Maya Achí Women’s case continues with witness testimonies
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.
Thursday, February 27, 2025
Photo of two witnesses in the courtroom.
On February 27, a group of Maya Achí women once again travelled to Guatemala’s Supreme Court of Justice to show their support to four witnesses who took the stand to testify against the three ex-PAC members being accused of committing crimes against humanity against the women in September 1983. This time, none of the women gave testimonies; instead, four men who witnessed the atrocities committed against the women came forward, despite receiving threats to their safety prior to testifying.
Though the trial was scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m., it was delayed until approximately 8:50 a.m. The first person to testify before the court was an expert witness from Colombia that had investigated and analyzed the ways in which the Guatemalan state had perpetrated violent crimes against the civilian population during the early 1980s. She emphasized that the state should be held responsible for those crimes and the associated reparations. She also concluded that sexual violence committed against Maya women in Guatemala was not simply a byproduct of war or a sporadic form of violence; instead, she stated that it was a systematic process of dehumanization and a way of exerting control over the civilian population. The expert also emphasized the need to analyze sexual violence within the social and political context in which it took place during the Internal Armed Conflict (AIC) as a tool of war used specifically against women, demonstrating that the violence of the conflict was indeed gendered. Additionally, she reiterated that sexual violence requires punishment at the highest levels for the military and state actors involved, precisely because they allowed it as a strategy of war. In essence, her investigation concluded that because sexual violence was state sanctioned, the state is also responsible for bringing justice to the victims and survivors.
The defence had minimal response except for a protest made to the judge based entirely on a supposed technicality due to the expert witness’ Colombian nationality and graduate degrees. After hearing their long-winded justification for why the expert witness’ testimony should be invalid, the judge denied their request and proceeded with the first-hand witnesses after a 15-minute recess. In addition to providing accompaniment support, the team from the Rabinal Community Legal Clinic (ABJP) asked BTS to help organize lunch for the witnesses and as a result, we were not present to hear the first two witnesses provide their testimonies.
However, at 1:50 p.m., we returned to the courtroom in time for the third witness who chose to remain anonymous and was simply referred to as “witness D”. He entered the courtroom wearing a hat with a hood over his head and a pair of dark sunglasses to conceal his identity. For him, remaining anonymous was the only way he would testify given that he had received threats prior to coming forward. Witness D’s testimony is vital to this case as he had been detained at the military outpost for several months and had seen how the military treated the civilian population. He identified the accused in the courtroom as ex-PAC members, as well as confirmed the identities of two of the women who had testified the week before. Following his testimony, Witness D left the courtroom accompanied by BTS. He expressed that he felt unsafe because he had recognized two male family members of the accused men.
The fourth witness to provide testimony was the ABJP’s founder, Jesús Tecu Osorio. He narrated the horrific events that occurred during the Río Negro massacre on March 13th, 1982 which culminated in the murder of 177 victims (70 women and 107 children). Following Jesus’ testimony, the defence had little response beyond commenting on minor technicalities in an attempt to invalidate his testimony. Again, the judge did not entertain any of their protests and the trial was closed for the day. The group then gathered to make their way back to Rabinal before nightfall.
Throughout this process, it’s important to highlight the perseverance and bravery of the Maya Achí people, especially the women, who continue to deal with the slow moving and far overdue justice procedure in Guatemala. The court system continues to make the process inconvenient and costly, as the women have had to travel back and forth between Rabinal and the capital city on a nearly weekly basis to attend the court sessions. It has also been over four years since the Maya Achí Women’s case began and everyone involved has not given up the fight for justice.
From the ABJP’s lawyers to the psychologists, to the women and men who have testified, everyone involved remains steadfast in demanding justice for crimes that took place over 40 years ago. To have the courage to stand up to people who committed such heinous crimes against humanity, and who did so with a degree of impunity, is a testament to the strength of the survivors of the IAC. Their determination and emotional fortitude is not only a source of inspiration, but is also an important teaching for future generations to persevere in the fight for a life of dignity.
Leave A Comment