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
0 comments:
Post a Comment