told them that they could not conduct the exhumation
owing to the objection filed against him, because of the presence of Jennifer
Harbury and because Ramiro de León Carpio, the President of Guatemala, “had
decided that the Bámaca [Velásquez] Case should be transferred to the Commission
for Historical Clarification”. They
also questioned the presence in the procedure of members of the United Nations
mission in Guatemala.
He
obtained an authorization from the Tecún Umán court to conduct the procedure.
The following day, they began excavating, but the Prosecutor General
informed him that only one day's work was authorized.
In view of the impossibility of conducting the exhumation in one
day, he decided to suspend the procedure.
At
the third attempt to conduct the exhumation, he found that an appeal against
the exhumation order, filed by the Army's lawyers, had been admitted, and
he challenged it. On July 20, 1995,
he was separated from the investigation.
This was due to his refusal to lessen its intensity. He added that
he was annoyed because “instead of supporting [him], the prosecutors requested
that [he] should be separated [...] from the case.”
No
exhumation has been conducted at the Las Cabañas base and the proceedings
in the Bámaca Velásquez Case have been filed.
While
he was acting as special prosecutor, he was threatened, harassed and attempts
were made on his life. Due to this,
he presented a complaint to the Ombudsman and he also obtained a precautionary
measure in his favor through the Inter-American Commission (supra 12).
The
Guatemalan judicial system is totally ineffective and it is not possible
“to have access to a simple and effective recourse, with full guarantees
of due process, in the case of the forced disappearance of Efraín Bámaca
[Velásquez]”. In Guatemala, no guerrilla has been submitted to justice and
condemned for his terrorist activity; in other words, there are no political
prisoners in the country.
He
was concerned that he had given testimony before the Court, because “one
cannot tell what may happen [in Guatemala].”
d.
Testimony of James Harrington, US lawyer, Director
of the Texas Civil
Rights
Project, and university professor
He
traveled to Guatemala in order to accompany Jennifer Harbury to an exhumation
procedure in Retalhuleu, on May 20, 1992.
The purpose of this procedure was to verify whether the body buried
in that place was really that of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
On
arriving in Guatemala City, those who accompanied Harbury met with the Ombudsman,
who appointed a coroner and a photographer to accompany them during the
procedure. Many security measures surrounded the meeting and the Ombudsman
was very nervous.
In
the cemetery on May 20, 1992, were the judge who was going to direct the
exhumation, a representative of the church, Francis Farenthall, Jennifer
Harbury and himself.
When
the excavation was commencing, a caravan of approximately 8 to 12 military
vehicles arrived at the cemetery. About
20 armed soldiers surrounded the site that was being excavated and one of
them told the judge that he must halt the exhumation. Despite this, the judge and the coroner did not cede and the judge
gave the order to continue the procedure, indicating “that he had the authority
and that the procedure would continue.”
The
excavation continued and they were able to find the plastic bag with the
body. Just as they were extracting the bag, the Attorney
General, Acisclo Valladares, arrived in a helicopter, accompanied by a photographer
and one or two soldiers, shouting that the exhumation should be halted.
Owing to this order, there was a heated discussion between the judge and
the Attorney General.
Among
the reasons that the Attorney General mentioned for canceling the exhumation
were that: there was no one who could identify the body; in order to conduct
the procedure, a member of the family should be present; it could not be
conducted in the presence of foreigners; and someone from the guerrilla
should be present. The Attorney
General treated the judge very badly, to the point where the latter decided
to obey him. The Attorney General
said that the procedure would be conducted at a later date.
It
would not have been possible to carry out this procedure, even if all the
conditions mentioned by the Attorney General had been fulfilled, because
it was cancelled for “political reasons.”
When
the procedure was cancelled, those present were filmed and photographed
and their names were listed. On
his return to the town, the forensic photographer, who was an official of
the Office of the Ombudsman, informed his chief of what had occurred.
When
they returned to the capital, two of those who accompanied Jennifer Harbury
went to the airport and Harbury and one other person received protection
from the Office of the Ombudsman.
e. Testimony
of Francis Farenthall, US lawyer, former
Texas legislator, hu-
man rights
and refugee rights activist
In
May 1992, Jennifer Harbury asked her to attend the exhumation of a body
in the Retalhuleu cemetery, in Guatemala.
During the trip to Guatemala, Harbury told her that the body sought
was that of her husband.
Prior
to the exhumation procedure, they held a meeting with Ramiro de León Carpio,
Guatemalan Ombudsman. There was
a certain unexpected tension during the meeting, demonstrated by the fact
that the meeting was not held in his office, but in a public building in
Guatemala City, and that special security measures were taken, such as keeping
the doors locked.
Subsequently,
the same night, she, Jennifer Harbury and James Harrington again met with
de León Carpio and, on that occasion, the latter gave them details of the
trip to Retalhuleu and informed them that a forensic expert, representing
the Office of the Ombudsman, and a photographer would accompany them during
the procedure.
On
reaching the cemetery, they found a few people there, including the excavators
and a person who had joined them when they arrived at the town. When they began the excavation, the atmosphere
was peaceful; however, subsequently, a significant number of policemen or
soldiers arrived and a large group of photographers who accompanied the
authorities began to take photographs of the scene and those present; she
considered that this was a form of intimidation.
Despite
the military presence, the excavation continued and they managed to find
a bag containing a body. At that
moment they heard noises and the Guatemalan Attorney General appeared, shouting
that they must halt the excavation. The
Attorney General appeared to be angry and his attitude was inflexible.
The
exhumation did not continue and a heated discussion started, which increased
the tension, and, above all, caused her to fear for the safety of Jennifer
Harbury.
When
they left the cemetery, they went to an office in a nearby town, and the
judge or the forensic expert who accompanied them asked them not to move
from there, because it was a place where they would be protected.
Later,
they returned to Guatemala City and Harbury called someone in Mexico City,
and this person told them that they should not leave the hotel and that
they should leave the country as soon as possible
f.
Testimony of
José Fernando Moscoso Moller, Guatemalan archaelogist,
member of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology
Team
He
has carried out historical and forensic anthropological investigations at
the request of the Guatemalan authorities since 1992, and has worked internationally
with such organizations as the United Nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina
and with the Commission for Historical Clarification of the Republic of
Haiti. His expertise is the analysis
of bones from the human skeleton, in other words, when there is no longer
any soft tissue.
A
forensic anthropological investigation has three basic aims: to identify
a person by his osseous remains, in particular to determine sex, height,
age, diseases and dental characteristics; to establish the cause of death
and, lastly, to establish how this happened.
As
a member of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Team, he had conducted
an exhumation in Retalhuleu, in August 1993, in order “to establish whether
the person buried as XX on March 13, 1992, and who had died the day before,
supposedly in an armed encounter, was Efraín Bámaca [Velásquez].”
As
more than a year had elapsed between the time that Bámaca Velásquez allegedly
died and the moment when the exhumation in Retalhuleu was conducted, it
was not possible to perform an autopsy on the corpse, but rather an anthropological
study, with the characteristics described above.
Jennifer
Harbury, the Retalhuleu coroner, several members of the Guatemalan Forensic
Anthropology Team, journalists, various authorities and observers were present
at this procedure. The Retalhuleu
coroner was the person in charge of identifying the area where the body
to be exhumed could be, because it was he who had performed the autopsy
in 1992.
Initially,
the grave where the corpse was buried could not be located precisely and,
consequently, it was first necessary to extract two other bodies, because
they were in an area where the XX were buried very near to each other. When they were able to find the corpse on which
the 1992 autopsy had been performed, they examined it to establish its identity,
seeking characteristics similar to those of Bámaca Velásquez, principally
his dental work and age.
On
examining the skeleton that was recovered, it was found that, among other
elements, it did not have prognathism, or separation of the upper and lower
median incisors. To the contrary, it had “some metallic crowns” on both
upper median incisors. Moreover, on analyzing the characteristics of the
skeleton, using the Todd method, it was determined that it corresponded
to an individual of between 18 and 22 years of age, and not 34 as Bámaca
Velásquez had been.
Based
on the information collected, the members of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology
Team reached the conclusion that the corpse examined “[did] not correspond
to the skeleton of Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez]”, owing to the differences in
the dental record and the age. Dr. Michael Charney, who was present during
the exhumation in Retalhuleu, reached the same conclusion.
He
had access to the report of the first autopsy performed on corpse XX by
the Retalhuleu coroner, which indicated that the cranium presented a compression
or had been crushed; a very deep and strong laceration caused by a rope;
injuries to the left shoulder made with a dagger-like object; an injury
from a bullet in the right thoracic area, which affected the right kidney
and the liver; bruising from blows to the thorax, and marks on the ankles,
a sign that the person's feet had been tied.
These details showed that the person on whom the autopsy was performed
did not die in combat, but that the traumatisms described could correspond
to forms of violence or torture inflicted before death.
It
was not possible to have photographs of the autopsy, because “many departmental
forensic offices do not have the resources to make this type of analysis”. In general terms, the forensic medical analysis
is fairly detailed, but “other types of analysis which would have completed
the information” were missing.
During
the exhumation, the environment was “rather tense”. There were vehicles without license plates at the entry to the cemetery
and unidentified individuals taking photographs of those who were conducting
the procedure.
He
was present at another exhumation carried out in Coatepeque, on November
10, 1994, in order to establish whether the corpse in a grave was that of
Bámaca Velásquez. On that occasion, Dr. William Hagland, from the US organization,
Physicians for Human Rights, the Coatepeque coroner, local authorities of
the National Police Force, members of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology
Team, some journalists and observers, and Jennifer Harbury, who was “in
the middle of a hunger strike”, were present.
After
comparing the dental record and determining the height and age of the corpses,
it was concluded that neither of the two bodies found at Coatepeque was
that of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
As
a member of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Team, he took part in another
exhumation attempt related to the Bámaca Velásquez Case, in a military detachment
known as La Montañita or Las Cabañas. There had been an attempt to conduct
this procedure in 1995, at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor of
the Public Ministry, but “it could not be carried out”, because lawyers,
representing the Guatemalan Army arrived, and they considered that the requirements
for this procedure had not been fulfilled.
They
tried to conduct the procedure a second time, in the presence of the special
prosecutor, Julio Arango, and after one day's work, the Army's lawyers once
again suspended it, because they considered that the necessary requirements
had not been fulfilled. In a preliminary
study, the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Team established that approximately
four weeks would be required to carry out the archaeological phase of the
study.
They
made another exhumation attempt in Las Cabañas with “the new prosecutor”
who had been assigned to the case, but when the order was given to initiate
the excavations, they were prevented from continuing by the appearance of
an Army officer who ordered the procedure to be halted, “because something
[...] in the documents was considered not in order”. The following day,
the prosecutor obtained other documents from the judge and, once again,
the Army's lawyers found that the requirements had not been fulfilled, so
that they could not continue. The prosecutor who accompanied them was Shilvia
Jerez, who died, riddled with bullets, in 1998.
Two
members of his organization, Andrés Kauffman and Federico Reyes López, were
threatened and this was denounced before the corresponding authorities at
the appropriate time. Subsequently,
these threats caused the Inter-American Commission to grant him precautionary
measures.
He
is not a URNG sympathizer.
g.
Testimony of Patricia Davis, US lawyer, former member
of the Guate-
malan Human
Rights Commission
She
accompanied Jennifer Harbury to an exhumation in Retalhuleu on August 17,
1993, as an international human rights observer and witness. She arrived in Guatemala on July 24 that year
in order to help Harbury with the various procedures and, at the same time,
seek support for the principle that war prisoners should receive humane
treatment and be kept in places to which the public has access.
At
that time, Harbury told her that she feared that the publicity surrounding
the search for her husband and the preparations for the exhumation could
result in the death of Bámaca Velásquez, should he still be detained. Even so, she still hoped to see him again alive.
During
the week preceding the exhumation, she accompanied Harbury to the Magistrate
in order to organize the procedure. She also had the opportunity to review
the case file about the finding of a body in the Ixcucua River, which corresponded
to the description of the body that Ramiro de León Carpio gave in a letter
he sent to the URNG, except for the fact that the body did not have any
scars. She also examined the report
of the original autopsy performed 24 hours after the facts and confirmed
that the report had information that did not correspond to the description
in the previous document.
She
was surprised to find these reports because, as Harbury had told her, when
the URNG requested documentation about the body, it was told that there
was none. The report contained information
on the fingerprints and the conclusion that death had been due to strangling.
The
environment was tense during the exhumation in Retalhuleu on August 17,
1993. The day before the procedure, she noted that they were being followed
and that the forensic team was questioned by five policemen when it was
outside the Second Criminal Trial Court of Retalhuleu.
The day of the exhumation, when they were in the cemetery, a helicopter
flew over the site every ten minutes exactly.
Also, there were at least two people among the photographers who
were asked to leave, because they were not carrying appropriate credentials. Furthermore, there were a great many people
around who they could not identify, and this made them fearful. On different occasions, Jennifer Harbury was
pushed towards the grave and had to struggle to return to the place where
she had been. There was constant
pressure during the procedure.
It
was not possible to identify the body of Bámaca Velásquez, and this did
not surprise Jennifer Harbury, owing to the information that she had seen
in the autopsy report.
Harbury
began a hunger strike in the Central Park of Guatemala City, in order to
save the life of Bámaca Velásquez; she was ready to die during the hunger
strike. This lasted for approximately
33 days, after which Jennifer Harbury suffered various physical problems,
which almost caused her to fall into a coma.
This
whole process caused pain and anxiety to Harbury and knowing what had happened
to Bámaca Velásquez would have helped alleviate her suffering.
h. Testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza,
former FAR guerrilla.
At
the beginning of 1980, he joined the Rebel Armed Forces (FAR) of the Santos
Salazar Front, a group that was part of the URNG, owing to the repression
that the Government had unleashed against the people of Guatemala.
He
was a member of that organization until September 10, 1988, the date of
which he was captured by four members of the Army, who tied him up and beat
him. Then they took him in a pick-up truck to Military
Zone No. 1316 in Retalhuleu, where he was kept naked in a one meter-square
room until he was interrogated one hour later.
The
interrogation was carried out by members of the Army's “intelligence” service,
among them, Nery Ángel Urízar García and Captain Guzmán, who asked him about
the structure of the URNG and the location of the Santos Salazar Front;
he answered that he knew nothing. Consequently,
they hung him from the roof with his hands tied and began to beat him with
a baseball bat. Then, they placed
him face downwards and put a hood with herbicide on him. Subsequently, they submerged him in a tank
of water, and then laid him out on the floor and stood on him. Captain Guzmán ordered him to answer the questions,
threatening him with death. They
also used wires, which they connected to an electric socket and began to
place the uncovered ends on different part of his wet, naked body, which
made him faint, because he was so weak.
The
following day, he woke up very ill and in the afternoon they sat him in
a chair and told him “today, you are going to talk, because today you are
going to die” and, faced with his refusal to give them any answers, they
again hit him with a baseball bat.
The
following day more people came to the room where he was and one of them
said “yes, this is Bayardo”. Later, the same man came up to him, identified
him by his name and by his guerrilla alias and asked him to identify members
of the Front in some photographs. Subsequently,
he discovered that this person was known by the alias Jorge and that he
was a member of the Army who had infiltrated a rebel organization.
The
members of the Army asked him about his family and, when they did not obtain
an answer about where they were, they brought in one of his brother-in-laws,
who was also detained, and beat him to obtain the information; but, finally,
it was the witness himself who told them where they were. A month later, his two children of 3 and 5 years of age and his
mother-in-law, with six children, were captured in Retalhuleu and sent to
Military Zone No. 1316, where they were kept in the infirmary for nearly
two months.
When
he realized that there were people in the Army who knew him, and to protect
his safety and that of his family, he could no longer hide what he knew
of the Front and was obliged to collaborate and provide information about
the members of the Front and its structure to the Army.
However, on two occasions he was taken to a base in Mazatenango and
there was gunfire, the members of the Army therefore thought that he was
leading them into an ambush. During
the time he remained at this base, he slept in a room with members of the
G-2, and was always tied up and with a man beside him.
At
the beginning of November 1988, he was transferred with about 18 recently
captured members of FAR to the installations of the Infantry Military Police
in Military Zone No. 6 in the capital, where he remained for a week. The
other prisoners had received the same treatment as the witness. In this base, members of the Army told them
that they would be granted an amnesty. Later, they were obliged to appear
before the press and say that they were members of the guerrilla who had
deserted from FAR and that they had presented themselves voluntarily to
Military Zone No. 1316. The members of the Army told him that he should
refrain from talking about his capture and about the beatings he had suffered
and that he should remember that his family was detained. Even the journalist
present worked for the Army.
“The
Army placed the people who had been presented to the press in different
places, under supervision, and they had to present themselves two or three
times a week to the nearest zone”. He was transferred and placed in Military
Zone No. 12, in Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, Escuintla. There he remained
collaborating with members of the G-2, identifying people from the villages,
and they always kept him tied up. After
four months, they allowed him to circulate freely within the military zone,
but they prevented him from leaving that place.
At
the end of 1989, he was transferred to Military Zone No. 6 in the capital,
to work with a command attached to the Army Staff, known as the “Death Squadron”.
His collaboration continued to consist in identifying guerrilla collaborators.
He
knew Efraín Bámaca Velásquez under the alias Everardo, owing to an offensive
at the Santa Ana Berlín outpost, where a Task Force was formed in 1992 to
combat the Luis Ixmatá Front. While
he was collaborating with the command at the Santa Ana Berlín base, under
the orders of Captain Alberto Gómez Guillermo, who belonged to the command
from the capital, he went to the town of Nuevo San Carlos in Retalhuleu
and, on his way to the outpost, saw how the vehicle in which Captain Gómez
Guillermo was riding approached the door of the room where they slept, and
a prisoner was put in one of the rooms, dressed in olive green and shoeless,
in the presence of Captain Gómez Guillermo and members of the San Marcos
G-2. The latter called some former URNG combatants who were prisoners and
took them to the room so that they could identify the person who had just
been captured. In particular, he mentioned Santiago Cabrera
López, known as Carlos, and a woman with the alias Karina (Anastasia López
Calvo). The former identified the prisoner as Comandante Everardo. Subsequently,
he discovered, from former ORPA combatants who had been captured and through
the newspapers, that his name was Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
Later
he saw Bámaca Velásquez every day for two or three weeks and even took him
food on two occasions, on the orders of Captain Gómez. Although Bámaca Velásquez was watched, on these two occasions, the
witness was able to tell him that he was also a prisoner and that what “he
[Bámaca Velásquez was] suffering, [had also] been done to [him].”
He
knew that Bámaca Velásquez was interrogated almost every night, because
his bedroom was next to the place where he was questioned and he heard how
he did not reply and was therefore beaten.
Among those who interrogated Bámaca Velásquez, he identified a Specialist
from the command named Gregorio Ávila, “another Specialist from the zone
of San Marcos called Chutá”, another from the Guatemala City command called
Erineo Ortiz, Captain Gómez Guillermo, and officers Aguirre and Sosa Orellana;
the last two sometimes took part in the interrogation. Bámaca Velásquez
remained at the Santa Ana Berlín base for between two and three weeks and
was then transferred to Military Zone No. 6, to the installations known
as La Isla (the Island), in Guatemala City.
Each
time members of the Army took him to different places to collaborate in
identifying people, the members of the command repeated to him: “look Bayardo,
if anyone asks you about Everardo, you will say: ‘Everardo was killed in
combat, I never saw him alive, he was killed in combat’, and every time
they drove by and saw Jennifer Harbury during her hunger strikes, they referred
to her as “there is the vieja hija
de la gran ... (Note: a strong expletive).”
The
witness was transferred to the Department of Jutiapa. Two or three months
later, a Specialist called José Víctor Cordero Cardona arrived at the detachment;
he said that he had been in Quetzaltenango, “working with Everardo, but
that was over”. After this, he never heard anything more about Bámaca Velásquez.
To
begin with, he did not receive payment of any kind from the Army, but then
the G-2 command gave him 200 quetzals a month, which was similar to the
amount earned by a soldier. Later,
they made him fill out some papers and forms, supposedly to occupy a position
in the National Police Force, for which he would be paid 500 quetzals. He wore the National Police Force uniform only
as part of his work with the command, even though he was never in the police
force.
He
never made a statement before a judge during his detention or at any time
while he was with the Army.
Regarding
his safety and that of his family, and his “collaboration” with the command,
he indicated that the Army controlled his family and he added that “he could
not escape because [...] I have almost no family left, I only have my brothers;
I knew that if I went, they would finish off the rest of my family, because
in 1984, the Army disappeared my mother, my father, my sister, my wife and
my cousin [...], they were taken away alive and I never [...] heard any
more about them”. These facts occurred on April 11, 1984, in the village
of Guatalón, Municipality of Río Bravo, Suchitepéquez. While he was with
the Army, he asked a Colonel called Sergio and the latter answered him “look,
Bayardo, you should be grateful that you are alive [...], if you had been
captured with your family you would not be around, so don't ask questions.”
He
found out through the media that Santiago Cabrera López had deserted from
the Army, but that the other former combatants who were prisoners were still
in the different military zones. With
regard to Karina (Anastasia López Calvo), he saw her again when she went
to make another statement to the press as a result of Cabrera's desertion.
He
knew another ORPA member, known as Valentín (Cristóbal Che Pérez), who was
posted to Military Zone No. 1316, Mazatenango, at the end of 1991. However,
he heard, through some combatants who had been taken prisoner that Valentín
was taken drunk from Mazatenango, put in a prison cell and then nothing
more was heard about him.
He
left the Army in August 1996, after contacting Jennifer Harbury. When he
was in the airport leaving Guatemala, he was told that there was an order
of ne exeat against him. Moreover, he was detained because he was carrying
a gun. He was freed after payment
of a financial surety. Then he went
to Mexico, where he remained from August 1996 until October 1997.
He
fears for his safety and that of his family, because he has given testimony
before the Court, and because a few days after his arrival in Washington
D. C., in November 1997, he heard that people were driving round his family's
house in Guatemala. He did not request
protection from the law as he considered that “in Guatemala, the laws are
controlled by the Army.”
He
was granted political asylum in the United States.
h.
Testimony of
Mario Ernesto Sosa
Orellana, Guatemalan Army Staff
Officer.
He
began his service with the Army on June 30, 1977. In 1992, he held the rank of Major and he was posted to Military
Zone No. 1316 at Mazatenango. Subsequently,
between March and December that year, he transferred to the Santa Ana Berlín
military base while the Quetzal Task Force was active, and when this closed
down he was posted to Military Zone No. 18, in the Department of San Marcos,
where he worked as an Intelligence Officer.
Regarding
the structure of the military in Zone No. 18, he stated that it was a military
command, led by three commanders with the rank of colonel, who were well-informed
about military operations; the second commander was responsible for the
Staff and the third commander, was the inspector.
The battalion commanders were under the orders of the second commander
and then the Staff officers, including the officer in charge of personnel,
intelligence, operations, logistics and civilian matters, and the companies
of soldiers. As an intelligence
officer, he was under the authority of the second commander of the military
zone. With regard to the line of authority among
the Staff officers there was a situation of “rank to rank”; in other words,
they all had the same employment, but the years spent in the Army were respected.
He
knew Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao, who was an Army Major and Operations and
Training Officer, and whose function was to plan counterinsurgency operations.
He got to know Simeón Cum Chutá in San Marcos, in 1992.
There, the latter worked under him as Specialist or office worker,
doing typing work; intelligence analysis was carried out by the officer,
in this case the witness. He knew
Julio Roberto Alpírez, Army Colonel, who was the third commander in Military
Zone No. 18, in 1992. Alpírez's functions were to supervise the operation
of the detachment and cleaning activities.
In July 1992, he was mobilized with a small group of the Staff of
Military Zone No. 18 to the “El Porvenir” property, located in San Marcos,
responsible for a Task Force formed to confront the rebels in the Zone.
He got to know Raúl Rodríguez Garrido in Military Zone No. 1316 in Mazatenango.
The latter was a Specialist to whom he gave orders on a daily basis.
Although
he, personally, had not taken part in the capture of guerrillas during an
armed encounter, should this situation arise, the Army proceeded to call
the nearest authorities in order to hand them over and then “they claimed
an amnesty.”
During
his time in Military Zone No. 18 in San Marcos, he got to know some “former
rebels”, including Anastasia López Calvo and Santiago Cabrera López, who
[...] were part of us, as they had given themselves up to the Army and carried
out cleaning functions and ran errands in the detachment. Cabrera López was not at the Santa Ana Berlín military base.
He
was not afraid that these people in the military bases would take information
to the guerrilla groups to which they had belonged and, also, he had never
heard that any former combatant had been captured and then tortured to obtain
information and, subsequently, maintained in military installations for
“military intelligence” purposes. The Army considered that the former guerrillas
who were working for them were a very imprecise source of information.
In
March 1992, a Task Force called Quetzal was formed; it was led by the then
Colonel Ismael Segura Abularach. The purpose was to locate ORPA militants
who were in the region. Members
of the battalions from San Marcos and Military Zone No. 1715 of Quetzaltenango
participated in this military undertaking.
He took part in this mission in March that year because Colonel Aguirre
Loarca was injured in the shoulder during an encounter with the guerrilla
and the witness was called to relieve him.
Colonel Conde Uriales was the Second Commander; he was an intelligence
officer; Major Soto Bilbao was the logistics officer; Captain Aragón Cifuentes
was the civilian affairs officer and there was also a personnel officer.
As
an intelligence officer he heard that there had been an encounter between
the Quetzal Task Force and the Luis Ixmatá Front in March 1992. He received a radio communication that “a terrorist
criminal [...] had been killed in combat” near a river in Nuevo San Carlos.
When the situation had calmed down, following orders, he went in one of
the three Army helicopters at Retalhuleu to inform the authorities that
there had been an armed encounter and that a guerrilla had died, and he
helped the Magistrate get to the place in question.
He was able to see the corpse, near the Ixcucua River, and they removed
it by helicopter as part of the judicial procedure.
He
was at the Santa Ana Berlín detachment after the encounter of March 12,
1992, and did not know whether Efraín Bámaca Velásquez had been captured
at that time, nor did he know that members of ORPA had made declarations
confirming this.
He
denied having been with Nery Ángel Urízar at the Santa Ana Berlín base or
having taken him to identify Bámaca Velásquez.
He did not see Bámaca Velásquez either detained or tortured, or any
other person with his physical characteristics at the Santa Ana Berlín base
or at San Marcos and only knew of his existence because of all the information
that appeared in the newspapers.
He
denied having taken the decision to exploit the capture of Bámaca Velásquez
for “military intelligence purposes”, by pretending that he was killed in
combat and keeping him detained.
He
met Nery Ángel Urízar, Specialist from Military Zone No. 1316 in 1991. The
same year, he met Cristóbal Che Pérez, former combatant of ORPA's Javier
Tambriz Front, who gave himself up directly to the witness. In the case of those mentioned, later “the whole procedure [of presenting
them to the competent authorities] was carried out”. Finally, Che Pérez decided to remain at the
military installations and he was even given a position as a solider. He denied having ordered his death and then
handing him over to the Magistrate as the corpse found in the Ixcucua River.
He warned that the testimony of Urízar García could not be trusted,
because he is a “criminal” and there are even orders of arrest against him.
As
a result of the disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez he made statements before
the Public Ministry, in a court and at the Office of the Ombudsman. He was investigated and then the case against
him was dismissed in a criminal proceeding arising from the Bámaca Velásquez
Case, in about 1994. He also made
a statement in the special pre-trial investigation procedure that tried
to find the whereabouts of Bámaca Velásquez. During the period when the
investigations were being carried out he was not separated from his functions
in the Army.
j. Testimony of Acisclo Valladares Molina,
Guatemalan lawyer and notary, Attorney General and Head of the Public Ministry
He carried out functions
in the judicature, he was Head of the Public Ministry and Attorney General.
He occupied the latter post for the period 1991-1993 and during the
constitutional period from 1994-1998. During the first period, the Guatemalan
Constitution attributed two principal functions to the post: to be the legal
representative of the State and “to ensure strict compliance with the laws
and to criminally prosecute crimes”. Furthermore, in Guatemala there existed
the figure of public prosecution whereby any person could “prosecute any
kind of crime, with the exception of private or semi-public crimes”, and
the Public Ministry was “simply an auxiliary of the tribunals of justice”,
while it was the judges who really headed investigations.
In the ordinary course of
his functions, he heard about the exhumation ordered by the Second Judge
of Retalhuleu for May 20, 1992, which had been requested by the Ombudsman,
Ramiro de León Carpio, in order to confirm the identity of a corpse buried
as XX in March that year. He considered that “the matter might be important”
and his interest “began by curiosity to know whether what was planned would
accomplish [the] objectives or not”, and he never had the intention of “obstructing
a procedure that might be viable.”
He went in a military airplane
to observe this exhumation, which was one of the 10 or 12 that he observed
that year; he selected them at random, in order to instill confidence in
the various national prosecutors.
When he reached the cemetery,
he questioned the judge as to the usefulness of the procedure to identify
a buried person and, as none of those present “said anything in reply”,
he suggested “that the procedure [should be] conducted when the necessary
elements [were at hand] in order to achieve the desired success”. He did
not cancel the exhumation, because this was outside of his functions, but
he suggested to the judge that the procedure would be useless. It was the judge who took the final decision.
He denied having argued with the Retalhuleu judge and pressured him to cancel
the procedure. He did not allege
as the reason for canceling the exhumation the fact that no member of the
URNG was present to identify the corpse, or that foreigners were presented. He never thought that the exhumation would
be delayed for “an unusual amount of time.”
About 20 persons were present
for the procedure, including the judge, the prosecutor, Edwin Domínguez,
four or five foreigners and some armed police.
He did not know that, prior to his arrival, the police had informed
those present that members of the Army would be coming to supervise the
procedure and, after his arrival, no Army personnel arrived. He learned through the press that, with his
arrival, some of those present “felt intimidated”, but he did not observe
“anything threatening.”
He was unaware of the existence
of a US agency document, according to which the Ombudsman stated that the
witness had cancelled this exhumation in Retalhuleu for political reasons.
Although he knew about the
contradictions between the exhumation and autopsy records and he knew the
father of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, he made no attempt to seek the latter's
family in order to conduct the exhumation, because, at that time, a pre-trial
was being conducted against him. He
trusted that the Ombudsman would give due follow-up to the case.
He had also learned through
the newspapers, on the one hand, that Bámaca Velásquez was in the hands
of the Army and being tortured and that, subsequently, he had been executed;
and, on the other, that in 1993, an exhumation had been conducted in the
Retalhuleu cemetery, when it was concluded that “the body buried as XX and
presented as that of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez did not correspond to the physical
characteristics of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez.”
In 1992, as a result of the
proceeding that was underway against him, he requested the Congress of the
Republic that to permit an “antejuicio”
(pre-trial), a procedure aimed at suspending a Government official from
his functions until his legal situation is clarified, so that he may defend
himself “without any kind of privilege”.
In consequence, he was effectively suspended as Attorney General
from September 1992 to September 1993.
In September 1993, having
resolved his situation before the tribunals, he returned to his functions
“and immediately present[ed] [his] resignation”, in order to allow the new
President of the Republic, Ramiro de León Carpio, to select another person
to occupy the position. He was again
appointed Attorney General for the period 1994-1998, but by that time the
functions of Attorney General and Head of the Public Ministry had been separated.
In
1994, he proposed a series of recourses to determine the whereabouts of
Bámaca Velásquez. In October that year, considering that Bámaca Velásquez
might possibly be detained, he began a special pre-trial investigation procedure
before the Supreme Court of Justice, a procedure that had been introduced
during the reform of the Criminal Procedural Code. He also filed a criminal complaint, in order to determine the whereabouts
of Bámaca Velásquez. The then Ombudsman, Jorge Mario García Laguardia, was
appointed executor in the first proceeding, and statements were received
from the father of Bámaca Velásquez, José León Bámaca Hernández, and his
sister, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez, in order to try and gather further
information.
He did not remember that,
during the judicial proceedings that had been instituted, and during Jennifer
Harbury's hunger strike, the US Government had confirmed that the Army had
captured Bámaca Velásquez alive and had addressed a formal diplomatic note
to the Guatemalan Government on this subject.
He knew that Harbury had made statements that criminal proceedings
would be instituted against the military officers involved in the death
of Bámaca Velásquez.
As
Attorney General, he opposed the registration of Jennifer Harbury's marriage
to Bámaca Velásquez, because “it [did] not comply with Guatemalan legal
requirements”. In November 1994,
he filed a civil suit for jactitation against Harbury, strictly with regard
to the economic aspects of her pretensions, and not in relation to the case
of human rights violations, due to the possibility of financial fraud, of
trying to make money at the cost of the Guatemalan State.
He recognized that Jennifer Harbury “had always declared that she
did not want any money and that she was not seeking money”. The Sixth Judge of the Civil Trial Court rejected
the action for jactitation, because he considered that Harbury was referring
to filing criminal suits and not civil suits. Owing to the action for jactitation, Jennifer
Harbury was obliged to remain in Guatemala under ne exeat, which could have been avoided, since “the proceeding for
a [civil] ne exeat to be lifted
takes less than 24 hours.”
The
various investigations that he instituted did not permit the facts related
to the disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez to be clarified, and no military
officer was convicted in relation to the instant case.
He
denied having received information from Colonel Julio Roberto Alpírez indicating
that the Army had kept Bámaca Velásquez detained secretly in order to obtain
“intelligence information”, and that it had then decided to execute him.
Owing
to the prolonged internal conflict that Guatemala experienced, “it was not
always easy [...] to obtain precise information about many things that were
happening, so as to be able to clearly establish what had occurred in each
case”. Because of his position, he knew about acts of State authorities
that involved tortures and extrajudicial executions.
k. Testimony of Ismael Salvatierra Arroyo,
former member of the Guatemalan Armed Forces
He
worked with the armed forces from November 1979 to September 1997, as First
Class Sergeant in the Defense Staff's transport team. The National Palace team of drivers comprised 12 persons, divided
into two groups and he served Luis Alberto Gómez Guillermo directly and
drove him from his house to the National Palace.
He did not meet José Víctor Cordero Cardona, known as “La Yegua”
(pilot of an Army helicopter), there.
He
denied knowing about the Army practice of presenting all the guerrillas,
both those captured in combat and those who gave themselves up voluntarily,
to the corresponding civil authorities where they could claim amnesty. And,
during his 17 years and 10 months of service, he had not heard of any former
guerrilla who worked for the Army.
He
did not know whether the Army had organized a special force in March 1992
to operate in San Marcos, or whether someone was captured as a result of
an encounter in which this special force took part. Lastly, he denied knowing anything about the detention, torture
and transfer to different military detachments of Bámaca Velásquez.
l.
Testimony of Luis Alberto Gómez Guillermo,
Lieutenant Colonel in
the Guatemalan
Army
He
has been an Army officer and formed part of the intelligence unit called
G-2. He later stated that he had
not worked as an intelligence officer.
He
did not know that the Army captured or arrested members of the guerrilla,
or that there were clandestine detention centers for those who had been
captured. When such persons gave
themselves up they were not mistreated.
The sources of information available to “military intelligence” to
find out about guerrilla activities, in the context of the “armed conflict”,
were the local population or information provided by guerrillas who had
given themselves up voluntarily.
The
Army did not conduct interrogations, but rather “interviews” of the former
guerrillas who gave themselves up voluntarily and claimed amnesty, such
as the former guerrillas, de la Roca and Boitsiu. In these circumstances,
the procedure followed was to immediately inform the superior officers and
“then, bring the press so that, both their families and the rebels would
know [...] that this man was now 'adaptado
a la vida política' (re-adapted to society)”. The “interview” was carried
out by the competent judge, in the presence of representatives of the Public
Ministry and lawyers, so that it could then be “used for or against in a
formal proceeding.”
He
was acquainted with Otoniel de la Roca, and knew that he was a former member
of the guerrilla, and did not work in the Army.
He had spoken to him and to Luis Boitsiu, in 1991, regarding the
existence of “schisms” in the guerrilla.
He did not know that Otoniel de la Roca had been captured by the
Army, tortured and used to “obtain intelligence” about the guerrilla.
Later
he heard that Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza had been detained by the National
Police Force because he was carrying a gun and uttering threats. He heard that de la Roca had made declarations
to the press, but not that he had said that “something would happen to him
or his family” if he did not make such declarations.
He
was not acquainted with either Santiago Cabrera López or Anastasia López
Calvo, or a member of the armed forces named José Víctor Cordero Cardona.
In
June 1992, he abandoned the country to take a military course. In 1992, he was a member of the National Defense
Staff, and was specifically appointed as an official member of the Support
Committee for the Government Peace Commission, which met in the National
Palace, as of January 1991. His
function was to gather information on entities of a political nature, “to
see how the peace process was regarded.”
This
Peace Commission was “a Government body, specifically set up to conduct
the peace process”. From January
to June 1992, this Commission declared itself in permanent session due to
internal problems among the guerrilla that might affect the peace process.
He
did not take part in the military operation called the Quetzal Task Force,
from January 6 to June 15, 1992, because “[his] competence was of a political
nature, and not in military operations”, nor was he at the Santa Ana Berlín
military detachment in March 1992, nor in Military Zone No. 18 of San Marcos
in July 1992. He learned of the
capture and torture of Bámaca Velásquez through the media.
m.
Testimony of Jesús Efraín Aguirre Loarca, Colonel
in the Guatemalan Army
The
Guatemalan Army did not capture guerrilla fighters or keep them detained;
rather, to the contrary, when they deserted, the general policy was, first,
to try and establish their true identity; then, they presented themselves
before the tribunals of justice in order to claim “some kind of amnesty”
and, subsequently, “they were incorporated into the work [...of] the military
command where they had given themselves up”, because they feared that they
would “be executed by the guerrilla groups.”
The
guerrillas who gave themselves up were used by “Army intelligence” as a
source of information on the military structure in which they had taken
part and, principally, “to be able to determine the areas where [... there
were] minefields” and, thus, alert the patrols to where they could pass. No pressure was exerted to ensure that former guerrillas told the
truth. From what he knew of a case
in the 1980s, those injured in combat were provided with the necessary medical
support.
During
his years in the Army, he knew some people who had given themselves up,
specifically Santiago Cabrera López and others with the aliases “Karina”,
“Augusto” and “Pepe.”
In
1992, he was a major in the Infantry and worked in the area of intelligence
for the Quetzal Task Force, at the Santa Ana Berlín military detachment.
Santiago Cabrera “performed duties in the [Intelligence] Office in which
[the witness] worked.”
On
February 28, 1992, he was injured in combat by a group from the Luis Ixmatá
guerrilla front that operated in the area of San Marcos. After being injured,
he was evacuated from the Zone and spent approximately 15 days recovering
in the Military Medical Center in Guatemala City, which he could not leave;
subsequently, he was transferred to the United States to continue his treatment
for four months.
He
returned to Guatemala at the beginning of June 1992 and as he was not totally
recovered, “[he] was assigned to an Operations unit with the National Defense
Staff in the capital”, so that he did not return to the Zone of Santa Ana
Berlín until the end of June 1992.
He
knew who Efraín Bámaca Velásquez was and that “he was doing political work
in the area of [...] San Marcos”, and that he was a Commander.
Through
the press, he learned about the armed encounter between the Luis Ixmatá
Front and the Guatemalan Army in March 1992, and also about the capture
of an important guerrilla leader.
He
was not prosecuted nor did he declare before any tribunal in Guatemala with
regard to the Bámaca Velásquez Case.
n. Testimony of Simeón Cum Chutá, former
member of the Guatemalan Army
He was in the Guatemalan
Army from 1985 to 1997, working as a Specialist in the intelligence unit
in Military Zone No. 18 in the Department of San Marcos.
He
knew Santiago Cabrera López, former URNG combatant, who, in 1991, presented
himself voluntarily to Military Zone No. 18 in San Marcos, with another
guerrilla called Karina. He was
not aware of the procedure followed when Cabrera López arrived at the Military
Zone, because that corresponded to the officer in charge of the intelligence
section, Colonel Pérez Solares. He
was unaware whether these persons had been taken before a judge.
His
superior officers were “Lieutenant Colonel Pérez Solares, then Major Aguirre
[and] then [officer] Sosa Orellana.”
He
was aware that, in March 1992, the Army organized the Quetzal Task Force,
with the aim of fighting the guerrilla in San Marcos. This Task Force operated from the Military Zone No. 18 and Santa
Ana Berlín bases. He never took
part in it in any way. Major Aguirre
did participate in it, as an intelligence officer.
He
accompanied Santiago Cabrera to request his identity documents in March
1992, because, in his opinion, a person without personal identification
could be prosecuted for this in Guatemala.
He
knew nothing about an encounter between the Quetzal Task Force and the ORPA
Luis Ixmatá Front in March 1992, because he was in San Marcos at that time. He did not know who Bámaca Velásquez was through
his work, or whether he was captured as a result of the encounter of March
1992. Nor did he know about possible
tortures inflicted on Bámaca Velásquez.
In
March 1992, Raúl Sandoval, Santiago Cabrera López and a woman known as Karina,
all former members of the guerrilla, formed part of the personnel of the
intelligence office. Santiago Cabrera
was always posted at the San Marcos base.
He
was investigated in a criminal proceeding under the ordinary jurisdiction
of Retalhuleu in relation to the disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez, in which
he was exonerated.
The
testimony of Cabrera López was not true.
o. Testimony of Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao,
Infantry Colonel in the Guatemalan Army
From
January 1 to September 31, 1992, he was on active service in Military Zone
No. 18, carrying out duties as operations
and training officer for this military Zone, which was under the command
of Colonel Harry Ponce Ramírez.
He
did not remember capturing any combatant, but rather having dealt with guerrillas
injured in combat. The Guatemalan
Army's policy during the conflict was “to give first aid to the [injured]
person, transfer him to the command post [and] evaluate his health”; after
this, they decided if he should be hospitalized. Then, they proposed to
the guerrilla that he should voluntarily claim amnesty, which was processed
in the magistrate's courts “and often in the presence of the press”. He did not know whether the Army kept former
guerrillas as informers or “the procedure followed to obtain information
from former guerrillas.”
He
did not remember any other former guerrilla who might have been working
in Military Zone No. 18. However,
he was aware of “various former guerrillas who had presented themselves
voluntarily to different military commands, claimed amnesty and, for their
own personal safety, remained working with the institution”. He did not work with any of them, because they worked with “military
intelligence.”
He
received intelligence information from the intelligence officer on how and
where guerrilla detachments were located.
He
was at the Santa Ana Berlín detachment in March 1992 and took part in the
Quetzal Task Force, commanded by Colonel Ismael Segura Abularach, which
“responded to an ORPA attack”, specifically by the Luis Ixmatá Front. His tasks were those of an operations officer,
carrying out “purely tactical and operational aspects”, and executing functions
such as overseeing the organization and training of the units before they
went into combat.
He
did not take part in the encounter between the Quetzal Task Force and the
Luis Ixmatá Front on March 12, 1992, and did not know whether Bámaca Velásquez
was captured, as a result of that encounter.
He did not know the military commander of the Luis Ixmatá Front,
Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, although he did know who he was, because “it has
been extensively published in the press.”
Although
he was at the Santa Ana Berlín detachment in March 1992, he knew nothing
about the alleged tortures inflicted on Bámaca Velásquez, and he denied
having been one of the persons who took part in them in Military Zone No.
18, in July 1992. He was posted
to Military Zone No. 18 in June 1992, and, in July the same year, he was
posted to the same Zone, but at the “El Porvenir” property.
Santiago
Cabrera López could not have left Santa Ana Berlín to go on leave from March
7 to 12, 1992, because the person who authorized that leave was Colonel
Harry Ponce Ramírez, Commander of Military Zone No. 18, and a commander
cannot authorize leave for a person on active service at another military
base. Therefore, if it was Colonel Ponce Ramírez
who signed his leave, Cabrera “had to have departed from [Military Zone
No. 18] and returned to the same place.”
During
July 1992, Santiago Cabrera was allegedly working at “El Porvenir”, under
the orders of Captain Edwin Manuel Lemus Velásquez, so he could not have
been at the San Marcos detachment.
He
was not criminally prosecuted for the Bámaca Velásquez case; however, he
appeared voluntarily before a criminal investigation instituted by the Public
Ministry and was left “at liberty due to lack of merit”. At the beginning
of the proceeding, military courts were involved, but “subsequently, they
were closed [...] and the whole process was transferred to the Retalhuleu
Criminal Trial Court.”
VIII
Evaluation
of the evidence
94.
Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court establishes that
[i]tems of
evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification
thereof is contained in the application
and in the reply thereto [...] Should any of the parties allege force majeure,
serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for
producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance,
admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided
that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense.
95. Before examining the evidence received,
the Court will clarify the general criteria for evaluating evidence and
some considerations that are applicable to this specific case, most of which
have been developed in the Court's jurisprudence.
96. With regard to the formalities required
in relation to tendering evidence, the Court has stated that
the procedural system is a means
of attaining justice and [...] cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere
formalities. Keeping within certain
timely and reasonable limits, some omissions or delays in complying with
procedure may be excused, provided that a suitable balance between justice
and legal certainty is preserved[50].
97. In an international tribunal such as the
Court, whose aim is the protection of human rights, the proceeding has its
own characteristics that differentiate it from the domestic process. The former is less formal and more flexible
than the latter, which does not imply that it fails to ensure legal certainty
and procedural balance to the parties[51].
This grants the Court a greater latitude to use logic and experience in
evaluating the evidence rendered to it on the pertinent facts[52].
98. It must also be remembered that the international
protection of human rights should not be confused with criminal justice.
When States appear before the Court, they do so not as defendants
in a criminal proceeding, since the Court does not impose punishment on
those responsible for violating human rights. Its function is to protect
the victims and to determine the reparation of the damages caused by the
States responsible for such actions[53].
To this end
[t]he sole requirement is to demonstrate
that the State authorities supported or tolerated infringement of the rights
recognized in the Convention. Moreover,
the State's international responsibility is also at issue when it does not
take the necessary steps under its domestic law[54].
99. It is worth emphasizing that, in this case, the State did not
present any type of evidence for the defense during the procedural opportunities
indicated in Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure and, to the contrary,
partially recognized its international responsibility. Both in the reply to the application and in
its final arguments, the State concentrated its defense on the argument
that, at the time of the facts, Guatemala was experiencing an internal conflict,
and accepted its international responsibility with regard to the rights
and guarantees established in Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention.
100. In this respect, the Court considers, as it
has in other cases, that when the State does not provide a specific reply
to the application, it is presumed that the facts about which it remains
silent are true, provided that consistent conclusions about them can be
inferred from the evidence presented[55]. However, the Court will proceed to examine
and evaluate all the elements that comprise the evidence in this case, applying
the rule of "sound criticism" that enables judges to arrive at
a decision as to the truth of the alleged facts[56].
* *
*
101. In the following paragraphs, the Court will
consider various issues relating to the evidence presented in the instant
case.
102. In regard to the evidence presented by the
Commission, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that Nery
Ángel Urízar García had not appeared before the Court and that the witness,
Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana (supra
63) “proved the inexactitude [of his] testimony” and that “he has a history
of many criminal activities.”
103. In this respect, the Court considers that
the videotape with the testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar García, contributed
by the Commission as documentary evidence, lacks autonomous value, and the
testimony that it contains cannot be admitted as it has not complied with
the requirements for validity, such as the appearance of the witness before
Court, his identification, swearing in, monitoring by the State and the
possibility of questioning by the judge[57].
104. Furthermore, in its final written arguments,
the State indicated that the annexes to the application containing documents
produced by various US Government agencies “are unsigned; produced unilaterally,
for purposes of which we are unaware, and for a country other than our own”,
and therefore, it requested the Court to reject them.
105. With regard to the documents attributed to
the Central Intelligence Agency and other US agencies, which the Commission
annexed to the application in this case (supra
1), the Court has confirmed that they lack authentication, present defects
and do not comply with the minimum formal requirements for admissibility
as it is impossible to precisely establish their source, and also the procedure
by which they were obtained. Those
circumstances prevent these documents from being granted value as evidence.
106. The other documents that the Commission presented
with the application were not contested or objected to, nor was their authenticity
doubted, and the Court therefore admits them as valid.
107. As for the newspaper cuttings contributed by the Commission, this
Court has considered that, although they are not real documentary evidence,
they could be taken into consideration when they cover public or well-known
facts, or declarations of State officials or when they corroborate what
has been established in other documents or testimonies received during the
proceeding[58]. Consequently, the
Court adds them to the probative evidence as an appropriate way of verifying
the truth of the facts of the case, in conjunction with all the other evidence
presented.
108. The statements made before a Notary and presented
by the Commission should be admitted. On the one hand, because they constitute
evidence produced by the Commission in March 1998, subsequent to the submission
of the application (August 1996) and, on the other, because this Court has
discretional powers to evaluate statements or declarations that are presented
to it, either orally or by any other means. However, the Court observes
that, since the requirements established in Articles 43 and ff. of the Rules
of Procedure were not fulfilled, this Court cannot admit them as testimonial
evidence and decides to incorporate them to the probative evidence in this
case as documentary evidence[59].
109. With regard to the reports of the Inter-Diocesan
Recovery of the Historical Memory Project and the Commission for Historical
Clarification, they were offered as supervening evidence by the Commission,
in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, and the State expressly
accepted their incorporation into the probative evidence, so the Court incorporates
them as documentary evidence.
* *
*
110. With regard to the documentary evidence that
the State presented on December 4, 1998 (supra 56), the Commission placed “on written record its objection
to the inclusion of various documents brought to the public hearing [of
November 22 and 23, 1998] by the witnesses as evidence for the case file”,
since they are documents prior to the application and the State has not
alleged force majeure, serious
impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for admitting
such evidence.
111. On December 10, 1998, the President informed
the Commission that he would forward to the Commission any document sent
by the State so that it could make the pertinent observations. On January 12, 1999, the Commission repeated
the objection set out in its brief of December 4 (supra 58). This objection was reiterated by the Commission in its
final written arguments, in which it also indicated that “most of the documents
offered by Guatemala are dated between 1992 and April 1996, prior to the
submission of the application in this case to the Court. The few exceptions are certifications from
1998 that refer to events that occurred in previous years”. It stated that documentary evidence must be
offered before the public hearings, so as to be able to question the witnesses
about such documents. Lastly, the Commission observed that the State had
not complied with the Court's request, according to which, it should forward
legible copies of the documents offered in its communication of December
4, 1998, (supra 56) and, also,
that it had submitted documents that had not been offered in that communication.
112. The Court examined the 26 documents presented
by the State. Of these, five corresponded
to telegrams sent by State agents regarding the encounter of March 12, 1992,
when the alleged facts of the case commenced; ten were related to the appropriateness
of two of the witnesses who made statements in the case; one was about the
death of Bámaca Velásquez and 10 about the specific situation of two Army
officers during 1992. Although the
State did not make any statement about the reasons for the time-barred presentation
of these elements of evidence and, therefore, did not explain the exceptional
circumstances that would justify their admission by the Court, the latter
considers that they constitute useful evidence inasmuch as they contain
information about the facts examined, and accordingly incorporates them
into the probative evidence based on Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure
and deems them to be circumstantial evidence within the probative evidence,
in accordance with the principle of "sound criticism."[60]
* *
*
113. The expert testimony provided by Helen Mack
was not contested or objected to, nor was its authenticity doubted, so the
Court considers it to be valid.
114. With regard to the testimonies presented,
in its final written arguments, the State made the following observations
with regard to the testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López, Jennifer Harbury
and Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza. The Court summarizes below the State's principal
objections to these testimonies:
a) regarding
the testimony of Santiago Cabrera López, it indicated that there are irregularities
with regard to his position and functions in the Guatemalan Army, since
they vary from what was stated by the witnesses who declared on November
22 and 23, 1998; it therefore requests that this testimony should be rejected;
b) as
for the testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, it stated that he is “a
fugitive from Guatemalan justice, that his testimony was given in order
to obtain political asylum”, and that it contradicts that of Cabrera López;
c) in
relation to the two witnesses mentioned above, it said that the inaccuracy
of their testimonies is proved by the testimonies of Salvatierra Arroyo,
Simeón Cum Chutá and Soto Bilbao; and
d) with
regard to the testimony of Jennifer Harbury, it stated that, on the one
hand, she had a financial interest in the case and, on the other, the “Guatemalan
legal system does not permit the execution of decisions or judgments pronounced
abroad”, so that it was not possible to register her marriage in the national
registries.
115. Thus, the State merely made general observations
on the alleged lack of competence or impartiality of the testimonies, basing
itself on statements of agents or former agents of the State, who have been
mentioned as possibly being responsible for the facts of the case.
The Court believes that the statements of such witnesses, who have
a direct interest in the case, are not sufficient to invalidate testimonies
that coincide fundamentally with other types of evidence that have not been
objected to, and therefore the Court is unable to reject them.
116. It is also worth noting that while the witnesses
de la Roca and Cabrera give a concurring version of the events that led
to the disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez, the military officers who made
statements before the Court and who, due to their functions, should have
relevant information, merely denied or expressed their lack of knowledge
of the events.
117. As for the objections relating to the alleged
criminal history or proceedings pending against de la Roca Mendoza and Urízar
García, this Court has established that, in such circumstances
this alone
[is not] sufficient to deny the competence of witnesses to attest before
the Court [because it would be] contradictory, under the American Convention
on Human Rights, to deny a priori
a witness the possibility of testifying about material facts of a case submitted
to the Court, because he was being prosecuted or had even been convicted
in a domestic proceeding, even if the said case referred to matters that
affect it[61].
118. With regard to the State's objection relating
to the marriage of Jennifer Harbury and Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, this Court
considers that the said union was proved during this proceeding (infra 121 c). In relation to Jennifer Harbury's
alleged financial interest, the Court repeats that this circumstance does
not disqualify the competence of a witness.
119. In accordance with these criteria, the Court
attributes probative value to the declarations of the witnesses Harbury,
Cabrera López and de la Roca Mendoza that were objected by the State. It is important to emphasize that, unlike other
cases of forced disappearance in which the available evidence is limited
to hearsay and circumstantial evidence[62],
in this case, the Court has the direct testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López
and Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, to form an opinion.
120. The State had the opportunity to present its
own witnesses and to reject the evidence provided by the Commission in its
application, but did not do this. Moreover,
although the State did reject some of the points put forward by the Commission,
it did not provide evidence to support this rejection.
IX
Proven facts
121. The Court now proceeds to consider the relevant
facts that it finds have been proved, which it will present chronologically.
They result from the examination of the documents provided by the
State and the Inter-American Commission, and also the documentary, testimonial
and expert evidence submitted in the instant case.
a) Efraín Bámaca Velásquez was born on June
18, 1957, on the El Tablero property, El Tumbador, San Marcos[63].
b) At the time when the facts relating to
this case took place, Guatemala was convulsed by an internal conflict[64].
c) Jennifer Harbury and Efraín Bámaca Velásquez
met in 1990 and were married in the State of Texas, United States, on September
25, 1991[65].
d) In 1992, there was a guerrilla group called
the Organization of the People in Arms (ORPA) in Guatemala, which operated
on four fronts, one of which was the Luis Ixmatá Front, commanded by Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, known as Everardo[66].
e) On February 15, 1992, the Quetzal Task
Force, established by the Army to combat the guerrilla in the southwestern
zone of the country, began its activities.
Its command post was initially at the Santa Ana Berlín military detachment,
in Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango. Other
military zones, such as Military Zone No. 18 in San Marcos also collaborated
with it[67].
f) It was the Army's practice to capture
guerrillas and keep them in clandestine confinement in order to obtain information
that was useful for the Army, through physical and mental torture.
These guerrillas were frequently transferred from one military detachment
to another and, following several months of this situation, were used as
guides to determine where the guerrilla were active and to identify individuals
who were fighting with the guerrilla. Many of those detained were then executed,
which completed the figure of forced disappearance[68].
g) At the time of the facts of this case,
various former guerrillas were collaborating with the Army, and providing
it with useful information[69]. They included Cristóbal Che Pérez, known as
Valentín, Santiago Cabrera López, known as Carlos, Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza,
known as Bayardo, and Pedro Tartón Jutzuy, known as Arnulfo[70].
h) On March 12, 1992, there was an armed
encounter between guerrilla combatants belonging to the Luis Ixmatá Front
and members of the Army on the banks of the Ixcucua River, in the municipality
of Nuevo San Carlos, Department of Retalhuleu[71].
Efraín Bámaca Velásquez was captured alive during this encounter.[72].
i) Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, who was wounded,
was taken by his captors to the Santa Ana Berlín military detachment, Military
Zone No. 1715, located in Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango. During his confinement
at this detachment, Bámaca Velásquez remained tied up, with his eyes covered,
and was submitted to unlawful coercion and threats while he was being interrogated[73].
j) Efraín Bámaca Velásquez remained at the
Santa Ana Berlín military detachment from March 12, 1992, until April 15
or 20 that year. Subsequently, he
was transferred to the detention center known as La Isla (the Island), in Guatemala City[74].
k) After his stay in Guatemala City, Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez was transferred to the military bases of Quetzaltenango,
San Marcos and Las Cabañas[75].
l) On about July 18, 1992, Efraín Bámaca
Velásquez was in Military Zone No. 18 in San Marcos. Here he was interrogated
and tortured. The last time that
he was seen, he was in the infirmary of that military base, tied to a metal
bed[76].
m) As a result of the facts of this case,
several judicial proceedings were initiated in Guatemala, including: petitions
for habeas corpus[77],
a special pre-trial investigation procedure and various criminal lawsuits[78],
none of which was effective, and the whereabouts of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez
are still unknown. As a result of those proceedings, on various occasions,
exhumation procedures were ordered in order to find his corpse. These procedures did not have positive results
as they were obstructed by State agents[79].
X
forced disappearance
of persons
122. In its final written arguments, the Commission
referred to the phenomenon of the forced disappearance of persons, stating
that in this type of situation
the arbitrary detention, solitary
confinement, isolation and torture of the victim are followed, in most cases,
by the execution of the victim and the concealment of his corpse, accompanied
by an official silence, denials and obstruction; the family, friends and
companions remain anxious and uncertain about the fate of the victim. Forced disappearance attempts to erase any
trace of the crime in order to ensure the total impunity of those who committed
it.
In
the light of this reasoning, the Commission argued that, although Guatemala
had signed, but not ratified, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance
of Persons, this entered into effect on March 28, 1996, and “constituted
an important instrument to classify and understand forced disappearances
and to interpret the American Convention”, pursuant to its Article 29.
123. In the same arguments, the Commission stated
that in Latin America
most victims of dirty wars did not
die in combat or accidentally in the crossfire between the armed rebel groups
and the Army. Many of them were confined in clandestine detention centers,
tortured [... and] buried without dignity or respect in unnamed graves or
[…] thrown from airplanes into the sea.
124. According to the Commission, at the time of
the facts of this case, there was, in Guatemala, a State policy under which
captured guerrillas were used to obtain information on the organization
and activities of the rebel group of which they formed part. To achieve this, the agents who captured them
kept their detention secret and submitted them to torture. This situation
constituted the phenomenon of forced disappearance, which often culminated
with the execution of the person captured.
This practice, which also sought to prevent any possibility of proving
it, was applied to Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
125. In
its final oral arguments in the public hearing on merits held in Washington
D.C., United States (supra 48),
the State admitted that
it effectively knew that, within
the ranks of the Army, there was a systematic practice, when a member of
the URNG was detained or gave himself up, of transferring him to the National
Army, if this was useful or offered sufficient benefits to make it attractive.
However, during the same hearing, the State added
that
if Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] was effectively a prisoner of war, he was
an exception and it was not common practice.
*
* *
126. In its Article II, the Inter-American Convention
on Forced Disappearance of Persons defines forced disappearance as
the act of depriving a person or
persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents
of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of the State, followed by an absence of information
or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information
on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse
to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.
127. Article 201 TER of the Guatemalan Criminal
Code - reformed by Decree No. 33-96 of the Congress of the Republic, adopted
on May 22, 1996 - establishes:
[t]he person who, with the authorization
or support of State authorities, shall, for political motives, in any way,
deprive one or more persons of their liberty, concealing their whereabouts,
refusing to reveal their fate or acknowledge their detention, and also the
public official or employee, whether or not he is a member of a State security
agency, who orders, authorizes, supports or acquiesces to such actions,
shall commit the crime of forced disappearance[80].
128. Involuntary
or forced disappearance constitutes a multiple and continuing violation
of a number of rights protected by the Convention[81],
because not only does it produce an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, but
it also endangers personal integrity, safety and the very life of the detainee.
Moreover, it places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness,
resulting in other related crimes.
129. This
phenomenon also presumes “a disregard of the duty to organize the apparatus
of the State in such a manner as to guarantee the rights recognized in the
Convention”[82]. Therefore, when it implements or tolerates actions
tending to execute forced or involuntary disappearances, when it does not
investigate them adequately and does not punish those responsible, when
applicable, the State violates the obligation to respect the rights protected
by the Convention and to guarantee their free and full exercise[83],
of both the victim, and of his next of kin to know his whereabouts[84].
130. According to the jurisprudence of this Court,
forced disappearance “frequently involves secret execution [of those detained],
without trial, following by concealment of the corpse in order to eliminate
any material evidence of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those responsible”[85]. Due to the
nature of the phenomenon and its probative difficulties, the Court has established
that if it has been proved that the State promotes or tolerates the practice
of forced disappearance of persons, and the case of a specific person can
be linked to this practice, either by circumstantial or indirect evidence[86],
or both, or by pertinent logical inference[87],
then this specific disappearance may be considered to have been proven[88].
131. Taking this into account, the Court attributes
a high probative value to testimonial evidence in proceedings of this type,
that is, in the context and circumstances of cases of forced disappearance,
with all the attendant difficulties, when, owing to the very nature of the
crime, proof essentially takes the form of indirect and circumstantial evidence[89].
132. This
Court has considered proven, on the basis of both the circumstantial evidence
and the direct evidence, that, as the Commission has indicated, at the time
of the facts of the case, the Army had a practice of capturing guerrillas,
detaining them clandestinely without advising the competent, independent
and impartial judicial authority, physically and mentally torturing them
in order to obtain information and, eventually, killing them (supra 121f). It can also be asserted, according to the evidence submitted
in this case, that the disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez is related
to this practice (supra 121 h,
i, j, k, l), and therefore the Court deems it to have been proved.
133. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that
the facts indicated in relation to Efraín Bámaca Velásquez were carried
out by persons who acted in their capacity as agents of the State, which
involves the international responsibility of Guatemala as State Party to
the Convention.
134. It has also been proved that, despite the
various domestic remedies used in order to clarify the facts, these were
not effective to prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible
(supra 121 m). Guatemala even accepted its
international responsibility, stating that “it has still not been possible
for the competent bodies to identify the persons or person criminally responsible
for the unlawful acts that are the subject of this application.”
135. Now that it has been proved that the detention
and disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez occurred and that they may
be attributed to the State, the Court will examine these facts in the light
of the American Convention.
XI
Violation of Article 7
(Right to Personal Liberty)
136. With regard to the violation of Article 7
of the Convention, the Commission alleged that:
a) the
detention of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez by agents of the Guatemalan armed forces
and his captivity in a clandestine center, without presenting him before
the judicial authorities, violated the right established in Article 7 of
the Convention and Article 6 of the Guatemalan Constitution. This is concluded from the statements of various
witnesses who describe military installations where Velásquez was detained;
b)
on other occasions, the Commission has reached the conclusion that agents
of the State have abducted persons and kept them prisoner in clandestine
detention centers, located in installations of the armed forces, and this
situation constitutes “a particularly
serious form of arbitrary deprivation of liberty”.
These actions of State agents are beyond the law and, due to their
secret nature, may not be examined; and
c) from
the evidence in this case, it is proved that Bámaca Velásquez was alive
in the hands of the Army up until at least May 1993, or even until August
that year, without knowing the cause of his detention and in a place that
was not “legally and publicly (destined to that end)”, which proves that
he “was not detained in accordance with the laws of Guatemala, and this
implies that Article 7.2 of the Convention has been violated.”
137. The State limited its defense to the assertion
that “it has still not been possible to identify the persons or person criminally
responsible for the unlawful acts against Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] and, thus,
clarify his disappearance” and, in consequence, it did not put forward any
defense related to the violation of the right to personal liberty embodied
in the American Convention, either at the procedural opportunity of answering
the application or in its final arguments.
*
* *
138. Article 7 of the American Convention establishes,
in this regard:
1. Every
person has the right to personal liberty and security.
2. No
one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and
under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State
Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.
3. No
one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.
4. Anyone
who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall
be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.
5. Any
person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer
authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial
within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings. His release
may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.
6. Anyone
who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent
court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness
of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention
is unlawful. In States Parties whose
laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation
of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that
it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted
or abolished. The interested party
or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.
[...]
139. Article 7 of the Convention regulates the
necessary guarantees to safeguard personal liberty. With regard to its numerals 2 and 3, the Court has said that
[a]ccording to the first of these
regulatory provisions, no one shall be deprived of his physical liberty,
except for reasons, cases or circumstances specifically established by law
(material aspect), but, also, under strict conditions established beforehand
by law (formal aspect). In the second
provision, we have a condition according to which no one shall be subject
to arrest or imprisonment for causes or methods that - although qualified
as legal - may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental
rights of the individual because they are, among other matters, unreasonable,
unforeseeable or out of proportion[90].
140. Both this Court[91]
and the European Court[92]
have considered that the prompt judicial supervision of detentions is of
particular importance in order to prevent arbitrariness. An individual who has been deprived of his
freedom without any type of judicial supervision should be liberated or
immediately brought before a judge, because the essential purpose of Article
7 of the Convention is to protect the liberty of the individual against
interference by the State. The European
Court has stated that, although the word “immediately” should be interpreted
according to the special characteristics of each case, no situation, however,
grave, grants the authorities the power to unduly prolong the period of
detention without affecting Article 5(3) of the European Convention[93].
That Court emphasized that failure to acknowledge the detention of an individual
is a complete denial of the guarantees that must be granted and an even
greater violation of the Article in question[94].
141. In the same way, this Court has indicated that, by protecting personal liberty, a safeguard is also provided for
both the physical liberty of the individual and his personal
safety [...], in a context where the absence of guarantees may result in
the subversion of the rule of law and deprive those arrested of the minimum
legal protection[95].
142. In cases of forced disappearance of persons,
the Court has stated that this represents a phenomenon of “arbitrary deprivation
of liberty, an infringement of a detainee's right to be taken without delay
before a judge and to invoke the appropriate procedures to review the legality
of the arrest, all in violation of Article 7 of the Convention.”[96]
143. This Court has established as proven in the
case being examined, that Efraín Bámaca Velásquez was detained by the Guatemalan
army in clandestine detention centers for at least four months, thus violating
Article 7 of the Convention (supra
121 I, j, k, l). Although this is
a case of the detention of a guerrilla during an internal conflict (supra 121 b), the detainee should have
been ensured the guarantees that exist under the rule of law, and been submitted
to a legal proceeding. This Court
has already stated that, although the State has the right and obligation
to guarantee its security and maintain public order, it must execute its
actions “within limits and according to procedures that preserve both public
safety and the fundamental rights of the human person.”[97]
144. In view of the
foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 7 de la American
Convention to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
XII
Violation of Article 5
(Right to humane
treatment)
145. Regarding the violation of Article 5 of the
Convention, the Commission alleged that:
a) the
forced disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez and his confinement in a
clandestine detention center constitute violations of Article 5 of the Convention,
because they represent cruel and inhuman forms of treatment that, according
to the jurisprudence of this Court, injure the physical and moral integrity
of the person and his dignity;
b) the
interrogations of Bámaca Velásquez by agents of the armed forces, during
which his feet and hands were bound and he was tied to a bed, while he received
death threats, constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary
to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention;
c) the
acts of violence and physical abuse against the person of Bámaca Velásquez
in San Marcos, presumably to punish him for his activity as a guerrilla
and to obtain information on the guerrilla strategy, correspond to the figure
of torture established in Article 5(2) of the American Convention;
d) the
fact that the State agents tried to conceal his corpse was designed “to
eliminate any evidence of torture. Consequently,
the fact that the body was concealed, leads to the presumption of torture”.
Moreover, the Army had the practice of torturing the guerrillas they captured,
which was proved very exactly in the testimonies of Cabrera López, Urízar
García and de la Roca, and also in the reports prepared by both the Commission
for Historical Clarification and the REMHI;
e) in
the same way that the Court has established the inversion of the burden
of proof with regard to the right to life in cases of the forced disappearance
of persons, the same reasoning must be applied to the violation of the right
to humane treatment “and, in particular, [to] the torture of the victim,
particularly in view of the characteristics of forced disappearance”;
f) the
State violated the right to humane treatment of the next of kin of Bámaca
Velásquez as a result of “the anxiety and suffering that [they underwent
as] a consequence of the forced disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez”.
The uncertainty caused by the lack of effectiveness of the remedies under
domestic jurisdiction constituted cruel treatment.
Furthermore, the fact that the remains of Bámaca Velásquez were not
given proper burial has profound repercussions in the Mayan culture to which
he belonged, “due to the fundamental importance of its culture and the active
relationship that unites the living and the dead, [thus t]he lack of a sacred
place where this relationship could be nurtured constitutes a profound concern
that emerges from the testimonies of many Mayan communities”; and
g) the
“Guatemalan public authorities not only obstructed the investigation into
the fate of Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] with a blanket of silence, [but] they
also began a campaign of harassing Mrs. Harbury”; for example, through press
campaigns, the legal action for jactitation, and her exclusion from the
criminal proceedings. In view of
the foregoing, the Commission requested the Court to declare that this article
had been violated with regard to the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez, who
are: Jennifer Harbury, José de León Bámaca Hernández, the victim's father,
and Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, the victim's
sisters.
146. As mentioned above (supra 137), the State did not put forward any defense in relation
to the violation of the right to personal liberty embodied in the American
Convention, either at the procedural opportunity of replying to the application
or in its final arguments. However, the State said that Bámaca Velásquez
“did not have a close relationship with his family because he was dedicated
to guerrilla activities in a distant and isolated place [...] so that it
could not accept the presumption to create relationships where they did
not exist, according to the testimony that had been presented.”
*
* *
147. Article 5 of the Convention establishes that:
1. Every
person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.
2. No
one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment
or treatment. All persons deprived
of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity
of the human person.
[...]
148. The Court considers that it should proceed
to examine the possible violation of Article 5 of the Convention from two
different perspectives. First, it
should examine whether or not there was a violation of Article 5(1) and
5(2) of the Convention to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. Second, the Court will evaluate whether the
next of kin of the victim were also subjected to the violation of their
right to humane treatment.
149. The
Court considers that it has been proved that Bámaca Velásquez was detained
by members of the Army and that his detention was not communicated to a
competent judge or to his next of kin (supra
121 h, i).
150. As
this Court has already established, a “person who is unlawfully detained
is in an exacerbated situation of vulnerability creating a real risk that
his other rights, such as the right to humane treatment and to be treated
with dignity, will be violated”[98]. We should add to the foregoing that: “prolonged
isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman
treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person
and a violation of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent
dignity as a human being”[99].
Solitary confinement produces moral and psychological suffering in the detainee,
places him in a particularly vulnerable position, and increases the risk
of aggression and arbitrary acts in detention centers[100]. Therefore, the Court has stated that, “in international
human rights law [...] incommunicado detention is considered to be an exceptional
instrument and [...] its use during detention may constitute an act against
human dignity.”[101]
151. With
regard to the treatment of Bámaca Velásquez by the State authorities during
his detention, the Court has taken into account a series of testimonial
evidence given by former guerrillas, which may be classified as direct evidence,
which indicates that Bámaca Velásquez was tortured by State agents at the
various military bases where he was kept captive.
The witness, de la Roca Mendoza, declared that Bámaca Velásquez was beaten and he heard his cries in the night
(supra 93 C h); while the witness, Cabrera
López, saw him swollen, tied up and with bandages on his extremities and
his body (supra 93 C a).
152.
As this Court has often repeated, in cases of forced disappearance,
the State's defense cannot rely on the impossibility of the plaintiff to
present evidence in the proceedings since, in such cases, it is the State
that controls the means to clarify the facts that have occurred in its jurisdiction
and, therefore, in practice, it is necessary to rely on the cooperation
of the State itself in order to obtain the required evidence[102].
153.
In the same way, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has indicated
that
the burden of proof cannot fall
solely on the author of the communication, considering, in particular, that
the author and the State Party do not always have equal access to the evidence
and that, frequently, it is only the State Party that has access to the
pertinent information [...]. In cases when the authors have presented charges
supported by attesting evidence to the Committee [...] and in which subsequent clarification
of the case depends on information that is exclusively in the hands of the
State Party, the Committee may consider that those charges are justified
unless the State Party presents satisfactory evidence and explanations to
the contrary[103].
154. The probative elements gathered while processing
this case lead the Court to consider proved the abuses that, it is alleged,
were committed against Bámaca Velásquez during his reclusion in various
military installation. The Court
must now determine whether such abuses constitute torture or cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment. Clearly,
it is important to state that both types of acts are strictly prohibited
under any circumstance[104].
155. The Inter-American Court has observed that
when a State faces a situation of internal upheaval, this should not result
in restrictions in the protection of the physical integrity of the person. Specifically, the Court has indicated that
[… a]ny use of force that is not
strictly necessary to ensure proper behavior on the part of the detainee
constitutes an assault on the dignity of the person [...] in violation of
Article 5 of the American Convention[105].
156. According
to Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, torture implies deliberately inflicting
punishment or physical or mental suffering in order to intimidate, punish,
investigate or prevent crimes, punish their commitment or any other end.
157. Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention
to Prevent and Punish Torture defines this as
any act intentionally performed
whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for
purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal
punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty or to any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the
use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the
victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do
not cause him physical pain or mental anguish.
and adds:
The concept
of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is
inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that
they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred
to in this article.
158. The Court considers that the acts denounced
in the present case were deliberately prepared and inflicted, in order to
obtain information that was relevant for the Army from Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
According to the testimonies received in this proceeding, the alleged
victim was submitted to grave acts of physical and mental violence during
a prolonged period of time for the said purpose and, thus, intentionally
placed in a situation of anguish and intense physical suffering, which can
only be qualified as both physical and mental torture.
*
* *
159. It its final arguments, the Commission requested
the Court to declare that Article 5 of the Convention had been violated,
to the detriment of the wife of Bámaca Velásquez, Jennifer Harbury, and
his direct next of kin, José de León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca
Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez.
160. This Court has indicated on other occasions,
that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn,
become victims[106].
In a case involving the forced disappearance of a person, the Court stated
that the violation of the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin
is precisely a direct consequence of the forced disappearance. In particular, the Court considered that the “circumstances of such
disappearances generate suffering and anguish, in addition to a sense of
insecurity, frustration and impotence in the face of the public authorities'
failure to investigate.”[107]
161. This Court has even stated, in the recent
“Street Children” case, that the mothers
of the victims suffered due to the negligence of the authorities in establishing
the latter's identity; because the said State agents “did not make the necessary efforts to immediately
locate the relatives” of the victims and notify them of their death, delaying
the opportunity to give them “burial
according to their traditions”; because the public authorities abstained
from investigating the corresponding crimes and punishing those responsible.
In that case, the suffering of the victims' next of kin also arose
from the treatment of the corpses, because they appeared after several days,
abandoned in an uninhabited place with signs of extreme violence, exposed
to the inclemency of the weather and the action of animals.
Such treatment of the victims' remains, “which were sacred to their
families and, particularly, their mothers, constituted cruel and inhuman
treatment for them.”[108]
162. The jurisprudence of the European Court of
Human Rights has also accepted that, when fundamental human rights are violated,
such as the right to life or the right to humane treatment, the persons
closest to the victim may also be considered victims. That Court had the occasion to go on record
on the condition of victim of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of a
mother due to the detention and disappearance of her son and, to this end,
it evaluated the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the ill-treatment
and the fact that she did not receive official information to clarify the
facts. In view of these considerations,
the European Court concluded that this person had also been a victim and
that the State was responsible for violating Article 3 of the European Convention[109].
163. Recently that Court developed this concept
further, emphasizing that the following were included among the issues to
be considered: the closeness of the family relationship, the particular
circumstances of the relationship with the victim, the degree to which the
family member was a witness of the events related to the disappearance,
the way in which the family member was involved in attempts to obtain information
about the disappearance of the victim and the State's response to the steps
undertaken[110].
164. In the same way, the United Nations Human
Rights Committee, in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, has stated that the next of kin of those who are detained
and disappear should be considered victims of ill treatment, among other
violations. In the Quinteros v. Uruguay (1983), the Human Rights Committee indicated
that
it understood the profound grief
and anguish that the author of the communication suffered owing to the disappearance
of her daughter and the continued uncertainty about her fate and her whereabouts.
The author has the right to know what has happened to her daughter.
In this respect, she is also a victim of violations of the [International]
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], in particular article 7 (corresponding
to Article 5 of the American Convention], suffered by her daughter[111].
165. The Court has evaluated the circumstances
of this case, particularly the continued obstruction of Jennifer Harbury's
efforts to learn the truth of the facts and, above all, the concealment
of the corpse of Bámaca Velásquez and the obstacles to the attempted exhumation
procedures that various public authorities created, and also the official
refusal to provide relevant information.
Based on these circumstances, the Court considers that the suffering
to which Jennifer Harbury was subjected clearly constitutes cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment, violating Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. The Court also considers that ignorance of
the whereabouts of Bámaca Velásquez caused his next of kin the profound
anguish mentioned by the Committee and, therefore, considers that they,
too, are victims of the violation of the said Article.
166. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes
that the State violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, to the
detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez and also of Jennifer Harbury, José
de León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca
Velásquez.
XIII
Violation of Article 4
(Right to life)
167. With
regard to the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, the Commission alleged
that:
a) “[the
a]gents of the Guatemalan armed forces violated Article 4(1) of the Convention
when they executed Efraín Bámaca [Velásquez] while he was secretly detained
by the Army”; and
b) Bámaca
Velásquez was confined in at least two clandestine detention centers and,
according to existing indications and the passage of time, it can be presumed
that he is dead.
168. As has been mentioned previously (supra 137 and 146), the State limited its
defense to stating that “it has still not been possible to identify the
persons or person criminally responsible for the unlawful acts against Mr.
Bámaca [Velásquez] and, thus, clarify his disappearance” and, consequently,
it did not submit any defense with regard to the violation of the right
to life embodied in the American Convention, either at the procedural opportunity
of the answer to the application or in its final arguments.
*
* *
169. Article 4(1) of the American Convention establishes
that
[e]very person has the
right to have his life respected. This
right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
170. This Court has already deemed that it has
been proved that Bámaca Velásquez was captured and retained in the hands
of the Army, constituting a case of forced disappearance (supra 132, 133, 143 and 144).
171. The Court has already made it clear that
any person
deprived of liberty has the right to live in conditions of detention that
are compatible with his personal dignity, and the State must guarantee his
right to life and to humane treatment. Consequently, the State, as the body
responsible for detention establishments, is the guarantor of such rights
of those detained[112].
172. As the United Nations Human Rights Committee
mentioned above has indicated,
[t]he protection against arbitrary
deprivation of life that is explicitly required by the third phrase of Article
6(1) [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] is of
paramount importance. The Committee
considers that States Parties should take measures not only to prevent and
punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary
killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities
of the State is a matter of utmost gravity. Therefore, [the State] must strictly control
and limit the circumstances in which [a person] may be deprived of his life
by such authorities[113].
173. In this case, the circumstances in which the
detention by State agents of Bámaca Velásquez occurred, the victim's condition
as a guerrilla commander, the State practice of forced disappearances and
extrajudicial executions (supra
121 b, d, f, g) and the passage of eight years and eight months since he
was captured, without any more news of him, cause the Court to presume that
Bámaca Velásquez was executed[114].
174. This Court has indicated on previous occasions
and in this judgment itself, that although the State has the right and obligation
to guarantee its security and maintain public order, its powers are not
unlimited, because it has the obligation, at all times, to apply procedures
that are in accordance with the law and to respect the fundamental rights
of each individual in its jurisdiction (supra 143).
175. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes
that the State violated Article 4 of the American Convention, to the detriment
of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
XIV
Violation of Article 3
(Right to juridical personality)
176. With
regard to the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the Commission alleged
that:
a) the
disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez by agents of the Guatemalan armed
forces resulted in his exclusion from the legal and institutional system
of the State, denying recognition of his very existence as a human being
and, therefore, violated his right to be recognized as a person before the
law; and
b) according
to Article 1(2) of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from
Forced Disappearances, the phenomenon of forced disappearance is defined
as a violation of the rules of international law that guarantee, inter alia, the right to be recognized
as a person before the law (Resolution 47/133 of the General Assembly of
the United Nations, 18 December
1992).
177. The State did not present any argument related
to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
*
* *
178. Article 3 of the Convention establishes that
“[e]very person has the right to recognition as a person before the law.”
179. This principle should be interpreted in the
light of the provisions of Article XVII of the American Declaration of the
Rights and Obligations of Man, which says textually: “Every person has the right to be recognized everywhere as a person having
rights and obligations, and to enjoy the basic civil rights”. The right to the recognition of juridical
personality implies the capacity to be the holder of rights (capacity of
exercise) and obligations; the violation of this recognition presumes an
absolute disavowal of the possibility of being a holder of such rights and
obligations.
180. In this respect, the Court recalls that the
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (1994) does
not refer expressly to the juridical personality among the elements that
typify the complex crime of forced disappearance of persons. Naturally, the arbitrary deprivation of life suppresses the human
being and, consequently, in these circumstances, it is not in order to invoke
an alleged violation of the right to juridical personality or other rights
embodied in the American Convention.
The right to the recognition of juridical personality established in
Article 3 of the American Convention has its own juridical content, as do
the other rights protected by the Convention[115].
181. From these considerations and the facts of
the case, the Court deems that the right of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez to juridical
personality was not violated.
XV
Violation
of Articles 8 and 25 in
relation to Article 1(1)
(Right to
a fair trial and judicial protection)
182. With regard to the violation of Articles 8,
25 and 1(1) of the Convention, the Commission alleged that:
a) neither
Bámaca Velásquez nor his wife received the judicial protection that the
State must grant them, according to Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention,
not only because they did not have access to a simple recourse before a
competent, independent and impartial authority, but also because the right
of the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez to know his fate and, then, the whereabouts
of his remains, was violated;
b) the
State did not fulfill its obligation to conduct the pertinent investigations
to save the life of Bámaca Velásquez, despite the contradictions established
between the descriptions given by the magistrate and the coroner of the
body found after the armed encounter. Moreover,
the exhumation of May 20, 1992, was cancelled based on various obstacles
that sought to “cover up the fact that Mr. Bámaca Velásquez was not buried
in the Retalhuleu cemetery”. If
an investigation had been initiated at the time of the exhumation planned
for May 20, 1992, that is, if the right to judicial protection of Bámaca
Velásquez had been guaranteed, his life might have been saved. Although it was possible to conduct an exhumation in August 1993,
and it was determined that the corpse exhumed was not that of Bámaca Velásquez,
no other exhumation could be conducted;
c) by
keeping Bámaca Velásquez in clandestine detention, the State denied his
right to file a judicial recourse by his own means; furthermore, by not
adequately investigating the petitions for habeas
corpus filed by Jennifer Harbury in 1993, and by declaring them without
grounds, Bámaca Velásquez was deprived of the right to the judicial protection
of his life and safety and Jennifer Harbury was deprived of her right to
know the fate of her husband and, then, to know the whereabouts of his remains. The petition for habeas corpus filed by the Guatemalan Attorney General in 1994 also
had negative results;
d) with
regard to the special pre-trial investigation initiated by the Ombudsman
in 1994, the Commission stated that, although it “constituted [...] the
first serious investigation effort”, during which members of the armed forces
who were allegedly involved in the facts were questioned (supra 81), this process “was begun too late to save [the] life” of
Bámaca Velásquez. Moreover, the armed forces obstructed the investigation,
both by not telling the truth when questioned and also by not presenting
the evidence required by the Attorney General; therefore, it cannot be considered
that adequate judicial protection was provided;
e) the
number of judicial proceedings filed in this case without results “constitute[s]
an omission of the right to judicial protection and a way of tormenting
Mrs. Harbury”, and the acts of violence that have occurred, have prevented
the execution of a valid investigation, which offers due judicial protection.
The State has not fulfilled the obligation to conduct a serious investigation
and, “instead of seeking the truth, the Government [has attempted] to defend
itself and to defend its agents against any claim owing to an illegal action”.
The Commission added that the “procedures initiated at the end of [19]94
were not [directed] to clarifying the case, but rather to distracting public
attention and harassing Mrs. Harbury”;
f) Jennifer
Harbury has cooperated with the domestic procedures in Guatemala; the State
“cannot renounce its responsibility to conduct the necessary investigations,
in fulfillment of the provisions of Article 1(1) of the Convention, and
transfer to Mrs. Harbury the obligation to ensure that the process moves
forward”. To the contrary, the case history shows that
Government agents have harassed Jennifer Harbury in reprisal for her attempts
to obtain justice in the Guatemalan tribunals; and
g) Jennifer
Harbury and the special prosecutors assigned to the case suffered harassment
and the Guatemalan authorities did not take the necessary measures to find
the whereabouts of the remains of Bámaca Velásquez.
183. The State recognized its international responsibility,
because its institutions have been unable to clarify who was responsible
for the illegal acts established in the application. In its final oral arguments, the State indicated
that the said acceptance of responsibility “was made in good faith in application
of the respective Vienna Convention” and that it could not be interpreted
as a “tacit acceptance [of the facts as] the Commission claims.”
*
* *
184. Article 8 of the American Convention establishes:
1. Every
person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable
time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established
by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made
against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a
civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.
2. Every
person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent
so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled,
with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees:
a) the right of the accused
to be assisted without charge by a translator or interpreter, if he does
not understand or does not speak the language of the tribunal or court;
b) prior notification
in detail to the accused of the charges against him;
c) adequate time and
means for the preparation of his defense;
d) the right of the accused
to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own
choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel;
e) the inalienable right
to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic
law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage
his own counsel within the time period established by law;
f) the right of the defense
to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance,
as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts;
g) the right not to be
compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty; and
h) the right to appeal
the judgment to a higher court.
3. A confession
of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion
of any kind.
4. An
accused person acquitted by a non-appealable judgment shall not be subjected
to a new trial for the same cause.
5. Criminal
proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect
the interests of justice.
185. Article 25 de la American Convention provides
that:
1. Everyone has the right
to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent
court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental
rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or
by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by
persons acting in the course of their official duties.
2. The States Parties
undertake:
a) to ensure that any
person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent
authority provided for by the legal system of the state;
b) to develop the possibilities
of judicial remedy; and
c) to
ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
186. This Court observes, in the first place, that
the State, when replying to the application, recognized its international
responsibility in the following terms:
[Guatemala] accepts the facts set
out in numeral II of the application in the case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez,
inasmuch as it has still not been possible to identify the persons or person
criminally responsible for the unlawful acts against Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez]
and, thus, clarify his disappearance, with a reservation regarding the Commission's
assertion in numeral II, subparagraph 2, because it has not been possible
to confirm the circumstances of the disappearance of Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] in the domestic proceedings.
This
act of the State shows its good faith towards the international commitments
assumed when it signed and ratified the American Convention on Human Rights
and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of this Court.
187. With regard to Bámaca Velásquez, the State
expressly left outside its recognition of responsibility (supra 24) “the Commission's assertion in numeral II, subparagraph
2” of the application, that is to say, that the alleged victim “disappeared
after an exchange of fire between the Army and the guerrilla near the Ixcucua
River [...and] that the Guatemalan armed forces captured Mr. Bámaca alive
after the skirmish and imprisoned him secretly in several military detachments,
where they tortured and, eventually executed him”. Therefore, it does not
recognize the detention, torture and disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez,
nor does it state that it has accepted the violation of his guarantees embodied
in Article 8 and the judicial protection established in Article 25 of the
Convention, so that it corresponds to the Court to analyze this alleged
violation based on the elements presented by the parties.
188. This Court has recently indicated that
[i]n order to clarify whether the
State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its
judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings[116].
189. Likewise, the European Court has indicated
that the procedures should be considered as a whole, including the decisions
of the appeals tribunals, and that the function of the international tribunal
is to determine if all the procedures, and the way in which the evidence
was produced, were fair[117].
190. It is worth indicating that, although, in
this case, numerous domestic recourses have been attempted in order to determine
the whereabouts of Bámaca Velásquez, such as the petitions for habeas corpus, the special pre-trial investigation
procedure, and the criminal actions (supra 121 m), none of them were effective, and the whereabouts of
Bámaca Velásquez are still unknown.
191. This Court has repeated that it is not sufficient
that such recourses exist formally, but that they must be effective[118];
that is, they must give results or responses to the violations of rights
established in the Convention. In
other words, every person has the right to a simple and prompt recourse
or to any effective recourse before competent judges or tribunals that protects
him against the violation of his fundamental rights[119].
This guarantee “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American
Convention, but also of the rule of law in a democratic society according
to the Convention”[120].
Moreover, as the Court has also indicated,
[t]hose remedies which prove illusory,
due to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances
of any given case, cannot be considered effective[121].
192. Among essential judicial guarantees, habeas corpus represents the ideal means
of guaranteeing liberty, controlling respect for the life and integrity
of a person, and preventing his disappearance or the indetermination of
his place of detention, and also to protect the individual from torture
or other to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment[122].
193. As
can be inferred from the chapter on domestic proceedings, three petitions
for habeas corpus in favor of Bámaca Velásquez
were filed in this case, in February 1993 and in June and October 1994 (supra
75, 78 and 80). However, it has been shown that these recourses
did not protect the victim from the acts against him committed by State
agents. The lack of effectiveness
of habeas corpus in Guatemala
was also shown by the statements of the President of the Supreme Court of
Justice of Guatemala, that the “mechanisms that currently exist for habeas corpus procedures are inadequate
to carry out an effective investigation under petitions for habeas corpus” (supra 75).
194.
This Court has indicated that, as part of the general obligations
of States, they have a positive obligation of guarantee with regard to persons
under their jurisdiction. This obligation
of guarantee presumes
taking all
necessary measures to remove any impediments which might exist that would
prevent individuals from enjoying the rights the Convention guarantees. Any State which tolerates circumstances or
conditions that prevent individuals from having recourse to the legal remedies
designed to protect their rights is consequently in violation of Article
1(1) of the Convention[123].
*
* *
195.
With regard to Jennifer Harbury and the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez,
the Court considers that the State's acceptance of responsibility (supra 186) refers to the violation of the rights of these persons
to judicial guarantees and judicial protection and, therefore, this should
be stated.
196. In
view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles
8 and 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the
detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez and also of Jennifer Harbury, José
de León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca
Velásquez,
XVI
Right to the
truth
197. In its final arguments, the Commission alleged
that, as a result of the disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez, the State violated
the right to the truth of the next of kin of the victim and of society as
a whole. In this respect, the Commission
declared that the right to the truth has a collective nature, which includes
the right of society to “have access to essential information for the development
of democratic systems”, and a particular nature, as the right of the victims'
next of kin to know what happened to their loved ones, which permits a form
of reparation. The Inter-American
Court has established the obligation of the State to investigate the facts
while there is uncertainty about the fate of the person who has disappeared,
and the need to provide a simple and prompt recourse in the case, with due
guarantees. Following this interpretation,
the Commission stated that this is a right of society and that it is emerging
as a principle of international law under the dynamic interpretation of
human rights treaties and, specifically, Articles 1(1), 8, 25 and 13 of
the American Convention.
198. The State limited its defense to stating that
“it has still not been possible to identify the persons or person criminally
responsible for the unlawful acts against Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] and, thus,
clarify his disappearance” and, consequently, it did not put forward any
defense in relation to the alleged violation of the right to the truth,
either at the procedural opportunity of the answer to the application or
in its final arguments.
*
* *
199. The Court has already transcribed Articles
8 and 25 of the Convention in this Judgment (supra 184 and 185). Article 1(1), will be transcribed in the following
chapter (infra 205).
200. As has already been established in this judgment
(supra 196), several judicial
remedies were attempted in this case to identify the whereabouts of Bámaca
Velásquez. Not only were these remedies
ineffective but, furthermore, high-level State agents exercised direct actions
against them in order to prevent them from having positive results.
These obstructions were particularly evident with regard to the many
exhumation procedures that were attempted; to date, these have not permitted
the remains of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez to be identified (supra
121 m).
It is undeniable that this situation has prevented Jennifer Harbury and
the victim's next of kin from knowing the truth about what happened to him.
201. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of the
instant case, the right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim
or his next of kin to obtain clarification of the facts relating to the
violations and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent State
organs, through the investigation and prosecution established in Articles
8 and 25 of the Convention.
202. Therefore, this issue is resolved in accordance
with the findings in the previous chapter, in relation to judicial guarantees
and judicial protection.
XVII
Failure to comply with Article 1(1)
in relation to Article 3 common to the geneva conventions
(Obligation to respect rights)
203. As for the violation of Article 1(1) of the
American Convention and its relation to Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions,
the Commission alleged that:
a) the
forced disappearance, torture and execution of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez by
agents of the Guatemalan armed forces shows that the State violated its
obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1)
of the Convention. These violations cannot be justified by the fact that
the State was faced with a guerrilla movement, because, although the State
has the right and obligation to guarantee its own security and maintain
public order, it must do so in accordance with law and ethics, including
the international legislation to protect human rights;
b) when
a State faces a rebel movement or terrorism that truly threatens its “independence
or security”, it may restrict or temporarily suspend the exercise of certain
human rights, but only in accordance with the rigorous conditions indicated
in Article 27 of the Convention. Article
27(2) of the Convention strictly forbids the suspension of certain rights
and, thus, forced disappearances, summary executions and torture are forbidden,
even in states of emergency;
c) according
to Article 29 of the Convention, its provisions may not be interpreted in
the sense of restricting the enjoyment of the rights recognized by other
conventions to which Guatemala is a party; for example, the Geneva Conventions
of August 12, 1949. Therefore, considering
that Article 3 common to those Conventions provides for prohibitions against
violations of the right to life and ensures protection against torture and
summary executions, Bámaca Velásquez should have received humane treatment
in accordance with the common Article 3 and the American Convention; and
d) Article
3, common to the Geneva Conventions, constitutes a valuable parameter for
interpreting the provisions of the American Convention, as regards the treatment
of Bámaca Velásquez by State agents.
204. With regard to applying international humanitarian
law to the case, in its final oral arguments the State indicated that, although
the case was instituted under the terms of the American Convention, since
the Court had “extensive faculties of interpretation of international law,
it could [apply] any other provision that it deemed appropriate.”
*
*
*
205. Article 1(1) of the Convention provides that
[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake
to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all
persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those
rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.
206. Article 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions
provides:
In the case of armed conflict not
of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High
Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply,
as a minimum, the following provisions:
[... t]he following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and in any place whatsoever [...]:
a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
b) taking of hostages;
c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment;
d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording
all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized
peoples.
[...]
207. The Court considers that it has been proved
that, at the time of the facts of this case, an internal conflict was taking
place in Guatemala (supra 121
b). As has previously been stated
(supra 143 and 174), instead of exonerating
the State from its obligations to respect and guarantee human rights, this
fact obliged it to act in accordance with such obligations. Therefore, and as established in Article 3
common to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, confronted with an
internal armed conflict, the State should grant those persons who are not
participating directly in the hostilities or who have been placed hors de combat for whatever reason, humane
treatment, without any unfavorable distinctions. In particular, international humanitarian law
prohibits attempts against the life and personal integrity of those mentioned
above, at any place and time.
208. Although the Court lacks competence to declare
that a State is internationally responsible for the violation of international
treaties that do not grant it such competence, it can observe that certain
acts or omissions that violate human rights, pursuant to the treaties that
they do have competence to apply, also violate other international instruments
for the protection of the individual, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions
and, in particular, common Article 3.
209. Indeed, there is a similarity between the
content of Article 3, common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the provisions
of the American Convention and other international instruments regarding
non-derogable human rights (such as the right to life and the right not
to be submitted to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment). This Court has already indicated in the Las Palmeras Case (2000), that the relevant
provisions of the Geneva Conventions may be taken into consideration as
elements for the interpretation of the American Convention[124].
210. Based on Article 1(1) of the American Convention,
the Court considers that Guatemala is obliged to respect the rights and
freedoms recognized in it[125]
and to organize the public sector so as to guarantee persons within its
jurisdiction the free and full exercise of human rights[126].
This is essential, independently of whether those responsible for the violations
of these rights are agents of the public sector, individuals or groups of
individuals[127],
because, according to the rules of international human rights law, the act
or omission of any public authority constitutes an action that may be attributed
to the State and involve its responsibility, in the terms set out in the
Convention[128].
211. The Court has confirmed that there existed
and still exists in Guatemala, a situation of impunity with regard to the
facts of the instant case (supra
134, 187 and 190), because, despite the State's obligation to prevent and
investigate[129],
it did not do so.. The Court understands
impunity to be
the total lack of investigation,
prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations
of the rights protected by the American Convention, in view of the fact
that the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal
to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human
right violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives[130].
212. This Court has clearly indicated that the
obligation to investigate must be fulfilled
in a serious manner and not as a
mere formality preordained to be ineffective.
An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State
as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends
upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof,
without an effective search for the truth by the Government[131].
213. The violations of the right to personal safety
and liberty, to life, to physical, mental and moral integrity, to judicial
guarantees and protection, which have been established in this judgment,
are attributable to Guatemala, which had the obligation to respect these
rights and guarantee them. Consequently, Guatemala is responsible for the
non-observance of Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to violations
established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention.
214.
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated
Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and
25.
XVIII
Violation of articles 1, 2, 6 and 8 of the
Inter-american
Convention to Prevent
and Punish
Torture
215. With regard to the violation of Articles 1,
2, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture
(hereinafter “Inter-American Convention against Torture”), the Commission
alleged that:
a) this
Convention, ratified by Guatemala on January 29, 1987, develops the principles
contained in Article 5 of the American Convention in greater detail and,
therefore, constitutes an auxiliary instrument to the Convention;
b) the
treatment that Bámaca Velásquez suffered at the hands of Government agents
constitutes torture in the terms of the said Convention; and
c) based
on Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and 29 of
the American Convention, the Court is competent to directly apply that instrument.
216. The
State did not submit any defense with regard to the violation of the above-mentioned
articles of the Inter-American Convention against Torture.
217. Articles
1, 2, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture establish:
1. The States Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture
in accordance with the terms of the Convention.
[...]
2.
For
the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act
intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is
inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means
of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty,
or for any other purpose. Torture
shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended
to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical
or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or entail
anguish.
The concept of torture shall not
include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely
the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the
performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.
[...]
6. In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties
shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their
jurisdiction.
The States Parties shall ensure
that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under
their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties
that take into account their serious nature.
The States Parties likewise shall
take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction.
[...]
8. The States Parties shall guarantee that any person making
an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction
shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case.
Likewise, if there is an accusation
or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed
within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their
respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct
an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the
corresponding criminal process.
After all
the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding
appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international
fora whose competence has been recognized by the State.
218. This Court has had the occasion to apply the
Inter-American Convention against torture and to declare the responsibility
of a State owing to its violation[132].
219. In the instant case, it is the Court's responsibility to exercise
its competence to apply the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which
entered into force on February 28, 1987.
220. As has been shown, Bámaca Velásquez was submitted
to torture while he was secretly imprisoned in military installations (supra
121 i, l). Consequently, it is clear that the State did not effectively
prevent such acts and that, by not investigating them, it failed to punish
those responsible.
221. Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention
against Torture expressly embodies the State's obligation to proceed immediately
de oficio in cases such as this
one. Therefore, the Court has stated
that “in proceedings on human rights violations, the State's defense cannot
rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to obtain evidence that, in many
cases, cannot be obtained without the State's cooperation”[133]. However, in this case, the State did not act in accordance
with these provisions.
222. It has also been confirmed that, despite the
numerous proceedings initiated in order to discover the whereabouts of Bámaca
Velásquez, these were ineffective (supra
121 m). The proven denial of judicial protection also determined that the
State did not prevent or effectively investigate the torture to which the
victim was being submitted. Consequently,
the State failed to fulfill the commitments it had made under the Inter-American
Convention against Torture.
223. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State
failed to comply with its obligations to prevent and punish torture in the
terms of Articles 1, 2, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent
and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
XIX
Article 63(1)
224. In the application brief, the Commission requested
the Court that the State should remedy all the consequences of the violations
of the rights it had committed, both by a material compensation and also
by “immaterial forms of reparation, such as the public admission of the
damage it had caused and the revelation of everything that can be known
about the fate of the victim and the whereabouts of his remains”. It also
asked the Court to order the State to adopt reforms in the military training
regulations and programs (supra
2). Lastly, it requested the State to assume the
costs of the proceedings before the inter-American system for the protection
of human rights.
225.
The Court considers that Guatemalan
legislation was not sufficient or adequate to protect the right to life,
in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the American Convention
(supra 173), in any circumstance, including
during internal conflicts. Therefore,
the Court reserves the right to examine this point at the appropriate time
during the reparations stage.
226. Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes
that
[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation
of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule
that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom
that was violated. It shall also
rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation
that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that
fair compensation be paid to the injured party.
227. As a consequence of the violations confirmed
in this Judgment, the Court considers that Guatemala should order a real
and effective investigation to identify and eventually punish the persons
responsible for them.
228. In
view of the nature of the instant case, although the Court is unable to
order that the injured parties should be guaranteed the enjoyment of the
rights and liberties violated, by means of the restitutio
in integrum, it must, instead, order the reparation of the consequences
of the violation of the rights mentioned and, consequently, the establishment
of fair compensation. The amounts and form of this will be determined during
the reparations stage.
229. Since the Court will need sufficient probative
elements and information to determine the said reparations, it must order
the opening of the corresponding procedural stage. The Court authorizes its President to take
the necessary measures.
XX
OPERATIVE
PARAGRAPHS
230. Therefore,
the court,
unanimously,
1. finds that the State violated the right
to personal liberty embodied in Article 7 of the American Convention on
Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
unanimously,
2. finds that the State violated the right
to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention
on Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, and also of
Jennifer Harbury, José de León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez
and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez.
unanimously,
3. finds that the State violated the right
to life embodied in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
unanimously,
4. finds that the State did not violate the
right to recognition of juridical personality embodied in Article 3 of the
American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez.
unanimously,
5. finds that the State violated the right
to judicial guarantees and judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and
25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, and also of Jennifer Harbury, José de León Bámaca Hernández,
Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez.
unanimously,
6. finds that the State did not comply with
the general obligations of Articles 1(1) of the American Convention on Human
Rights in connection with the violations of the substantive rights indicated
in the previous decisions of this Judgment.
unanimously,
7. finds that the State did not comply with
the obligation to prevent and punish torture in the terms of Articles 1,
2, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
unanimously,
8. decides that the State should order an
investigation to determine the persons responsible for the human rights
violations referred to in this Judgment, and also to publicly disseminate
the results of such investigation and punish those responsible.
unanimously,
9. decides that the State should remedy the
damages caused by the violations indicated the decisions 1 to 7, and to
this effect authorizes its President to duly order the opening of the reparations
stage.
Judges
Cançado Trindade, Salgado Pesantes, García Ramírez and de Roux Rengifo informed
the Court of their Opinions, which accompany this judgment.
Done
in Spanish and English, the Spanish text being authentic, at San José, Costa
Rica, on November 25, 2000.
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
President
Máximo Pacheco-Gómez Hernán
Salgado-Pesantes
Alirio Abreu-Burelli
Sergio García-Ramírez
Carlos Vicente
de Roux-Rengifo
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles
Secretary
So
ordered,
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
President
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles
Secretary
[1] Judge
Oliver Jackman abstained from hearing this case, because he had taken
part in several stages of the case while it was being processed before
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, when he was a member of
the Commission.
[2]
Cf. Transcript of the reports of the Magistrate
and the autopsy, which appear in case file No. 395-92, given to Jennifer
Harbury on August 23, 1993, Annex 4; testimony of Patricia Davis, given
to the Court on August 24, 1993, Annex 5; testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar
García, given to the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar,
in the Public Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; Human Rights Watch/Americas,
Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995,
Annex 51; final report of the Ombudsman in the special pre-trial investigation
procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16; letter of May 11, 1992, from Ramiro
de León Carpio, Ombudsman, to Villagrán Muñoz; testimony of Mario Ernesto
Sosa Orellana, given to the Court on November 22, 1998; testimony of Jennifer
Harbury, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; and testimony of Julio Arango Escobar, given to the Court on
June 17, 1998.
[3]
Cf. Final report of the Ombudsman en the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16;
Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51; testimony of Jennifer Harbury,
given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of James Harrington, given
to the Court on June 17, 1998; testimony of Francis Farenthall, given
to the Court on June 17, 1998; testimony of Acisclo Valladares, given
to the Court on November 22, 1998; and letter of May 11, 1992 from Ramiro
de León Carpio, Ombudsman, to Francisco Villagrán Muñoz.
[4]
Cf. Note of April 24, 1992 from the URNG
to the Ombudsman; note of May 11, 1992, from the Ombudsman to the URNG;
Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51; and testimony of Jennifer Harbury,
given to the Court on June 16, 1998.
[5]
Cf. Decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice
of February 25 and 26, 1993, in file No. 14/93, Annex 23; letter of March
11, 1993, from Juan José Rodil Peralta, President of the Supreme Court
of Justice, to the members of the Board of the Guatemalan Human Rights
Commission, Annex 24; and testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given to the
Court on June 16, 1998.
[6]
Cf. Transcript of the reports of the Magistrate
and the autopsy that appear in case file No. 395-92, given to Jennifer
Harbury on August 23, 1993, Annex 4; testimony of Patricia Davis, of August
24, 1993, Annex 5; judicial record of the exhumation at Retalhuleu, August
17, 1993, Annex 6; report of the forensic expert, Michael Charney, to
the Second Criminal Trial Court of Retalhuleu, August 18, 1993, Annex
7; Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of
Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51; testimony of Jennifer Harbury,
given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of Fernando Moscoso, given
to the Court on June 17, 1998; and
testimony of Patricia Davis, given to the Court on June 18, 1998.
[7]
Cf. Final report of the Ombudsman on the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16.
[8]
Cf. Decision of September 1, 1994, of the
Supreme Court of Justice, in file No. 82/94, Annex 25; complaint presented
before the Public Ministry on October 21, 1994, by the Attorney General,
Acisclo Valladares Molina, Annex 27; and Human Rights Watch/Americas,
Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995,
Annex 51.
[9] Cf. Decision of September 1, 1994 of the
Supreme Court of Justice in file No. 82/94, Annex 25; complaint submitted
to the Public Ministry by the Attorney General, Acisclo Valladares Molina,
on October 21, 1994, Annex 27; Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared
in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51;
and testimony of Acisclo Valladares Molina, given to the Court on November
22, 1998.
[10]
Cf. Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared
in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51;
and letter of March 13, 1995, from the Government to the Inter-American
Commission.
[11]
Cf. Complaint submitted to the Public Ministry
by the Attorney General, Acisclo Valladares Molina, on October 21, 1994,
Annex 27; decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala of November
2, 1994, Annex 28; statement by Jennifer Harbury, submitted to the Inter-American
Commission on December 20, 1995, Annex 46; official record of the interview
with Jennifer Harbury of November 3, 1994, in the Public Ministry, Annex
47; questions for the interview with the Attorney General, Acisclo Valladares
Molina, October 31, 1994, Annex 48; testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given
to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of Acisclo Valladares, given
to the Court on November 22, 1998; and letter of March 13, 1995, from
the Government to the Inter-American Commission.
[12]
Cf. Statement by Jennifer Harbury, submitted
to the Inter-American Commission on December 20, 1995, Annex 46; Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared
in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51;
and testimony of Fernando Moscoso Moller, given to the Court on June 17,
1998.
[13] Cf. Final report of the Ombudsman on the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16;
Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51; testimony of Jennifer Harbury,
given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of Acisclo Valladares Molina,
given to the Court on November 22, 1998; Report of the Commission for
Historical Clarification Tome VII; and letter of March 13, 1995, from
the Government to the Inter-American Commission.
[14]
Cf. Final report of the Ombudsman on the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16;
testimony of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana given to the Court on November
22, 1998; and letter of March 13, 1995, from the Government to the Inter-American
Commission.
[15]
Cf. Final report of the Ombudsman on the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16;
letter of March 13, 1995, from the Government to the Inter-American Commission;
and Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of
Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51.
[16] Cf. Letter of March 13, 1995, from the Government to
the Inter-American Commission; and decision of the Public Ministry of
March 23, 1995, Annex 29.
[17]
Cf. Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared
in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51;
testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony
of Acisclo Valladares, given to the Court on November 22, 1998; and letter
of the Government to the Inter-American Commission of March 13, 1995.
[18]
Cf. Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared
in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51;
letter of March 13, 1995, from the Government to the Inter-American Commission;
testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; and
testimony of Acisclo Valladares, given to the Court on November 22, 1998.
[19]
Cf. Report on the press conference of Ramiro
de León Carpio of March 29, 1995, Annex 42.
[20]
Cf. Decision of the Public Ministry of
March 23, 1995, Annex 29; decision of the Criminal, Narco-activity and
Crimes against the Environment Trial Court of Guatemala of March 28, 1995,
Annex 30; and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome
VII.
[21]
Cf. Decision of April 10, 1995, of the
Military Trial Court of Retalhuleu,
Annex 52; decision of April 5, 1995, of the Military Trial Court of Retalhuleu,
Annex 53; testimony of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana, given to the Court
on November 22, 1998; testimony of Simeón Cum Chutá, given to the Court
on November 23, 1998; and testimony of Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao, given
to the Court on November 23, 1998.
[22]
Cf. Decision of July 17, 1995, of the Eleventh
Chamber of the Appeals Court of Retalhuleu, convened in Court Martial,
Annex 54.
[23]
Cf. Decisions of November 22, 1995 del
Eleventh Chamber of the Appeals Court of Retalhuleu, convened in Court
Martial, Annex 55.
[24] Cf. Death certificate of Efraín Bámaca
Velásquez; and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification,
Tome VII.
[25]
Cf. Decisions of the Military Trial Court
of Retalhuleu of December 5, 1995, Annex 56.
[26]
Cf. Testimony of Julio Arango Escobar of
June 17, 1998; and newspaper article,
“El fiscal Arango Escobar se retira del caso
Bámaca Velásquez”, Prensa Libre, June 27, 1995, Annex 31.
[27]
Cf. Testimony of Jennifer Harbury of June
16, 1998; and testimony of Julio Arango Escobar, given to the Court on
June 17, 1998.
[28]
Cf. Newspaper article, “Frustrado nuevo intento para exhumar cadáver
de Bámaca Velásquez”, Prensa Libre, July 7, 1995, Annex 41; and testimony
of Julio Arango Escobar, given to the Court on June 17, 1998.
[29]
Cf. Forensic Anthropology Team. Preliminary
Report. Forensic studies in the investigation proceedings on the Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez Case, Annex
40; testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given to the Court on June 16, 1998;
testimony of Julio Arango Escobar, given to the Court on June 17, 1998;
and testimony of Fernando Moscoso Moller, given to the Court on June 17,
1998.
[30]
Cf. Newspaper article, “Exhumation of Bámaca
Velásquez suspended due to insufficient time”, NOTIMEX, June 16, 1995,
Annex 39; Forensic Anthropology Team. Preliminary Report. Forensic studies
in the investigation proceedings of the Efraín Bámaca Velásquez Case, Annex 40; testimony of Jennifer Harbury,
given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of Julio Arango Escobar,
given to the Court on June 17, 1998; and testimony of Fernando Moscoso
Moller, given to the Court on June 17, 1998.
[31]
Cf. Decision of June 19, 1995, of the Second
Criminal, Narco-Activity and Crimes against the Environment Trial Court,
Annex 37; newspaper article, “Frustrado nuevo intento para exhumar cadáver
de Bámaca Velásquez”, Prensa Libre, July 7, 1995, Annex 41; and testimony
of Julio Arango Escobar, given to the Court on June 17, 1998.
[32]
Cf. Newspaper article, “El
fiscal Arango Escobar se retira del caso Bámaca Velásquez”, Prensa
Libre, June 27, 1995, Annex 31; Report of the Ombudsman of June 27, 1995,
Annex 32; bulletin of the Guatemalan Human Rights Commission of June 24,
1995, Annex 33; newspaper article,
“Arango se excusa de seguir caso Bámaca Velásquez”, El Gráfico, August 2, 1995, Annex 34;
testimony of Julio Arango Escobar, given to the Court on June 17, 1998;
and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome VII.
[33]
Cf. Testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given
to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of Julio Arango Escobar, given
to the Court on June 17, 1998; and testimony of Fernando Moscoso Moller,
given to the Court on June 17, 1998.
[34]
Cf. Testimonies
of Santiago Cabrera López, given to the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights and to the Office of the Guatemalan Prosecutor General, Annexes
1, 2 and 3; Watson, F. Alexander, “U.S. Policy Toward Guatemala: The Cases
of Michael Devine and Efraín Bámaca.” Statement before the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence Washington, D.C., April 5, 1995. Published in
U.S. State Department Dispatch. Vol. 6, No. 6, April 17, 1995, Annex 8;
testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar García, given to the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights on September 8, 1995, and recorded on videotape, Annex
9; testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar García, given to the special prosecutor,
Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar, in the Public Ministry on May 20, 1995,
Annex 10; supplementary statement by Nery Ángel Urízar García to the special
prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar, Public Ministry, May 24, 1995,
Annex 12; Report of the U.S. Department of Defense, November 1994, Annex
15; statement sworn before a Notary with the testimony of Pedro Tartón
Jutzuy “Arnulfo”, of February 23, 1998; statement sworn before a Notary
with the testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza “Bayardo”, of February
24, 1998; testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, on February 23, 1998, and recorded on videotape;
Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome VII; and letter
of the U.S. Senator, Robert Torricelli, of June 17, 1998.
[35] Cf. Testimonies of Santiago Cabrera
López given to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and to the Office
of the Guatemalan Prosecutor General, Annexes 1, 2 and 3; Watson, F. Alexander,
“U.S. Policy Toward Guatemala: The Cases of Michael Devine and Efraín
Bámaca”. Statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Washington, D.C., April 5, 1995. Published in U.S. State Department Dispatch.
Vol. 6, No. 6, April 17, 1995, Annex 8; testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar
García, given to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on September
8, 1995, and recorded on videotape, Annex 9; testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar
García, given to the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar,
in the Public Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; supplementary statement
by Nery Ángel Urízar García given to the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo
Arango Escobar, in the Public Ministry on May 24, 1995, Annex 12; transcript
of the State Department daily information meeting, by Christine Shelly,
Federal News Service, of November 14, 1994, Annex 13; cable of the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency (hereinafter “CIA”) to the U.S. State Department
of March 18, 1992, Annex 14; report of the U.S. Department of Defense, November 1994, Annex 15;
Final report of the Ombudsman on the special pre-trial investigation
procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16; letter from Representative Robert
Torricelli to President William Clinton, of March 22, 1995, Annex 17;
CIA report of January 25, 1995, Annex 18; United States intelligence information
of January 1995 presented in response to a request under the U.S. Freedom
of Information Act, Annex 35; letter of May 23, 1995 from Anne W. Patterson,
Deputy Under-Secretary of the U.S. State Department to Jennifer Harbury,
Annex 38; report on the press conference of Ramiro de León Carpio of March
29, 1995, Annex 42; document of the U.S. Department of Defense, July 1995,
Annex 44; CIA report of March 7, 1995, Comments of the Guatemalan Ministry
of Defense, Annex 50; Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala:
The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51; statement sworn
before a Notary with the testimony of Pedro Tartón Jutzuy “Arnulfo”, of
February 23, 1998; statement sworn before a Notary with the testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza “Bayardo”, of February 24, 1998; testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza to the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights on February 23, 1998, recorded on videotape; Report of the Commission
for Historical Clarification, Tome VII; REMHI Report Tome II; letter from
the U.S. Senator, Robert Torricelli, of June 17, 1998; and letter of May
11, 1992, from Ramiro de León Carpio, Ombudsman, to Francisco Villagrán
Muñoz.
[36]
Cf. Transcripts of the reports of the Magistrate
and the autopsy that appear in case file No. 395-92 given to Jennifer
Harbury on August 23, 1993, Annex 4; written testimony of Patricia Davis
of August 24, 1993, Annex 5; judicial record of the exhumation in Retalhuleu
on August 17, 1993, Annex 6; report of the forensic expert, Michael Charney,
to the Second Criminal Trial Court of Retalhuleu, August 18, 1993, Annex
7; Watson, F. Alexander, “U.S.
Policy Toward Guatemala: The Cases of Michael Devine and Efraín Bámaca”.
Statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Washington,
D.C., April 5, 1995. Published in U.S. State Department Dispatch. Vol.
6, No. 6, April 17, 1995, Annex 8; testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar García
to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of September 8, 1995,
recorded on videotape, Annex 9; testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar García
given to the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar, in the
Public Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; identity document of Cristóbal
Che Pérez, Annex 11; supplementary statement by Nery Ángel Urízar García
given to the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar, in the
Public Ministry on May 24, 1995, Annex 12; Final report of the Ombudsman
on the special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex
16; memorandum by Alexander F. Watson of the U.S. State Department of
November 4, 1994, Annex 26; decision of the Second Criminal Narco-Activity
and Crimes against the Environment Trial Court, Annex 37; newspaper article,
“Exhumation of Bámaca Suspended Due to insufficient time”, NOTIMEX, June
16, 1995, Annex 39; Forensic Anthropology Team. Preliminary Report. Forensic
studies in the investigation proceedings on the Efraín Bámaca Velásquez
Case, Annex 40; Newspaper article, “Frustrado nuevo intento para exhumar cadáver de Bámaca”, Prensa Libre, July 7, 1995,
Annex 41; statement by Jennifer Harbury to the Inter-American Commission
on December 20, 1995, Annex 46; record of interview of Jennifer Harbury
of November 3, 1994, in the Public Ministry, Annex 47; CIA report of March
7, 1995; comments of the Guatemalan Ministry of Defense, Annex 50; Human
Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca
Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51; and Report of the Commission for Historical
Clarification, Tome VII.
[37] Cf.
Decisions of February 25 and 26, 1993 of the Supreme Court of Justice
in file No. 14/93, Annex 23; letter of March 11, 1993, from Juan José
Rodil Peralta, President of the Supreme Court of Justice, to the members
of the Board of the Guatemalan Human Rights Commission Annex 24; and decision
of September 1, 1994, of the Supreme Court of Justice in file No. 82/94,
Annex 25.
[38]
Cf. Final report of the Ombudsman on the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16;
Decision of August 11, 1993, of the Second Trial Court of Retalhuleu,
Annex 21; decision of February 28, 1995 of the Second Trial Court of Retalhuleu,
Annex 22; complaint presented before the Public Ministry on October 21,
1994, by the Attorney General, Acisclo Valladares Molina, Annex 27; decision
of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala of November 2, 1994, Annex
28; decision of the Public Ministry of March 23, 1995, Annex 29; decision
of the Criminal, Narco-activity and Crimes against the Environment Trial
Court of Guatemala of March 28, 1995, Annex 30; U.S. intelligence information
of January 1995, presented in response to a request under the U.S. Freedom
of Information Act, Annex 35; Newspaper article, “Abogado
de Harbury se reunió ayer con
diplomáticos and testigo en la OEA”, Prensa Libre, October 4, 1994,
Annex 45; statement by Jennifer Harbury to the Inter-American Commission,
on December 20, 1995, Annex 46; questions for Jennifer Harbury in the
interview with the Attorney General, Acisclo Valladares Molina, October
31, 1994, Annex 48; decisions of April 6 and 10, 1995, of the Military
Trial Court of Retalhuleu, Annex 52; decision of April 5, 1995, of the
Military Trial Court of Retalhuleu, Annex 53; decision of July 17, 1995,
of the Eleventh Chamber of the Appeals Court of Retalhuleu, convened in
Court Martial, Annex 54; decisions of November 22, 1995, of the Eleventh
Chamber of the Appeals Court of Retalhuleu, convened in Court Martial,
Annex 55; and decisions of the Military Trial Court of Retalhuleu of December
5, 1995, Annex 56.
[39]
Cf. Declaration and record of marriage
in Travis Country, Texas, United States of America, on June 22, 1993,
Annex 19; judgment of May 23, 1996, of the Second Trial Court of San Marcos,
issued as an amparo tribunal,
Annex 20; decision of August 11, 1993, of the Second Trial Court of Retalhuleu,
Annex 21; decision of February 28, 1995, of the Second Trial Court of
Retalhuleu, Annex 22; record of the interview with Jennifer Harbury of
November 3, 1994, in the Public Ministry, Annex 47; CIA report of March
7, 1995, comments of the Guatemalan Ministry of Defense, Annex 50; and
Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51.
[40]
Cf. Watson, F. Alexander, “U.S. Policy
Toward Guatemala: The Cases of Michael Devine and Efraín Bámaca”. Statement
before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Washington, D.C., April
5, 1995. Published in U.S. State Department Dispatch. Vol. 6, No. 6, April
17, 1995, Annex 8; memorandum by Alexander F. Watson of the U.S. State
Department of November 4, 1994, Annex 26; letter of May 23, 1995, from
Anne W. Patterson, Deputy Under-Secretary of the U.S. State Department
to Jennifer Harbury, Annex 38; report on the press conference of Ramiro
de León Carpio of March 29, 1995, Annex 42; Newspaper article, “Abogado
de Harbury se reunió ayer con diplomáticos and testigo en la OEA”,
Prensa Libre, October 4, 1994, Annex 45; statement by Jennifer Harbury
to the Inter-American Commission on December 20, 1995, Annex 46; questions
for Jennifer Harbury in the interview with the Attorney General, Acisclo
Valladares Molina, October 31, 1994, Annex 48;
Newspaper article, “La batalla
pacífica de la esposa del guerrillero”, October 30, 1994, Annex 49;
and CIA report of March 7, 1995, Comments of the Guatemalan Ministry of
Defense, Annex 50.
[41]
Cf. Statement sworn before a Notary on
September 9, 1996, by Carmen Camey, Human Rights Commission, appointing
José E. Pertierra as her representative; Statement sworn before a Notary
by Jennifer Harbury; letter of March 2, 1997, from Jennifer Harbury; special
power of attorney by which the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez appointed
CEJIL as their representative, granted on June 22, 1998.
[42]
Cf. Statement sworn before a Notary with
by Jennifer Harbury on December 23, 1997; newspaper article, “Caso Bámaca Velásquez: Declaran más militares”,
November 24, 1998, Última Hora newspaper; newspaper article, “Hoy declaró otro militar en caso Efraín Bámaca
Velásquez” (no source); newspaper article, “Harbury pide US $ 25 millones
por el caso Bámaca Velásquez”, June 5, 1998, Última Hora newspaper;
and document about the visit of April 25, 1999.
[43]
Cf. Newspaper article, “El fiscal
Arango Escobar se retira del caso Bámaca Velásquez”, Prensa Libre,
June 27, 1995, Annex 31; Report of the Ombudsman of June 27, 1995, Annex
32; bulletin of the Guatemalan Human Rights Commission of June 24, 1995,
Annex 33; newspaper article, “Arango
se excusa de seguir caso Bámaca Velásquez”,
El Gráfico, August 2, 1995, Annex 34; newspaper article, “Car Bomb Explodes
Outside Lawyer's home in District”, Washington Post, January 6, 1996,
Annex 36; newspaper article, “El
Fiscal General eleva recurso
de amparo contra el Presidente”, Siglo Veintiuno, November 10, 1995,
Annex 43; and note of the Inter-American Commission of June 12, 1998.
[44]
Cf. Death certificate of Efraín Bámaca
Velásquez.
[45]
Cf. Photocopy of official letter No. 229/G-3-92
of July 13, 1992, with fragmentary Order No. 008/G-3-92 attached; two
photocopies of telegrams dated July 21 and 27, 1992; photocopy of official
letter No. 245/G-3-92; and photocopy of telegram of August 7, 1992.
[46]
Cf. Certificate of successful completion
of a commando course, issued by the Army of the Republic of Colombia on
November 24, 1992; certificate of successful completion of a commando
course, issued by the School of Arms and Services, Colombia, on November
24, 1992; two photocopies of official passport No. 32205, registration
No. 0547; photocopy of official passport 23918, registration No. 3219;
and photocopy of official passport 1326315, registration No. 21251.
[47]
Cf. Medical certificate of October 28,
1998; letter signed by Patricia Chalupsky, of June 4, 1992; letter signed
by Dr. Gary M. Gartsman of June 8, 1992; medical records of Jesús Aguirre
of March 18, 1992; and physical examination of Jesús Aguirre of March
18, 1992.
[48]
Cf. Affidavit of May 24, 1995, related
to the deposition of Cleonice Dique Carnicelli, the widow of Thomae; affidavit
of May 26, 1995, related to the deposition of Walter Aroldo Barrios Reyes;
affidavit of May 30, 1995, related to the deposition of Julian Socop Cuyuch;
affidavit of May 30, 1995, related to the deposition of Edgar René Muñoz
Cifuentes; affidavit of May 30, 1995, related to the deposition of Francisco
Ortíz Sánchez; affidavit of May 30, 1995, related to the deposition of
María Macaria Cotón; affidavit of May 30, 1995, related to the deposition
of Belfina Judith Fajardo; and copy of the expansion of the statement
of April 15, 1996, by Anastasia
López Calvo before the district prosecutor, Shilvia Anabella Jerez de
Herrera.
[49]
Cf. Certificate of criminal record of Otoniel
de la Roca Mendoza of November 20, 1998; and certificate of military enrolment
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza of November 16, 1998.
[50] Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para.
61; Paniagua Morales et al. Case.
Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 70; Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(Articles 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights).
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 43;
and Cayara Case. Preliminary objections. Judgment
of February 3, 1993. Series
C No. 14, para. 42.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street
Children” Case). Judgment
of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 72; Blake Case. Judgment January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 50;
Castillo Páez Case. Judgment of November
3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 39; and Loayza
Tamayo Case. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para.
42.
[53] Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note
50, para. 90; Paniagua Morales et
al. Case, supra note 50, para. 71; Suárez
Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para.
37; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case.
Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 136; Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5; para.
140; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case.
Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134.
[54] Cf. Villagrán
Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 75; and Paniagua
Morales et al. Case, supra
note 50, para. 91.
[55] Cf. Villagrán
Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 68; Godínez
Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 144; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra
note 53, para. 138.
[56] Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case. Judgment of
August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 52; Durand
and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paras.
52-56; Villagrán Morales et al.
Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra
note 52, para. 71; Castillo Páez
Case. Reparations, (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights).
Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series
C No. 43, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo
Case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights).
Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series
C No. 42, para. 57; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 76.
[57]
Nery Ángel Urízar worked under the orders of Mario Ernesto Sosa
Orellana in the intelligence office of Military Zone No. 1316 of Mazatenango,
Suchitepéquez. In March 1992, there was a battle between the Army and
the Luis Ixmatá Front in Nuevo San Carlos, in which Comandante Everardo
was injured. He saw a man who appeared to be Bámaca Velásquez at the Santa
Ana Berlín military base, and this was confirmed by Sosa Orellana. It
appeared that the Army killed a soldier named Cristóbal Che Pérez in order
to simulate that his body was that of Bámaca Velásquez. He deserted the
Guatemalan armed forces after an attempt had been made on his life and,
subsequently, went to the United States.
[58] Cf. Paniagua
Morales et al. Case, supra
note 50, para. 75; Fairén Garbi
and Solís Corrales Case, supra
note 53, para. 145; Godínez Cruz
Case, supra note 53, para. 152 and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 146.
[59] Cf. Castillo
Páez Case. Reparations, supra
note 56, paras. 40-42; and Loayza
Tamayo Case. Reparations, supra
note 56, paras. 54-60.
[60] Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note
56, para. 52; Durand and Ugarte
Case, supra note 56, paras. 52-56;
Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 71; Castillo Páez Case. Reparations, supra note 56, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations, supra note 56, para. 57; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 76.
[61] Cf. Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 51.
[62] Cf. Blake Case, supra note 52, para. 51 and, similarly, Castillo Páez Case, supra note 52, paras. 50-53.
[63]
Cf. Declaration and registration of marriage
in Travis County, Texas, United States of America of June 22, 1993, Annex
19; official record of interview with Jennifer Harbury of November 3,
1994, in the Public Ministry, Annex 47; Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared
in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51;
and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome VII.
[64] Cf. REMHI report, Tome III; Report of the
Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome I; and final arguments of
the State during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on June
16, 17 and 18, 1998.
[65] Cf. Declaration and registration of marriage
in Travis County, Texas, United States of America of June 22, 1993, Annex
19; judgment of May 23, 1996, delivered by the Second Trial Court of San
Marcos, as a court of amparo,
Annex 20; official record of the interview with Jennifer Harbury of November
3, 1994, in the Public Ministry, Annex 47; Human Rights Watch/Americas,
Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995,
Annex 51; testimony of Jennifer Harbury given to the Court on June 16,
1998; and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome
VII.
[66]
Cf. Testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López
before the Office of the Guatemalan Prosecutor General and before the
Inter-American Commission, Annexes 2 and 3; final oral argument of the
State during the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on June
16, 17 and 18, 1998; testimony of Santiago Cabrera López, given to the
Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, given
to the Court on October 15, 1998; testimony of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana,
given to the Court on November 22, 1998; testimony of Efraín Aguirre Loarca,
given to the Court on November 23, 1998; testimony of Julio Alberto Soto
Bilbao, given to the Court on November 23, 1998; Report of the Commission
for Historical Clarification, Tome II; and REMHI Report, Tome III.
[67] Cf. Testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López
before the Office of the Guatemalan Prosecutor General and before the
Inter-American Commission, Annexes 2 and 3; testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar
García, before the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar, in
the Public Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; Final report of the Ombudsman
on the special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex
16; statement sworn before a Notary on the testimony of Otoniel de la
Roca Mendoza; testimony of Santiago Cabrera López given to the Court on
June 16, 1998; expert testimony of Helen Mack given to the Court on June
18, 1998; testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, given to the Court
on October 15, 1998; testimony of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana, given to
the Court on November 22, 1998; testimony of Simeón Cum Chutá, given to
the Court on November 23, 1998; testimony of Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao,
given to the Court on November 23, 1998; REMHI Report, Tome II; and Report
of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome VII.
[68] Cf. Testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López
before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and before the Office
of the Guatemalan Prosecutor General, Annexes 1 and 2; Human Rights Watch/Americas,
Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995,
Annex 51; statement sworn before a Notary with the testimony of Pedro
Tartón Jutzuy “Arnulfo” of February 23, 1998; statement sworn before a
Notary with the testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza “Bayardo” of February
24, 1998; testimony of Santiago
Cabrera López, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of Otoniel
de la Roca Mendoza, given to the Court on October 15, 1998; REMHI Report,
Tome II; and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome
II.
[69] Cf. Testimony of Santiago Cabrera López
before the Inter-American Commission, Annex 3; testimony of Nery Ángel
Urízar García before the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar,
in the Public Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; supplementary statement
by Nery Ángel Urízar García before the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo
Arango Escobar, Public Ministry, May 24, 1995, Annex 12; statement sworn
before a Notary with the testimony of Pedro Tartón Jutzuy “Arnulfo” of
February 23, 1998; statement sworn before a Notary with the testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza “Bayardo” of February 24, 1998; testimony
of Santiago Cabrera López, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, given to the Court on October 15, 1998;
testimony of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana, given to the Court on November
22, 1998; testimony of Luis Alberto Gómez Guillermo, given to the Court
on November 23, 1998; testimony of Jesús Efraín Aguirre Loarca of November
23, 1998; testimony of Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao, given to the Court on
November 23, 1998; and REMHI Report, Tome II.
[70] Cf. Testimony of Santiago Cabrera López
before the Inter-American Commission, Annex 3; testimony of Nery Ángel
Urízar García before the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar,
in the Public Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; supplementary statement
by Nery Ángel Urízar García before the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo
Arango Escobar, Public Ministry, May 24, 1995, Annex 12; statement sworn
before a Notary with the testimony of Pedro Tartón Jutzuy “Arnulfo” of
February 23, 1998; statement sworn before a Notary with the testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza “Bayardo” of February 24, 1998; testimony
of Santiago Cabrera López. given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, given to the Court on October 15, 1998;
testimony of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana, given to the Court on November
22, 1998; testimony of Luis Alberto Gómez Guillermo, given to the Court
on November 23, 1998; and testimony of Jesús Efraín Aguirre Loarca of
November 23, 1998.
[71] Cf. Testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar García
before the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar, in the Public
Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; Final report of the Ombudsman on the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16;
Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51; statement sworn before a Notary
with the testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza “Bayardo” of February
24, 1998; testimony of Santiago Cabrera López, given to the Court on June
16, 1998; testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, given to the Court
on October 15, 1998; testimony of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana, given to
the Court on November 22, 1998; testimony of Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao,
given to the Court on November 23, 1998; photocopy of official letter
No. 229/G-3-92 of 13 July, 1992, attaching Fragmentary Order No. 008/G-3-92;
two photocopies of telegrams of July 21 and 27, 1992; photocopy of official
letter No. 245/G-3-92; photocopy of telegram of August 7,
1992; and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification,
Tome VII.
[72]
Cf. Testimony of Nery Ángel Urízar García
before the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango Escobar, in the Public
Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; Final report of the Ombudsman on the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16;
Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín
Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51; statement sworn before a Notary
with the testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza “Bayardo” of February
24, 1998; testimony of Santiago Cabrera López, given to the Court on June
16, 1998; testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, given to the Court
on October 15, 1998; and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification,
Tome VII.
[73]
Cf. Testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López
before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and before the Office
of the Guatemalan Prosecutor General, Annexes 1 and 2; testimony of Nery
Ángel Urízar García before the special prosecutor, Julio Eduardo Arango
Escobar, in the Public Ministry on May 20, 1995, Annex 10; Human Rights
Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez,
March 1995, Annex 51; statement sworn before a Notary about the testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza “Bayardo” of February 24, 1998; testimony
of Jennifer Harbury, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony of
Santiago Cabrera López, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, given to the Court on October 15, 1998;
REMHI Report, Tome II; and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification,
Tome VII.
[74] Cf. Testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López
before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and before the Office
of the Guatemalan Prosecutor General, Annexes 1 and 2; statement sworn
before a Notary about the testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza; testimony
of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, given to the Court on October 15, 1998;
and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome VII.
[75]
Cf. Statement sworn before a Notary about
the testimony of Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza; REMHI Report, Tome II; and
Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome VII.
[76] Cf. Testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López
before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and before the Office
of the Guatemalan Prosecutor General, Annexes 1 and 2; testimony of Santiago
Cabrera López, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; REMHI Report, Tome
II; and Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Tome VII.
[77] Cf. Decisions of February 25 and 26, 1993
of the Supreme Court of Justice in case No. 14/93, Annex 23; letter of
March 11, 1993, from Juan José Rodil Peralta, President of the Supreme
Court of Justice, to the members of the Board of Directors of the Guatemalan
Human Rights Commission, Annex 24; Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice,
of September 1, 1994, in case No. 82/94, Annex 25; complaint presented
before the Public Ministry on October 21, 1994, by the Attorney General,
Acisclo Valladares Molina, Annex 27; Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared
in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51;
testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; and
testimony of Acisclo Valladares Molina given to the Court on November
22, 1998.
[78] Cf. Final report of the Ombudsman on the
special pre-trial investigation procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16;
Decision of the Public Ministry of March 23, 1995, Annex 29; decision
of the First Criminal, Narco-activity and Crimes against the Environment
Trial Court of Guatemala on March 28, 1995, Annex 30; statement by Jennifer
Harbury presented to the Inter-American Commission on December 20, 1995,
Annex 46; Human Rights Watch/Americas, Disappeared
in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, March 1995, Annex 51;
Decision of the Military Trial Court of Retalhuleu of April 10, 1995,
Annex 52; Decision of the Military Trial Court of Retalhuleu of April
5, 1995, Annex 53; Decision of July 17, 1995, of the Eleventh Chamber
of the Retalhuleu Appeals Court, convened in Court Martial, Annex 54;
decisions of November 22, 1995, of the Eleventh Chamber of the Appeals
Court of Retalhuleu, convened in Court Martial, Annex 55; decisions of
the Military Trial Court of Retalhuleu of December 5, 1995, Annex 56;
testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given to the Court on June 16, 1998; testimony
of Fernando Moscoso Moller, given to the Court on June 17, 1998; testimony
of Acisclo Valladares Molina, given to the Court on November 22, 1998;
testimony of Mario Ernesto Sosa Orellana, given to the Court on November
22, 1998; testimony of Simeón Cum Chutá, given to the Court on November
23, 1998; testimony of Julio Alberto Soto Bilbao, given to the Court on
November 23, 1998; Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification,
Tome VII; and letter of March 13, 1995, from the Government to the Inter-American
Commission.
[79] Cf. Transcripts of the reports of the Magistrate
and the autopsy that appear in case file No. 395-92 provided to Jennifer
Harbury on August 23, 1993, Annex 4; testimony of Patricia Davis of August
24, 1993, Annex 5; judicial record of the exhumation in Retalhuleu, August
17, 1993, Annex 6; report of the forensic expert, Michael Charney, to
the Second Criminal Trial Court of Retalhuleu, August 18, 1993, Annex
7; Final report of the Ombudsman on the special pre-trial investigation
procedure, December 9, 1994, Annex 16; Decision of June 19, 1995, of Second
Criminal, Narco-Activity and Crimes against the Environment Trial Court,
Annex 37; Newspaper article, “Exhumation of Bámaca Velásquez suspended
due to insufficient time”, NOTIMEX, June 16, 1995, Annex 39; Forensic
Anthropology Team. Preliminary Report. Forensic studies in the investigation
proceedings of the Efraín Bámaca Velásquez Case,
Annex 40; Newspaper article, “Frustrado
nuevo intento para exhumar cadáver de Bámaca Velásquez”, Prensa Libre,
July 7, 1995, Annex 41; statement by Jennifer Harbury presented to the
Inter-American Commission on December 20, 1995, Annex 46; Human Rights
Watch/Americas, Disappeared in Guatemala: The Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez,
March 1995, Annex 51; testimony of Jennifer Harbury, given to the Court
on June 16, 1998; testimony of James Harrington. given to the Court on
June 17, 1998; testimony of Francis Farenthall, given to the Court on
June 17, 1998; testimony of Fernando Moscoso, given to the Court on June
17, 1998; testimony of Julio Arango Escobar, given to the Court on June
17, 1998; testimony of Patricia Davis, given to the Court on June 18,
1998; testimony of Acisclo Valladares, given to the Court on November
22, 1998; and letter of May 11, 1992 of Ramiro de León Carpio, Ombudsman,
to Francisco Villagrán Muñoz.
[80] Cf. Blake Case, supra note 52, para. 64.
[81] Cf. Blake
Case, supra note 52, para.
65; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, paras. 163 and 166; Caso Fairén Garbi, supra note 53, para. 147; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53,
paras. 155 and 158.
[82] Ibid.
[83] Cf. Paniagua
Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 90; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 53, para. 152; Godínez
Cruz Case, supra note 53, paras. 168-191; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 159-181;
[84] Cf. Blake Case,
supra note 52, para. 66; Fairén
Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra
note 53, para. 147; Godínez Cruz
Case, supra note 53, para. 165; and Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 158.
[85] Cf. Godínez
Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 165; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra
note 53, para. 157.
[86] Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case
(the “Street Children” Case), supra
note 52, para. 69; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 62; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note
50, para. 72; Blake Case, supra note 52, paras. 47 and 49; Caso Gangaram
Panday. Judgment of January 21, 1994.
Series C No. 16, para. 49; Fairén
Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra
note 53, paras. 130-133; Godínez
Cruz Case, supra note 53,
paras. 133-136; and Velásquez Rodríguez
Case, supra note 53, paras.
127-130.
[87] Cf. Blake
Case, supra note 52, para. 49.
[88] Cf. Similarly, Blake Case, supra note 52, para. 49; Godínez Cruz Case, supra
note 53, paras. 127 and 130; and Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, supra note
53, para. 124.
[89] Cf. Blake
Case, supra note 52, para. 51.
[90]
Cf. Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note
56, para. 85; Villagrán Morales
et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 131;
Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 53, para.
43; and Caso Gangaram Panday, supra
note 86, para. 47.
[91] Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street
Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 135.
[92] Cf. Eur. Court HR, Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments
and Decisions 1996-VI, para. 76; Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others Judgment of 29 November 1988, Series
A no. 145-B, para. 58; and Eur.
Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments
and Decisions 1998-III, para. 124.
[93]
Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note
50, para. 108; and Eur. Court H.
R., Case of Brogan and Others, supra note 92,
paras. 58-59, 61-62.
[94] Cf. Eur. Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey, supra note
90, para. 124.
[95] Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street
Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 135.
[96]
Cf. Godínez
Cruz Case, supra note 53,
paras. 163 and 196; Fairén Garbi
and Solís Corrales Case, supra
note 53, para. 148; and Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, supra note
53, paras. 155 and 186.
[97] Cf. Durand
and Ugarte Case, supra note 56, para. 69; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 50, paras. 89 and 204; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para.
162; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case,
supra note 53, para. 154.
[98] Cf. Cantoral Benavides
Case, supra
note 56, para. 90; Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 166; and similarly,
Eur. Court H.R., Case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25. para. 167.
[99] Cf. Fairén
Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 53, para. 149; Godínez Cruz Case,
supra merits, paras. 164 and 197; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra
note 53, paras. 156 and 187.
[100]
Cf. Castillo
Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 50,
para. 195; and Suárez Rosero Case,
supra note 53, para. 90.
[101] Cf. Cantoral
Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 82; and Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 53, para. 90.
[102] Cf. Cantoral
Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 55; Neira Alegría et al. Case. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C
No. 20, para. 65; Caso Gangaram
Panday, supra note 86, para.
49; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, paras.
141 and 142; and Velásquez Rodríguez
Case, supra note 53, paras. 135 and 136.
[103] Communication
Hiber Conteris v. Uruguay, No.
139/1983, paras. 182-186; [17th to 32nd sessions (October 1982 to April
1988)]. Selection of Decisions of the Human Rights Committee adopted in
accordance with the Optional Protocol, Vol. 2, 1992.
[104] Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note
56, para. 95.
[105] Cf. Cantoral
Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 96; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra
note 50, para. 197; and Loayza Tamayo
Case, supra note 52, para. 57.
[106] Cf. Villagrán
Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para.
175; Castillo Páez Case, supra
note 52, fourth decision; Castillo
Páez Case. Reparations, supra note 56, para. 59; and Blake
Case, supra note 52, para. 115.
[107]
Cf. Blake
Case, supra note 52, para. 114.
[108] Cf. Villagrán
Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para.
174.
[109] Cf. Eur. Court HR, Kurt v. Turkey, supra note
90, paras. 130-134.
[110] Cf. Eur. Court HR, Timurtas v. Turkey, Judgment
of 13 June 2000; para. 95; and Eur.
Court HR, Çakici v. Turkey,
Judgment of 8 July 1999, para. 98.
[111] Cf. United
Nations Human Rights Committee, Quinteros v. Uruguay, 21 July 1983
(19th session) Communication Nº 107/1981, para. 14; [17th to 32nd sessions
(October 1982 to April 1988)]. Selection of Decisions of the Human Rights
Committee adopted in accordance with the Optional Protocol, Vol. 2, 1992.
[112]
Cf. Neira Alegría et al. Case, supra note 102, para. 60.
[113] United Nations Human
Rights Committee,
General Commentary 6/1982, para. 3 and Cf.
Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 145.
[114] Cf. Castillo
Páez Case, supra note 52,
paras. 71-72; Neira Alegría et al.
Case, supra note 102, para. 76; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 198; and Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, supra note
53, para. 188.
[115] Cf. Durand
and Ugarte Case, supra note
56, para. 79.
[116] Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street
Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 222.
[117] Cf., inter alia,
Eur. Court H. R., Edwards v. the
United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, para.
34 and Eur. Court H. R., Vidal v. Belgium judgment
of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, para. 33.
[118] Cf. Caso
Cesti Hurtado. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 125; Caso
Paniagua et al., supra note
50, para. 164; Suárez Rosero Case,
supra note 53, para. 63; Godínez
Cruz Case, supra note 53,
paras. 66, 71 and 88; and Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 63, 68 and 81.
[119] Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 163; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 56, para. 101; Caso Cesti Hurtado, supra note 118, para.
121; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case,
supra note 50, para. 185; and Judicial
Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8, American
Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987.
Series A No. 9, para. 24.
[120] Cf. Cantoral Benavides
Case, supra note 56, para.
163; Durand and Ugarte Case,
supra note 56, para. 101; Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street
Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 234; Caso Cesti Hurtado, supra
note 118, para. 121; Castillo Petruzzi
et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 184;
Paniagua Morales et al. Case,
supra note 50, para. 164; Blake
Case, supra note 52, para. 102; Suárez
Rosero Case, supra note 53, para. 65 and Castillo Páez Case, supra note 52, para.
82.
[121] Cf. Judicial
Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8, American
Convention on Human Rights), supra
note 117, para. 24.
[122] Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 165; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 56,
para. 103; Caso Cesti Hurtado, supra
note 118, para. 121; Castillo Petruzzi
et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 187; Paniagua
Morales et al. Case, supra note
50, para. 164; Blake Case, supra
note 52, para. 102; Suárez Rosero
Case, supra note 53, paras. 63 and 65; Castillo Páez Case, supra note 52, para.
83; Neira Alegría et al. Case,
supra note 102, para. 82; and Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Articles
27(2), 25(1) and 7.6, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion
OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 35.
[123] Cf. Exceptions
to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Articles 46(1), 46(2)a and
46(2)b, American Convention on Human Rights).
Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 34 and similarly Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra
note 53, para. 68; Godínez Cruz
Case, supra note 53, para.
71; and Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra
note 53, para. 93.
[124] Las Palmeras Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment
of February 4, 2000. Series C
No. 67, paras. 32-34.
[125] Cf. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. Judgment
of December 8, 1995. Series C
No. 22, paras. 55 and 56; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 53, para. 161; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note
53, para. 165.
[126] Cf. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, supra
note 125, paras. 55 and 56; Godínez
Cruz Case, supra note 53, paras. 175 and 176; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case,
supra note 53, paras. 166 and 167.
[127] Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 174.
[128] Cf. Caballero
Delgado and Santana Case, supra note 125, para. 56; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 173; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 164.
[129] Understanding
this figure as established in reiterated jurisprudence, Castillo Páez Case, supra note 52, para. 90; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, supra note 125, para. 58; and Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 174-177.
[130] Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note
50, para. 173.
[131] Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the
“Street Children” Case), supra
note 52, para. 226; Godínez Cruz
Case, supra note 53, para. 188; and Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, supra note
53, para. 177.
[132] Cf. Cantoral
Benavides Case, supra note
56, para. 185; Villagrán Morales
et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 249;
and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 136.
[133] Cf. Cantoral
Benavides Case, supra note
56, para. 189; Villagrán Morales
et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 251;
Caso Gangaram Panday, supra note 86, para.
49; Godínez Cruz Case, supra
note 53, para. 141 and Velásquez
Rodríguez Case, supra note
53, para. 135.