Second trial for the Maya Achí Women’s case begins
On January 28, 2025, Maya Achí women survivors went to Guatemala City to demand that three ex-civil defense patrolmen (PAC) be held accountable for crimes against humanity, including sexual violence, committed against them during the Internal Armed Conflict. The trial is scheduled to continue throughout February and March, and is the second trial in the Maya Achí Women’s case, following the historic 2022 guilty verdict against five other ex-PAC members.
Wednesday, February 19, 2025
Day 4 of the Maya Achi Women’s case (photo credit: Verdad y Justicia)
On February 19, BTS accompanied the legal team from the Rabinal Community Legal Clinic (ABJP) and a group of nine Maya Achí women to Guatemala’s Supreme Court of Justice to testify against their aggressors – the three ex-PAC members – who detained them, sexually abused them, and tortured them for approximately 25 days in September of 1983. Of the nine women present, three of them testified before the Court to denounce the violence committed by Féxil Tum Ramírez, Simeon Enrique Cortéz, and Pedro Sánchez Cortéz. The remaining six women were present to show support for those who testified. Additionally, the trial involved two peritajes (expert accounts) to contextualize the violence that the women experienced and to set a linguistic and cultural framework necessary to understand the violence related to the Internal Armed Conflict (IAC).
The day started out with a group breakfast in Guatemala City before the women were picked up by a van sent by the Public Prosecutor’s office (MP). Prior to its arrival however, a taxi drove by, taking pictures of the women. The taxi was quickly blocked by a bus that was driving in the lane next to it, but the incident revealed the sensitivity of the case and the potential dangers that the women face as they bravely speak out about the violence that they experienced.
Arriving at the Supreme Court of Justice, the women had to wait approximately 30 minutes to get to the 15th floor where the trial was being held due to the lack of functioning elevators. While the building has three elevators, only one of them works so when the group arrived, there was a line of at least 20 people, making getting to the courtroom itself a challenge. Nonetheless, we arrived several minutes before the scheduled start time of 8:30 a.m. and two of the three accused were present in the courtroom, along with two of their three lawyers. On the prosecuting side, both the MP’s lawyers were present, as well as all three of the Achí women’s lawyers from the ABJP.
The family members of the accused aggressors were also present, sitting on the opposite side of the courtroom. At approximately 8:55 a.m., the third and final ex-PAC member arrived accompanied by his presumed family members, offering intimidating looks and non-verbal gestures towards the group of women. The three women who were to give their testimonies remained outside the courtroom so as to not be within sight of the aggressors or their family members. At approximately 9:10 a.m., the final defence lawyer arrived and at 9:15 a.m., the judges entered the courtroom. The trial began approximately 45 minutes past the scheduled time.
The trial began with the first expert account focusing on the importance of understanding the linguistic differences between Spanish and the Maya Achí language. The expert explained that there is not a direct translation of words associated with sexual violence from Achí to Spanish, rather, there are phrases that explain that violence. The expert also gave several examples to explain these linguistic differences in order for the court to understand the socio-linguistic context that the survivors come from as Maya Achí women. Further, the analyses that the expert account offered explained the context of the language that the aggressors used as they violated the women’s rights, highlighting the ways in which their vocabulary and words dehumanized their existence. The expert answered questions from the prosecution and defensc appropriately, though the defence did attempt to call into question the validity and professionalism of the expert witness. They did not have any questions that sought to dig deeper into the linguistic analyses that the expert offered, but rather tried to delegitimize the knowledge that she offered to the case.
At approximately 10:20 a.m., the first Achí woman took the stand and gave her testimony in Spanish. She began by narrating the circumstances she faced on September 25th, 1983 when she traveled from the community of Xesiguan to the town centre of Rabinal with her mother to buy some food. She indicated that one of the aggressors present in the courtroom singled her out and took her to the military outpost on the outskirts of town. Upon arriving at the outpost, she was detained in a small dark room with three other people, one of whom was her cousin. She explained that she was detained in that dark room for approximately 25 days, during which she experienced sexual violence and torture by numerous soldiers for supposedly being associated with the guerrilla forces in her community. She stated that the three accused were part of the group of soldiers that exhibited this violence against her when she was just 19 years old. Following her testimony, she left the courtroom and her cousin took the stand.
She approached the court and requested that her testimony be given in Achí and an interpreter approached the stand to translate for her. As the second witness began to narrate her experience, it became clear that the Guatemalan justice system lacks the ability to properly accommodate the linguistic and cultural needs of the country’s Maya populations. There was not an effective procedure for providing adequate translation services and even less so for contextualizing the reality that Achí women experience in their daily lives in Rabinal. The differences between the urban Ladino experience and the rural Maya experience became crystal clear as the defence tried to nit-pick the words of the second witness from a complete lack of cultural competency.
The linguistic differences and lack of effectiveness in translating the witness’ words resulted in general confusion and discrepancy in her testimony. This was not through any fault of her own, but rather because the justice system failed her before her eyes. Nonetheless, the judge was aware of what was happening and was tolerant enough to work through some of the discrepancies to hear the most congruent and precise testimony possible. That being said, the defence did protest the validity of the witness’ testimony due to these issues in translation. Regardless, the second witness did corroborate what the first witness testified and described the sexual violence and torture that she experienced while at the military outpost. Following her testimony, she exited the courtroom, visibly affected by having to recall her experience.
There was a 25-minute recess that turned into 90 minutes, as technological failures deterred the continuation of the trial. At approximately 1 p.m., the second expert took the stand. Her account was immensely robust and packed with historical context and analysis, given her career as a social anthropologist. She gave a very detailed analysis of the socio-historical context that surrounds the violence that the women experienced during those 25 days in 1983, bringing in the results of a study she did with the 36 Maya Achí women who first brought this trial to the court several years prior. Her analysis was detailed, eloquent, and well rounded. She focused on the violence of the IAC by incorporating an analysis of how colonialism, machismo, and capitalism converged as ideological justifications for the violence that the women experienced during that period of violence. She also explained how the majority of the women were not poor prior to the IAC, noting that they had had everything they needed to live in dignity and in community, but that the IAC brought an experience of violence that tore through the social fabric of their lives, leaving them in situations of precarity, vulnerability, and despair. The defence had little to say in response.
By the time the third witness took the stand, the working hours of the court had already come to an end, but the judge extended the time so that the final witness could give her testimony. Yet because of its sensitivity, the judge asked that the public leave the courtroom. At approximately 4:15 p.m., the trial for that day ended with the next court date set for February 27th at 8 a.m. There will be no witnesses in the courtroom on that day, just several other expert accounts. Following the official close of the session, the group of women left the courtroom together. The accused freely walked out as well, accompanied by their families.
Overall, this trial was a mix of hope, inspiration, disappointment, and frustration. On one hand, the courage and determination that the Achí woman have to stand up to their aggressors and tell their stories in a space that completely disregards their context and culture, is a source of inspiration. They showed their bravery to the courtroom and the audience. On the other hand, it was frustrating and disappointing to see how incompetent the justice system is in serving Maya people who come from contexts that are vastly different from the urban Ladino world that is Guatemala City. To see the aggressors freely exit the courtroom alongside their family members that displayed attitudes of intimidation and indignation towards the survivors was discomforting, at best. To see how the IAC divided Maya communities, pitting one against another was a cruel reminder of the open wound that is Guatemala and the need to heal these wounds in future generations. This was not a case of Ladino men violating the rights of Maya women. It was a case of Maya people exhibiting violence against other Maya people just like them – cut from the same cloth.
Though the wounds of the Guatemalan IAC are very much still open and bleeding, the determination of the Achí women and of the women lawyers from Rabinal that represent them is an immense source of inspiration and light, as Guatemalan society slowly trudges towards justice and peace.
Leave A Comment