Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Wikileaks Note: The full text of this cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 GUATEMALA 001686 SUBJECT: XAMAN CASE REOPENED Classified By: Human Rights Officer Katharine Read, reason 1.5 (b and d) 1. (C) Summary: On June 17, Human Rights Officer attended a public session of the Xaman trial in San Pedro Carcha, Alta Verapaz. This trial is the third attempt to prosecute 25 soldiers for the October 5, 1995, massacre of eleven civilians in the community of Aurora 8 de Octubre, Finca Xaman, Alta Verapaz province. The trial opened on June 3 and is expected to last several months. Neither MINUGUA nor human rights groups maintain that the measure was premeditated; but neither do they expect a sentence that reflects the gravity of the excessive use of force they believe was perpetrated by the army. End Summary. -----------------The Xaman Massacre -----------------2. (U) On October 5, 1995, a patrol of 25 soldiers led by Lieutenant Lacan Chaclan entered the community of Aurora 8 de Octubre, Finca Xaman, Alta

Verapaz during a memorial ceremony for the returning refugee community. There was a dispute of some kind (the details of which are being debated in the trial), tensions exploded, and the patrol opened fire on the community. Eleven civilians were killed, including several women and children. -------------------Lead-up to the Trial -------------------3. (C) According to Gustavo Meono, Director of the Menchu Foundation, Rigoberta Menchu herself was the private plaintiff in the Xaman case until 1999. The Menchu Foundation had worked in returning the Aurora 8 de Octubre community from Mexico to the Xaman Farm in Chisec, Alta Verapaz, before the massacre. Meono told HROff that Menchu grew increasingly concerned about corruption in the Public Ministry and the Courts, and withdrew from the case to avoid tarnishing her name and organization. In April 2000, the Supreme Court annulled previous sentencing and appellate courts' decisions and ordered a new trial. However, only 14 of the 25 accused are currently in state custody due to complications with the pre-trial detention process. 4. (C) Meono said that, in response to delays and corruption in the Guatemalan legal system, the Menchu Foundation filed the case with the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission in 1996. Meono hoped that the case would move to the Inter-

American Court this fall. -------------MINUGUA's take -------------5. (C) MINUGUA's regional coordinator for Alta and Baja Verapaz provinces, Christine Beauchot, told HROff that they hold little hope for convictions and punitive sentences for the fourteen soldiers. Beauchot said that MINUGUA believes the army was guilty of excessive use of force on October 5, 1995, but that it was unclear whether it was a premeditated counterinsurgent action ordered by the military hierarchy. Either way, she doubted that the soldiers being tried would receive sentences any more severe than time already served since the GOG was devoting so little effort to their prosecution. The soldiers, including Lieutenant Lacan Chaclan, who led the patrol, have already served more than the seven-year sentences they could receive if convicted for accidental homicide, the charge most widely expected in this case. ----------------------------Ex-Prosecutor Tells his Story ----------------------------6. (C) The special prosecutor for the case from November 1995 to 1999, Ramiro Contreras, told HROff that he was fired after an arduous battle with the leadership in the Public Ministry. Contreras faced scant resources, disappearing evidence, and death

threats throughout his three-plus years on the case, and left the country after the Attorney General ordered his removal from the case. (Note: Menchu Foundation and others believe Contreras was doing a good job, which is why he was removed.) After Contreras' departure, current prosecutor Alejandro Munoz Pivaral was appointed to the case. ----------------Trial times three ----------------7. (C) On June 17, HROff attended the public audience of the Xaman trial held in the regional sentencing court of San Pedro Carcha, Alta Verapaz. The courtroom, a converted municipal auditorium, was empty save representatives from MINUGUA, the Human Rights Ombudsman's office of Coban, and a few family members of the defendants. On the defense's side there were fourteen orange-uniformed defendants, three defense attorneys, and six Mayan language interpreters (three paid for by the defense and three court-appointed.) On the prosecution's side there was one prosecutor and no staff. 8. (C) The agenda on June 17 involved hearing the testimonies of the remaining fourteen defendants. Patrol leader Lacan Chaclan testified the week before, and all six defendants testifying on June 17 repeated virtually identical versions of the events of October 5, 1995. The soldiers maintained that they accidentally stumbled upon the Aurora 8 de Octubre community during a highly-emotional

commemoration ceremony, that the villagers surrounded and attempted to disarm the soldiers, and that they opened fire on the crowd in selfdefense. 9. (C) The fourteen defendants speak three different Mayan languages and Spanish, and thus most used an interpreter for their testimony. The defendants are all from local ethnic populations in Alta Verapaz, except for Lacan Chaclan, who is from a different Guatemalan province. HROff noted that all three court-appointed interpreters sat and socialized with the defendants throughout the trial, in addition to the three language experts hired by the defense. MINUGUA believes that this was unprofessional behavior. However, prosecutor Munoz Pivaral has not lodged any complaints, nor has he requested any language experts to assist the prosecution. 10. (C) The trial is expected to last through the end of July, with some family members of the victims testifying for the prosecution in a later phase. MINUGUA and the Menchu Foundation staff told us that many of the family members are reluctant to participate in the trial because they lack faith in the justice system. Meono told us that the families have spent the last eight years watching the army and the state delay and corrupt their access to justice by filing dilatory appeals, removing able prosecutors, and allowing evidence to disappear.

------Comment ------11. (C) While not a paradigmatic human rights case, the Xaman case does raise concern about the influence the army continues to wield in Guatemala's weak judicial system. With highly paid lawyers, and mysterious allies allegedly confiscating evidence or bribing judicial operators, the defense has effectively maneuvered to keep responsibility at the level of the patrol. This strategy seems unnecessary, given that experts such as MINUGUA have concluded that this massacre was probably not premeditated army policy, but a terrible error by the patrol leading to the excessive use of force. The lack of commitment devoted to investigating and prosecuting the case by the Public Ministry is one more facet of the great challenge communities face in seeking investigation and prosecution of human rights crimes committed during Guatemala's 36-year internal conflict. HAMILTON (Edited and reading.) reformatted by Andres for ease of

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen