Unpacking the role of the PAC in the Maya Achí Women’s case
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.
March 11 and 12, 2025
Day 7 and 8 of the Maya Achi Women’s case (photo credit: Verdad y Justicia)
On March 11th and 12th, the Maya Achi’ women of Rabinal presented themselves before the Supreme Court of Justice once again to continue the process of demanding transitional justice for the violence that the three ex-Civil Defense Patrollers (PAC) perpetuated against them during the Internal Armed Conflict (IAC) in the early 1980s. March 11th was characterized primarily by a recording of a testimony from an anonymous witness called “Witness A”. His testimony was approximately 40 minutes long, as he narrated his experience as a survivor of the Río Negro massacre on March 13th, 1982. He also mentioned that he was detained at the military quarters in Rabinal and witnessed the violence that the soldiers and PAC members carried out against the Achi’ women.
His testimony did not focus solely on the 1982 massacre in Río Negro, but recounted the fear and violence that the community experienced prior to the horrific events of March 13th. He explained how the PAC members from the community of Xococ would regularly travel to Río Negro and round up the men of the community. Río Negro community members were forced to flee into the mountains or to other communities to seek refuge because the PAC and the military would detain and kill the men for their supposed participation in the guerilla forces. Notably, Witness A repeatedly emphasized that their ability to work and plant corn was severely restricted during those years. This is particularly important because planting and harvesting corn is the backbone of Maya life in Guatemala. It is the sustenance that has maintained Maya civilizations for over 5,000 years. The Popol Wuj, the book that narrates the story of the K’iche’ lineages, metaphorically and poetically describes that they are people of the corn, that it is the foundation of their existence on Earth. Given this brief context, it is important to note that during the years of the IAC, the ability to work with corn was severely limited and, at times, totally inaccessible due to the danger that people like Witness A faced if they went to work in the fields.
For this reason, it is important to understand the magnitude of his words regarding his repeated mention of the inability to grow and harvest corn. The presence of the PAC and the military cut off the people of Río Negro’s ability to sustain themselves, cutting off their source of livelihood and survival. Beyond hindering their ability to eat and nourish themselves, the violence interrupted an ancestral practice of over 5,000 years that is the backbone of Maya existence in Mesoamerica. Witness A also narrated how he and a handful of other people survived the Río Negro massacre. He explained that he happened to be fishing with a friend on March 12th and as they were returning to the village on March 13th, they got word of the fact that the 107 children and 70 women had been taken to Pak’oxom where they were sexually abused and massacred. He then transitioned to narrating how in 1983, he was detained in the military quarters in Rabinal, where he witnessed how the PAC and the military would kill the men and commit sexual violence against the women.
Throughout his testimony, the Achi’ women present that day were all visibly affected by his words. Several had to leave the room because his testimony brought back memories of what they experienced during the IAC and genocide. The feeling of grief and trauma was palpable among the group, with the psychologists and the women supporting each other as they processed what they were hearing. Though the testimony was a mere recording of what happened during those days, his words brought back clear memories of the violence of the IAC. The testimony finished with him explaining that he presented himself before the court to demand justice for what happened during the IAC and particularly for the women who experienced sexual violence during these years, not only in Río Negro but also in the military quarters.
The following day, on March 12th, the trial continued with a military expert witness. He was an active combatant in the military in the 1980s in the departments of Zacapa and Huehuetenango, and provided a detailed contextual analysis of the military’s strategies during the IAC. His expert analysis was an important complement to Witness A’s testimony because it gave a more macro look at the ways in which the military approached the IAC. Though he provided much detail, the important points that stemmed from his account are that (i) the use of sexual violence and sexual slavery were systematic and recurrent, (ii) it was sanctioned by the military through the chain of command, (iii) those in charge of the different military jurisdictions are responsible for those acts of sexual violence, and (iv) the government in charge at the time of said violence is also responsible for its occurrence.
The expert witness also explained that during the IAC, the military, with much instruction and pressure from the United States in the greater context of the Cold War, had to take on an approach based on a “Doctrine of National Security”. This required a shift from looking at the enemy as external (i.e., neighbouring countries) to looking for the internal enemy. On a practical level, this meant not fighting against foreign militaries but instead, looking at students, workers, campesinxs, clergy members, and others as the enemies. This was a point of inflection that was not only implemented in Guatemala, but throughout the Western Hemisphere under the guise of anticommunism. This not only required a change in military strategy, but also required a process of indoctrination among the civilian population as well, according to the expert witness. It would be through this indoctrination that the governments of Latin America could justify the war and the persecution and violence that they exhibited against their own people.
This context was important for understanding why the military and government of Guatemala formed PAC: they needed to “infiltrate the civilian population” in order to carry out their national security measures that targeted the internal enemy. This is precisely what gave members of the PAC the permission to carry out acts of violence and espionage on behalf of the military. But the PAC also occupied a gray area somewhat outside of the jurisdiction of the military chain of command, meaning that there was little control over their actions which allowed them to take measures that were left unchecked, including the torture, sexual violence, and sexual slavery they committed against civilians throughout Guatemala.
Ultimately, the PAC played an important role for the military because they were from the very communities they were committing violence against. The soldiers in the military chain of command were primarily from urban areas far removed from the mountainous rural areas, but the PAC members knew their rural localities well. The military used the PAC as guides, as their eyes and as ears precisely because they needed them in order to defeat the internal enemy. And this is the tragic nature of the IAC and the genocide. The perpetrators of such horrific torture, sexual violence, and sexual slavery against Maya people were other Maya people. They were neighbours, acquaintances and sometimes, even family members. The military turned Maya communities against each other and completely tore the social fabric of rural localities. The repercussions of this tear are very much still present to this day, as survivors of the IAC and the genocide know who their aggressors were and have to see them, in some cases, on a regular basis as they go about their daily lives. Sadly, this is very much the reality of the Achi’ women present in these court proceedings.
Leave A Comment