Report No. 80 (2007) IACHR. Case No. 11.658 (Guatemala)

• Case Number: 11.658
• Year: 2007
• Report Number: 80
• Respondent State: Guatemala
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Martín Pelicó Coxic, Guatemala

REPORT Nº 80/07 MERITS (PUBLICATION) CASE 11.658 MARTÍN PELICÓ COXIC ET AL. GUATEMALA October 15, 2007 I. SUMMARY 1. On August 6, 1996, the Council of Runujel Junam Ethnic Communities (CERJ) and the International Law and Justice Center (CEJIL) (hereinafter “the petitioners”) lodged a petition against the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter the “State of Guatemala,” “Guatemala,” or “the State”) regarding a presumed violation of the rights established in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). 2. According to the petition, on J. 27, 1995, M.P.C., (hereinafter “the victim”), a M.I., a human rights advocate, and an active member of the Council of Runujel Junam Ethnic Communities (CERJ), was arbitrarily executed by members of the Civil Self-Defense Patrols [Patrullas de Autodefensa Civil] (hereinafter the “PAC”). The petition also alleged that following the arbitrary execution of M.P., family members, witnesses, and prosecution attorneys received a series of threats, including death threats, from PAC members. T. requested that precautionary measures be adopted to protect Mrs. Rosario Hernández Grave and Messrs. M.H.A., M.M.J., J.C.M., G.V.P., and R.C.. 3. The petitioners alleged that the State was responsible for violating the right to life, right to a fair trial, and right to judicial protection established in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of M.P.C., and Articles 5, 8, and 25 to the detriment of R.H.G., M.H.A., Manuel Mendoza Jolocomox, J.C.M., G.V.P., and R.C.; all of these articles are to be considered in relation to the general obligation of the S. to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 4. The State of Guatemala accepted the relevant institutional responsibility it incurred for failure to guarantee the physical security of Martín Pelicó Coxic, and regretted his disappearance (sic), which occurred in 1995. H., it has repeatedly contended that not all remedies under domestic law have been exhausted in this case, and that the State security forces have been pursuing action to arrest the persons accused. 5. The Commission declared the case admissible, and concluded that the State of Guatemala had violated Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of M.P.C. and his next of kin, and Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of Mrs. Rosario Hernández Grave and Messrs. M.H.A., M.M.J., J.C.M., G.V.P. y R.C., all of these Articles to be considered in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. II. PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION 6. The Commission received the petition on August 6, 1996. The case was assigned number 11,658 and opened on August 7, 1996, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure in force on that date. The pertinent portions of the petition were transmitted to the S. of Guatemala, which was asked to provide the information requested within a period of 90 days. 7. On August 23, 1996, the Commission requested that the State of Guatemala adopt precautionary measures to preserve the life and personal security of R.H.G., M.H.A., M.M.J., J.C.M., Gustavo Vásquez Peralta, and R.C., and it asked the S. to report on the measures adopted and the results of same within 30 days. 8. The State’s response to the request to adopt provisional measures was received on October 1, 1996, and the pertinent portions of the response were forwarded to the petitioners on October 2, 1996. 9. On November 8, 1996, the Commission received the State’s response to the petition, which was transmitted to the petitioners, with a request that they send their observations within a period of 30 days. In a letter dated November 26, 1996, the petitioners submitted their observations, which were transferred to the S. on January 14, 1997. 10. On February 25, 1997, the S. sent its response to the petitioners’ observations, which was in turn submitted to the petitioners for comment on March 14, 1997, along with a request that they make any comments deemed appropriate within a period of 30 days. 11. In a letter dated August 26, 1997, the petitioners submitted their comments, which were transferred to the S. on September 24, 1997. T.S. sent a letter with its comments on October 27, 1997. 12. On February 26, 1998, during the 98th session of the Commission, it held a hearing with representatives of both parties present, in which the petitioners provided additional information, which was transmitted to the State on May 4, 1998. 13. On June 4, 1998, the S. sent additional information, which was transmitted to the petitioners on J. 25, 1998, with the request that they send their observations within 30 days. The request was repeated on August 3, 1999. The petitioners submitted their comments in a letter dated August 13, 1999, and these comments were transmitted to the S. on August 30, 1999. 14. In a letter dated September 30, 1999, the S. sent additional information, which was forwarded to the petitioners on October 19, 1999, along with a request to present their observations within 30 days. On February 3, 2000, the petitioners sent additional information, which was transmitted to the State on February 23, 2000. 15. On March 22, 2000, the petitioners requested that the possibility of initiating a friendly settlement procedure be considered in this case. On March 24, 2000, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement, in accordance with the provisions of Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention and Article 45(1) and (2) of its Rules of Procedure. 16. The State sent additional information in a letter dated May 3, 2000, but did not refer to its position on the possibility of a friendly settlement. 17. In a letter dated J.2., 2002, the petitioners submitted comments, and on October 1, the Commission sent them on to the State and asked it to submit its comments within a period of 60 days. On July 1, 2002, the Commission applied Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure, and requested the petitioners to submit observations on the merits, which they did on October 1, 2002. T.S. sent its observations on the subject in a letter dated December 2, 2002, - Precautionary measures 18. The petitioners indicated in their report that during the court proceedings, both the family of M.P.C. and the witnesses and attorneys involved in the homicide case were the victims of death threats and acts of intimidation from the families of the defendants. On March 16, 1996, the Council of Runujel Junam Ethnic Communities (CERJ) filed a complaint with the United Nations Mission for Guatemala (MINUGUA), and in A. of that year, the threats were also reported to the National Police and to the Office of the Prosecutor [Procuraduría] for Human Rights. 19. On August 23, 1996, the Commission granted precautionary measures for the protection of R.H.G. and M.H.A., Manuel Mendoza Jolocomox, J.C.M., G.V.P., and R.C.. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 20. On August 6, 1999, the petitioners reported to the Commission the arbitrary execution of M.P.C., and the death threats, harassment, and intimidation perpetrated against Mrs. R.H.G. and Messrs. M.H.A., M.M.J., Jesús Chaperón Marroquín, G.V.P., and R.C., for whom precautionary measures were requested. 21. On the facts of the case, the petitioners reported that M.P.C., an active member of the Council of Runujel Junam Ethnic Communities (CERJ) was executed extrajudicially on J. 27, 1995. In the afternoon of that day, Mr. Pelicó accompanied his wife, R.H.G., on an errand in S.P.J.. On the way, they met up with P.A.C., who invited him to go to Santa Cruz de El Quiché to do some work. That night, various persons saw P.A.C. and J.C.X. get out of a red car driven by F.M.V.. They picked up M.P., and left him lying face down in the vicinity of his home. When his wife found him, she brought him into the house with the help of several neighbors. P. had deep head wounds and bruises on other parts of his body, and he died moments later. On J. 27, 1997, M.R.H. filed a criminal complaint against Francisco Marroquín, P.A., and J.C., members of the Civil Self-Defense Patrols of San Pedro de J., for the execution of her husband. 22. With regard to the Civil Self-Defense Patrols, they indicated that they had been operating under the responsibility of the Defense Ministry since 1982, and that they were conceived as part of the “national security” policy and created under the de facto regime of General Efraín Ríos Montt, to counter the military action of groups of counter-insurgents. H., the power granted to these patrols went beyond purely military purposes, and they subjected the local people to heavy pressure to do as they told them. This pressure included physical and psychological violence, and has led to violations of the rights to life, liberty, and humane treatment of thousands of people, especially campesinos. The petitioners further stated that the structure of the PACs, their close relationship with the Army, which trains them and supplies them with weapons, their purpose to fight the guerrillas, the fact that they are under the authority of the military command, and their history of committing crimes with impunity all show that the PACs have always acted as agents of the G.S.. 23. The petitioners further reported that during court proceedings, both the family of M.P.C., as well as the witnesses and attorneys involved in this murder case were victims of death threats and acts of intimidation by the families of the accused. These threats intensified when the court proceedings were ordered closed on July 18, 1996. In view of this situation, on March 16, 1996, the...