In the Villagrán Morales et al case (the “street children” case).
The Inter-American Court of Human
Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) composed of
the following judges**:
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, President
Máximo Pacheco Gómez, Vice-President
Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Judge
Oliver
Jackman, Judge
Alirio
Abreu Burelli, Judge and
Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, Judge
also present,
Manuel
E. Ventura Robles, Secretary and
Renzo
Pomi, Deputy Secretary,
pursuant to Articles 55 and 57
of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Rules of Procedure”), delivers the following judgement.
1. On January 30, 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted
to the Court an application against the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter
“the State” or “Guatemala”) deriving from a petition (No. 11, 383) received
by the Secretariat of the Commission on September 15, 1994.
2. When presenting the case to the Court, the Commission invoked
Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 32 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure. The Commission referred this case for the Court
to determine whether Guatemala had violated the following Articles of the
Convention: 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right
to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial)
and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection). According
to the application, these violations were the result of
the
abduction, torture and murder of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente
Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes;
the murder of Anstraum [Aman] Villagrán Morales; and the failure of State
mechanisms to deal appropriately with the said violations and provide the
victim’s families with access to justice.
3. As two of the victims, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito
Josué Juárez Cifuentes, were minors when they were abducted, tortured and
murdered, and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales was a minor when he was killed,
the Commission requested the Court to order the State to take the necessary
steps to conduct a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the
facts “so that [the individual responsibilities for the alleged violations
may be] recorded in an officially authorized report” and “those responsible
may be punished appropriately”. It
also requested the Court to order the State “to vindicate the names of the
victims and make fair payment to the persons affected by the violations of
the aforementioned rights” and to pay costs to the victims and their representatives.
In its application, the Commission also cited the violation of Articles
1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture
(hereinafter “Convention against Torture”).
II
4. The Court is competent to hear this case. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American
Convention since May 25, 1978, accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the
Court on March 9, 1987, and ratified the Convention against Torture on January
29, 1987.
III
5. On September 15, 1994, the Center for Justice and International
Law (CEJIL) and Casa Alianza presented the formal petition corresponding to
this case to the Inter-American Commission. The petition was based on “the death of five
youths and the alleged denial of domestic justice in the case”. On September 20, 1994, the Commission opened
case No. 11,383, transmitted the pertinent parts of the petition to the State
and requested it to provide information on the facts contained in this communication
with a period of 90 days.
6. During its 87th session, from September 19 to 30,
1994, the Commission held a hearing on the case. On that occasion, Guatemala presented its reply to the petition.
7. On December 15, 1994, the State presented an additional report
related to the Commission’s request of September 20, 1994.
8. On January 17, 1995, the Commission received the petitioners’
response to the reply presented to the Commission by the State.
9. On January 20, 1995, the Commission forwarded to the petitioners
the pertinent parts of the additional report that the State had presented
on December 15, 1994.
10. On February 1, 1995, the petitioners’ reply was forwarded to
the State.
11. Guatemala responded to the petitioners’ reply on March 29, 1995,
and the following day the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of this
communication to the petitioners.
12. On May 17, 1995, the Commission received a letter from the petitioners
responding to the State’s report of December 15, 1994, and the reply of March
29, 1995. The information was forwarded to Guatemala on May 24, 1995.
13. On June 27, 1995, the Commission received a report from the State
in response to the petitioners’ communication of May 17, 1995. On July 19, 1995, the Commission forwarded
the pertinent parts of the State’s report to the petitioners.
14. On September 19, 1995, the petitioners presented their reply
to the Commission and on September 29, 1995, the Commission forwarded the
pertinent parts to the State.
15. On November 6, 1995, the State forwarded additional information to
the Commission consisting in copies of the judgements delivered in various
instances during the domestic proceedings. The Commission forwarded this documentation to the petitioners on
November 13, 1995.
16. The petitioners also send the Commission additional information
on December 5, 1995, and January 15, 1996, and the pertinent parts of this
were forwarded to the State on December 13, 1995, and January 29, 1996, respectively.
17. On January 18, 1996, Guatemala presented a reply to the information
sent by the petitioners on December 5, 1995.
18. On February 22, 1996, during its 91st session, the
Commission held a second hearing on the case.
During this hearing, the Commission made itself available to the parties
to conduct negotiations for a friendly settlement. The petitioners expressed their willingness to consider a friendly
settlement, although they had their reserves about the possibility of reaching
one in this case. Guatemala indicated
its intention of giving its opinion on this point subsequently.
19. The petitioners confirmed their willingness to take part in a
friendly settlement process in a letter received by the Commission on March
1, 1996.
20. The same day, the Commission received a letter from the State
in which it affirmed that it had already forwarded all the relevant reports
in this case.
21. On March 18, 1996, the petitioners sent an additional communication
to the Commission about this case. The following day, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts
to the State.
22. On March 20, 1996, the Commission transmitted a note to the State
in which it again made itself available to the parties to reach a friendly
settlement.
23. On May 8, 1996, the Commission received the State’s reply, indicating
that, in its opinion, “it would not be necessary to conduct a friendly settlement
process”.
24. On June 24, 1996, the Commission sent a note to the State asking
it about the status of the corresponding judicial proceedings in the domestic
jurisdiction.
25. On July 8, 1996, the State presented a communication to the Commission
transmitting a copy of a note from the Presidential Coordinating Committee
for the Executive’s Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) addressed to the petitioners.
On July 9, 1996, the petitioners were sent the pertinent parts of this
communication.
26. The petitioners replied to the State on July 23, 1996, and on
August 12, 1996, they sent a copy of this reply to the Commission.
27. On July 23, 1996, the Commission requested specific additional
information and documentation from the State to assist them in their examination
of the petition. On August 29, 1996,
Guatemala responded to this request and forwarded the required documents.
28. On October
1, 1996, the State sent the Commission additional information in reply to
the note of July 23, 1996. This information
was forwarded to the petitioners on October 8, 1996.
29. During its 93rd session, in a meeting held on October
16, 1996, the Commission adopted Report No. 33/96, in which it declared that
the petition presented in this case was admissible, and declared
[t]hat, having seen the
information and the observations that have been presented, the State of Guatemala
violated the human rights of the child and the rights to life, humane treatment,
personal liberty, and to a fair trial and judicial protection embodied in
Articles 4, 5, 7, 19, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and failed to comply
with its obligations stipulated in Article 1.
That
the State of Guatemala violated Articles 1, 2 and 6 of the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
30. Furthermore, in the said report,
the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:
[t]hat
[…] it should carry out a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of
the facts denounced so that the circumstances and the responsibility for the
violations that occurred may be fully established in relation to the crimes
committed against Anstraum [Aman] Villagrán Morales, Henry Giovanni Contreras,
Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and [Jovito]
Josué Juárez Cifuentes.
That
[…] it should adopt the necessary measures to submit those responsible for
the violations that are the subject of this case to the appropriate judicial
proceeding, which should be founded on a complete and effective investigation
of the case and include a careful examination of all the pertinent evidence,
with absolute observance of the law and due process.
That […] it should remedy
the consequences of the violations of the rights listed, including payment
of a fair compensation to the next of kin of Anstraum [Aman] Villagrán Morales,
Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto
Caal Sandoval and [Jovito] Josué Juárez Cifuentes.
That […] it should institute
the appropriate measures so that violations of the human rights of street
children do not occur in the future. These
measures should include their effective protection, particularly of minors,
and the training and supervision of police agents so that they do not ill-treat
street children.
Lastly, the Commission
decided “to transmit this report to the State of Guatemala and establish a
period of two months from the transmittal of the report, for the State to
implement the recommendations contained herein. During this period, the State is not at liberty to publish the report,
as established in Article 50 of the Convention”.
31. On October 30, 1996, the Commission forwarded Report No. 33/96
to the State, requesting it to provide information on the measures taken to
comply with the recommendations.
32. On December 30, 1996, the State requested an extension in order
to present its reply to the Commission’s report. On December 31, 1996, the Commission informed
the State that an extension had been granted until January 6, 1997.
33. On January 7, 1997, the Commission decided to refer the case
to the Inter-American Court.
34. On January 9, 1997, the State presented its reply to Report No.
33/96. On this occasion, Guatemala
stated that it would send additional documentation in the coming days; however,
this did not happen. Although it was
time-barred, the Commission accepted the State’s reply.
IV
35. The Commission submitted the application to the Court on January
30, 1997. It in, it designated John
Donaldson and Claudio Grossman as its Delegates, David J. Padilla and Elizabeth
H. Abi-Mershed as its Lawyers and Ariel Dulitzky, Viviana Krsticevic, Alejandro
Valencia Villa, Francisco Cox Vial and José Miguel Vivanco as assistants.
36. On February 12, 1997, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter
“the Secretariat”), informed the Commission that once “the application has
been received in Spanish, it [would] proceed to formally notify it to the
Government of Guatemala”, as it had been forwarded in English originally.
37. On March 4, 1997, the Commission sent by fax the application
translated into Spanish in a version that contained several translation errors.
38. In a note of March 6, 1997, the Secretariat
notified the application in English to the State and informed it that it had
four months in which to present its answer, two months to file preliminary
objections and one month to appoint an agent and a deputy agent; all these
periods started from the date of notification of the application.
In a communication of the same date, the State was invited to designate
a Judge ad hoc.
39. In a further
note of the same date, March 6, 1997, the Secretariat requested the Commission
to send the original file processed by the Commission, and also the photographs
that appeared as annexes 42, 43, 44, 59, 60, 61 and 62 of the application,
the addresses of the original complainants and the representatives of the
victims or their next of kin, with their respective powers of attorney and,
also, the missing or illegible annexes.
40. On March 11, 1997, the Court received the corrected Spanish translation
of the application and the photographs that appeared as annexes 59 to 62.
41. On March 14, 1997, the Secretariat of the Court sent the State
a copy of the corrected Spanish translation of the application and of the
above-mentioned annexes. Furthermore,
on the same date, the Court requested the Commission to send the annexes that
were still missing.
42. On March
30, 1997, Guatemala informed the court that it had designated Julio Gándara
Valenzuela, Guatemalan Ambassador to the Republic of Costa Rica, as its Agent.
43. On April 2, 1997, Guatemala presented a brief in which it raised
four preliminary objections and requested the Court “to extend the term for
responding to the application until [the preliminary objections] [had been]
resolved”.
44. By Order of April 16, 1997, the Court declared “inadmissible
the request by the State of Guatemala for an extension of the period for responding
to the application” in the instant case and decided “to continue to process
the case in accordance with the respective procedural stages”.
45. On April 18, 1997, the State informed the Court of an “error
of substance in the brief on preliminary objections” (capital letters in the
original) and requested it to deem “that it had not been presented [and] therefore,
to abrogate the Order of the Court of April 16, 1997” (capital letters in
the original).
46. By Order of April 18, 1997, the President of the Court decided
“to deem the brief on preliminary objections of April 2, 1997, not to have
been presented”.
47. On May 6, 1997, pursuant to Article 36 of the Rules of Procedure,
the State presented a brief in which it raised a single preliminary objection
entitled “Incompetence of the honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights
to hear […] the instant case” (capital letters in the original).
48. On May 21, 1997, the Commission presented part of the documentation
requested.
49. On July 4, 1997, the State submitted its
answer to the application and a copy of this was forwarded to the Commission
on July 8, 1997.
50. On September 11, 1997,
the Court delivered judgement on preliminary objections, in which it unanimously
resolved “[t]o dismiss as inadmissible the preliminary objection brought by
the State of Guatemala” and “[t]o continue to examine the case”.
51. On April 15, 1998, Guatemala advised the Court of the appointment
of Guillermo Argueta Villagrán, Guatemalan Ambassador to the Government of
Costa Rica, as the State Agent in this case, in substitution of Julio Gándara
Valenzuela.
52. On November 6, 1998, the Commission informed the Court that in
future, Claudio Grossman would act as its sole Delegate in this case, thus
annulling the appointment in this capacity of John Donaldson.
53. On December 9, 1998, the Commission sent its definitive list
of witnesses and expert witnesses for the case.
54. On December 14, 1998, the President summoned the State and the
Commission to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on January
28, 1999, in order to receive the statements of the witnesses and the reports
of the expert witnesses proposed by the Commission. Furthermore, the President instructed the Secretariat to inform
the parties that, as soon as this evidence had been received, they could present
their final oral arguments on the merits of the case.
55. On December 28, 1998, the Commission presented the powers of
attorney granted by Matilde Reyna Morales García, Ana María Contreras and
Margarita Urbina Sandoval, next of kin of three of the victims.
56. On January
28 and 29, 1999, the Court received the statements of the witnesses and the
reports of the expert witnesses proposed by the Commission and heard the final
oral arguments of the parties in a public hearing on the merits of the case.
There appeared before the Court
for the State of Guatemala:
Guillermo Argueta Villagrán, Agent;
Dennis
Alonzo Mazariegos, Deputy Agent; and
Alejandro Sánchez Garrido, Advisor
for the Inter-American Commission:
Claudio
Grossman, Delegate;
Elizabeth
H. Abi-Mershed, Lawyer;
Viviana
Krsticevic, Assistant;
Luguely
Cunillera, Assistant;
Ana María
Méndez, Assistant; and
Héctor
Dionisio, Assistant.
As witnesses proposed by the Inter-American
Commission:
Ana María Contreras;
Matilde Reyna Morales García;
Bruce Harris;
Rosa Angélica Vega;
Julia Griselda Ramírez López;
Osbelí Arcadio Joaquín Tema;
Delfino Hernández García;
Roberto Marroquín Urbina; and
Ayende Anselmo Ardiano Paz.
As expert witnesses proposed by
the Inter-American Commission:
Roberto Carlos Bux; and
Alberto
Bovino.
57. On August 3, 1999, the Secretariat sent the final version of
the transcript of the public hearings to the parties, informing them that
they had one month to present their final written arguments. This period was extended twice, following two
requests presented by the Commission.
58. On September 21, 1999, Guatemala presented its final arguments.
The Commission did so in English on September 20 and in Spanish on
November 10[1].
V
A) DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
59. The Commission presented a copy of documents related to the following,
as annexes to the application and as evidence:
a. Domestic
judicial proceedings relating to the homicide of Henry Giovanni Contreras,
Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito
Josué Juárez Cifuentes and to the homicide of Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales.
In this
respect, copies of the files created during the judicial proceedings conducted
by the following courts were presented:
- the First Magistrate’s
Court of Mixco (Department of Guatemala)[2];
- the Trial Court of
the Municipality of Mixco (Department of Guatemala)[3];
- the First Criminal
Trial Court (Guatemala City)[4];
- the sitting Magistrate’s
Court for Criminal Matters[5]
(Guatemala City);
- the Second Criminal
Trial Court[6] (Guatemala
City);
- the Third Criminal
Sentencing Court[7] (Guatemala
City);
- the Fourth Chamber of the Guatemalan Court of Appeal[8];
and
-
the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of
Guatemala (hereinafter “Supreme Court”)[9];
b. The processing
of the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
[10]
.
c. The issue
of “street children” in Guatemala at the time the facts that originated this
case occurred
[11]
.
60. The State did not contest or object to the documents presented
by the Commission nor did it question their authenticity, so the Court considers
them to be valid.
61. The State did not present any evidence in its reply to the application
or at any time during the preliminary objections and merits phases.
62. During the hearing on the merits of the case, held on January
28, 1999, the Inter-American Commission presented copies of 14 documents that
were received by the Secretariat of the Court.
These documents were also handed to the State during the hearing.
63. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that
[i]tems
of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification
thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto and, where
appropriate, in the communication setting out the preliminary objections and
in the answer thereto. Should any of
the parties allege force majeure,
serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing
an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such
evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing
party is guaranteed the right to defense.
This provision confers an exceptional
character on the possibility of admitting items of evidence at a time other
than those indicated. The corresponding
exception is only constituted when the applicant alleges force majeure, serious impediment or supervening
events, which has not occurred in this case.
64. Furthermore, the Court observes that the documents presented
by the Commission in the public hearing had previously been added to the file
as annexes to the application (supra,
paras. 49 and 56) and already formed part of the probative material in this
case, so that a second incorporation would be redundant.
B) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
65. During the public hearing, the Court received the following testimonies:
a. Testimony
of Ana María Contreras, mother of Henry Giovanni Contreras
She
declared that, during 1989 and 1990, her son sometimes lived on the streets
of Guatemala City, specifically on 18th, 9th and 17th streets. In June 1990, when he was abducted, he was
spending some periods of time with her in her house and others in Casa Alianza.
Moreover, during this time her son worked in a printing workshop.
On June
15, 1990, between nine and ten in the morning, Henry Giovanni Contreras left
his home to obtain an identity card as he had recently had his 18th
birthday. When about 15 days had elapsed
and he had not returned, the witness went to look for him “on the streets”.
She asked in a café located in front of a place called “the Zocalo”,
on 18th Street, showing a photograph of her son. The woman who worked in the café told her that
“he had been taken away in a pickup truck with some other boys”.
The following
day, she went to the Guatemalan National Police Force (hereinafter “National
Police Force”) where the death of Henry Giovanni Contreras was confirmed and
she was shown a half-length photograph of “the body [of her son] with a bullet
wound”. Furthermore, she was told
that she should go to Mixco, where she could find out more details of what
had happened. In Mixco, they explained
to her that Henry Giovanni Contreras had been found dead in the San Nicolás
Woods and she was questioned about this. She declared that she was also summoned by a court or tribunal,
which she only referred to as a “court”, where “they questioned” her about
her son, although she does not remember the exact nature of the questions.
She stated
that she could not bury her son, because numerous bureaucratic measures were
required in order to obtain his body and she “was already suffering from health
problems in her head that later began to get worse”. She declared that, as a consequence of what
happened to her son, she developed a facial paralysis that “resulted in a
year in hospital”.
She
added that, following her statements to the courts, she received an anonymous
threatening letter. This frightened
her and she said that she was also afraid to be making a statement on the
events to the Inter-American Court.
She indicated
that she did not know who was responsible for the death of her son or what
were the motives for his assassination. She
only learned though the media that the alleged perpetrators had been arrested
and then freed. She has not been summoned
again to make statements to the courts.
She declared
that Henry Giovanni Contreras consumed drugs and alcohol and that he had been
arrested on several occasions “[f]or vagrancy on the streets”.
b. Testimony
of Matilde Reyna Morales García, mother of Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales
She declared
that Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales attended school up to sixth year and,
when he was 15 years of age, he abandoned his studies and began to work in
the “La Parroquia” market. From then
on, he helped his family financially and was like the man of the house. In 1990, Villagrán Morales “lived” with her
and his siblings. However, she indicated
that he ceased to live with them “on a permanent basis” when he began to work.
She also said that he had been arrested once.
In the
early morning of June 26., 1990, her daughter told her that she had been advised
by the morgue employees that Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales was dead.
She went to the morgue with her daughter and identified his body.
They were given no information about the circumstances of death. When she left the morgue, a youth of about
17 years of age approached her and told her that he had been a friend of her
son. He added that, when he was having
a cup of coffee in a sector of 18th Street, he saw three men go
past shooting at Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales and that one of the bullets
killed him.
During
August, she made a statement before a court.
She was not given any information about the death of her son there
either, nor was she informed of the results of the judicial proceeding.
She did
not take any steps before the authorities because she was afraid that the
same thing that happened to Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales might happen to
her or to her other children and because she was two months pregnant at the
time of her son’s death.
c. Testimony
of Bruce Harris, Regional Director for Latin America of Casa Alianza
He declared that Casa Alianza
is an organization that executes educational and support programs for “street
children” in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. He heard about the case of the four bodies
found in the San Nicolás Woods through Aída Cámbara Cruz, a “street child”
who took part in the organization’s program.
He knew the victims because they also participated in Casa Alianza
programs. He stated that Anstraum
Aman Villagrán Morales and the four youths who were murdered in the San Nicolás
Woods were a group of friends who could often be seen on 18th Street.
Regarding the events relating
to the abduction and homicide of the four youths, he declared that, from what
he saw in photographs that he was shown when he identified the victims before
the National Police Force, “they had suffered tremendously [...], they had
been tortured, abused [...] and [...] had [received several shots] in the
head”. Byron Gutiérrez, an investigator from the Ombudsman’s Office (Procuraduría de Derechos Humanos), told him that the boys showed signs
of “torture, typical of the State security forces”. He also stated that the area called “Las Casetas”
in 18th Street, is known to be a very dangerous area and that he
had heard from the Casa Alianza street educators that Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales “was apparently drinking beer with
two men who were identified or recognized as police agents from the Fifth
Corps, apparently [there was] some kind of discussion, shots were heard and
the two men ran off and Anstraum […] died there from the shots.”
Moreover,
he added that the area of “Las Casetas” is in the center of the city, where
there were probably about 300 people at the time of the events, among whom
were certainly Gustavo Adolfo Cóncaba Cisneros, known as “Toby”, Julia Griselda
Ramírez López, Rosa Angélica Vega and Micaela Solís Ramírez, all of them also
“street children”.
Based
on information received from Aída Cámbara Cruz, on July 18, 1990, the witness
denounced what had happened before the Office of the Attorney-General, the
Ombudsman’s Office, the National Police Force, and the Mixco Magistrate’s
Court.
He stated
that the file at the Mixco Magistrate’s Court was composed of “a few pages”
and made no reference to the torture that he had seen in the National Police
Force’s identification photographs. The
police report of March 4, 1991, did not mention the signs of torture found
on the bodies of the victims either.
While
he was the private prosecutor in the case – he was later replaced by Rosa
Carlota Sandoval, mother of Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval – the judge never
summoned him. Moreover, not all the
witnesses that he proposed were summoned, and the information that he contributed
to the proceeding was not used in the investigation.
Only about half the witnesses that he proposed in his complaint were
called to declare.
He stated
that both the Judiciary and the National Police Force took an excessive time
to investigate the events.
He
stated that he was frightened as a result of the denunciations made in the
case. Three colleagues from Casa Alianza
had to go to Canada because of threats they received during the investigation.
In July 1991, three men came to look for him in an armored vehicle
without license plates and, as he was not at Casa Alianza, “they covered the
façade of our building with bullet holes”.
He added that Rosa Carlota Sandoval, who later died in a traffic accident,
apparently received threats. Gustavo Adolfo Cóncaba Cisneros, alias “Toby”,
a “street child” who had been an eye witness in the San Nicolás Woods case
and who had identified one of the police agents who had allegedly participated
in the attack also died, apparently stabbed by another “street child”.
He added
that Casa Alianza is handling 392 cases of alleged crimes against “street
children”, of which approximately 50 are for murder. Of the 392 cases, less than five per cent have been finalized by
the courts, and almost half of them have been closed. Most of the perpetrators of these crimes were members of the National
Police Force or other State security forces, or private police agents who
were also under the aegis of the Ministry of the Interior. He knew of no training programs for police
agents in Guatemala on how to treat children.
d. Testimony
of Rosa Angélica Vega, “street child” at the time the events occurred
She declared
that she was a friend of the five youths in this case. In 1990, she worked at night in the kiosk of
Julia Griselda Ramírez López on 18th Street. On the day of the events she saw how three
police agents abducted the four youths later found dead in the San Nicolás
Woods. She stated that they were held
up at gunpoint and taken away in a black “pick-up”. The police agents were dressed in civilian clothes, but she knew
they were policemen because of the heavy-caliber arms that they carried. Following
the event, she went to the Identification Section of the National Police Force
to see the photographs of the bodies.
She stated
that on the night of the murder of Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales, she saw
him drinking beer with a young man with curly-hair wearing “tight denim trousers
and boots”, who she did not know. The
young man urged Villagrán Morales to leave; then the two of them walked to
the corner and she heard a shot. When
she left the kiosk to see what was happening, she saw Villagrán Morales running
and then “he bumped into some boards and fell there, face up”. Because she
was afraid, she waited for people to approach Villagrán Morales’ body before
she herself went to look at it. Julia
Griselda Ramírez López and she approached the body and saw a child known as
“Pelé” among those who were looking at it. Then, a man who was there, kicked Villagrán Morales’ hand as he
left and “Pelé” commented “there goes that beggar (“mendigo”)”. When he heard
these words, the man turned round, with a gun in his hand, and asked who had
spoken and “whether he wanted one also”.
When she returned to her kiosk, she saw that the same man was there
drinking beer, accompanied by another person.
Gustavo Adolfo Cóncaba
Cisneros, alias “Toby”, was also present.
According to the witness, three men may have participated
in the murder of Villagrán Morales, as she is unable to say if the person
who was drinking beer with the victim before the events was one of the two
she later saw near the body.
The witness
was afraid of the threats of the National Police Force when she was a “street
child” and, even today, she is afraid to make statements on the case, such
as before this Court. Consequently,
when on April 12, 1991, she make a statement before the Judge of the Guatemalan
Second Criminal Trial Court, she said nothing about what she had seen because
she feared for her life and, in the instant case she fears also for that of
her children. She stated that she
identified the man who accompanied Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales in the
kiosk in photographs before the Guatemalan court. However, on that occasion she said that it
would be more appropriate to identify him in person.
In continuation,
she referred to Rosa Trinidad Morales Pérez, who also worked in a kiosk on
18th Street, and declared that this woman mistreated the children,
throwing hot water and coffee at them. On one occasion, she heard her threaten Anstraum Aman Villagrán
Morales saying that “if he did not want to go the same way as the other four
[children killed in the San Nicolás Woods], he should not pick a quarrel with
her”. She added that Rosa Trinidad
Morales Pérez had many friends who were policemen and who visited the kiosk
where she worked.
In general,
regarding her experience as a “street child”, she declared that she was afraid
of the police because they told her companions and herself that “if they did
not […] disappear from there, [they would take them] prisoner”, they would
beat them and, “as [they] were good for nothing”, they would be better dead.
Lastly, she stated that she had been arrested “once or twice” when
“she was very young”.
e. Testimony
of Julia Griselda Ramírez López, who worked in a kiosk on 18th
Street in Guatemala City
She declared
that she is the daughter of Julia Consuelo López de Ramírez and, in 1990,
she worked in a kiosk which sold food, known as the “Pepsi” kiosk, located
on 18th Street in Guatemala City, in front of a café called “El
Zócalo”. She worked from seven in the evening until
seven in the morning. Rosa Trinidad Morales Pérez worked the day shift in
the same kiosk. She knew the five
victims, but only saw what happened to Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales.
On
the night that Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales was murdered, Rosa Trinidad
Morales Pérez was handing over the shift to the witness. Villagrán Morales
arrived at around seven in the evening. At
that time, Mrs. Morales Pérez said to the boy: “you are going to turn up dead
like your friends, the others”. During
the evening, Villagrán Morales remained near the kiosk where she worked.
At about midnight, Villagrán Morales returned to the kiosk accompanied
by a “curly-headed” man who wore black denim trousers.
Subsequently, they went over to a kiosk that sold grilled meat, in
front of the kiosk where she worked. The
man told Villagrán Morales to drink his beer quickly; then Villagrán Morales
entered the lane and the man followed him.
Five or ten minutes later, she heard one or two shots.
At that moment she was accompanied by Rosa Angélica Vega, known as
“Chochi”, who was helping her in the kiosk.
When they heard the shots, they looked out and could see how Anstraum
Aman Villagrán Morales “bumped” against one of the kiosks and then fell to
the ground about 10 meters from her kiosk.
The two women waited until other people approached the body, because
they were afraid. When this happened,
they also approached it. Then the
witness returned to her kiosk; two men also came to the kiosk, one of whom
was the man who had accompanied Villagrán Morales to the lane, and they ordered
two beers. One of them was armed.
Later
she returned to the place where the body of Villagrán Morales lay. While she was there, the two above-mentioned
men walked through the lane and a child known as “Pelé” said to them “there
go those beggars (mendigos)”. In response, one of the men turned round, gun
in hand, and asked “who said that? Do you want to be shot too?”. As he walked away, he kicked Villagrán Morales’
hand.
She added
that subsequently the National Police Force arrived to collect the body of
Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales and they asked her if she knew or had seen
anything; however, she refused to answer because she was afraid.
Several
days after the death of Villagrán Morales, the man who had accompanied him
on the night he was murdered came to the kiosk again. He arrived in the uniform of the Fifth National Police Corps, in
a blue pick-up truck, identified as belonging to the same police corps, and
accompanied by other policemen, who were conducting a “raid”. This man was looking for her mother who also
worked in the kiosk.
She told
her mother that police agents were looking for her. It was then that her mother, who feared for
her own life, advised her to make a statement about what she had seen. She said that she went to make a statement
to the National Police Force and then her mother went to the United States
“for fear that something [might happen to her]”.
She stated that she also made a statement before the “courts” and that
the State did not take any measure to protect her safety or that of her mother.
On March 26, 1991, she made a statement before a judge. On October 9, 1990, she had done the same to National Police Force investigators. She identified a policeman named Néstor Fonseca López as a participant in the murder, from a “kardex”, that is cards with identification photographs. With regard to the personal identification procedure, she stated that “[she] was taken to several place