XAMAN CASE REOPENED

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 GUATEMALA 001686

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/26/2013
TAGS: PHUM PGOV MOPS KDEM PREL KJUS GT
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 Inter-American 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
self-defense.


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