Inadmissibility decision; Subjects: CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, GUATEMALA; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.23-01113 (E)
Human Rights Committee
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the
Optional Protocol, concerning communications
Nos. 4023/2021–4032/2021**, ***, ***
Communications submitted by:
35 members of the K’iche’ Mayan people of the
municipality of Chiché (No. 4023/2021); 9
members of the Ixil Mayan people of the
municipalities of San Gaspar Chajul and San
Juan Cotzal (No. 4024/2021); 21 members of the
K’iche’ Mayan people of the Chicabracán
community of the municipality of Santa Cruz del
Quiché (No. 4025/2021); 26 members of the
K’iche’ Mayan people of the municipality of
Uspantán (No. 4026/2021); 28 members of the
K’iche’ Mayan people of the communities of
Cantón La Montaña in the municipality of San
Pedro Jocopilas and the village of Chajbal in the
municipality of Santa Cruz del Quiché (No.
4027/2021); 4 members of the Kaqchikel Mayan
people of the municipality of San Juan Comalapa
(No. 4028/2021); 20 members of the K’iche’
Mayan people of the municipality of Santa Cruz
del Quiché (No. 4029/2021); 26 members of the
K’iche’ Mayan people of the municipality of
Chinique (No. 4030/2021); 28 members of the
K’iche’ Mayan people of the village of San
Sebastián Lemoa in the municipality of Santa
Cruz del Quiché (No. 4031/2021); 72 members
of the Kaqchikel Mayan people of the
municipality of San José Poaquil
(No. 4032/2021), all represented by Impunity
Watch
Alleged victims:
269 members of the K’iche’, Ixil and Kaqchikel
Mayan peoples
* Second reissue for technical reasons (4 September 2025).
** Adopted by the Committee at its 136th session (10 October–4 November 2022).
*** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Yadh Ben Achour, Arif Bulkan, Mahjoub El Haiba, Furuya
Shuichi, Carlos Gómez Martínez, Marcia V. J. Kran, Duncan Laki Muhumuza, Photini Pazartzis,
Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Vasilka Sancin, José Manuel Santos Pais, Soh Changrok, Kobauyah
Tchamdja Kpatcha, Hélène Tigroudja, Imeru Tamerat Yigezu and Gentian Zyberi.
**** The annexes are being circulated in Spanish only.
United Nations
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021*
International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
Distr.: Restricted
14 March 2023
English
Original: Spanish
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
2
GE.23-01113
State party:
Guatemala
Date of communications:
Between 3 September and 5 October 2021
(initial submissions)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State party on 13 October 2021 (not issued in
document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
26 October 2022
Subject matter:
Failure to implement agreements on reparations
for the forced displacement of Mayan peoples
during the scorched-earth policy (Nos.
4023/2021–4031/2021); executions and enforced
disappearances (Nos. 4023/2021–4032/2021)
Procedural issues:
Competence ratione temporis; competence
ratione personae; exhaustion of domestic
remedies; fourth instance
Articles of the Covenant:
2 (3), 6 (1) and (3), 7, 9, 12, 14 (1), 17, 23 and 24
Article of the Optional Protocol:
5 (2) (b)
1.1
The authors of the 10 communications1 are nationals of Guatemala and members of
various communities of the K’iche’, Ixil and Kaqchikel Mayan peoples. In the first nine
communications (Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021), the authors claim that the State party has
violated their rights under article 12 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with
articles 2 (3), 6, 7, 9, 14 (1), 17, 23 and 24. In all 10 communications, the authors claim
violations of the rights of their disappeared relatives under articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant
and of their executed relatives under article 6 of the Covenant. They also claim violations of
article 7 in respect of the relatives of disappeared persons and the authors who were victims
of sexual violence. The Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State
party on 5 August 1992 and 28 February 2001, respectively. The authors are represented by
counsel.
1.2
On 13 October 2021, in accordance with rules 92 (5) and 97 (3) of its rules of
procedure, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new communications
and interim measures, decided to register the 10 communications jointly because of their
legal and factual similarity,2 to request the State party to submit observations relating only to
admissibility and to consider the communications jointly.
Factual background
2.1
The authors maintain that during the internal armed conflict, from 1978 until the
signing of the Peace Agreements in 1996, the State party applied a scorched-earth policy
against the Mayan people consisting of military and paramilitary operations aimed at its
destruction. The authors point out that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, on
the basis of on-site visits to Guatemala and to refugee camps in Mexico, concluded that
bombings, looting, village burnings and mass killings had left most of the people affected
without any homes or land.3 The Commission to Clarify Past Human Rights Violations and
Acts of Violence that have Caused the Guatemalan Population to Suffer (Commission for
Historical Clarification) noted that between 500,000 and 1.5 million Mayan people had fled
their communities and that the only factor common to all the victims was that they belonged
1 See annex I: the authors of the 10 communications and the relatives on whose behalf the
communications were submitted.
2 The 10 communications have more points in common (context, origin of the authors, representatives,
date of submission) than differences (not all claim a violation of article 6 or article 12, for example).
3 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights 1984–1985, document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, 1 October 1985. Available at
http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/84.85eng/toc.htm.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
3
to a particular ethnic group, which indicates that these acts were committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, communities of the Mayan population.4
2.2
The authors of the 10 communications belong to the K’iche’, Ixil and Kaqchikel
Mayan peoples. They are originally from the departments of Quiché and Chimaltenango and
they used to work in agriculture and animal husbandry. They are relatives of people who
were executed or disappeared during the internal armed conflict. The authors of the first nine
communications were also forced to flee their lands due to the scorched-earth policy. They
initially took refuge in the mountains and later arrived in the capital, where, in order to avoid
persecution, they abandoned their cultural practices, stopped wearing their traditional
costumes and speaking their language, and changed their identities. Even though the
persecution ended in 1996, they claim that they have survived ever since on the outskirts of
the city by carrying out informal work, in extreme poverty, and are unable to return to their
communities because their lands are occupied by former military personnel who, as a “reward”
for their activities during the conflict, took over their farms and even obtained legal title to
the unlawfully possessed property. The authors state that second- and third-generation
children born after their parents had been displaced suffer the trauma of being uprooted from
their family, cultural and social environment.
Communication No. 4023/2021: displacement of seven K’iche’ Mayan families from the
municipality of Chiché
2.3
On 1 March 1981, soldiers arrived at the home of Tomasa Rodríguez Morales de
Saquic. She and her minor daughter fled to the mountains before reaching the capital, where
they now live in extreme poverty.
2.4
In late 1981, María Xón Cuin de Guarcas saw soldiers burn down her house. She fled
to the mountains with family members, where they survived while hiding from the army for
eight years. Since moving to the capital, they have survived as street vendors in precarious
conditions.
2.5
In March 1982, soldiers arrived at the family home of Petrona Morales Lastor de
Ajtzac. The family hid in the mountains until the Peace Agreements were signed and then
moved to the capital; they were unable to return to their home because it was occupied by
former soldiers. On 3 May 2013, her husband, Miguel Ajtzac Lux, died as a result of the
extreme poverty in which they were living.
2.6
In 1982, soldiers burned the home and crops of Paulina Sut Morales’s family. They
fled to the mountains and hid there for two years. Following the deaths of some members of
the family, they fled to the capital, where they have been surviving in precarious conditions
ever since.
2.7
In 1982, soldiers burned Dominga Tecum Xirum’s home and crops. The family hid in
the mountains, where her husband died of malnutrition. Since then, she and her son and
granddaughters have been living in the capital city in extreme poverty.
2.8
In 1982, soldiers burned the house, crops and animals belonging to Diego Morales
Saquic’s family. They escaped to the mountains, where his father and two of his children
died. He subsequently fled to the capital city, where he and his children and grandchildren
survive in precarious conditions.
2.9
In 1983, following a massacre in the community, Maria Lastor Tol’s family fled and
hid in the mountains for two years. As a result of the lack of shelter and food, one of her
daughters and her father died. In 1985, they managed to move to the capital, where they have
been working in the informal economy ever since. In 2019, her husband, Tomás Morales
Saquic, died as a result of living in extreme poverty.
4 United Nations Office for Project Services, Commission for Historical Clarification, Guatemala:
Memoria del Silencio (Guatemala: Memory of Silence), 1999, vol. IV, chap. III, para. 4194, and
chap. IV, para. 111.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
4
GE.23-01113
Communication No. 4024/2021: displacement of two Ixil Mayan families from the
municipalities of San Gaspar Chajul and San Juan Cotzal
2.10
On 28 August 1977, Miguel Sanic Itzep, a member of a cooperative, was arrested by
soldiers and tortured for 24 days. When he was able to escape, he fled to Mexico. In 1980,
his family fled to the mountains when their village was destroyed and burned. In 1984, they
were reunited in the capital, where they currently live in precarious conditions.
2.11
In 1985, soldiers executed Ana Gómez Aguilar’s father-in-law. She fled with her
husband and children to the capital, where they still live in extreme poverty.
Communication No. 4025/2021: enforced disappearances and displacement of four K’iche’
Mayan families from the Chicabracán community in the municipality of Santa Cruz del
Quiché
2.12
In 1980, Salvador Ventura López fled with his wife and daughter after being warned
that soldiers had been ordered to disappear him. On 12 August 1982, his father, Santos
Ventura Chich, was disappeared by soldiers.
2.13
In early 1980, the husband of Manuela Ventura Tiño de González, Miguel González
López, was disappeared by soldiers. The family took refuge in the mountains, where they
remained for three years before moving to the capital.
2.14
On 12 August 1982, Sebastiana Cun López’s family fled the community after soldiers
had raped her and tortured her husband before disappearing him.
2.15
In 1982, Manuel Gómez Osorio’s family fled their community and moved to the
capital, where they continue to survive as vendors on the informal market.
Communication No. 4026/2021: enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and
displacement of four K’iche’ Mayan families from the municipality of Uspantán
2.16
In 1980, Miguel León Aguaré’s father was disappeared by soldiers. He was 3 years
old when he escaped to the mountains with his family, where his sister Marta León Aguaré
died of malnutrition. Four years later, they moved to the outskirts of the capital. He suffers
from transgenerational trauma. He married a Mayan woman who was also displaced. Their
three children are third-generation displaced children.
2.17
In April 1981, when his parents were executed, Julián Vicente Velásquez fled with
his family to the mountains, where his son died as a result of persecution and malnutrition.
The rest of the family are currently surviving in the capital.
2.18
In April 1981, Juan Petronilo Vicente Velásquez’s family fled to the mountains when
the army entered their village. They remained there for three years and María Martina Vicente
León, one of his daughters, died there of malnutrition.
2.19
On 14 February 1982, Juliana Socoy Car and her husband fled to the mountains after
soldiers raided their village and indiscriminately fired at the inhabitants. They hid for three
years before moving to the capital.
Communication No. 4027/2021: enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and
displacement of six K’iche’ Mayan families from the municipalities of San Pedro Jocopilas
and Santa Cruz del Quiché
2.20
In 1981, when soldiers arrested members of her family and killed her brother,
Francisca Osorio Lucas de Pacheco fled to the mountains. She currently survives in the
capital by selling vegetables and tortillas.
2.21
On 12 June 1982, Juana Vicente López was working in her cornfields when she saw
soldiers taking away her father. She and some relatives fled to the capital, where she works
as a house cleaner.
2.22
On 27 August 1982, soldiers arrived at the home of María Antonia Velásquez Pérez
de Mejía and killed several of her relatives. The rest of the family escaped to the capital city,
where they work as street vendors. On 31 October 2017, her mother, Andrea Pérez Ixcoy
Reynozo, died as a result of living in extreme poverty.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
5
2.23
On 29 November 1982, Félix Enrique Velásquez Mejía was 5 years old when his
father was killed; he fled to the capital with a brother.
2.24
In March 1983, soldiers captured Rosa Vicente López’s husband, tortured him and
killed him. In her eighth month of pregnancy, she fled to the mountains, where she gave birth
a few days later. She and her daughter currently survive in the capital by working in the
informal economy.
2.25
In October 1983, soldiers captured one of Victoriana Mejía Tax’s children; she
decided to flee to the capital with the rest of her family. In March 1984, two more of her
children were disappeared by soldiers in the capital.
Communication No. 4028/2021: enforced disappearances and displacement of a Kaqchikel
Mayan family from the village of Simajhuleu in the municipality of San Juan Comalapa
2.26
In early 1980, Eulogio Otzoy Colaj was working in his cornfields when his sons, one
of whom was a minor, were disappeared by soldiers. He fled to the capital with his daughter,
where they survive on charity.
Communication No. 4029/2021: enforced disappearances and displacement of five K’iche’
Mayan families from the municipality of Santa Cruz del Quiché
2.27
In August 1979, upon learning that their names were on an army blacklist, Marta
Zacarías Laines and her family fled to the capital, where her husband and son were
disappeared on 20 September 1981 and 29 July 1982, respectively.
2.28
On 22 October 1981, when soldiers captured her husband, Rosario Poncio Ambrosio
fled with her children to the mountains, where they stayed for six months before moving to
the capital. They continue working in the informal economy in order to survive.
2.29
In early 1982, when the army arrived in her village, Anselma Coxaj Lux and her
family took refuge in the mountains, where her husband and brother were eventually captured
by the army. She and her minor children fled to the capital, where they had to steal vegetables
to feed themselves.
2.30
On 9 January 1982, when Cristina Lux Medrano was 9 years old, her grandfather was
dragged to death by soldiers and her grandmother was raped in front of her. After fleeing
with her family, she spent eight months in the mountains before moving to the capital, where,
on 2 July 2020, her mother, Micaela Medrano López, died as a result of living in extreme
poverty.
2.31
In February 1982, Sebastiana López Ventura was arrested; she was then raped and
tortured for five months. As a result of being raped, she gave birth to a daughter. She managed
to flee to the capital, where she survives by eating food scraps that she finds in rubbish bins.
Communication No. 4030/2021: enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and
displacement of five K’iche’ Mayan families from the municipality of Chinique
2.32
In late 1981, two of Nicolás Quinilla Quinilla’s minor sons died in the mountains from
malnutrition, while his third son, who was 15 years of age, was executed for refusing to join
the Civilian Self-Defence Patrol. In September 1982, he and his wife fled to the capital.
2.33
On 5 March 1982, 17-year-old Juana Tipaz González de Ventura had to leave her
home with her family when the army set fire to their house. They crossed the mountains to
reach the capital, where her father died in 1983. Her first husband, Ignacio Chaperón, was
disappeared on 22 October 1984.
2.34
Also on 5 March 1982, Catalina Vicenta López y López and her family escaped to the
mountains when soldiers burned their house and crops. They remained in hiding until October
1983, when they fled to the capital.
2.35
Also on 5 March 1982, soldiers executed the husband of Candelaria Vásquez Us and
burned her home and crops. The family moved to the capital in November 1982.
2.36
Felipa Tipaz Us and her family also fled in late 1982. They are currently surviving in
the capital.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
6
GE.23-01113
Communication No. 4031/2021: enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and
displacement of nine K’iche’ Mayan families from the village of San Sebastián Lemoa in
the municipality of Santa Cruz del Quiché
2.37
In early 1980, soldiers raped 17-year-old Dolores Ventura. Her father was disappeared
in 1981 and her 16-year-old brother in 1982. She and the rest of her family fled to the capital,
where they live in extreme poverty. In 2020, her husband, Francisco Cun López, died as a
result of living in extreme poverty.
2.38
In early 1980, Anastacia González Tipáz and her family fled to the mountains when
their home was burned down. They subsequently moved to the capital.
2.39
Encarnación Ventura Lux de Gorge fled to the mountains with her children after
soldiers had tortured and beheaded her husband. They took refuge in the capital, where they
are living in extreme poverty.
2.40
In early 1982, when one of her daughters was executed, Anastacia Loarca moved to
the capital. On 22 January 2013, she died there as a result of living in extreme poverty.
2.41
In 1982, when the army executed her 15-year-old sister, Cecilia López Loarca fled to
the mountains with her surviving relatives.
2.42
In October 1982, María Ren Yá de Ventura fled with relatives when the army burned
down her home and disappeared her husband.
2.43
In October 1983, María Gómez de León fled to the capital, where she has managed to
survive in extreme poverty by working in the informal economy.
2.44
On 10 September 1984, Dolores López de Ren and her three daughters fled to the
capital when her husband was executed.
2.45
In 1984, Agapito Ventura González, his wife and their 10 children fled to the capital
when the army burned their home and crops. They survived on food waste before finding
informal work.
Communication No. 4032/2021: enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions of
13 Kaqchikel Mayan families from the municipality of San José Poaquil
2.46
On 24 January 1981, Ignacio Tartón Chalí was arrested by officers of the National
Police. His wife was later able to identify his body. His eyes had been gouged out.
2.47
Josefa Muchuch Ordóñez’s husband, Paulino Jutzuy Chutá, was captured on 27
November 1981. Her brother-in-law, León Jutzuy Chutá, was subsequently arrested. In
February 2001, the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation found the remains of
both men.
2.48
On 2 December 1981, Hilario Martín Muchuch Ordóñez was arrested by soldiers. His
remains have not yet been found.
2.49
On 5 March 1982, Juan Sirín Calí was arrested by soldiers. In 2001, the Guatemalan
Forensic Anthropology Foundation identified his remains.
2.50
On 7 March 1982, Abraham Chutá Quiná was arrested by soldiers. His family stopped
searching for him when they received death threats. His whereabouts are still unknown.
2.51
On 13 April 1982, Ceferino Telón Cúmez was arrested by soldiers and his
whereabouts are still unknown.
2.52
On 15 April 1982, Felipe Oxí Morales was arrested by soldiers and his whereabouts
are still unknown.
2.53
On 6 October 1982, Hilario Cun Calí was executed and his body was identified days
later. His brother, Fermín Cun Calí, was executed on 30 June 1985.
2.54
On 27 March 1984, 26 June 1984, 8 September 1984 and 5 April 1987, Ismael Oxí
Asijtuj, Bibiano Xon, Gabriel López Simón, Benigno López Simón and Juan Oxí Ortiz were
arrested by soldiers. Their whereabouts are still unknown.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
7
Commitments made by the State party, before and after the entry into force of the Optional
Protocol, to provide reparations to victims of the internal armed conflict
2.55
In 1996, when the Peace Agreements were signed, the State party recognized the need
to provide reparations for the grave human rights violations committed against the Mayan
people, and accordingly concluded the Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights, the
Agreement on Resettlement of the Population Groups Uprooted by the Armed Conflict and
the Agreement on the Establishment of the Commission to Clarify Past Human Rights
Violations and Acts of Violence that have Caused the Guatemalan Population to Suffer. In
1997, the Peace Secretariat was established to implement reparations programmes in
accordance with the recommendations of the Commission for Historical Clarification.
2.56
On 9 April and 7 May 2003, Government Orders No. 235-2003 and No. 258-2003
established the National Reparations Programme, under the coordination of the National
Reparations Commission, with both the Programme and the Commission being attached to
the Peace Secretariat. The human rights violations and crimes against humanity for which
reparations were to be provided were: (a) enforced disappearance, (b) extrajudicial execution,
(c) physical and mental torture, (d) forced displacement, (e) forced recruitment of minors, (f)
sexual violence, (g) violations against children, (h) massacres and (i) other violations.5
Applications for reparations submitted by the authors of the 10 communications to the
National Reparations Programme and the reparations agreement concluded with the
authors of communications Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021
2.57
The authors state that, owing to threats made against them, they have been unable to
pursue judicial remedies in relation to the violations suffered. Together with other victims,
they established the Asociación Movimiento Nacional de Víctimas del Conflicto Armado
Interno de Guatemala, Q’anil Tinamit, which empowered them to file administrative appeals
with the National Reparations Programme. The Programme was set up specifically by the
State party to provide reparations to victims of the armed conflict.
2.58
On 24 and 25 August 2005, the authors of communication No. 4032/2021 submitted
applications for financial redress under the National Reparations Programme for the enforced
disappearance and execution of their relatives.6
2.59
In January 2009, the authors of communications Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021
submitted applications for reparations under the National Reparations Programme, stating
that their relatives had been tortured, executed or disappeared, that they had suffered acts of
cultural destruction and that they had since been abandoned to their fate in the slums of the
capital. By way of reparation, they specifically requested land and housing as a means of
ending their forced displacement.
2.60
On 22 June 2009, the National Fund for Peace, the Peace Secretariat and the National
Reparations Programme signed inter-agency cooperation agreement CCI-9-2009, which
provided for the construction of 1,646 homes, at a unit cost of 48,000 quetzales (Q), and
seven mausoleums and monuments. On 18 November 2009, they signed an addendum
increasing the number of houses to 2,372 and lowering the unit cost to Q 35,000. The deadline
for the construction of the housing units was one year, in recognition of the fact that the
restitution of housing as a measure of redress is also a way of combating extreme poverty.
2.61
On 31 May 2011, by a collective decision on material reparation (legal decision DAJ-
141-2011), the Legal Affairs Directorate of the National Reparations Programme recognized
the authors of communications Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021 as victims of the “crime against
humanity” of forced displacement. The decision affirmed that “surviving in a hostile
environment, with no food or shelter, and with young children and older persons to look after,
became a gargantuan task. The authors’ day-to-day insecurity and the psychological impact
5 Government Order No. 258-2003 of 7 May 2003, as amended, Establishment of the National
Reparations Programme, art. 2.
6 Cases Nos. 03-02-00044/03-02-00062/03-02-00093/03-02-00168/03-02-00097/03-02-00217/03-02-
00549/03-02-00067/03-02-00034/03-02-00077/03-02-00118/03-02-00037/03-02-00039.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
8
GE.23-01113
of the violence they had suffered made many of them ill, and the most vulnerable among
them died”.
2.62
On 6 June 2011, the National Reparations Commission issued decision
CNR-RM-10-2011, which assigned plots of land to the authors in the municipality of San
Juan Sacatepéquez and established that the housing to be built would have drinking water,
electricity, drains and public lighting. The decision also stated that the authors’ lives in the
capital had, “to date, been lived in conditions that violate human dignity”.
2.63
On 14 October 2011, public deeds granting each family its plot of land were issued.
To date, however, the authors remain displaced on the outskirts of the capital because the
State party has not fulfilled its commitment to build the houses, as set out in decision
CNR-RM-10-2011.
2.64
On 22 July 2015, the Q’anil Tinamit association, the National Reparations
Commission and the National Reparations Programme signed an institutional commitment
to provide comprehensive reparations, pursuant to which the National Reparations
Programme undertook to uphold the principle of non-impairment of rights to redress, subject
to the availability of financial resources. The commitment provides for the allocation of
Q 300 million per year for this purpose.
Appeals against the stoppage of reparation measures
2.65
In view of the failure to build the houses, the authors of communications
Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021 submitted dozens of requests for meetings with different
agencies of the State party, claiming that they had not received reparation in accordance with
the signed agreements. These requests all went unanswered.
2.66
In July 2016, pursuant to article 25 of the Amparo, Habeas Corpus and
Constitutionality Act, which empowers the Human Rights Advocate to take action on behalf
of indeterminate victims and indigent persons, the Advocate filed an application for amparo
against the National Reparations Commission for the stoppage of reparation measures. The
authors of the 10 communications, acting through the Q’anil Tinamit association, participated
as interested third parties.
2.67
On 23 November 2016, the Amparo Court found the application admissible, stating
that “although it is true that the State has recognized the right of the victims of the armed
conflict to reparation … and that the obligations undertaken by the State of Guatemala in the
Peace Agreements … are in force and must be fulfilled by the respondent authority, it is also
true that government institutions need the necessary budget to carry out their functions …
and that the evidence provided indicates that the budgetary allocation has been significantly
reduced”. The Court ordered the National Reparations Commission to “take the necessary
administrative and financial steps, within 30 days, … to fulfil each of the objectives of the
National Reparations Programme so that it can continue to assist the victims of the internal
armed conflict, for whom it was established”.7
2.68
The National Reparations Commission filed an appeal but it was rejected by the
Constitutional Court on 17 January 2019. The Constitutional Court found that, as the State
party is under an obligation to provide redress to victims, “no claim or administrative
difficulty may be invoked to justify the failure to honour that commitment. It is the State’s
responsibility to provide such compensation through the Programme and to finance it and
ensure its effectiveness.” The Constitutional Court therefore instructed the National
Reparations Commission to inform the Amparo Court of the measures that it had taken and
the results obtained.8
2.69
On 1 May 2019, the National Reparations Commission informed the Amparo Court
that it had fulfilled, and would continue to fulfil, the primary purpose for which the National
Reparations Programme had been established. The authors state that the National Reparations
Commission has done no more than request funds from Congress but has not implemented
the budget. When the Human Rights Advocate requested the enforcement of the amparo
7 Case No. 01050-2016-00589.
8 Case No. 6238-2016.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
9
ruling, the Amparo Court denied the request, stating that the measures ordered by the
Constitutional Court had been taken. However, the authors argue that the only part of the
ruling that was implemented was the order to report on the steps taken. The essential part of
the amparo ruling, which was the order requiring the National Reparations Commission to
carry out the reparation obligations set out in the National Reparations Programme, was not
implemented.
2.70
The authors state that, in 2020, the State party took steps to shut down the National
Reparations Programme, dismissing staff, failing to renew staff contracts and closing
regional headquarters. The President of the Republic announced that the resources that would
no longer be earmarked for reparations would be used to provide food for 200,000 children.9
On 19 April 2020, the Q’anil Tinamit association, acting on behalf of the authors of the 10
communications, who were personally and directly affected by the threatened closure of the
National Reparations Programme, submitted a preventive amparo application to the
Constitutional Court with a view to preventing the President of the Republic from shutting
down the Peace Secretariat and the Programme. Citing article 2 (3) of the Covenant, it alleged
that the threatened closures violated the authors’ rights to justice and reparation.10
2.71
However, the President of the Republic, by Government Order No. 98-2020 of 30 July
2020, ordered the closure of the Peace Secretariat and the attachment of the National
Reparations Programme to the Ministry of Social Development. On 19 July 2021, the
preventive amparo application was dismissed, as it had become moot. The authors of
communications Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021 claim that this development has precluded any
chance that the reparation measures agreed with them will be implemented. The authors of
communication No. 4032/2021 state that their claims for financial redress for the enforced
disappearance and extrajudicial execution of their relatives had still been pending when the
Peace Secretariat was shut down.
Complaint
3.1
The authors claim that they have exhausted domestic remedies, as they have filed
applications for amparo in connection with the failure to take action under the National
Reparations Programme and the closure of the Peace Secretariat.
3.2
The authors claim that the Committee has competence ratione temporis to consider
the communications. They point out that the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into
force for the State party on 5 August 1992 and on 28 February 2001, respectively. The authors
recall that a continuing violation is to be interpreted as an affirmation of previous violations
after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol. In this connection, the authors of
communications Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021 claim that their forced displacement began
before the Optional Protocol entered into force but continues today because the affected
persons cannot return to their communities and have not been resettled. They point out that,
according to the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, States have the duty to allow
internally displaced persons to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes
or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country. They also recall that, in other cases
involving Guatemala, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has noted the continuing
nature of the illegal occupation of land belonging to victims of forced displacement.11 In
addition, the authors of the 10 communications claim that, while the enforced disappearances
began before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, they are continuing because the
victims’ remains have not been found. With regard to instantaneous violations, such as
extrajudicial executions, the authors argue that, although the acts took place before the entry
into force of the Optional Protocol, the obligation to investigate them remains. Lastly, the
authors argue that, on 10 May 2013, after the Optional Protocol had entered into force, the
9 See https://republica.gt/guatemala/2020-4-2-5-14-50-presidente-anuncia-el-cierre-de-la-sepaz-y-
secretaria-de-asuntos-agrarios.
10 Case No. 1762-2020.
11 Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, judgment of 4 September 2012; Case of Chitay Nech
et al. v. Guatemala, judgment of 25 May 2010; and Case of the Members of Chichupac Village and
Neighboring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, judgment of 30 November
2016.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
10
GE.23-01113
State party recognized the facts by handing down a judgment convicting the former dictator
Ríos Montt of genocide against the Ixil Mayan people.12
3.3
With regard to the merits, the authors of the first nine communications
(Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021) first claim a violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read alone,
as they were forced to flee their lands as a consequence of the scorched-earth policy. They
recall that, according to paragraph 7 of the Committee’s general comment No. 27 (1999),
article 12 of the Covenant also provides for “protection against all forms of forced internal
displacement”, and that the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are applicable to
displacement based on policies of apartheid or ethnic cleansing aimed at altering the ethnic
composition of the affected population. Although the State party acknowledged in the
reparations agreement that these authors are victims of forced displacement, it has not yet
resettled them and their original lands are still occupied by former military personnel.
3.4
The authors also argue that forced displacement, being a violation of multiple human
rights, is an issue that transcends the protection provided for by article 12. It also has a severe
psychological impact and involves loss of land and housing, marginalization, unemployment,
impoverishment, deterioration of living conditions entailing an increased risk of illness and
mortality, and social dislocation. Therefore, they claim a violation of article 12 of the
Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9, 17, 23 and 24.
3.5
With regard to the violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with
article 6, the authors state: (a) that these displacements were caused by a State policy of
genocide; that the Committee, in relation to article 6 (3) of the Covenant, reminds all States
parties that are also parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide of their obligation to punish this crime;13 and that the extremely precarious
conditions in which the authors continue to live are bringing about the destruction of part of
the group; and (b) that some of their family members died as a result of the extreme poverty
caused by displacement, both before14 and after15 the Optional Protocol entered into force,
and that these deaths are therefore attributable to the State party.
3.6
With regard to the violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with
article 7, the authors state that not only do they survive by means of activities that fail to
provide them with a decent living, but they also suffer from serious psychosomatic illnesses
as a result of being uprooted, yet the State party refuses to implement a programme to provide
psychosocial and medical care.
3.7
Regarding the violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with
article 9, the authors state that the right to security of person is one of the key elements of
measures to restore the rights of displaced populations and that the right to return depends on
three fundamental elements – legal, physical and material security – that are lacking in their
case.
3.8
Regarding the violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article
17, the authors point out that their homes and crops were destroyed and that being uprooted
from their territories had a particular impact on them because they are Indigenous.
3.9
With regard to the violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with
article 23, the authors note that the constant persecution of their families led to the break-up
of the family unit and that family bonds have a special significance for Indigenous Peoples.
They note that, according to international case law, forced displacement gives rise to State
responsibility for violating the right to family life16 insofar as it entails the break-up of the
family unit.
12 The Constitutional Court of Guatemala nonetheless overturned that judgment and subsequently
dismissed the case upon the death of the accused.
13 General comment No. 36 (2018), para. 39.
14 See the list drawn up by the Committee, annex II.
15 See the list drawn up by the Committee, annex III.
16 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, judgment of 22 November
2016, para. 247.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
11
3.10
With regard to the violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with
article 24, the authors note that displaced children, including those who were children when
they fled, those who were born displaced17 and third-generation children born displaced who
are still minors today,18 suffer from transgenerational harm and live in a culture that is alien
to their Mayan culture, with a consequent loss of identity, cultural uprooting and destruction
of the social and community fabric.
3.11
In addition, the authors of the 10 communications claim: (a) a violation of article 6 of
the Covenant in respect of their executed relatives;19 (b) violations of articles 6, 7 and 9 in
respect of their disappeared relatives;20 and (c) a violation of article 7 in respect of the
relatives of the disappeared,21 who have suffered the anguish of not knowing the whereabouts
of their loved ones, and in respect of the authors who were victims of rape.22
3.12
The authors of the 10 communications also claim violations of article 14 (1) of the
Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), on the grounds that no criminal investigation
into the facts has been carried out ex officio, in violation of their right to truth and justice,
and article 2 (3) (c), on the grounds that decisions recognizing rights have not been enforced,
because: (a) the amparo ruling ordering the National Reparations Commission to fulfil the
reparation obligations established under the National Reparations Programme has not been
implemented, even though the Amparo Court had the means by which to ensure compliance
with the obligation, given that article 55 of the Amparo Act provides that “in order to ensure
the implementation of rulings issued in amparo proceedings, the Court, on its own motion or
at the request of a party, shall take every possible measure to ensure compliance with the
ruling”, and (b) the State party has also failed to implement decision CNR-RM-10-2011, by
which it undertook to build housing for the authors of the first nine communications as
redress for their continuing forced displacement.
3.13
Lastly, the authors request the Committee to instruct the State party to: (a) investigate
the facts and prosecute the persons responsible; (b) provide them with adequate compensation
for the harm that they have suffered; (c) ensure the proper functioning of the National
Reparations Programme; and (d) in respect of the first nine communications, protect the
authors’ security of person so that, if they so wish, they can return to their communities of
origin and regain the lands that were illegally taken from them.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
On 14 December 2021, the State party noted that, in the present cases, the dispute
revolves around the National Reparations Programme. It points out that the Programme has
not ceased to operate but is now being run by the Ministry of Social Development rather than
the Peace Secretariat. The unit responsible for the Social Development Fund, taking into
account the State party’s available funds, budgeted Q 13,512,623 for the provision of services
to the victims of the conflict for the 2022 financial year. According to the State party, it
recognized in the Peace Agreements that the people of Guatemala have the right to know the
whole truth about the human rights violations that occurred during the internal armed conflict
but “the road to reparations is long”.
4.2
The State party argues that the Committee lacks competence ratione temporis to
examine the facts, as the Optional Protocol entered into force for Guatemala on 28 February
2001, no act has been committed that would justify characterizing the displacements as
continuing and there is no obligation to investigate previous executions because, as the
Committee rightly stated in its decision on the case of K.K. et al. v. Russian Federation,23 a
continuing procedural obligation to investigate violations that occurred before the entry into
force of the Covenant derives from a substantive obligation only if the status of the alleged
17 See the list drawn up by the Committee, annex IV.
18 See the list drawn up by the Committee, annex V.
19 See the list drawn up by the Committee, annex VI.
20 See the list drawn up by the Committee, annex VII.
21 See the list drawn up by the Committee, annex VIII.
22 See the list drawn up by the Committee, annex IX.
23 CCPR/C/127/D/2912/2016, para. 6.4.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
12
GE.23-01113
victim as a victim has been acknowledged, which is not the case in respect of the present
communications.
4.3
The State party also argues that the Committee also lacks competence ratione
personae in relation to persons who had not yet been born at the time of the events.
4.4
The State party further argues that the communications should be declared
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to: (a) the allegation that the
authors were unable to return to their communities, given that the authors did not file, within
the established time period of one year from the time they had fled, an application for a
summary procedure to halt the dispossession, which is the appropriate way to claim the right
to property; (b) the lack of reparations, as the application for amparo was related to the
general failure to implement the National Reparations Programme, with no specific
allegation being made in relation to the properties granted to the authors; (c) enforced
disappearances, since the authors filed petitions for habeas corpus, a remedy intended to
protect individual liberty, in only one case24 and, when this was unsuccessful, did not request
a special inquiry procedure; and (d) the closure of the Peace Secretariat, given that the
appropriate remedy was not an application for amparo but an application for constitutional
review, which the authors have not initiated.
4.5
Lastly, the State party argues that the communications seek a review at fourth instance
of both the decision denying the enforcement request in respect of the amparo ruling, on the
grounds that the measures ordered by the Constitutional Court had been taken (see para. 2.69),
and the decision ordering the dismissal of the application for amparo to prevent the closure
of the Peace Secretariat, on the grounds that the application had become moot (see para. 2.71).
Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility
5.1
On 15 February 2022, the authors noted that the State party had acknowledged its
responsibility in several ways, including: (a) in the report issued by the Commission for
Historical Clarification in 1999; (b) by establishing the National Reparations Programme in
2003; (c) in inter-agency agreement CCI-9-2009 of 2009, recognizing the authors of
communications Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021 as victims of forced displacement; (d) by
issuing public deeds granting the authors land by way of reparation; and (e) in its observations,
in which it recalls that the Guatemalan people have the right to know the whole truth and that
the present cases revolve around reparations. The authors argue that, by virtue of the principle
of estoppel, the State party cannot deny that the violations were perpetrated or that it has
obligations under the reparations agreements concluded with them. They further note that the
State party did not explain why it has not met its obligation to build housing.
5.2
The authors note that when the National Reparations Programme was established, it
was expected to receive a budget of Q 300 million per year. However, it had a budget of only
Q 40 million in 2018 (of which only 86 per cent was executed), Q 40 million in 2019 (of
which only 78 per cent was executed) and Q 40 million in 2020 (of which only 32 per cent
was executed). They maintain that the budget of Q 13 million announced for 2022 (see
para. 4.1) is not in line with what has been agreed. They recall that the Committee itself, in
its concluding observations of 2018, expressed concern about the reduced budget and the
small number of reparation orders issued.25
5.3
Basing their argument on the Committee’s jurisprudence,26 the authors maintain that
the violations are persistent and ongoing, as: (a) no returns or resettlements have taken place
in connection with the first nine communications; (b) enforced disappearances are continuing
violations for as long as the victims’ remains are not found; (c) the facts have not been
investigated; and (d) they have not received full reparation.
5.4
With regard to the continuing nature of the displacements, the authors recall that
several international rulings have already noted that Mayan peoples displaced from their
communities by the internal armed conflict have still not been able to return to their homes
24 On behalf of Benigno López Simón (family No. 12 of communication No. 4032/2021), case
No. 01073-1985-00783 before Collegial Criminal Court of First Instance No. 9.
25 CCPR/C/GTM/CO/4, para. 18.
26 Quliyev v. Azerbaijan CCPR/C/112/D/1972/2010 and CCPR/C/112/D/1972/2010/Corr.1), para. 8.3.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
13
and that such violations are therefore ongoing.27 The authors also recall that, according to the
Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons,
the needs of such persons do not automatically disappear when a conflict ends or when they
initially find safety. Rather, they “usually face continuing problems, requiring support until
they achieve a durable solution to their displacement”. This solution includes safety, an
adequate standard of living, access to livelihoods, restitution of housing, family reunification
and access to justice.28
5.5
With regard to the continuing obligation to investigate extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances, the authors recall that, according to paragraph 18 of the
Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004), failure to bring to justice perpetrators of such
violations could amount to a breach of the Covenant. The authors also recall that acts of
genocide are imprescriptible and that, as reaffirmed by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, the State has an obligation to investigate them, given that at least since 1999, when
the Commission for Historical Clarification published its final report, the State “had
knowledge that the acts committed in this case were possibly motivated by racist ideas and/or
constituted acts of genocide”.29
5.6
With regard to the question of competence ratione personae, the authors reiterate that
children born into a situation of ongoing displacement, outside their community setting, are
severely affected by the loss of their culture, language and traditions and are deprived of
education and health by the extreme poverty of their displaced parents. They also suffer
transgenerational trauma caused by the violence experienced by their parents.30
5.7
With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors maintain that: (a) a
summary procedure to halt dispossession would not have been appropriate or effective under
the military dictatorship; (b) during the time they were being persecuted, it would not have
been feasible to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus in respect of the enforced
disappearances, given the risk of reprisals; and (c) with regard to the appropriateness of
applying for constitutional review rather than for amparo in connection with the closure of
the Peace Secretariat, they state that the Constitutional Court does not enjoy the guarantees
of independence and impartiality required to ensure due process of law.31
5.8
The authors also state that they are not seeking to have any decisions reviewed but to
demonstrate that the amparo ruling has not been enforced, as the National Reparations
Commission was not obliged to take the necessary steps to give effect to the reparations
agreements. They add that it is not enough to formally declare the existence of a remedy or
to issue a judgment setting out rights and obligations.32 In this regard, article 2 (3) (c) of the
Covenant provides that the competent authorities must enforce remedies when granted, but
the Amparo Court has not done so despite having had the means by which to ensure
compliance with the obligation (see para. 3.12).
5.9
Furthermore, the application for amparo that was filed to prevent the closure of the
Peace Secretariat had no effect. The Constitutional Court had four months in which to order
the President of the Republic to refrain from closing the Peace Secretariat and to give
continuity to the National Reparations Programme but failed to rule on the matter and, on
27 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 178;
and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, judgment of 15 June 2005, para. 108, finding that
the Court had jurisdiction because the displacement constituted a situation that persisted after the
State had recognized the Court’s jurisdiction.
28 A/HRC/13/21/Add.4.
29 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Members of Chichupac Village and Neighboring
Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, para. 255.
30 Brisa Varela, “Los desplazamientos forzados y la desterritorialización como experiencia traumática
personal y transgeneracional”, (Forced displacement and uprooting as experiences of personal and
transgenerational trauma), Iztapalapa. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, vol. 35, No. 76
(January–June 2014), available at https://doi.org/10.28928/ri/762014/atc3/varelab.
31 The authors refer to the press release issued by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges
and lawyers on 19 April 2021, available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-
releases/2021/04/guatemala-un-expert-deeply-concerned-congress-refusal-reappoint-top-judge.
32 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, judgment of 28
November 2003, para. 82.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
14
GE.23-01113
19 July 2021, declared the application moot because the act that it had been intended to
prevent had already taken place.
State party’s additional observations
6.
On 18 August 2022, the State party restated its arguments on admissibility, specifying
that the failure to apply for a summary procedure to halt dispossession demonstrates that the
authors were not the owners of the property they had inhabited and that the true owners
currently possess the property lawfully. It also argued that its statement to the effect that the
Guatemalan people have the right to know the truth does not identify any of the authors of
the present communications and therefore is not an acknowledgment of responsibility that
would obviate the need to determine admissibility.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
7.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
7.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
7.3
The Committee notes the State party’s argument that it lacks competence ratione
temporis because the acts on which the alleged violations are based occurred before the
Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party, no subsequent acts have been
committed that would justify characterizing the displacements as continuing and there is no
obligation to investigate previous executions. The Committee also notes the authors’
arguments that: (a) the forced displacements are persistent and ongoing, as no returns or
resettlements have taken place; (b) the enforced disappearances are ongoing, as the victims’
remains have not been found; (c) the State party has an ongoing obligation to investigate the
facts; and (d) the Committee is competent to examine the alleged violations, given that the
State party recognized them by issuing a judgment in 2013 convicting former dictator
Ríos Montt of acts of genocide.33
7.4
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that “alleged violations of the
Covenant which occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for a given
State party may be examined by the Committee if those violations continue after that date or
continue to have effects which in themselves constitute a violation of the Covenant”,34 or if
the State party affirms such a violation.35
7.5
The Committee must determine whether the criteria set out in the above-mentioned
jurisprudence are met in the cases before it, i.e., whether it is competent to examine the
alleged violations related, in the first place, to forced displacement. In this regard, the
Committee takes note of the statement by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the
effect that forced displacement is ongoing in nature for as long as the authors cannot return,
in safety and with dignity, to their places of habitual residence or resettle voluntarily in
another part of the country.36 The Committee also notes that, in the collective decision on
33 The Constitutional Court of Guatemala nonetheless overturned that judgment and subsequently
dismissed the case upon the death of the accused.
34 Kouidis v. Greece (CCPR/C/86/D/1070/2002), para. 6.3; and Quliyev v Azerbaijan, para. 8.3, among
others.
35 CCPR/C/96/D/1536/2006, para. 8.5; Yurich v. Chile (CCPR/C/85/D/1078/2002), para. 6.4; Sarma
v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000), para. 6.2; Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso
(CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003), para. 6.3; Aduayom et al. v. Togo (CCPR/C/57/D/422/1990), para. 6.2;
Kouidis v. Greece, paras. 6.3–6.5; and Yusupova v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/114/D/2036/2011),
para. 6.6.
36 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of the Members of Chichupac Village and Neighboring
Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, para. 175; and Case of the Village of Los
Josefinos Massacre v. Guatemala, judgment of 3 November 2021, para. 79.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
15
material compensation issued in 2011, i.e., after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol,
the State party recognized the authors of the first nine communications as victims of the
“crime against humanity” of forced displacement (see para. 2.61) and that, pursuant to
decision CNR-RM-10-2011 of the same year, the National Reparations Commission
allocated plots of land to these authors as reparation for forced displacement and stated that
housing would be built on the allocated land. The Committee thus considers that the State
party has recognized the violations relating to the forced displacement to which the authors
of the first nine communications were subjected, and notes that the State party has not yet
completed the process of resettling these authors. Therefore, on the basis of both the
continuing nature of the forced displacement and the State party’s recognition of those
violations and failure to implement the resettlement agreement reached with the authors, the
Committee concludes that it is not precluded ratione temporis, under article 3 of the Optional
Protocol, from examining this part of the complaint.
7.6
With regard to the admissibility of the claims concerning the forced displacements,
the Committee notes the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been
exhausted because, in the year after they had fled, the authors did not file an application for
a summary procedure to halt the dispossession so that they could return to their communities,
and because the application for amparo for failure to provide reparations was related to the
general failure to implement the National Reparations Programme and did not specifically
address the failure to construct housing. However, the Committee considers that the State
party has not explained how a summary procedure to halt dispossession would have been
appropriate and effective at that time for members of persecuted Indigenous Peoples whose
ownership of the land is called into question by the State party itself (see para. 6).
Furthermore, the Committee considers that administrative proceedings under the National
Reparations Programme, which the State party had established specifically to provide
reparation to victims of the conflict, were a suitable remedy for enabling the authors to claim
their right to redress for displacement. This was recognized by the State party itself before
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, when it submitted an objection for failure to
exhaust domestic remedies on the grounds that the alleged victims in that case had not
brought proceedings under the National Reparations Programme as an administrative remedy
established to provide individual and/or collective redress to the victims of the internal armed
conflict.37 As the National Reparations Programme does not provide for a mechanism by
which to appeal against a failure to implement its measures, the Committee considers that the
filing of an application for amparo for failure to take action was sufficient to exhaust
domestic remedies. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that article 5 (2)
(b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the authors’ claims under
article 12 of the Covenant.
7.7
Regarding the allegations relating to the violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read
in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9, 17, 23 and 24, the Committee recalls that “[t]he rights
that may be violated by situations of forced displacement include the rights of the family …
and also the rights of the child”,38 the right to the protection of private and family life and the
right to the security of person necessary for return or resettlement to take place. The
Committee also notes that inter-agency cooperation agreement CCI-9-2009 recognized that
the restitution of housing was a way of combating extreme poverty, and that decision
CNR-RM-10-2011 of the National Reparations Commission stated that the lives of the
victims who had been displaced to the capital had, “to date, been lived in conditions that
violate human dignity”. Therefore, the Committee considers that the allegations related to
the violation of article 12, read in conjunction with articles 7, 9, 17, 23 and 24, are sufficiently
substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. However, regarding the alleged violation of
article 12, read in conjunction with article 6, as a result of the deaths that occurred because
of the extreme poverty in which the victims were living in the capital, the Committee
considers that the authors have insufficiently substantiated their claims, and therefore finds
them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
37 Case of the Members of Chichupac Village and Neighboring Communities of the Municipality of
Rabinal v. Guatemala, para. 40.
38 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Village of Los Josefinos Massacre v. Guatemala,
para. 84.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
16
GE.23-01113
7.8
The Committee notes that the substance of the authors’ claims also points to a
violation of article 12 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 27. The Committee
notes that the authors not only filed claims of “cultural destruction” at the domestic level
under the National Reparations Programme (see para. 2.59), but also mentioned, at the
international level, that in order to avoid persecution after being displaced to the capital, they
had had to abandon their cultural practices, stop wearing their traditional costumes, stop
speaking their language and change their identities (see para. 2.2); that they suffer from
serious psychosomatic illnesses as a result of being uprooted (see para. 3.6); that being
uprooted from their territories had a particular impact on them because they are Indigenous
(see para. 3.8); and that they are all still living in a culture that is alien to their Mayan culture,
with a consequent loss of identity, cultural uprooting and destruction of the social and
community fabric (see para. 3.10). Therefore, the Committee also considers that it has
competence to examine the claims related in substance to the violation of article 12, read in
conjunction with article 27.
7.9
To conclude its analysis of the admissibility of the claims concerning forced
displacement, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is
inadmissible ratione personae in relation to persons who had not yet been born at the time of
the events that took place between 1977 and 1985. The Committee also notes the authors’
argument that children born during forced displacement suffer from transgenerational trauma,
not only because the violence experienced by their parents is transmitted to them but also
because they are growing up in an environment alien to their Mayan culture and in a situation
of extreme poverty owing to the continued displacement of their families. The Committee
takes the view that this issue is closely related to the merits of the case and involves
considering whether these persons can be regarded as victims of forced displacement.
Consequently, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee considers
that there is no obstacle to the admissibility of the claims made on behalf of the authors’
children born during their forced displacement.
7.10
In connection with the alleged violations relating to enforced disappearances, the
Committee recalls that enforced disappearances are continuous violations39 that cease only
when the disappeared persons are located or, if they have died, when their remains have been
exhumed, identified and returned,40 which has not been done in the present cases. However,
the Committee notes that the authors mentioned the enforced disappearances of their relatives
to the National Reparations Programme only in order to substantiate their claims for
reparation in the form of housing (communications Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021) and
financial compensation (communication No. 4032/2021), without providing any details on
the enforced disappearances as such and without requesting the State party to investigate and
punish those acts. The Committee also notes that, in alleging before it the exhaustion of
domestic remedies (see para. 3.1), the authors focused on the applications for amparo filed
in connection with the State’s failure to take action under the National Reparations
Programme and the closure of the Peace Secretariat, i.e. the failure to implement reparation
measures, but have not provided any information in respect of, for example, a persistent
inability to avail themselves of judicial remedies for the enforced disappearances of their
relatives. Accordingly, in the Committee’s view, in the present communications the authors
have focused more on the failure to implement reparation measures than on the pursuit of
justice for the disappearance of their relatives. Therefore, in accordance with article 2 of the
Optional Protocol, the Committee finds that the subsidiary claims regarding the alleged
violations of articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant in respect of the disappeared persons and of
articles 7 and 14 (1) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in respect of their
relatives are insufficiently substantiated and are thus inadmissible.
7.11
With regard to the alleged violations relating to the extrajudicial executions of some
of the authors’ relatives, the Committee recalls that, since those were instantaneous acts that
began and ended before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, and since the authors
39 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
art. 8 (1) (b).
40 Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, general comment on enforced
disappearance as a continuous crime, para. 1 (A/HRC/16/48, chap. II (G)). See also Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, Case of the Village of Los Josefinos Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 69.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
17
have insufficiently substantiated the alleged failure to investigate, the Committee does not
have competence ratione temporis to consider them, as there have been no acts in the present
cases affirming the instantaneous violations that occurred prior to the entry into force of the
Optional Protocol. Therefore, in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol, the
Committee finds that it lacks competence ratione temporis to consider the alleged violation
of article 6 in respect of the persons who were executed.
7.12
In connection with the foregoing, the Committee considers that it does not have
competence ratione temporis to consider the allegations of sexual violence, since they also
concern instantaneous acts that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol,
and the authors have insufficiently substantiated the alleged failure to investigate. Therefore,
the Committee finds the claims concerning the violation of article 7 of the Covenant in
respect of the authors who were victims of sexual violence to be inadmissible ratione
temporis under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
7.13
Lastly, with regard to the claims that the State party violated articles 2 (3) and 14 (1)
of the Covenant by failing to implement the reparations provided for in the National
Reparations Programme, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the
communications seek a review of the decision dismissing the request for enforcement of the
amparo ruling (see para. 2.69) and the decision dismissing the preventive amparo application
because the Peace Secretariat had been closed down (see para. 2.71). In this regard, the
Committee notes the authors’ argument that they are not seeking to have these decisions
reviewed but to demonstrate that domestic remedies have not been effective in achieving the
implementation of the reparations provided for under the National Reparations Programme.
The Committee considers that this question of admissibility is closely related to the merits,
as it is linked to the alleged failure to enforce both the amparo ruling ordering the National
Reparations Commission to fulfil the reparation obligations under the National Reparations
Programme and decision CNR-RM-10-2011, whereby the State party undertook to build
housing for the authors of the first nine communications. Recalling that the failure to enforce
decisions recognizing rights and granting reparations may constitute a violation of article 14
(1) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3),41 the Committee considers that
this claim is sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and finds that it is not
precluded, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, from examining this part of the
communication.
8.
Accordingly, the Committee decides:
(a)
That the 10 communications are admissible insofar as they raise issues with
respect to article 14 (1) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), and that the
first nine communications (Nos. 4023/2021–4031/2021) are also admissible insofar as they
raise issues with respect to article 12 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with
articles 7, 9, 17, 23, 24 and 27;
(b)
In accordance with rule 101 (2) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, to
request the State party to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of transmittal
of the present decision, observations on the merits of the communication;
(c)
That these observations shall be communicated to the authors under rule 101 (3)
of the Committee’s rules of procedure, for their comments;
(d)
That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the
authors.
41 Chakupewa et al. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/131/D/2835/2016), para. 6.3.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
18
GE.23-01113
Anexo I
Los autores de las diez comunicaciones y sus familiares
en cuyo nombre se presentan
Comunicación núm. 4023/2021: 35 miembros del pueblo maya k’iche’
del municipio de Chiché
Familia 1: Tomasa Rodríguez Morales de Saquic y Manuela Saquic Rodríguez de González.
Familia 2: María Xón Cuin de Guarcas y Amelia Patricia Guarcas Xon.
Familia 3: Petrona Morales Lastor de Ajtzac, Mayra Catarina Ajtzac Morales, Pedro Miguel
Ángel Ajtzac Morales, Tomás Adrián Arturo Ajtzac Morales y María Guadalupe Ajtzac
Morales, en nombre propio y en nombre de Miguel Ajtzac Lux, esposo y padre.
Familia 4: Paulina Sut Morales, Gladys Viviana Pérez Sut y Walter Martin Perez Sut.
Familia 5: Dominga Tecum Xirum, Sebastián Cuín Tecum, Débora Sulamita Cuín Morales
y Juana Alicia Cuín Morales de Mateo.
Familia 6: Diego Morales Saquic, Juana Cuín Tzoc, Josefa Herlinda Morales Cuín, Narcisa
Estela Zurdo Xajap de Morales, Tomás Morales Cuín, Manuela Morales Cuin de Cuin, Óscar
Diego David Morales Nix, Ruth Noemí Morales Nix, Mayra Jerónima Saraí Morales Nix y
Juana Rebeca Morales Nix.
Familia 7: María Lastor Tol, José Morales Lastor, Isabel Morales Lastor, Alfredo Morales
Lastor, Mario Estuardo Morales Lastor, Adelaida Carolina Morales Lastor de Coxigua y
Miguel Morales Lastor, en nombre propio y en nombre de Tomás Morales Saquic, esposo y
padre.
Comunicación núm. 4024/2021: 9 miembros del pueblo maya ixil
de los municipios San Gaspar Chajul y San Juan Cotzal
Familia 1: Miguel Sanic Itzep, Cipriana Álvarez Ajanel, Eugenia Aj’mak Sanic Álvarez,
Eugenia ‘E’ Kanil Sanic Álvarez, Ana Agustina Sanic Álvarez y María Toj Sanic Álvarez,
en nombre propio y en nombre del menor de edad Francisco Miguel Sanic Álvarez.
Familia 2: Ana Gómez Aguilar y Ana María Cavinál Gómez.
Comunicación núm. 4025/2021: 21 miembros del pueblo maya
k’iche’ de la comunidad Chicabracán del municipio Santa Cruz
del Quiché
Familia 1: Salvador Ventura López, Antonia López López de Ventura e Irene Petronila
Ventura López, en nombre propio y en nombre de Santos Ventura Chich, padre desaparecido
de Salvador Ventura López.
Familia 2: Manuela Ventura Tiño de González, María Ofelia González Ventura, Angelina
González Ventura y Juan Manuel Ventura, en nombre propio y en nombre de Miguel
González López, esposo desaparecido de Manuela Ventura Tiño de González.
Familia 3: Sebastiana Cun López, Sebastián Tiño Cun, Catarina Tiño Cun y Petronila Cun,
en nombre propio y en nombre de Sebastián Tiño Tiño, esposo desaparecido de Sebastiana
Cun López.
Familia 4: Manuel Gómez Osorio, Teodora de León Osorio de Gómez [esposa, 1950],
Sebastiana Gómez Gonzales, Sebastiana Gómez de León, Diego Benjamín Gómez de León,
Margarito Práxedes Gómez de León y Marcos Irineo Gómez de León.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
19
Comunicación núm. 4026/2021: 26 miembros del pueblo maya
k’iche’ del municipio de Uspantán
Familia 1: Miguel León Aguaré, Simeona Aguaré Velásquez, Julia Ermitana Ixchop Ajcot,
Cindy Mishell León Ixchop y Simeona Elizabeth León Ixchop, en nombre propio y en
nombre del menor de edad Miguel Estuardo León Ixchop, en nombre de Marta León Aguaré,
hermana de Miguel León Aguaré fallecida, y en nombre de Juan León López, padre de
Miguel León Aguaré desaparecido.
Familia 2: Julián Vicente Velásquez, Santos Teresa Vicente Damián, Corona de Jesús
Vicente Vicente, Reginaldo Yovani Vicente Vicente y Álvaro Alonso Vicente Vicente, en
nombre propio y en nombre de su hijo fallecido Juan Noe Vicente Damián, y de sus padres
ejecutados Feliciano Vicente y Martina Velásquez.
Familia 3: Juan Petronilo Vicente Velásquez, Francisca León López, Lidia Roselia Vicente
León, Carlos Enrique Vicente León, Aura Yolanda Vicente León, María Eugenia Vicente
León y Alicia Raquel Vicente León, en nombre propio y en nombre de su hija y hermana
María Martina Vicente León.
Familia 4: Juliana Socoy Car y Miguel Ixcotoyac Socoy.
Comunicación núm. 4027/2021: 28 miembros del pueblo maya
k’iche’ de las comunidades del Cantón La Montana del municipio
de San Pedro Jocopilas y de la aldea Chajbal del municipio
de Santa Cruz del Quiché
Familia 1: Francisca Osorio Lucas de Pacheco y Angélica Ixmukané Osorio.
Familia 2: Juana Vicente López, Julia Rosario Vicente y Xiomara Maribel Hernández
Vicente.
Familia 3: María Antonia Velásquez Pérez de Mejía y Calixto Waldemar Velázquez Mejía,
en nombre propio y en nombre de la madre de María Antonia Velásquez Pérez de Mejía,
Andrea Pérez Ixcoy Reynozo, fallecida.
Familia 4: Félix Enrique Velásquez Mejía y Julia Tipaz de Velásquez, en nombre propio y
en nombre de sus hijos menores de edad, Juana Natalia Lourdes Velásquez Tipaz y Mariana
Yamilet Velásquez Tipaz, y del padre ejecutado de Félix Enrique Velásquez Mejía, Juan
Velásquez Velásquez.
Familia 5: Rosa Vicente López y Cristina Vicente, en nombre propio y en nombre de su
esposo y padre ejecutado, Martín Pú Poncio.
Familia 6: Victoriana Mejía Tax, Felipe Chaperón Mejía, Agustín Chaperón Mejía, Antonia
Raguex Tiu de Chaperón, Blanca Estela Chaperón Raguex, Cecilia Victoria Chaperón
Raguex, Elena Alejandra Chaperón Raguex, Pedro José Chaperón Raguex y Juan Carlos
Chaperón Raguex, en nombre propio y en nombre de tres hijos desaparecidos de Victoriana
Mejía Tax, Higinio Chaperón Mejía, Santos Chaperón Mejía y Paulino Chaperón Mejía.
Comunicación núm. 4028/2021: 4 miembros del pueblo maya
kaqchiquel de la aldea Simajhuleu del municipio de San Juan
Comalapa
Familia 1: Eulogio Otzoy Colaj y María Florinda Otzoy Pichiyá, en nombre propio y en
nombre de dos hijos desaparecidos de Eulogio Otzoy Colaj, Marcelo Otzoy Pichiyá y Pedro
Otzoy Pichiyá.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
20
GE.23-01113
Comunicación núm. 4029/2021: 20 miembros del pueblo maya
k’iche’ del municipio de Santa Cruz del Quiché
Familia 1: Marta Zacarías Laines, Marta Susana Zapeta Zacarias de Molina e Ismelda Beatriz
Zapeta Zacarias de López, en nombre propio y en nombre del hijo, Celso Arnulfo Zapeta
Zacarias y del esposo, Encarnación Zapeta, ambos desaparecidos.
Familia 2: Rosario Poncio Ambrosio.
Familia 3: Anselma Coxaj Lux, Pedro Celso Poncio Coxaj, María Ignacia Poncio Coxaj, José
Basilio Poncio Coxaj y Marcos Cleto Poncio Coxaj.
Familia 4: Cristina Lux Medrano y Felipe Zapeta Mendoza, en nombre propio y en nombre
de la madre de Cristina Lux Medrano, Micaela Medrano López.
Familia 5: Sebastiana López Ventura, Pedro López López, José López López, Manuel López
López, Pedro López López y Ana Martina López.
Comunicación núm. 4030/2021: 26 miembros del pueblo maya
k’iche’ del municipio de Chinique
Familia 1: Nicolás Quinilla Quinilla y Jesús Zacarías Laynez, en nombre propio y en nombre
de dos hijos fallecidos, Pedro Marcial Quinilla Zacarías y Marcos Quinilla Zacarías, y de un
hijo ejecutado, Agustín Quinilla Zacarías.
Familia 2: Juana Tipaz González de Ventura, Lorenzo Ventura Ventura, Domingo Lorenzo
Ventura Tipaz, Juana Sebastiana Magdalena Ventura Tipaz, Agustín Edgar Andrés Ventura
Tipaz, Sebastián Manuel Rosendo Ventura Tipaz y Julia Tipaz de Velásquez, en nombre
propio y en nombre de su primer esposo desaparecido, Ignacio Chaperón, y de su padre
fallecido, Agustín López.
Familia 3: Catalina Vicenta López y López y Wualter Alejandro Elías González, en nombre
propio y en nombre del menor de edad Fernando Josué González López.
Familia 4: Candelaria Vásquez Us, Ana Cristina Vásquez Us, Nicolasa Tipaz Vásquez,
Vicenta Tipaz Vásquez y Victoria Tipaz Vásquez, en nombre propio y en nombre de Lorenzo
Tipaz, esposo ejecutado.
Familia 5: Felipa Tipaz Us, María Angélica Us Tipaz de Flores y María Us Tipaz.
Comunicación núm. 4031/2021: 28 miembros del pueblo maya
k’iche’ de la aldea San Sebastián Lemoa del municipio
de Santa Cruz del Quiché
Familia 1: Dolores Ventura Ventura, Mario Francisco Cun Ventura, María Victoria Cun
Ventura, Felipe Natividad Cun Ventura y Juan José Cun Ventura, en nombre propio y en
nombre de su esposo fallecido, Francisco Cun López, de su padre desaparecido, Felipe
Ventura González, y de su hermano desaparecido, Diego Ventura Ventura.
Familia 2: Anastacia González Tipaz.
Familia 3: Encarnación Ventura Lux de Gorge, Silvia María Jorge Ventura y Aurelio
Celestino Jorge Ventura, en nombre propio y en nombre de su esposo ejecutado, Sebastián
Jorge López.
Familia 4: Rolando Agapito López López, en nombre propio y en nombre de su abuela
fallecida, Anastacia Loarca.
Familia 5: Cecilia López Loarca, en nombre propio y en nombre de su hermana ejecutada,
Sipriana Nelia López Loarca.
Familia 6: María Ren Yá de Ventura, Mateo Ventura Ren y Leonardo Ventura Ren.
Familia 7: María Gómez de León y Salvador Carlos Yá Gómez.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
21
Familia 8: Dolores López de Ren, María Tiño López, Tomasa Ren López y María Ren López.
Familia 9: Agapito Ventura González y Juana María Ventura Lux.
Comunicación núm. 4032/2021: 72 miembros del pueblo maya
kaqchiquel del municipio de San José Poaquil
Familia 1: Rosa Gabriel Miza, José Benigno Tartón Gabriel, Manuel de Jesús Tartón Gabriel,
Cesar Augusto Tartón Gabriel, Elsa Marina Tartón Gabriel, Rubén Alfredo Tartón Gabriel y
Silvia Elizabeth Tartón Gabriel, en nombre propio y en nombre de su esposo y padre
ejecutado, Ignacio Tartón Chalí.
Familia 2: Josefa Muchuch Ordóñez, en nombre propio y en nombre de su esposo y cuñado
ejecutados, Paulino Jutzuy Chutá y León Jutzuy Chutá.
Familia 3: Gabina Sut, Gilda Eluvia Muchuch Sut y Blanca Élida Muchuch Sut, en nombre
propio y en nombre de su esposo y padre desaparecido, Hilario Martín Muchuch Ordóñez.
Familia 4: Olivia Solano Chutá, Jorge Sirín Solano, María Angélica Sirín Solano, Mario
Enrique Sirín Solano y Luvia Aracely Sirín Solano, en nombre propio y en nombre de su
esposo y padre ejecutado, Juan Sirín Calí.
Familia 5: Juana Pichiyá Calí, María Inocenta Chutá Pichiyá, Carlos Humberto Chutá Pichiyá,
Felipe Abraham Chutá Pichiyá, Irma Yolanda Chutá Pichiyá de Cun, María Elena Chutá
Pichiyá, Miguel Ángel Chutá Pichiyá y Zoila Angelina Chutá Pichiyá de Poncio, en nombre
propio y en nombre de su esposo y padre desaparecido, Abraham Chutá Quina.
Familia 6: Lorenza Quill y Margarita Telón Quill de Tzaj, en nombre propio y en nombre de
su esposo y padre desaparecido, Ceferino Telón Cúmez.
Familia 7: Celestina Morales Tartón, Mirtala Oxí Morales, Armando Jeremías Oxí Morales,
Gloria Elizabeth Oxí Morales de Morales y Olga Liliana Oxí Morales, en nombre propio y
en nombre de su esposo y padre desaparecido, Felipe Oxí Morales.
Familia 8: Estéban Miza Calí, María Roselia Cun Miza, Irma Yolanda Cun Miza, Héctor
Armando Cun Miza, Aura Marina Cun Miza y Adán Leonel Cun Miza, en nombre propio y
en nombre de sus compañeros y padre ejecutado, Hilario Cun Calí y Fermín Cun Calí.
Familia 9: Mariana Chutá Tubac, Everilda Oxí Chutá y Mercedes Floridalma Oxí Chutá, en
nombre propio y en nombre de su esposo y padre desaparecido, Ismael Oxí Asijtuj.
Familia 10: Agustina Maxía, Manuel Xon Maxía y Vicente Xon Maxía, en nombre propio y
en nombre de su esposo y padre desaparecido, Bibiano Xon.
Familia 11: Alberta Muchuch Oxí de López, María Enma López Muchuch, Margarita López
Muchuch, Marta Odilia López Muchuch y Telma Yolanda López Muchuch, en nombre
propio y en nombre de su esposo y padre desaparecido, Gabriel López Simón.
Familia 12: Alejandra Pichiyá Otzoy, Paula López Pichiyá, Flaviana López Pichiyá, Carlos
Enrique López Pichiyá, Rigoberto López Pichiyá, Josefa López Pichiyá y Roselia López
Pichiyá, en nombre propio y en nombre de su esposo y padre desaparecido, Benigno López
Simón.
Familia 13: Faustina Morales y Juan Francisco Oxí Morales, en nombre propio y en nombre
de su esposo y padre ejecutado, Juan Oxí Ortiz.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
22
GE.23-01113
Anexo II
Personas fallecidas durante la huida antes de la entrada
en vigor del Protocolo Facultativo
Comunicación núm. 4026/2021
Marta León Aguaré, Juan Noe Vicente Damián y María Martina Vicente León.
Comunicación núm. 4030/2021
Pedro Marcial Quinilla Zacarías, Marcos Quinilla Zacarías y Agustín López.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
23
Anexo III
Personas fallecidas debido a las condiciones del
desplazamiento después de la entrada en vigor
del Protocolo Facultativo
Comunicación núm. 4023/2021
Miguel Ajtzac Lux, fallecido en 2013, y Tomás Morales Saquic, fallecido en 2019.
Comunicación núm. 4027/2021
Andrea Pérez Ixcoy Reynozo, fallecida en 2017.
Comunicación núm. 4029/2021
Micaela Medrano López, fallecida en 2020.
Comunicación núm. 4031/2021
Francisco Cun López, fallecido en 2020, y Anastacia Loarca, fallecida en 2013.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
24
GE.23-01113
Anexo IV
Menores de edad que tuvieron que huir de sus
comunidades y niños que nacieron en situación
de desplazamiento, y que son actualmente adultos
Comunicación núm. 4023/2021
Manuela Saquic Rodríguez de González; Amelia Patricia Guarcas Xon; Petrona Morales
Lastor de Ajtzac, Mayra Catarina Ajtzac Morales, Pedro Miguel Ángel Ajtzac Morales,
Tomás Adrián Arturo Ajtzac Morales, María Guadalupe Ajtzac Morales; Gladys Viviana
Pérez Sut, Walter Martin Perez Sut; Sebastián Cuín Tecum, Débora Sulamita Cuín Morales,
Juana Alicia Cuín Morales de Mateo; Josefa Herlinda Morales Cuín, Narcisa Estela Zurdo
Xajap de Morales, Tomás Morales Cuín, Óscar Diego David Morales Nix, Ruth Noemí
Morales Nix, Mayra Jerónima Saraí Morales Nix, Juana Rebeca Morales Nix; José Morales
Lastor, Isabel Morales Lastor, Alfredo Morales Lastor, Mario Estuardo Morales Lastor y
Adelaida Carolina Morales Lastor de Coxigua.
Comunicación núm. 4024/2021
Cipriana Álvarez Ajanel, Eugenia Aj’mak Sanic Álvarez, Eugenia ‘E’ Kanil Sanic Álvarez,
Ana Agustina Sanic Álvarez, María Toj Sanic Álvarez; y Ana María Cavinál Gómez.
Comunicación núm. 4025/2021
Irene Petronila Ventura López; María Ofelia González Ventura, Angelina González Ventura,
Juan Manuel Ventura, Miguel González López; Sebastián Tiño Cun, Catarina Tiño Cun,
Petronila Cun; Sebastiana Gómez Gonzales, Sebastiana Gómez de León, Diego Benjamín
Gómez de León, Margarito Práxedes Gómez de León y Marcos Irineo Gómez de León.
Comunicación núm. 4026/2021
Miguel León Aguaré, Julia Ermitana Ixchop Ajcot, Cindy Mishell León Ixchop, Simeona
Elizabeth León Ixchop; Corona de Jesús Vicente Vicente, Reginaldo Yovani Vicente Vicente,
Álvaro Alonso Vicente Vicente, Juan Noe Vicente Damián; Lidia Roselia Vicente León,
Carlos Enrique Vicente León, Aura Yolanda Vicente León, María Eugenia Vicente León,
Alicia Raquel Vicente León, María Martina Vicente León; y Miguel Ixcotoyac Socoy.
Comunicación núm. 4027/2021
Cristina Vicente; Angélica Ixmukané Osorio; Julia Rosario Vicente, Xiomara Maribel
Hernández Vicente; Félix Enrique Velásquez Mejía, Julia Tipaz de Velásquez; Calixto
Waldemar Velázquez Mejía; Felipe Chaperón Mejía, Antonia Raguex Tiu de Chaperón,
Blanca Estela Chaperón Raguex, Cecilia Victoria Chaperón Raguex, Elena Alejandra
Chaperón Raguex, Pedro José Chaperón Raguex y Juan Carlos Chaperón Raguex.
Comunicación núm. 4028/2021
María Florinda Otzoy Pichiyá y Pedro Otzoy Pichiyá.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
25
Comunicación núm. 4029/2021
Marta Susana Zapeta Zacarias de Molina, Ismelda Beatriz Zapeta Zacarias de López; Pedro
Celso Poncio Coxaj, María Ignacia Poncio Coxaj, José Basilio Poncio Coxaj, Marcos Cleto
Poncio Coxaj; Cristina Lux Medrano; José López López, Manuel López López, Pedro López
López y Ana Martina López.
Comunicación núm. 4030/2021
Juana Tipaz González de Ventura, Domingo Lorenzo Ventura Tipaz, Juana Sebastiana
Magdalena Ventura Tipaz, Agustín Edgar Andrés Ventura Tipaz, Sebastián Manuel Rosendo
Ventura Tipaz, Julia Tipaz de Velásquez; Wualter Alejandro Elías González; Ana Cristina
Vásquez Us, Nicolasa Tipaz Vásquez, Vicenta Tipaz Vásquez, Victoria Tipaz Vásquez; y
María Us Tipaz.
Comunicación núm. 4031/2021
Dolores Ventura Ventura, Mario Francisco Cun Ventura, María Victoria Cun Ventura, Felipe
Natividad Cun Ventura, Juan José Cun Ventura; Anastacia González Tipáz; Silvia María
Jorge Ventura, Aurelio Celestino Jorge Ventura; Rolando Agapito López López; Juana María
Ventura Lux; Mateo Ventura Ren, Leonardo Ventura Ren; Salvador Carlos Yá Gómez; María
Tiño López, Tomasa Ren López y María Ren López.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
26
GE.23-01113
Anexo V
Niños de tercera generación nacidos desplazados
y que siguen siendo menores en la actualidad
Comunicación núm. 4024/2021
Francisco Miguel Sanic Álvarez.
Comunicación núm. 4026/2021
Miguel Estuardo León Ixchop.
Comunicación núm. 4027/2021
Juana Natalia Lourdes Velásquez Tipaz y Mariana Yamilet Velásquez Tipaz.
Comunicación núm. 4030/2021
Fernando Josué González López.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
27
Anexo VI
Personas ejecutadas
Comunicación núm. 4026/2021
Feliciano Vicente y Martina Velásquez.
Comunicación núm. 4027/2021
Martín Pú Poncio y Juan Velásquez Velásquez.
Comunicación núm. 4030/2021
Agustín Quinilla Zacarías y Lorenzo Tipaz.
Comunicación núm. 4031/2021
Sebastián Jorge y Sipriana Nelia López Loarca.
Comunicación núm. 4032/2021
Ignacio Tartón Chalí, Paulino Jutzuy Chutá, León Jutzuy Chutá, Juan Sirín Calí, Hilario Cun
Calí y Fermín Cun Calí.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
28
GE.23-01113
Anexo VII
Personas desaparecidas
Comunicación núm. 4025/2021
Santos Ventura Chich, Miguel González López y Sebastián Tiño Tiño.
Comunicación núm. 4026/2021
Juan León López.
Comunicación núm. 4027/2021
Higinio Chaperón Mejía, Santos Chaperón Mejía y Paulino Chaperón Mejía.
Comunicación núm. 4028/2021
Marcelo Otzoy Pichiyá y Pedro Otzoy Pichiyá.
Comunicación núm. 4029/2021
Encarnación Zapeta y Celso Arnulfo Zapeta Zacarias.
Comunicación núm. 4030/2021
Ignacio Chaperón.
Comunicación núm. 4031/2021
Felipe Ventura González y Diego Ventura Ventura.
Comunicación núm. 4032/2021
Hilario Martín Muchuch Ordóñez, Abraham Chutá Quina, Ceferino Telón Cúmez, Felipe
Oxí Morales, Ismael Oxí Asijtuj, Bibiano Xon, Gabriel López Simón, Benigno López Simón
y Juan Oxí Ortiz.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
29
Anexo VIII
Familiares de desaparecidos
Comunicación núm. 4025/2021
Familiares de Santos Ventura Chich: Salvador Ventura López, Antonia López López de
Ventura e Irene Petronila Ventura López.
Familiares de Miguel González López: Manuela Ventura Tiño de González, María Ofelia
González Ventura, Angelina González Ventura y Juan Manuel Ventura.
Familiares de Sebastián Tiño Tiño: Sebastiana Cun López, Sebastián Tiño Cun, Catarina
Tiño Cun y Petronila Cun.
Comunicación núm. 4026/2021
Familiares de Juan León López: Miguel León Aguaré, Julia Ermitana Ixchop Ajcot, Cindy
Mishell León Ixchop, Simeona Elizabeth León Ixchop, Miguel Estuardo León Ixchop, Marta
León Aguaré y Simeona Aguaré Velásquez.
Comunicación núm. 4027/2021
Familiares de Higinio Chaperón Mejía, Santos Chaperón Mejía y Paulino Chaperón Mejía:
Victoriana Mejía Tax, Felipe Chaperón Mejía, Agustín Chaperón Mejía, Antonia Raguex Tiu
de Chaperón, Blanca Estela Chaperón Raguex, Cecilia Victoria Chaperón Raguex, Elena
Alejandra Chaperón Raguex, Pedro José Chaperón Raguex y Juan Carlos Chaperón Raguex.
Comunicación núm. 4028/2021
Familiares de Marcelo Otzoy Pichiyá y Pedro Otzoy Pichiyá: Eulogio Otzoy Colaj y María
Florinda Otzoy Pichiyá.
Comunicación núm. 4029/2021
Familiares de Celso Arnulfo Zapeta Zacarias y Encarnación Zapeta: Marta Zacarías Laines,
Marta Susana Zapeta Zacarias de Molina e Ismelda Beatriz Zapeta Zacarias de López.
Comunicación núm. 4030/2021
Familiares de Ignacio Chaperón: Juana Tipaz González de Ventura, Lorenzo Ventura
Ventura, Domingo Lorenzo Ventura Tipaz, Juana Sebastiana Magdalena Ventura Tipaz,
Agustín Edgar Andrés Ventura Tipaz, Sebastián Manuel Rosendo Ventura Tipaz, Agustín
López y Julia Tipaz de Velásquez.
Comunicación núm. 4031/2021
Familiares de Felipe Ventura González y Diego Ventura Ventura: Dolores Ventura Ventura,
Mario Francisco Cun Ventura, María Victoria Cun Ventura, Felipe Natividad Cun Ventura,
Juan José Cun Ventura y Francisco Cun López.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
30
GE.23-01113
Comunicación núm. 4032/2021
Familiares de Hilario Martín Muchuch Ordóñez: Gabina Sut, Gilda Eluvia Muchuch Sut y
Blanca Élida Muchuch Sut.
Familiares de Abraham Chutá Quina: Juana Pichiyá Calí, María Inocenta Chutá Pichiyá,
Carlos Humberto Chutá Pichiyá, Felipe Abraham Chutá Pichiyá, Irma Yolanda Chutá
Pichiyá de Cun, María Elena Chutá Pichiyá, Miguel Ángel Chutá Pichiyá y Zoila Angelina
Chutá Pichiyá de Poncio.
Familiares de Ceferino Telón Cúmez: Lorenza Quill y Margarita Telón Quill de Tzaj.
Familiares de Felipe Oxí Morales: Celestina Morales Tartón, Mirtala Oxí Morales, Armando
Jeremías Oxí Morales, Gloria Elizabeth Oxí Morales de Morales y Olga Liliana Oxí Morales.
Familiares de Ismael Oxí Asijtuj: Mariana Chutá Tubac, Everilda Oxí Chutá y Mercedes
Floridalma Oxí Chutá.
Familiares de Bibiano Xon: Agustina Maxía, Manuel Xon Maxía y Vicente Xon Maxía.
Familiares de Gabriel López Simón: Alberta Muchuch Oxí de López, María Enma López
Muchuch, Margarita López Muchuch, Marta Odilia López Muchuch y Telma Yolanda López
Muchuch.
Familiares de Benigno López Simón: Alejandra Pichiyá Otzoy, Paula López Pichiyá,
Flaviana López Pichiyá, Carlos Enrique López Pichiyá, Rigoberto López Pichiyá, Josefa
López Pichiyá y Roselia López Pichiyá.
Familiares de Juan Oxí Ortiz: Faustina Morales y Juan Francisco Oxí Morales.
CCPR/C/136/D/R.4023/2021-4032/2021
GE.23-01113
31
Anexo IX
Autoras que sufrieron violación sexual
Comunicación núm. 4025/2021
Sebastiana Cun López.
Comunicación núm. 4029/2021
Micaela Medrano López y Sebastiana López Ventura.
Comunicación núm. 4031/2021
Dolores Ventura Ventura.