Report No. 69 (2006) IACHR. Case No. 11.171 (Guatemala)

• Report Number: 69
• Year: 2006
• Case Number: 11.171
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Merits
• Respondent State: Guatemala
• Alleged Victim: Tomás Lares Cipriano, Guatemala

REPORT Nº 69/06 CASE 11.171 MERITS (PUBLICATION) TOMÁS LARES CIPRIANO GUATEMALA October 21st, 2006 I. SUMMARY 1. On June 24, 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received a petition presented by the Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese of Guatemala and by the International Human Rights Law Group (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the responsibility of the State of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State,” “Guatemala”, or “the Guatemalan State”) for the violation, with prejudice to Tomás Lares Cipriano (hereinafter “the alleged victim”) of the rights provided for by Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 16 (freedom of association) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “American Convention”), in connection with the general obligation on the part of the State to respect and guarantee the aforementioned rights, established by Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 2. On February 27, 2002, during its 114th regular session and in its Report on Admissibility No. 13/02, the Commission found the case to be admissible regarding the alleged violations of Articles 4, 8, 16, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, with the State of Guatemala allegedly responsible. The Commission found the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention to be inadmissible. 3. In this report the Commission concluded that the State of Guatemala, with prejudice to Mr. Tomás Lares Cipriano, violated Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. On February 27, 2002, the Commission approved the Report on Admissibility No. 13/02, regarding the alleged violations, by the State of Guatemala, of Articles 4, 8, 16, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention. 5. On March 14, 2002, the Commission transmitted the Report on Admissibility to the parties, offering its assistance for the purpose of reaching a friendly settlement, and requested their response to this offer within thirty days. 6. On May 9, 2002, the petitioners requested a thirty day extension of the deadline, in order to present their observations on the Report on Admissibility. 7. On July 8, 2002, the Commission informed the petitioners of the State of Guatemala’s interest in initiating a dialogue towards reaching a friendly settlement, according to a communication from the State received on the same day. 8. On December 8, 2003, the Commission informed the State of Guatemala that, given the lack of response of the petitioners, it was granting the State two months to present additional observations on the Report on Admissibility 13/02. 9. On March 3, 2004, the State requested an extension to file its observations on the merits, which were presented in an April 16, 2004 communication. In this communication the State provides a summary of the judicial situation of the case and refers to the acknowledgement of institutional responsibility made by President Portillo on August 9, 2000. It further requests the IACHR to take note of the failure to act on the part of the petitioners during the merits stage, as well as of its intention to achieve a friendly settlement in this case. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Petitioners 10. On February 19, 1993, according to the petitioners, three thousand members of the voluntary self-defense committees, belonging to several counties of the municipal seat of Joyabaj, Department of Quiché, including Mr. Tomás Lares Cipriano, resigned from the committees before several civil authorities. 11. On March 26 of that same year, Messrs. Tomás Lares Cipriano, Diego Lares, Marcos Ambrosio Sacarías, Manuel Ambrosio Sacarías and Domingo Gutiérrez arrived at the Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese of Guatemala to report threats made against them by members of the civil self-defense patrols of the Joyabaj municipality. These threats were a response to their resignation from the self-defense committees. On that occasion, Mr. Tomás Lares Cipriano and his companions asserted that they had also been threatened with serious consequences – according to the petitioners the equivalent of a death threat – should they not attend a demonstration of civil patrolmen organized for March 28, 1993; to that end a roster would be prepared with the names of those not participating, who in turn would be accused of being members of organizations connected with the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca [Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity]. 12. The seriousness of the report motivated the Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese of Guatemala to file a preventive habeas corpus petition before the Supreme Court, on behalf of Tomás Lares Cipriano and other persons who had resigned from the Patrulla de Autodefensa Civil [Civil Self-Defense Patrol] of Joyabaj. 13. On April 30, approximately at 11:30 a.m., according to a communication from the Comité de Unidad Campesina (CUC) [Committee for Peasant Unity], Tomás Lares Cipriano “was ambushed and cowardly murdered: he received 6 gunshot wounds (2 bullets in the left hand, 1 bullet in the chest, 1 bullet between the eyes, 1 bullet in the head); his right ear was severed and his head smashed, after which he was decapitated.” 14. The CUC communication asserts that the General Commander of the PACs (of Joyabaj), Leonel Nogales, has issued orders for the kidnapping of Mr. Tomás Lares Cipriano simultaneously, Messrs. Catarino Juárez and Santos Chich Us, first and second leaders of the Chorraxaj county PACs, made up lists of all the residents that are organized in cooperatives, religious activities and popular organizations 15. On May 19, 1993, at which time the murder of Tomás Lares Cipriano was public, [4] the Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese of Guatemala was notified of the decision by Judge Lic. [Licenciate] Roderico Haroldo López Robles of the Juzgado Segundo de Primera Instancia Penal del Quiché [Second Criminal Court of the First Instance of Quiché], regarding the petition for habeas corpus which the petitioners had filed. The decision denied the request, stating that “the alleged victims are not in the situation provided for by Article 82 of the National Constituent Assembly’s Decree 1-86 [and] that they could not be found.” 16. In the additional information and in their observations on the reports presented by the State during the proceedings before the IACHR, the petitioners asserted that on May 20, 1993, Mr. Diego Lares Ambrosio had filed a complaint against Próspero Leonel Ogaldez García, Santos Chich Us, Catarino Juárez, Diego Granillo Juárez, Santos Tzi and Gaspar López Chiquiaja, whom he alleged were responsible for the murder of Mr. Tomás Lares Cipriano. 17. The petitioners reported that the civil self-defense patrolmen had prevented the practicing of the autopsy and that consequently they had requested from the Juzgado Segundo de Primera Instancia del Quiché [Second Court of the First Instance of Quiché] the exhumation and autopsy of the body, procedures which were carried out on June 29, 1993. Regarding the reconstruction of the events, a procedure which was ordered but which did not take place, the petitioners asserted that the threat of an ambush by members of the self-defense patrols was the real reason why this procedure was not carried out: it was not for the reason given by the State, i.e., that of bad weather.[5] 18. The petitioners stated that on July 29, 1993, an arrest warrant was issued for the defendants, but that only Catarino Juárez and Gaspar López Chiquiaja were arrested and that Próspero Leonel Ogaldez García had appeared voluntarily before the Juzgado Segundo de Instrucción del Quiché [Second Magistrates’ Court of Quiché]. In their depositions the aforementioned individuals denied being members of the self-defense patrols, but the petitioners maintained that their membership was duly established in the proceedings, by both documentary evidence and witness testimony and was public. The judicial authority considered only the depositions of the defendants and their witnesses, omitting other evidentiary items. As a result, the judge decided not to rescind the orders for the release without conditions and the release on his own recognizance, respectively, of the defendants Próspero Leonel Ogaldez García and Catarino Juárez. Regarding Gaspar López Chiquiaja, the petitioners stated that the judge had ordered his release despite contradictory testimony of different witnesses. According to the petitioners, the prosecution did not have the opportunity to properly question the witnesses for the defense and that there were additional procedural anomalies.[6] 19. With respect to the arrest warrant issued on July 29, 1993 against Santos Chich Us, Diego Granillo Juárez and Santos Tzi, the petitioners asserted that it was not carried out, notwithstanding that these persons remained in their communities. For the petitioners, this order was not executed was due to the fear on the part of the police of the threats made against them by members of Military Zone No. 20. According to the complainants, the Chief of Police of the Quiché had apparently stated that he would rather to go to jail for disobeying orders than be killed. 20. The petitioners also asserted that in January 1994 a new judge was appointed to the Juzgado Segundo de Primera Instancia del Quiché [Second Court of the First Instance of Quiché], his predecessor having been dismissed under charges of corruption. They also stated that the records of the court had been set on fire on January 19, and that the judge had reported that the fire could have been set by members of the patrols and that he himself was the...