GUATEMALA: Prospect of Amnesty Troubles Human Rights Groups

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 1 1996 (IPS) - Amnesty has been granted 12 times by the Guatemalan government during the 35-year civil war, but the possibility of a 13th declaration is sparking anxiety among human rights groups.

Rumours that the government of President Alvaro Arzu and the leftist National Guatemalan Revolutionary Union (URNG) are close to deal that would provide amnesty for warring factions has prompted warnings by rights groups on the dangers of allowing impunity. If an amnesty law is passed that covers human rights violators in the Guatemalan Army and URNG, the U.N. peace process in Guatemala could be severely harmed, warns Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive director of Human Rights Watch/Americas (HRW). “Impunity has been mentioned as the main obstacle for strengthening the rule of law in Guatemala,” Vivanco says, noting that four reports by the U.N. human rights mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) all cite the lack of punishment for abuses. “All the contribution that MINUGUA has made will be undermined if a blanket amnesty is passed by both sides,” he argues. In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali issued last Friday, Vivanco added, “The message that a general amnesty will send — that those who commit assassinations, tortures or forced disappearances will not pay any price for their acts — will undoubtedly have a major impact for reform and verification programmes.” “We would not look favourably on a general amnesty, which would give de facto impunity on human rights abusers,” adds Rachel Garst, Guatemala associate of the Washington Office on Latin America, non-governmental rights group. “We do not think the U.S. government should be encouraging a general amnesty.” For now, all main parties to Guatemala’s fledgling peace process pledge that human rights abusers will be tried. Julio Balconi Turcios, Guatemala’s defense minister, promised HRW this spring that the Army would not protect human rights abusers from punishment. Similarly, URNG leader Pablo Monsanto said last week that the rebels would not accept a blanket amnesty, although they want some means of excluding guerrillas who did not commit abuses from criminal punishment. “Amnesty,” he warned, “has been used to exculpate and to hide those who violated human rights.” As a result, U.N. spokesman Juan Carlos Brandt says, “there has been no decision on a general amnesty.” Citing the complexity of an amnesty law, Brandt contends there has been no decision on who would be eligible and who would not. Nevertheless, human rights observers say, both the government and the rebels secretly are looking to a deal that would excuse the worst abuses by both sides. “There is more than a slim chance of an amnesty deal,” Vivanco says. “Some groups in Guatemala fear and suspect that the Guatemalan Army and the URNG are negotiating a general amnesty under the table,” says one analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It’s a little confusing how far the talks have gone.” Certainly both sides are very interested. The Guatemalan Army is eager to hide knowledge of its atrocities, which reportedly include the destruction of entire Quiche Maya villages. And URNG leaders, the analyst adds, are worried that, even if the rebels are incorporated into normal political life, the Army has prepared files revealing their involvement in atrocities. If there is a deal, the analyst says, it likely will take the shape of an amnesty excusing only killings and acts of torture committed as part of the conflict — not those involving civilians. However, she argues, that could spell an end to the efforts by a U.S. lawyer, Jennifer Harbury, to determine the facts behind the killing of her husband, URNG leader Efrain Bamaca, also called ‘Comandante Everardo’. Because Bamaca was a rebel, she says, the Guatemalan Army could contend that his capture, reported torture and execution were all war-related, and thus would fall under the amnesty. Guatemalan officials deny that amnesty talks have reached any such level of specificity. But the closing of the Bamaca case would certainly benefit the Army, which has been embarrassed that an officer linked to the killing, Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, was named as a paid informant to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. (CIA officials say Alpirez is now off their payroll.) The Alpirez-CIA connection could still be revealed, even under an amnesty that excludes civilian crimes. The colonel is also allegedly linked to the killing of a U.S. businessman, Michael DeVine — which, as a civilian atrocity, would likely not fall under an amnesty. Anger about impunity in Guatemala, however, is so great that Guatemalan groups are pushing to prevent any abuses by the Army or URNG from being excused. An open letter to President Arzu, written by Nobel Peace Laureate Rigoberta Menchu and other Guatemalan human rights advocates, argues that a general amnesty would only lead to “the loss of confidence among citizens in the application of justice.” The open letter warns that, under the Vienna Convention, to which Guatemala is a party, states cannot invoke national laws, including amnesties, that do not comply with international rights obligations. As a result, the group may also seek to revoke the 12 amnesties passed by military governments between 1982 and 1986, some of the most brutal years of the civil war. “I don’t doubt that some kind of amnesty deal will be struck,” one expert says, noting the incentive by the warring parties for one. “But they will be in for a fight from the human rights groups.”