E20 Eastenders Auditions

Interview with legal counsel in the case of Choatalum



Before the reopening of the oral debate Choatalum, interviewed an employee of the Centre for Human Rights Legal Action (CALDH), who serves as legal counsel in the case of Choatalum on the resolution of the CC in July.
......................................
ACOGUATE: Can you explain in general terms, the case of Choatalum travel so far?.

Counsel: (...) initiated at a time, persecution by the army, still under the rule of Romeo Lucas Garcia is one of the most bloodthirsty presidents [Choatalum people] had been in the mountains. However, when it comes Rios Montt, is broadcast information to all the communities in which it was a good president, which gave amnesty: " Surrender, thank you, we're not going to hurt ." And people trust. Above all, in addition to trust, life was actually saved because they had no food in the mountains, having nothing to eat, children were dying. So, that makes people at a time when he decided to give the army. When Rios Montt

begins her term, begins a more selective persecution. Looking for people who had to be captured and tortured. Well, in this context was that these disappearances were the six we have. Comes military commissioner, people are giving, and brings to the military. From there, put them in the task and never come back. Are disappearing.

One of the features of this case is that we never went public. Was always a case that is being judged. And he did all the research. The case never went to the prosecution of human rights although it had already created the prosecution of human rights. We wonder " what had happened would have happened if the prosecution of human rights? "Many think that we would not be at this stage because there was a time when the prosecution of human rights fully served wall of impunity. It is not the case now. There have been some changes and seems to have will. Only to be seen in turning. But at that moment, all cases were with obstacles in the Ministerio Público (MP) during the administration of Florida [former Attorney General, 2004-2008]. However, this is what happened to Chimaltenango as another case of the prosecution. And they continued to investigate as forced disappearances.

After that, he opened the debate with the same rating of enforced disappearance. Actually, it was a time with considerable uncertainty, " What will the judge say? What will happen? Will we see? Will see the disappearance as we see it? Or if you want to get another qualification? "However, it was accepted, passed the indictment and is now on trial.

Now, there we are. Opened the debate and from the beginning, had filed a constitutional motion in the case. Could be followed the debate but when it came to the part where the unconstitutionality happens on appeal, is suspended and could not continue.

ACOGUATE: Do the courts (or CC) do not have a fixed period to resolve?

Counsel: There are times but never fulfilled and it is difficult to find litigants who would go against the Constitutional Court. In fact, they know how to do so there is no evidence. A practice that has been in some courts is that they put a date before it is solved now and then appears to be a legal date, but I really do not. And they give it to the notifier. So who charge all this time is the notifier, who is an ordinary worker. It works many times in court to save time. So one says "I do not want to take action against the reporter," because it's just a worker over the entire system. Yes there are standards for the terms within the law. You can start the procedure for reporting delay, but as I say, you will damage the notifier, and not sure if it really is responsible.

However, sometimes the problem is that these reporters are provided for these things. Sometimes yes there are courts that are resolved in time. But who made the stop there is the notifier. If a defendant has contact with a reporter and taking tests, then yes, you could start something against the reporter. But it is not known.

ACOGUATE: Now with the decision of the Constitutional Court, what are the implications for Choatalum?

Counsel: One of the first things here is that the CC, to get to know the merits of the case, you are indicating to the trial court, who will solve this case, as should the law be interpreted regulates the disappearance without contradicting the Constitution. In this decision, the CC comes specifically to illustrate how this offense does not contradict Article 15 of the Constitution. The CC said that the important thing in these cases is not when they took the victims but when they appeared.

In my view, is too risky for the trial court to decide that is not enforced disappearance. It is very risky. If that happened, we would prepare our resources of appeal, further appeal, and this could rise again to the CC.

Another of the important things of this decision is that the CC states that are crimes against humanity. Admitted that they had never at any time. There may be an enforced disappearance in peacetime and one can say that there are crimes against humanity. However, what characterizes these crimes is when there is a systematic plan for State these types of crimes and then when they become crimes against humanity

ACOGUATE: So if Choatalum could be important in cases of genocide as well?

Counsel: All are litigating cases related to internal armed conflict will serve to support other cases of the past. With the qualification of crimes against humanity, we can say that " the state had a systematic plan to eliminate people, according to the decision of the CC in such and such date, and accepted by the CC."

Gives certainty to cases of genocide to continue saying yes crimes committed against the civilian population. The State can not now say that " was no systematic plan ." We have a decision that relates to this [plan], which is legally accepted. And yet, if you declare a conviction, the loss remains to be tested systematically.

ACOGUATE: What about the case, what are the next steps?

Counsel: now, wait until the Constitutional Court will physically send the document to notify the Tribunal respect to what is already decided. From the moment that the trial court receives the notice, has five days to set date of debate.

ACOGUATE: Do you think the decision in the case of Choatalum has an impact on other cases to create a legal precedent?

Counsel: He will give a better livelihood. Previously, they have argued before the Court is forced disappearance, but by judges have said no. But now, with a decision of the Constitutional Court, can they say, " well, on that date, the Constitutional Court ruled that these facts can be described as enforced disappearance." And there may be mentioned that this was part of a systematic plan, which is crime against humanity, which is enforced disappearance. Because judges often classify as "kidnapping" that to evade the responsibility of the State.

ACOGUATE: Do you think progress in the two cases of Choatalum and El Jute are having a mutual legal implications?

Counsel: Yes fact, I am very familiar with the case of El Jute, how you will develop. It is outrageous when you do not qualify as enforced disappearance when everyone knows that it is, it was a state plan, which was part of an entire national security doctrine. Then, you can not call it a kidnapping.

ACOGUATE: What other cases of enforced disappearance are significant at this time?

Counsel: Fernando Garcia's case is a very interesting case. This case, to me, is important in the sense that it happened in the capital, took place in the urban area. Choatalum cases and El Jute were in the villages are inside. Already he has testified as an enforced disappearance in the field as the disappearances occurred. But in the city, was the police who was in charge of the abductions, enforced disappearances. In court, there has been no case that illustrates how was the context of enforced disappearances in the city the Fernando Garcia would be the first if is classified as forced disappearances.

ACOGUATE: Is that from the legal standpoint, there is a way to curb these developments and other cases of enforced disappearance?

Counsel: Well, remember that in Guatemala we have in law a part that says that the same DC may depart from its. But that is when many years have passed and the situation is different, being in a different historical or otherwise would not be a legal decision, but political.

But here is where political maneuvering. Then You are not surprised when two or three years, we have a decision contrary to that just because they will have other judges. If judges are very faithful to the law will follow suit. Now, if judges with political interests will change. That's what makes us draw much attention and eye on the election of judges and justices of the room. The years have taught us that we should put the eye to the election of judges because if not, we will always play around. It's a constant struggle and can not leave because the moment you are not careful when they take advantage. It's a constant struggle.
.........................
For ACOGUATE
Photo: ACOGUATE

Can I Hook My Ps3 To My Computer Monitor

precedent is established in crimes against defenders of human rights: Justice and community leader Israel Carias


The June 22, 2009, the trial court in Zacapa, Guatemala, ruled against two men for the murder of community leader Israel Carias Ortiz and his two sons Ledwin Anilson (9 years) and Ronald Aroldo (11 years) in February 2007. The perpetrator, Jacob Salguero, and accomplice, Manfred Ramirez, were sentenced to three consecutive sentences of 25 years commutable and 16 years respectively. The ruling sets precedent in recognizing that Carias was killed by his leadership in the struggle for community land by legal means. Importantly, the case remains open to investigate the authors of the murder: the farmers allegedly responsible for hiring thugs to protect their interests. The ruling is important for other human rights cases that were committed in the past and that 99% of rapes committed during the internal armed conflict remain unpunished (1). ACOGUATE has accompanied this case with the Unit for the protection of defenders of human rights in Guatemala (UDEFEGUA) from the beginning of the trial.
......................
Israel Carias was president of the Alliance of United Peasants Society (ACUS) for four years when he was killed in 2007. Also, working with Mission Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA), leads the Community Association for the Integral Development of The Achiotes (ACIDEA), and was a regional leader of the Peasant Unity Committee (CUC). As chairman of ACUS, Carias, backed by more than 80 families in 22 communities, led the fight to regain land stolen by the farmers community.

The struggle to recover these common lands, which have been recognized since 1951 as well as public documents on state property, has met with strong resistance from farmers who were exploiting the areas in question (2). In an audio track presented as evidence during the trial, Carias described the fight to the people of Los Achiotes. "We do not want to play land already have documents. We are fighting for national land. I'm just the spokesperson for the needs of the community. Am not a judge, I do not decide. You have the right to land according to the law . "(3) Although legally belonged to the community, these lands were still being exploited by farmers.

After years of frustration in a legal and bureaucratic process stalled, ACUS began to see the negotiation as a better way to get the land in 2004. Although meant to hand over part of the community land to farmers, the negotiation was seen as necessary to cut most of encroachment by them and set firm boundaries and unquestionable. Carías received his first threat when negotiations began in 2004 and continued until the days just before his murder. (4)

The Land Records Office was the first mediation Achiotes in December 2006 and went to remeasure for the last time in March 2007. (5) The time of the murder of Carias coincide with this visit, a deadline approaching community land, and an increase in repression against communities fighting for their rights to land and natural resources. (6)

According to witnesses and reports brought to the national police before his assassination, Carias has been the victim of intimidation and death threats received by the accused, the relatives of the accused and the farmers themselves for leadership in the fight to regain land rights. Despite the risks, never stopped organizing people. Through recorded and made a speech as evidence in the case of caries commitment remains firm even in death. " Despite the persecution, I will not give way behind," Carias said in front of the courtroom full of observers. (7) The judges said that Carl "showed no fear because it was apparently a man of firm conviction " and was killed by defend the land rights of their community.

On February 6, 2007, Israel Carias, 33, was walking with her two children by the Quebrada El Hato en route from Zacapa to bring medicine to her sick mother when they were intercepted and shot a short distance. Although collectively the community knew who they were who committed the crime, the case languished in the public prosecutor's office without progress as the gunmen continued to live on par with the relatives of the deceased Carias. Upon learning of the serious stagnation of justice, began tracking UDEFEGUA as legal advice, moral support and funds. UDEFEGUA requested that the case go through the Office of Rights Human prosecutors and hired a lawyer, Edgar Perez to serve as legal representative for the widow and plaintiff. (Another achievement of the Perez case Black River in 2008 which condemned the 5 ex-patrollers to 780 years in prison for his involvement in the slaughter of 177 women and children in Pacoxom perpetrated in 1982, and the Choatalún case that sentenced an ex - military commissioner to 150 years in prison for ordering the disappearance of six peasants.)


In March 2009, began the public debate of the case. During the course of four months, the judges heard testimony from thirteen witnesses, twelve expert witnesses and reviewed more than fifty documentary evidence. On June 22, 2009, the Court gave its ruling, the two defendants, Salguero and Ramirez were perpetrator and accomplice, respectively, of the premeditated murder of Israel Carias the requirement and funding for farmers who wanted to end their fight and protect their own interests. It is assumed that children were killed because they were with their father at the time.


Nationally, the ruling sets an important precedent in how to understand justice in attacks against human rights defenders. The ruling clarifies the complexity of land conflicts and the danger to passing through communities defend their rights against illegal and powerful opposition. Furthermore, the decision recognizes and requires the investigation of the masterminds RESPONSIBILITY for planning the murder and hiring the gunmen. Throughout his opinion, the judges made it clear the courage to community leaders to continue fighting for their rights, and opened a space for the fullest realization of justice in Guatemala.

For the first time, a court in Guatemala stated that the guilty in attacks against human rights defenders extends deeper than the perpetrators up to the masterminds. Thus, the precedent requires that attacks against defenders, those who planned and financed the crime must also be judged. Moreover, the precedent may be used to assign blame in cases of human rights crimes of the past - from the lowest level of the same to the highest killers who enjoy impunity for their positions of power.


More recently, those associated with the trial have been targets of threats and intimidation - especially the widow, brothers, father and niece Carías people who have been more public in his defense. The community realizes that the relatives of the condemned, who are also known to have the murder weapons, are responsible for the threats continue. (8) Some of the brothers of Carías describes the community as "a herd of sheep " who has experienced the traumatic effect of a coyote. Now the community is " alert, tense and watchful " and people just travel to Zacapa at dawn to avoid being seen walking on the road. (9)

Despite the risks, about a dozen members Carías community and family came to the trial to attend every hearing. And showed their solidarity, making the two hour walk downhill from the community to reach the Court and climb back into the group later. Many of them were witnesses in the case and were threatened by it.

ACUS, UDEFEGUA ACIDEA and have worked to honor the memory of caries in the weeks after the sentencing. ACUS organized a march from the Court in Zacapa Estansuela to pay tribute to the struggle of Caria, to express its appreciation for justice done and to require the court to continue to ACUS other cases pending. (Many of these cases has to deal with applications for community projects including water, electricity, health clinics and education in rural communities.) Key members stuck in ACIDEA want to build a memorial in Los Achiotes to ensure that Carias - and sacrifice for the community - not be forgotten.


In August, UDEFEGUA returned to the community to provide psychological care to people involved in the case and to reconstruct the historical memory of the life of Carías which was replaced by his death and trial. At the start of the workshop, the reports were built - weaving a community memory of his commitment to the community and its value to continue fighting until the end of his life. " was very kind to all people ." From boy knew he was going to be a leader . "" He was a man of vision . "" Never let you bind knees. It was a great person . " really gave his life for the community ." (19)
............................... .
For ACOGUATE
Photos: by ACOGUATE
1. Up of families and members of the Los Achiotes
comununidad 2. Carias father
3. The Achiotes to view Zacapa
4.
Carías widow 5. Relatives and make them members of the community during a historical memory of the life of Carías
Footnotes:
1. "Unpunished 99% of war crimes." La Hora. 9 Aug 2008.
2. Land Rights Action Network. "Guatemala: Killing of a peasant leader and his sons, Zacapa." 2 March 2007.
3. Carias, Israel. Audio track. Trial court, Zacapa, Guatemala.
4. Community Workshop, Los Achiotes, Zacapa. 8 August 2009.
5. Amnesty International. Persecution and Resistance: The experience of human rights defenders in Guatemala and Honduras. August 2007. p 13.
6. Land Rights Action Network. "Guatemala: Killing of a peasant leader and his sons, Zacapa." 2 March 2007, Amnesty International. Persecution and Resistance: The experience of human rights defenders in Guatemala and Honduras. August 2007, p 13; UDEFEGUA. "First Semester 2009 Report," p. 10.
7. Carias, Israel. Documentary. Trial court, Zacapa, Guatemala.
8. Personal interviews. June 22, 2009.
9. Community Workshop. The Achiotes, Zacapa, Guatemala. 8 August 2009. Community 10.Taller
. The Achiotes, Zacapa, Guatemala. 8 August 2009.