US embassy cable - 03GUATEMALA1686

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