Xamán massacre

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the Xamán massacre on October 5, 1995, a patrol of the Guatemalan armed forces killed 11 people and wounded another 28 in Guatemala towards the end of the civil war .

Aurora 8 de Octubre

The municipality of Aurora 8 de Octubre is located on Finca Xamán in Chisec , Alta Verapaz . In addition to the 50 Quiché families originally living on the finca , there were another 90 Quiché families who had returned to Guatemala from refugee camps in Mexico. Many were victims of the repression of 1982, some were survivors of massacres that took place in various villages at the time. The return took place in 1994 as part of an agreement signed on October 8, 1992 between the Guatemalan government, represented by the Comisión Nacional para la Atención de Repatriados, Desplazados y Refugiados Guatemaltecos (CEAR), and the Comisiones Permanentes de Refugiados Guatemaltecos en México (CCPP ), a refugee association, took place. They called their community Aurora 8 de Octubre (in German: "Dawn of October 8") because they wanted to found a new community, as the old one was dominated by Patrullas de Autodefensa Civil .

In both parts of the community, each family had an equal piece of land to cultivate. On October 5th, 1995, many people from Aurora 8 de Octubre prepared a village festival to celebrate the signing of their return agreement on October 8th.

During this time, talks about peace agreements took place and the Misión de Verificación de las Naciones Unidas (MINUGUA), which was supposed to monitor the fulfillment of the basic agreements on human rights by the parties, was set up.

Early October 1995

On October 3, 1995, a military patrol with 26 soldiers including a minor under the command of a non-commissioned officer left the Rubelsanto base, which is part of the 21st military zone based in Cobán. Before moving out, the patrol intended to pass the entrance to Finca Xamán.

On October 3rd and 4th, 1995, the soldiers visited some villages according to their program. On the morning of October 5th, some rubber tappers from Aurora 8 de Octubre had discovered the presence of the military when they passed the finca near the school no further than ten meters from the houses.

Some residents who were decorating a meeting building for the village festival were informed of the presence of the military. A neighborhood group of about ten people, including women and village officials, ran to meet the patrol and asked to speak to the commander. The group asked the soldiers to know the purpose of their presence, which violated the October 8th agreement.

The sergeant pointed out that they were on their way to a nearby community. Local residents claimed that this path does not lead to the specified location. Meanwhile, other neighbors were referring to acts of the military in the early 1980s.

According to some witnesses, the soldiers asked to attend the village festival, and the villagers then let them pass. Others indicated that they were required to come in to explain their presence in the place.

Regardless of the actual reason for entering, it is certain that after the first meeting the commander decided to go to the center of the community to explain the presence of the military. On the way, the number of residents who surrounded the military, the number of verbally expressed aggression against the soldiers, as well as expressions of dissatisfaction with their presence increased.

At around 1:30 p.m., the NCO negotiated with the deputy mayor. Meanwhile, residents were more vehemently demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the presence of the military, demanding that the soldiers surrender their weapons and remain in place until MINUGUA and ACNUR established the alleged violation of the October 8th agreement.

Half an hour passed and after the exchange of orders between the NCO and the soldiers, the soldiers tried, as they were being pressured by the population, to push themselves back to the place from which they had come by pushing them with the butts of their rifles. At the same time, a group of the population moved to this place to disguise it. A woman grabbed the barrel of a gun from a sergeant , who ordered another member of the patrol to shoot, who shot three people standing nearby, one in the back while fleeing. This led to a chain reaction among the other soldiers, who fired indiscriminately in all directions. At that moment everyone started running. Some people fell struck by projectiles while escaping, and according to one report, three more were killed while lying on the ground.

There is no evidence that the population carried firearms, nor are there any testimonies that report physical aggression against the soldiers, who were mainly surrounded by women and children. Only verbal aggression is recorded and an attempt to snatch the sergeant's weapon is reported. The Army's investigation report states that 246 rounds of 5.56 mm caliber were fired. The MINUGUA investigation report found that three members of the patrol had been injured by uncontrolled gunfire from their comrades.

When the troops had moved 200 meters from the town center, a soldier arbitrarily opened fire on eight-year-old Santiago Pop Tut and hit him on the wrist when he ran across the path with his fishing rod. When the injured child tried to escape to his house, the soldier turned back and shot him in the chest and head from a short distance, killing him.

In the end, eleven members of the ward including two children were dead and 28 more injured.

consequences

The army's first official reaction was to try to excuse those responsible. However, knowing the actual circumstances, President Ramiro de León Carpio recognized responsibility for the community and accepted the resignation of Defense Minister Mario René Enríquez Morales and deposed the commander of the 21st Military Zone.

The army continued to try to hold relatives out of responsibility and obstructed the judicial investigation. For example, some soldiers reported confidentially that while returning to and from the base they were briefed on what to testify by senior officers as well as army lawyers in order to obtain a uniformly distorted account of what was happening. The lawyers hired by the army took on a collective defense of all soldiers, this form made it difficult to determine who had shot, they came into public criticism because they lodged numerous appeals, some of which were obviously inconclusive in order to unjustifiably delay the process heard requests for bias against the public prosecutor and MINUGUA.

The arms carried by the patrol were kept by the army for six weeks before they were handed over to the Ministerio Público (Ministry of Justice). The grenade launcher was only given to the prosecutor by the Ministry of Defense after repeated requests six months after the incident.

The behavior of the representatives of the Ministerio Púbilico was also inappropriate. The first prosecutor of the case and the attorney general were at the scene the day after the massacre, collecting some evidence, such as cartridge cases, and interviewing some survivors, investigations which were not included in the investigation file. Representatives of the Ministerio Público refused to secure traces at the crime scene, the victims' clothes disappeared, the autopsies were superficially carried out without the necessary techniques. Eventually, the lawsuits resulted in the prosecutor's resignation and the appointment of his successor.

The situation was similar with the judicial officers who were responsible for the proceedings. The first judge involved was the Jalapa Military Judge, and as such under the Department of Defense, he showed a known inclination to adopt the positions of defense attorneys with whom he consulted on various procedural matters.

A lawsuit by Rigoberta Menchu ​​regarding the jurisdiction of the court was allowed and the case was removed from the military court and referred to the fifth chamber of a civil court. For the first time in Guatemala's history, the military had to answer to a civil court.

One of the questionable decisions of the civil judge was that he released eight members of the patrol without knowing the files, he had received the 5000-page file a few hours earlier and the circumstances under which the pre-trial detention had been ordered, hadn't changed. Eventually, the Supreme Court dismissed the judge on the basis of ongoing complaints of irregularities.

On July 29, 1996, the lawsuit was filed against the 25 members of the patrol. However, the oral hearing had to be suspended due to objections from the parties and resumed in October 1998.

The injured, the witnesses and the community of Aurora 8 de Octubre were exposed to hostility and threats during this period. There were threats against the prosecutor of the case and the co-plaintiff from unknown persons.

In its October 10, 1995 report, NINUGUA concludes that members of the patrol seriously violated the right to life by shooting indiscriminately at members of the Aurora 8 de Octubre community . It has been clarified that there is no evidence that members of the community were carrying guns and there is sufficient evidence that all victims including the three soldiers were shot by members of the patrol.

At the beginning of October 1998, the prosecuting attorney, Ramiro Contreras Valenzuela, told the press that the Ministerio Público (Ministry of Justice) was not providing the case with the necessary support to continue the investigation. This prosecutor was later the target of threats and intimidation, so that he feared for his safety and he decided to leave Guatemala.

In November 1995, the joint plaintiff, Rigoberta Menchú Tum , submitted the case to the Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos , where the case was accepted.

On December 19, 1997, the Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico asked the Defense Minister for an opinion on the Xamán massacre. On December 19, 1997, the minister replied that he was forbidden to comment on the case, as the relevant legal proceedings were pending.

In the first instance, the 14 military officers were acquitted in 2003.

On June 3, 2003, the third trial began.

On June 12, 2003, an accused gave a testimony.

In early 2004, the public prosecutor applied for the death penalty for the accused in the second instance. In the second instance, the accused were acquitted.

In the third instance, the accused were sentenced to 40 years in prison.

processing

The documentary film Halfway to Heaven by directors Andrea Lammers and Ulrich Miller from 2008 deals with the Xamán massacre and shows the survivors' journey to court and its effects on life in the village to this day.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ en: Historical Clarification Commission , CASO ILUSTRATIVO No. 3, MASACRE DE XAMAN
  2. ↑ Prensa Libre , 04 de Junio ​​de 2003, Masacre: Caso Xamán inicia tercer juicio, Ayer comenzó en San Pedro Carchá el debate contra 14 de 25 militares implicados
  3. ^ Prensa Libre , 12 de Junio ​​de 2003, Caso Xamán: declara Camilo Chaclán, En el Tribunal de Sentencia de Cobán
  4. ^ Prensa Libre , 17 de Enero de 2004, Piden la pena de muerte para los del caso Xamán, Masacre: Involucrados el subteniente Camilo Antonio Lacán Chaclán y 13 soldados
  5. ↑ Prensa Libre , 30 de julio de 2006, Trasladarán a reos de caso Xamán
  6. ↑ Website of the film Halfway to Heaven with background information on the Xamán massacre (accessed on August 12, 2009)