1. The Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH) in Guatemala

The Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH) was established in 1994 to investigate human rights abuses and acts of violence during Guatemala’s armed conflict that extended from 1960 to 1996.^[1] During that period Guatemala experienced generalized political repression, extreme violence, state-planned counter-insurgency campaigns, and widespread sexual violence against indigenous Mayan women.^[2] The conflict resulted in a staggering loss of life, the mass displacement of Mayan communities and grave violations of human rights. The following paragraphs shed light on the magnitude of the conflict, referred to by Mayan communities as “the violence”, by the United Nations as the Internal Armed Conflict, and by many survivors as a war in which genocide was committed against seven of the 23 Mayan peoples of Guatemala. ^[3]

The internal armed conflict’s roots lay in the acute social and economic inequalities that have persisted since the colonial period, the political repression of sectors critical of the highly unequal status quo, and long-standing disputes with indigenous communities over land tenure and possession. ^[4] Enduring racism meant the majority indigenous population were excluded from political power and seen not as people with rights but rather as enslaved labor subject to the continuous dispossession of their lands. The early 1960s saw the formation of left-wing guerrilla groups, such as the Revolutionary Organization of the People in Arms (ORPA), the Guerrilla Army of the Poor (EGP), and the Rebel Armed Forces (FAR), who challenged the military state that had seized power through a coup in 1954 with the support of the CIA. The armed conflict intensified in the 1970s and 1980s, when the government implemented a counterinsurgency strategy that relied on repression, torture, and extrajudicial killings to eliminate those it identified as "internal enemies of the state." ^[5] Dissident voices were targeted; the unarmed civilian population and rural communities were subjected to selective and/or collective military and paramilitary campaigns, using brutal tactics against individuals or groups accused of being members of the guerrilla.

The final report of the CEH, entitled "Memory of Silence" and published in 1999, estimated that more than 200,000 people were killed or disappeared during the conflict, with 93 percent of the victims being civilians and 83 percent indigenous, mainly members of the 23 Mayan peoples that today make up nearly 40 percent of the population. The report also identified 626 massacres and documented widespread human rights violations, including forced disappearances, torture, rape of women, and forced displacement (internal and external), effected by state security forces, paramilitary groups, and self-defense civilian patrols (known as PAC, for their Spanish acronym)^[6]  as strategies to repress guerrilla groups and instill terror in the civilian population.

Victims and Displacement:

• The CEH estimated that the conflict left more than 200,000 people dead. This figure includes both direct and indirect victims of violence, combatants, civilians, and deaths from malnutrition, hunger, or disease as a result of the conflict.
• Approximately 83 percent of the victims were indigenous Mayans, who were disproportionately affected by the violence and who continue to suffer its effects.
• About 1.5 million people were displaced from their homes and territories, which represented about 20 percent of the total population of the country at that time.

Violations of Human Rights:

• The CEH documented widespread human rights violations committed by both state forces and the four guerrilla groups. These violations included extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, torture, sexual violence, and massacres.
• The CEH attributed 93 percent of documented human rights violations to state forces, three percent to guerrilla groups, and four percent to other actors.

Controversies and debate on figures and statistics:

1. Underreporting of victims: Some survivors argue that the official figures and estimates provided by the CEH significantly underestimate the actual number of victims. They claim that many violent crimes were never documented, and that the clandestine nature of the conflict made it difficult to obtain more accurate data. Others have questioned the methodology used to arrive at the published figures. For example, some criticized the CEH for relying on data reported by witnesses and survivors, which they argue may not accurately reflect the true extent of the violence.
   
   
2. Responsibility disputes: Controversies also arose over the attribution of responsibility for the violence committed. Critics of the CEH, such as the Fundación contra el Terrorismo, comprised of ex-military officers and right wing elites, argue that the report disproportionately focused on human rights abuses committed by state forces that account for 93 percent, while downplaying or neglecting the actions of the guerrilla groups, to which it credited three percent of violations.^[7] High-ranking military commanders have tried to downplay their responsibility for the violence and atrocities committed during the armed conflict.^[8]
   
   
3. Classification of victims: The CEH report grouped victims into three categories: victims of human rights violations, victims of acts of violence, and victims of displacement. Some researchers questioned this categorization, arguing that it does not capture the complex, broader nature of the violence and its long-term consequences for Mayan communities who suffered genocide or sexual and labor slavery.^[9] Others argue that certain deaths should have been classified as "common crimes" rather than politically motivated killings.
   
   
4. Resistance to the CEH’s findings: The investigation carried out by the CEH faced political resistance from powerful Guatemalan actors, including former military officers and members of the political and economic elites implicated in the counterinsurgency. Some individuals and groups sought to undermine the findings of the CEH report and prevent its recommendations from being implemented, further fueling controversies over the statistics and figures, and the impact of violence in the short, medium, and long term. In addition, high levels of impunity and the lack of accountability for crimes committed during the internal armed conflict continues to be a contentious and unresolved issue. At present, efforts to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations face enormous challenges, with powerful actors and institutions obstructing justice and impeding investigations.^[10]

The objective of the work and report of the CEH was to shed light on the atrocities committed during the internal armed conflict and provide recommendations to achieve transitional justice measures, including truth, justice, reconciliation, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. However, the interpretation and acceptance of the findings continues to be the subject of debate and confrontation within Guatemalan society. Nonetheless, the CEH report had a significant impact on the documentation and international understanding of the conflict. It helped establish a narrative of historical memory that acknowledges the suffering of the victims and state responsibility for scorched earth policies, as well as the devastating impact on the country, with deep scars that continue to divide Guatemalan society today.

The CEH paved the way for the victims and their families to begin the slow process of seeking justice in national courts, in international courts such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), and through third country courts (for example, in Spain) exercising universal jurisdiction for certain crimes.^[11]  Between 2005 and 2021, some progress was made in the search for justice for the victims and survivors of the internal armed conflict. However, at present, the country is in a process of authoritarian regression where dominant elites have effectively captured the courts, making it very difficult for the special public prosecutor’s office for crimes committed during the armed conflict (which is part of the Public Ministry, or public prosecutor’s office) to initiate new trials, let alone secure convictions.

2. The scale and nature of CRSV in Guatemala

As stated above, the internal armed conflict in Guatemala was a period of mass violations of human rights, extreme violence against individuals and communities, and widespread and systematic sexual violence against women.^[12] It is not possible to obtain precise data on the number of women who endured sexual violence, given the sensitivity of the issue. A highly patriarchal system blames women for sexual violence, silencing and controlling them. In addition, systemic racism means that indigenous women have little or no access to justice, and those that do seek justice with state agencies tended to suffer revictimization. Despite the signing of the peace accords in 1996, it took many years for appropriate methodologies to be developed within the Public Ministry to document and prosecute these kinds of crimes. Almost total levels of impunity for human rights violations, including sexual violence, mean most victims have little confidence in the state justice system. In general, state institutions are not interested in documenting these crimes.

At the time of the signing of the peace accords in 1996 sexual violence was surrounded by stigma rooted in cultural norms, which blamed and shamed the survivors and not the perpetrators – many of whom continued to live in the same communities as their victims. Women who had suffered CRSV were generally indigenous, rural, poor, monolingual and faced racial discrimination and social rejection, which added to their trauma and deterred thousands from seeking justice or support. For these reasons the underreporting of CRSV was a problem during and at the end of the internal armed conflict. Fear of reprisals, lack of confidence in state authorities (who were also responsible for these crimes), contributed to silencing these violations. In addition, cultural factors, such as gender roles and beliefs, inhibited survivors from denouncing these crimes because at that time they were unaware of their rights or lacked access to legal services and emotional, spiritual, and psychological support.

Given that the perpetrators operated with impunity, documenting CRSV during the internal armed conflict was challenging due to the nature of the conflict, limited access to the conflict zones, and the situation of insecurity that hampered the documentation efforts of human rights organizations, journalists, and researchers. To this must be added the lack of resources and the total lack of political will on the part of the state to address CRSV. Available information is often incomplete.

However, the data and testimonies contained in the 1999 CEH report^[13], the 1998 report of the Catholic Church’s Recovery of Historical Memory (REMHI) report Guatemala: Nunca Más"^[14], the book Tejidos que lleva el Alma^[15], and reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch document the sexual violence, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, sexual mutilation, sexual torture and other forms of sexual abuse that were widespread and systemic during the armed conflict. Sexual violence was used as a weapon of war, directed mostly – but not exclusively- against Mayan women and girls. This can be deduced from the fact that around 80 percent of the human rights violations in general were committed against Mayan communities.^[16] For the perpetrators of CRSV, women were key symbols of the identity and culture of their communities. Sexual violence against them aimed to instill fear and terror within their communities and peoples. These reports and investigations emphasize that sexual violence was a strategy used to destroy the social bonds of the communities to which the women belonged. They describe sexual violence as part of a broad pattern of human rights abuses, which included massacres, forced disappearances and torture. And although they do not provide specific numbers of indigenous women who were raped, they do shed light on the patterns and nature of sexual violence, highlighting that it was used as a tactic of intimidation, terror, and control by state security forces and armed groups. CRSV during the conflict had severe impacts on the surviving women and communities, which persist to this day.

3. Gender inequalities and gender violence during and after the internal armed conflict

Gender inequalities, norms, and dynamics during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala and in the period after 1996 have had a profound impact on the lives of women and men in the country. Traditional gender norms, deeply rooted in the cultural beliefs and practices of the dominant system, emphasize a division of labor between men and women and have perpetuated unequal power relations, contributing to the marginalization and subordination of significant numbers of women from both the countryside as well as urban areas.

For this reason, during the internal armed conflict gender violence was widespread and was used as a tool of war by state security forces and local armed groups such as the civil defense patrols (patrullas de autodefensa civil, or PACs). These atrocities were part of a broader continuum of violence against rural and indigenous women that has persisted in Guatemala from colonial times to the present. Women faced sexual violence, including rape, as part of a strategy to instill terror, demoralize and exert control over their communities.^[17] These acts of violence were often accompanied by forms of torture and humiliation based on gender and race, with the aim of undermining indigenous women’s agency, particularly those women who challenged traditional roles, such as guerrilla fighters or human rights activists. 

Cultures of masculinities in Guatemala emphasize force, dominance, and aggression.^[18] A military culture persists to the present, promoting a hyper-masculine ideal characterized by force, control, and weapons. These ideals of masculinity perpetuate violence and reinforce traditional gender norms that assign subordinate roles to women, even 25 years after the peace was signed. In recent years some cultural shifts have challenged these traditional gender norms. Women's organizations, feminist movements and human rights defenders have worked tirelessly to promote gender equality and address the historical injustices faced by women, especially indigenous women, during the long and bloody armed conflict. These efforts have led to greater awareness and recognition of the rights and agency of indigenous and non-indigenous women, and a greater understanding of the detrimental impact of gender inequality on society. However, the scope and nature of everyday gender-based violence in Guatemala remain alarming. Women continue to face various forms of violence, including domestic violence, sexual harassment, and femicide.^[19] Socioeconomic disparities and deep-rooted patriarchal attitudes contribute to the persistence of violence, with transgender people being particularly vulnerable to violence and discrimination.^[20] In addition, gender violence is not limited to private spaces, but permeates public life, affecting the participation of women in the political, social, and economic spheres. In addition, most gender-based violence survivors face significant barriers to accessing justice and accountability, mainly due to high levels of impunity, weak legal systems, and a lack of political will from most state institutions to address the problem.

To confront these challenges, women survivors of the armed conflict, indigenous, feminist or mixed women’s organizations have worked on processes of training, empowerment, institutional reform, accountability, approval of laws, and elimination of discriminatory policies to achieve justice and confront gender violence. Thanks to the ongoing work of organized women and their permanent lobbying of governments of the day, some measures have been achieved to strengthen legal frameworks, create specialized courts for violence against women, approve laws that penalize violence against women, and to create specialized institutions to develop national action plans to prevent and respond to gender-based violence. This has provided support to survivors of sexual violence, achieved the prosecution of some of the perpetrators, and worked to promote gender equality in different national contexts.

In addition, community initiatives led by women's organizations and grassroots movements have played a critical role in advocating for justice and raising awareness about gender-based violence in some Mayan languages. Initiatives focus on empowering women, challenging traditional gender norms, and promoting gender equality through education, awareness campaigns, and capacity building programs.

Although progress has been made, enormous challenges remain to achieve gender equality and eradicate gender-based violence in Guatemala. The continuity of violence that escalated during the armed conflict demands holistic and sustained efforts from all sectors of Guatemalan society to challenge traditional gender norms, promote the accountability of those in power, and create an equitable and just society for all women regardless of their class, race, geographical location or access to education.

4. Gender issues in the peace process

Peace negotiations between the Guatemalan state and the guerrilla National Revolutionary Unity of Guatemala (Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, URNG) took place between 1987 and 1996 and sought to lay the foundations for a more inclusive, democratic and peaceful society.^[21] Although the negotiations focused on ending the armed conflict and addressing the issues of justice and human rights, several actors and organizations advocated for the inclusion of gender equality at the negotiating table.^[22] Gender issues were put on the agenda, but gender representation and the inclusion of gender perspectives in the negotiations were a challenge.

A key actor that framed gender demands in the peace process was the Civil Society Assembly (ASC). The assembly brought together a wide range of civil society organizations, including women's rights groups, feminist organizations and human rights defenders. They actively promoted the inclusion of a gender perspective in the peace negotiations and promoted the recognition of women's rights, gender violence and the role of women in the construction of peace.

Another important mechanism through which gender inequalities were addressed was the establishment of parity commissions for the implementation phase of the peace agreements. These were created to ensure the participation of various social sectors, including women, indigenous communities, and other groups that had been marginalized in the peace negotiations. The parity commissions provided a platform for different groups to express their concerns and demands, including those related to gender equality.

However, the uneven power dynamics between the different actors in the peace process played a significant role in determining the extent to which gender issues were addressed in the postwar period. For example, traditional power structures, dominated by conservative politicians and the military, tended to marginalize women’s demands. Therefore, the inclusion of gender perspectives in the process faced resistance from these and other power holders who considered gender issues and women's rights as secondary to the main objectives, which were, on the one hand, to end the conflict and, on the other, to establish political and economic stability.

The intersection of inequalities based on class, race, and sexual orientation further complicated the inclusion of gender demands. Indigenous women, for example, faced multiple forms of racism, discrimination, and exclusion, which limited their representation and participation in peace negotiations, where they were completely absent. Similarly, the rights, demands and concerns of LGBTI+ sectors were not addressed, as these were not given space or importance at the time of the negotiations and had yet to be firmly established within international human rights norms. 

In sum, although gender demands and women's rights were raised and defended by various actors and organizations in the peace process and progress was made, the inclusion of gender issues and the representativeness of the stakeholders in the negotiation process faced challenges. In many areas there was little or no participation by women, especially indigenous women, due to prevailing patriarchal power dynamics, resistance from traditional power holders (both men and women), and the overlapping inequalities of class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation that prevented full representation.

5. Transitional justice and CRSV in Guatemala: Mandate and approaches

Transitional justice, as the case of Guatemala has shown, is a complex and painful process, because it refers to the set of measures adopted by a country to deal with the human rights violations suffered by its inhabitants and to provide reparation for survivors after an armed conflict, civil war or facing an authoritarian government. Analysis of the architecture and process of transitional justice in Guatemala, centering on the CEH mandate, also implies analysis of the knowledge and experience of the commissioners and personnel involved at the time of its creation, and the methodology used to document sexual violence carried out during the internal armed conflict. This is not an easy task, especially given that 25 years have passed since the CEH published its report, and that Guatemala is now in a period of authoritarian regression and backlash against those who have sought to transform the status quo through transitional justice measures.

CEH mandate

The CEH was established in the Oslo Agreement, signed on March 29, 1990, between the URNG and the Guatemalan government.^[23] The CEH had a broad mandate to clarify, objectively and impartially, human rights violations and acts of violence committed during the conflict, with the aim of promoting national reconciliation, prevention, and non-repetition of these or similar acts of violence in Guatemala.

The documentation of CRSV was carried out within the broad context of the CEH’s work, which included a compilation and analysis of different types of human rights violations. International norms in force at the time of the CEH emphasized the importance of addressing sexual violence as a serious violation of human rights, particularly against women and girls. The investigation and documentation of CRSV cases was therefore within the CEH’s overall mandate.

Commissioners and staff

The CEH was made up of three commissioners who were appointed based on their integrity, impartiality, and experience in human rights. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi A. Annan, appointed Christian Tomuschat, a Doctor of International Law, as the CEH coordinator; the other two members were Otilia Lux de Coti, a Maya-k'iche' educator from Guatemala, and the jurist Alfredo Balsells Tojo. The commissioners were responsible for supervising the work of the commission and ensuring the fulfillment of its mandate.^[24] The CEH staff comprised jurists, social scientists, historians and other researchers, including Guatemalans and internationals.

It was not possible to determine via interviews what knowledge the CEH team had about gender oppression at the time of the commission, but Volume III of the CEH report acknowledges the importance of gender and of addressing CRSV, and in general the CEH sought to address gender inequality. Evidently the commission included people with experience in women's rights and related fields to interpret the crimes that women and girls affected by CRSV experienced during the internal armed conflict. The inclusion of women's rights expertise aimed to ensure a nuanced understanding of CRSV and developing sensitive approaches to gender inequality in the commission's work.

Methodology and challenges to documenting CRSV

The CEH compiled information in 2,000 communities where it obtained 7,338 testimonies about the atrocities experienced during Guatemala’s internal armed conflict.^[25] The commission used a multi-dimensional methodology to document CRSV. A key aspect was the collection of testimonies from survivors, witnesses and perpetrators, who provided first-hand accounts of crimes of CRSV and contributed to the establishment of a historical record of these hitherto undocumented forms of violence. To protect the safety and well-being of the survivors, the CEH adopted a survivor-centered approach, ensuring confidentiality and to some extent providing initial psychological support, but given the magnitude of the events it was unable to prevent the re-victimization of women during the testimonial process.

According to one of the interviewees, "Because it had a larger team of national and international specialists, the CEH devoted attention and analysis to sexual violence experienced by women."^[26]  Indeed, Chapter XIII is entitled "Sexual violence against women", published in Volume III, from pages 13 to 57; the section "Mass sexual violations against Mayan women" runs from pages 28 to 51 and includes testimonial references and analysis. The testimonies of sexual violence collected by the CEH were crucial in documenting the scope and impact of these crimes on the bodies and lives of women, but also on their communities. The CEH report represents the findings of the commission’s research and recognizes the importance of survivors speaking out about their experiences. It does not provide specific comments on individual testimonies, because its mandate was to present a general analysis of violations committed during the internal armed conflict, rather than to evaluate individual accounts.

Documenting CRSV posed challenges and many CRSV survivors did not give their testimony to the CEH. As Débora Yancoba from the NGO Community Studies and Psycho-Social Action Team (Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial, ECAP) explains, “women who had been raped faced fear, stigma, and social pressure, which made it difficult for them to come forward and denounce their experiences.” In the opinion of Maya-K’iche’ lawyer, Lucía Xiloj, the CEH “was unable to create spaces of trust so that women could talk about the sexual crimes they experienced.” These comments point to the generalized culture of impunity and lack of trust that existed in Guatemala in 1997, given the lack of an independent justice system, which discouraged survivors from seeing the CEH as a first step towards seeking justice for the atrocities they had experienced. Another of the challenges was recalled by researcher Úrsula Roldán: “most of the testimonies about sexual violence were given by women in their mother tongues, for which translators were requested, but for which qualified staff were not always available”. ^[27] An interviewee from the north of the country recalled that the CEH "had good professionals, but mostly foreigners, with the advantages and disadvantages that entailed. One disadvantage was that given the short time the Commission had to carry out its work, the context, cultural significance and depth of the violence was neglected in the translations of oral testimonies given in indigenous languages.”^[28]

The CEH also faced challenges in obtaining the cooperation of state and non-state actors involved in or who had knowledge of CRSV events. For example, perpetrators were reluctant to admit that acts of sexual violence against women, mainly indigenous women, had in fact occurred, and refused to acknowledge their participation in those acts. In addition, the absence of a specific legal framework to address CRSV at that time in Guatemala made it difficult to collect evidence, identify perpetrators, and hold them accountable. Additionally, detractors of the CEH argued that the complex nature of CRSV meant it often occurred in private settings, allegedly making it difficult to obtain corroborating evidence. This last criticism has lost force since massive violations involving CRSV have come to light in the years following the publication of the CEH report.

By collecting testimonies and documenting cases of sexual violence, the CEH helped raise awareness about these atrocities and shed light on the systemic nature of these crimes. The path of transitional justice in Guatemala was based on the work of the CEH, which played a crucial role in addressing CRSV and other human rights violations, showing that sexual violence was widespread and used as a weapon during the armed conflict.^[29] Specifically, the CEH recognized that women and girls were subjected to sexual violence, including rape, sexual slavery and other forms of abuse, highlighting individual and collective physical and psychological trauma. It affirmed that sexual violence was not isolated or incidental to the conflict, but rather a deliberate strategy employed by state security forces and paramilitary groups to instill fear, assert dominance, and destroy the social cohesion of targeted communities. Finally, the CEH confirmed that sexual violence disproportionately affected Mayan women.

6. Other actors facing CRSV in the context of transitional justice in Guatemala

The transitional justice process in Guatemala began at the end of the armed conflict in 1996 and involved complex interactions between multiple actors. This section summarizes their different contributions in that historical moment and the legacies of justice generated by their efforts to address cases of sexual violence that occurred during the internal armed conflict. Women survivors of CRSV, civil society initiatives, national and international efforts to document CRSV, training in gender approaches, victims' organizations, international organizations and donor organizations came together to play a central role in this process.

After the peace was signed, other actors, in addition to the CEH, played a crucial role in documenting the sexual violence that occurred within the framework of the internal armed conflict and contributed to transitional justice, such as the Recovery of Historical Memory Project (REMHI), led by the Catholic Church. REMHI's work did not start from a pre-established typology of human rights violations, like that adopted by truth commissions in other countries. This was explained in the presentation of the report “Guatemala Nunca Más” in 1998, by REMHI’s coordinator, the Bishop of the Archdiocese of Guatemala, Juan José Gerardi.^[30] When interviewed, REMHI’s research director Edgar Gutiérrez reflected that "we experienced something of a methodological crisis; the forms we used to collect the experiences suffered by the victims were then validated by the diocesan coordinators."^[31] These diocesan coordinators, many of them indigenous men and women, came from pastoral groups and included lay and non-Catholic collaborators and were responsible for validating drafts of the REMHI report.^[32] According to Gutiérrez, "we faced limitations of information, focus and analysis, including those of the technical team that processed the testimonies, analysis and writing, and myself as research director, appointed by Bishop Gerardi, with the endorsement of the bishops and diocesan assemblies that participated in the project." REMHI’s interdiocesan leadership team, made up of about 30 people, held regular monthly meetings and extraordinary meetings for more than three years, from the preparation stage to the writing of the report. In these sessions, the decisions of the central team were periodically reported to Bishop Gerardi and adopted by the bishops and diocesan assemblies, which in turn had direct channels through the diocesan teams that the bishops and assemblies had designated.

Half of the more than 6,000 testimonies that REMHI collected were offered by women, who addressed issues of violence in general and its impacts on themselves, their families and communities. According to Gutiérrez, "when we randomly processed a representative number of the testimonies, cases of sexual violence, torture, humiliation, and massacres clearly stood out." REMHI set up a dedicated team to gather information on sexual violence, with a view to future legal prosecutions. That team conducted key informant interviews and led community meetings. They identified paradigmatic cases, established patterns and effects of sexual violence, and documented women’s forms of resistance, especially in indigenous communities, which was where most of the testimonies on political violence of the 1980s came from. This undertaking produced a specific report that was the basis of what was published in Volume I of “Guatemala Nunca Más”, entitled: "Impacts of violence"; Chapter 6 of that volume is entitled "Facing Pain. From violence to the affirmation of women."^[33]  However, a thematic report specifically on violence against women remains unpublished and, according to Gutiérrez, is part of the REMHI archive located at the Juan Gerardi Center of the Human Rights Office of the Archbishopric of Guatemala (ODHAG).

After the delivery of the “Guatemala Nunca Más” report, some diocesan teams, such as those from the departments of Quiché, Huehuetenango, Alta Verapaz and Petén prepared reports on what happened in those localities focused more specifically on the issue of violence against women. According to Gutiérrez, "the pastorals used these materials in their education and awareness programs, but the reports were never published." When asked where they were he indicated that "they may be deposited in the offices of the Social Pastorals of those dioceses or in the central archives of the bishopric." REMHI’s value in the story of transitional justice and CRSV is that it recognized that women were "direct victims" of the violence and atrocities committed during the internal armed conflict,^[34] and that this violence against women, including sexual violence, was a demonstration of power over opponents; rape was assumed as part of the spoils of war.^[35]

In addition to REMHI, there were other national efforts towards addressing CSRV, such as those of the National Coordinator of Widows of Guatemala (Coordinadora Nacional de Viudas de Guatemala, CONAVIGUA).^[36] CONAVIGUA was the largest women's organization in Guatemala in the 1980s and 1990s, with more than 30,000 members, all Mayan women widowed as a result of the armed conflict. Many of these survivors had experienced sexual violence - as lawyer Lucia Xiloj signaled, "the shame that women felt, added to the stereotypes that existed against them at that time and the lack of safe spaces where they could speak prevented them from reporting the facts, but they all knew that they had experienced sexual violations.” CONAVIGUA focused on accompanying communities of women who were searching for their loved ones in clandestine cemeteries, mass graves, prisons, in the mountains, or in the refugee camps that were set up in the states of Chiapas, Quintana Roo, and Campeche in Mexico. CONAVIGUA members continue to search for the disappeared. One of CONAVIGUA’s historic leaders, Rosalina Tuyuc, has worked tirelessly to search for the disappeared and demand respect for the human rights of indigenous women, including accompanying many of them in their search for justice for sexual violence.

At the time of the peace agreement the Association of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared of Guatemala (La Asociación Familiares de Detenidos y Desaparecidos de Guatemala, FAMDEGUA), was created. FAMDEGUA focused on the search for people who were forcibly disappeared in the context of the armed conflict, promoting exhumations of clandestine graves and reburials of victims.^[37] The work of FAMDEGUA was key in Guatemala since the state has always denied the existence of clandestine cemeteries, thus denying having committed the crime of forced disappearance. Part of FAMDEGUA’s mission is to provide accompaniment for those remote communities that experienced the ferocity of state policies of genocide in their efforts to secure justice. Although they have not focused specifically on sexual violence, they have documented and denounced this crime since most of the women found in mass graves -of all ages- were sexually assaulted before being murdered.

Another of the organizations that has documented the sexual violence women experienced during the internal armed conflict is the Center for Legal Action on Human Rights, CALDH, who through strategic litigation have accompanied numerous cases including the first case of forced disappearance to go before the Guatemalan courts, the case of the genocide against Ixil Mayan communities which found General José Efraín Ríos Montt guilty of this crime, ^[38]and the case of the Military Zone 21 Creompaz, involving the largest clandestine grave in Latin America. In all these cases, sexual violence against indigenous women has emerged as a central issue that CALDH has documented through expert opinions, testimonies and interviews, demonstrating the impact of CRSV on Mayan women in Guatemala.^[39]

The organization Women Transforming the World (Mujeres Transformando el Mundo, MTM) brings together women specialists from various areas and has used strategic litigation as a weapon to take CRSV to the courts in Guatemala.^[40] One of the paradigmatic legal cases that MTM has accompanied is Sepur Zarco, in which 15 women from the Maya-Q'eqchi' people accused two members of the Guatemalan army of crimes of sexual violence perpetrated between 1982 and 1988 in rural communities located in the Izabal department. This trial became a watershed for the country because it revealed in detail how sexual violence was planned and perpetrated as part of a strategy of control over indigenous women who were first widowed when the army disappeared their husbands, and then forced to become slaves for the local army detachment.^[41]

International agencies, donor organizations and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) played an influential role in shaping the peace process and the transitional justice agenda in Guatemala in relation to CRSV. The United Nations, UN Women, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Amnesty International, the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), and Human Rights Watch, among others, have contributed at different times to recent efforts to document CRSV and advocate for justice in Guatemala, providing technical assistance, financial support and experience to strengthen transitional justice mechanisms. These documentation efforts have played a critical role in raising awareness and establishing a factual basis for addressing CRSV within the transitional justice process at national level.

From the start of the twenty-first century the gender approach in transitional justice has provided an important theoretical framework for the process of documenting CRSV.^[42] Through this lens, it has been possible to recognize women’s specific vulnerabilities and experiences during the armed conflict, and to guarantee the inclusion of demands for gender justice. These perspectives aim to amplify the voices of women survivors, address their specific needs, and challenge patriarchal structures within the framework of transitional justice.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) and organizations of victims and women survivors have played a crucial role in promoting gender justice and have influenced the long and painful process of building transitional justice in Guatemala. Today, despite an overall reduction in international development cooperation, the local organizations that have survived continue to provide a platform for women survivors to share their experiences, demand justice and actively participate in decision-making processes. Their work is distinguished not only by the importance attached to gender justice, but also by their efforts to advocate for comprehensive reparations, truth-seeking mechanisms, and institutional and legal reforms to effectively address CRSV. Civil society organizations have worked with donor organizations, including friendly governments and international funding agencies, supporting the implementation of transitional justice programs, including those that address CRSV. Financial support has helped to establish specialized courts, truth commissions such as CEH and REMHI, and reparations programs, seeking to ensure that CRSV survivors have access to justice and reparations.

Although since 2019 the state-led backlash against efforts to secure accountability has been evident, organizations of women survivors of sexual violence continue to play a key role in mobilizing, providing support services and advocating for victims’ rights. They amplify survivors’ voices, ensuring that their experiences are heard and recognized within the transitional justice process and in other spaces previously closed to them. These organizations are also helping to shape policies and initiatives aimed at preventing future atrocities and in attempting to promote a culture of accountability.

Lastly, economic elites have had a significant and negative influence on the transitional justice processes in Guatemala. In fact, through their excessive power and vested interests they have sought to shape the trajectory and outcomes of legal processes, a clear example of which is the pressure they brought to bear on the Constitutional Court to annul the genocide conviction against former General Ríos Montt in May 2013.^[43] In some, if not most cases, elite involvement has hampered efforts to address CRSV.

7. Reception of the CEH and findings on CRSV

The CEH was welcomed by victims’ organizations, but the powerful sectors linked to internal armed conflict violence who remained in control of the country did not endorse the report. Correspondingly, possibilities for its conclusions and recommendations to lead to processes to provide justice and accountability were limited. In Volume III, the CEH report states that "Rape was a generalized and systematic practice carried out by agents of the state within the framework of the counterinsurgency strategy, constituting a true weapon of terror and a serious violation of human rights and international humanitarian law.”^[44] In Volume V, Conclusions and Recommendations, conclusion #29 explicitly states that “one of four direct victims of human rights violations and acts of violence were women. They died, were disappeared, tortured and sexually raped.”^[45] And finally, conclusion #91 indicates "it was proven that the rape of women during their torture or before they were killed was a common practice aimed at destroying people's dignity."^[46]

These conclusions were based on the CEH’s testimonies and interviews. They were well received by survivors, but not by the country’s economic elites, nor by the military or paramilitary forces still operating. These divisions are illustrated by a report in national newspaper Prensa Libre on the presentation of the CEH’s final report, which took place in the National Theater on February 25, 1999: "The commissioners delivered the Report to representatives of the URNG, the Government and the United Nations. When the commission’s coordinator Christian Tomuschat began to speak, silence invaded the theatre. Upon hearing that most of the responsibilities were attributed to the security forces, the cry of “justice, justice!” began to be heard.  At the end of the act, [Álvaro] Arzú [the president of Guatemala] took the stage, where he was expected to receive the report; however, he merely greeted the assembled representatives and left.”^[47]

This chronicle illustrates the support the CEH report received from human rights organizations, victims’ groups and some sectors of civil society, who understood it as a crucial step to recognize and address the human rights violations that had occurred during the internal armed conflict because it shed light on the responsibility of state actors, including the military and paramilitary groups, for the atrocities committed. It also provided a sophisticated analysis of the causes, patterns, and consequences of violence, and made recommendations for justice, reparations, and institutional reforms.

On the other hand, then-President Arzú, a representative of the Guatemalan oligarchy, did not want to receive the report and in the following years was one of the main opponents of compliance with the peace accords. In particular, he never accepted that sexual violence had been carried out against women as part of the counterinsurgency strategy. In short, at the time of its publication, the CEH report faced significant resistance from powerful political, economic and military actors and groups who wanted to maintain impunity. Some rejected the CEH’s conclusions and recommendations and tried to undermine the commission’s credibility. This backlash hindered the implementation of justice and accountability measures.

In 1999 prospects for accountability and justice for the women who lived through CRSV were limited. The CEH report highlighted the need for comprehensive justice mechanisms, including the establishment of specialized courts and the incorporation of a gender perspective in judicial processes. However, the national justice system was beset by corruption, intimidation of witnesses, and a lack of resources and experience to handle complex cases of sexual violence, severely restricting possibilities of accountability for CRSV and other human rights violations. In addition, the prevailing political climate in Guatemala presented other challenges; for example, the interests of powerful actors involved in the conflict and their associated crimes clashed with the efforts of survivors and some judges to deliver justice. This resulted in ongoing attempts to undermine accountability processes, including the investigation and legal prosecution of the perpetrators and intellectual masterminds of CRSV.

While the CEH report played a vital role in raising awareness about CRSV, securing justice and accountability for CRSV and other crimes committed against Mayan women during the armed conflict implied overcoming resistance from powerful sectors, strengthening the justice system, and addressing underlying power inequalities. It was not until 2009 that the first in-depth investigation on sexual violence during the armed conflict was published in book format. Tejidos que lleva el alma (Tapestries the soul carries): Memories of Mayan women survivors of sexual violence during the internal armed conflict, documented how these crimes were carried out against four Mayan peoples, Q'eqchi, Mam, Chuj and Kaqchiqel. The project that produced this book documented the different kinds of sexual violence that women experienced during the internal armed conflict, complementing data on CRSV presented in the REMHI and CEH reports. 

8. CRSV: CEH recommendations and their implementation

The National Reparation Program in Guatemala (PNR for its acronym in Spanish) aimed to provide reparations to victims of human rights abuses committed during the armed conflict (1960-1996). Its mandate included recognition, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. The PNR was created in Guatemala on May 7, 2003, through an executive order (No. 258-2003); it had originally been agreed to as part of the Global Agreement on Human Rights, one of the peace accords signed between the URNG and the government of Guatemala in 1994 (part VIII, numeral 1).^[48] However, the PNR was a direct result of the CEH’s analysis, which contributed to a broader understanding of the need for reparations. The CEH’s findings underscored the importance of addressing CRSV as a core component of remediation efforts. The report’s Conclusions and Recommendations signaled the urgency of installing the PNR and defined its guiding principles, mandate, beneficiaries, structure, financing and period of operation.^[49]

The PNR’s mandate does not directly address the issue of reparations for the victims of the CRSV - this category of crimes was barely mentioned at the time the program was created. When interviewed, human rights defender Ursula Roldán recalled that the central concern at the time was that women would be afraid to testify about the sexual atrocities they experienced.^[50] Nonetheless, the PNR’s outreach measures included medical and psychological support, specialist counseling, legal assistance, redress, and socio-economic initiatives aimed at empowering survivors in their communities, all approaches that were relevant to survivors of CRSV. The PNR also promoted local and national awareness campaigns to reduce the stigma and discrimination associated with CRSV, in cooperation with civil society organizations, including groups that defend women's rights and organizations of surviving women, widows or orphans.

The PNR faced controversies and challenges since its initiation, including the systematic reduction of financial resources. In 2008 the government assigned Q300 million (USD $38 million) to the PNR, which was then cut by Q35.5 million (USD$4.5 million); in 2009 and 2010 Q250 million (USD$32 million) was allocated, subsequently reduced in 2010 by almost 50%. In 2014 the PNR was assigned Q104 million (USD$13.3 million), which was then cut to Q52.4 million (USD$6.7 million). And in 2015, the PNR was officially assigned Q98 million (USD$12.5 million), but in the end received only Q25 million (USD$3.2 million).^[51] This ongoing budget reduction indicates how little the PNR matters to postwar Guatemalan governments. In addition, control of the program was disputed between different sectors. As of December 2020, the PNR was integrated into the Ministry of Social Development, another indicator of its lack of relevance for the Guatemalan state. The issue of reparations for sexual violence was not a priority when the program was established and will be even less so now.  Inadequate coordination between all stakeholders contributed to delays in the PNR’s implementation and now to its near disappearance. Nonetheless, the program did address some of the survivors’ needs and promoted their rights, although no data is available about how many women received reparations for sexual violence through the PNR.

Regarding institutional reforms deemed crucial to address CRSV and gender violence, signaled in the CEH and REMHI reports, efforts have been made to strengthen judicial processes, promote gender equality, and improve access to justice for survivors. One important initiative was the Creation of the Sexual Crimes Investigation Unit in 2010, established to improve prospects for the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for sexual violence. This unit collects evidence, investigates cases and offers support to prosecutors and judges. The 2009 Law against Sexual Violence, Exploitation and Trafficking in Persons aimed to strengthen protection for victims of sexual violence and guarantee the prosecution of those responsible. This legislation establishes severe penalties for sexual crimes and mechanisms for the protection and support of victims. Also highly relevant is the Law Against Femicide and other Forms of Violence Against Women, approved in 2008 after a hard-fought battle by women’s and civil society organizations.^[52]

Although efforts have been made to address sexual violence during the internal armed conflict, many challenges remain. Justice and accountability measures for CRSV require specialized training for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials about gendered crimes. They also require specialized courts or units to handle CRSV cases and to ensure interinstitutional coordination. However, institutional responses to these crimes in Guatemala are shaped by a culture of impunity, racism, and gender discrimination, reflected in lack of human and economic resources. In addition, survivors' access to justice requires legal aid programs, providing support services such as shelters and safe spaces for women and their children, and ensuring that survivors can access justice without fear of retaliation. Legal reforms related to CRSV in the internal armed conflict and gender violence more broadly to ensure that Guatemala meets its international human rights commitments remain pending.

9. CRSV: Changing legal and political opportunity structures after the CEH

The publication of the CEH report in 1999 marked a milestone in the recognition of gender violence in Guatemala, particularly towards CRSV. Since then, civil society organizations and INGOs have sought to focus on the prevention of gender violence, institutional reform, the promotion of transitional justice processes, and generating local capacities in women's groups as pathways to achieving accountability and access to justice, as well as maintaining international support for addressing CRSV.

In the wake of the CEH report’s publication, institutional reforms aimed at promoting gender justice and preventing gender violence were implemented. These included the creation in 1999 of a dedicated state institution for the defense of indigenous women (Defensoría de la Mujer Indígena, DEMI) in 1999, in fulfillment of part of the commitments of the peace Agreement on Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples (AIDIPI). DEMI had a mandate to “promote and develop public policy proposals, plans and programs for the prevention and defense of all forms of violence and discrimination against indigenous women.^[53] In 2000 the Presidential Secretariat for Women (SEPREM) was created, charged with coordinating policies and actions for equality and non-violence against women.^[54]

The Law against Femicide and other Forms of Violence against Women (Decree 22-2008), which establishes specific measures to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women, recognizes femicide as a crime and establishes severe penalties for perpetrators. In addition, in 2009 a specialized unit for the attention of violence against women was created within the National Civil Police (PNC) to investigate cases of gender violence, provide support and protection to victims, and promote the prevention of violence.^[55]

The National Program for the Prevention and Eradication of Intrafamilial Violence and Violence against Women was created in 2015 with the central objective of preventing and eradicating domestic and gender violence. It focuses on awareness, education, promotion of women's rights and comprehensive care for victims of violence.^[56] In addition, specialized courts for violence against women were created to hear and judge cases of gender violence. Judges and staff at these courts receive gender awareness training and aim to provide a more sensitive approach to the needs of women victims. A special office of the public prosecutor’s office was also established to investigate and prosecute cases of gender violence, including CRSV, and played a crucial role in improving the accountability of perpetrators for these crimes. These are just a few examples of the institutional reforms and programs implemented in Guatemala after the signing of the Peace Accords to address gender violence and promote gender justice.

Within public institutions, but especially through grassroots, community organizations, NGOs and others, measures have been taken to incorporate gendered perspectives on peace and security in order to guarantee the integration of gender perspectives in organizational and public policies. Women have participated to address gender violence within transitional justice processes and analyze the gendered dimensions of the truth commissions and reparation programs.

Transitional justice processes and gender justice reforms in Guatemala are interconnected; the CEH report shed light on the systematic nature of gender-based violence during the internal armed conflict, driving the implementation of gender justice reforms. Transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions, recognized the experiences of CRSV survivors, contributing to the recognition and validation of their suffering and resistance. The commissions’ findings and recommendations helped shape gender justice reforms by highlighting the need for accountability, reparations, and institutional change to prevent future violence.

Local organizations and actors, ranging from community to national level, have played a vital role in seeking accountability and justice for CRSV in Guatemala. Among the key organizations are the NGO Women Transforming the World (Mujeres Transformando el Mundo, MTM), a women's rights organization that focuses on addressing gender-based violence, including CRSV. MTM provides support services to survivors, advocates for legal reform, and promotes awareness campaigns to challenge social norms that perpetuate violence against women. MTM accompanied the Maya-Q’eqchi’ survivors of Sepur Zarco, who successfully fought the first judicial case for CSRV. The Survivors’ Foundation (Fundación Sobrevivientes) supports women facing gender violence, including CRSV, providing legal assistance, psychosocial support and advocacy. The Survivors Foundation also works to strengthen the response of the justice system to cases of gender violence. The National Coordination of Guatemalan Widows (Coordinadora Nacional de Viudas de Guatemala, CONAVIGUA), works with more than 30,000 surviving internal armed conflict widows. The Community Studies and Psycho-Social Action Team (Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y Acción Psicosocial, ECAP) provides psychosocial support processes with women who have been victims of political violence dur to the internal armed conflict.^[57] And the Women’s Justice Initiative (WJI) works to empower indigenous women in Guatemala to seek justice for gender-based violence and demand their rights. They provide legal training, promote community education on women’s rights, and advocate for legal reforms to address impunity.^[58]

International support for addressing gender-based violence increased following the publication of the CEH report. This translated into funding and collaboration opportunities for CSOs and INGOs. International organizations, such as the United Nations and development agencies, allocated resources to support programs and projects to prevent and respond to gender violence. The United Nations did this through the UN’s Development Program UNDP, which has actively promoted gender justice and addressed CRSV in Guatemala; UN Women has supported the implementation of gender-based violence prevention programs, capacity building initiatives, and legal reforms; and the UNHCR office in Guatemala has accompanied and provided protection to women survivors of CSRV.

By provided systematic data and testimony on sexual violence, the CEH report allowed CSOs and INGOs to identify the dimensions and magnitude of CRSV crimes, as well as on the dynamics and patterns of these forms of violence. This was critical for formulating strategies and programs, as well as advocating for legal and policy changes. In addition, the publication of the CEH report generated recognition and underlined the importance of including CSOs and INGOs in decision-making processes related to the search for gender equality. Spaces for dialogue and consultation were created in which organizations had the opportunity to share their perspectives and recommendations and influence the formulation of government policies and programs.

Finally, the CEH report contributed to raising awareness in Guatemalan society and the world about sexual violence, gender-based violence and its short and medium-term consequences for individuals and communities. This generated a demand for actions and measures to address this form of oppression, which in turn provided a platform for CSOs and INGOs to work on awareness raising at all levels, education and the promotion of women's and girls’ rights.

10. CSO initiatives on CRSV after the publication of the CEH

The years immediately following the peace agreements were a time of hope for the survivors and community-based organizations that emerged in this period.  In fact, the genocide was followed by an unprecedented organizational renaissance of women. Mayan peoples, who had suffered so much during the war, began to seek justice for their loved ones who had been disappeared, tortured, murdered or kidnapped. This section discusses three paradigmatic cases that put CSRV at the center of the agenda and contributed to national and international jurisprudence. These include the Ethical Tribunal against Sexual Violence in the Armed Conflict (2010) which focused on women who experienced sexual violence during the internal armed conflict.^[59] Judicialized cases include Sepur Zarco (2016) and the Achí cases, which finally came to court after a long struggle against impunity (2022).  Lastly the CREOMPAZ case, ongoing at the time of writing, is analyzed through a gender/CRSV lens.  Our analysis focuses on the key actors, evidence, and methods used in the construction of the cases; the expert opinions and legal arguments presented; and the sentences and their relationship with national and international legal instruments on CRSV.

First Ethical Tribunal against Sexual Violence in the Armed Conflict (2010)

The Ethical Tribunal was held on March 4th and 5th, 2010, in Guatemala City and was a milestone in the national and international fight to denounce the sexual violence experienced by thousands of women during the scorched earth and genocidal policies against civilian Mayan populations. During this period, indigenous women became victims of systematic sexual violence, which was used as a strategy of war to instill terror and dismantle community structures.^[60] Although the CEH and REMHI reports had documented CRSV to some extent, the existence of CRSV was not recognized by state forces nor adequately addressed in the years following the signing of the peace accords.

The ethical tribunal represented a significant step in the search for truth and dignity aspired to in the conclusions of the CEH report. In the tribunal nine women survivors of CRSV gave their testimony. The tribunal was an initiative of the survivors together with civil society organizations UNAMG, CONAVIGUA, MTM, ECAP and the feminist association La Cuerda, and was supported by numerous international organizations. This process brought together women survivors of sexual violence and slavery, members of communities that experienced state violence, justice sector actors, Guatemalan human rights activists and representatives of the countries that formed the jury.

During the tribunal, the survivors narrated the physical and psychological impacts of the CSRV they had suffered, clearly indicating that in Guatemala sexual violence and race went hand in hand. Those most affected by CRSV were women of the Mayan peoples, evidencing the key role racism played in the destruction of the women's lives, families, communities and cultures. By speaking and sharing their testimonies, they confronted impunity for CRSV and for other war-related crimes. This ethical tribunal did not have any formal standing, but was created as a space for denunciation, testimony, and symbolic recognition of the crimes committed. It allowed for examination of the historical and political context in which CRSV crimes occurred, as well as the long-term consequences for the women and their families. Additionally, it raised awareness of the need to address impunity and ensure justice for victims of sexual violence. Its conclusions and recommendations contributed to strengthening the fight for the rights of indigenous women and promoting the preparation of specific judicial cases that were brought to the justice system in the following years.

Sepur Zarco case (2016)^[61]

The case of the Sepur Zarco community, located in the department of Izabal, in northern Guatemala, is based on the testimonies of 15 women of the Maya-Q'eqchi' people who were raped individually and collectively by members of the Guatemalan army, simultaneously subjected to domestic slavery, as well as other forms of torture that include the murder and/or disappearance of their husbands and children and the destruction of the entirety of their livelihoods, from their homes to their food. These multiple forms of violence forced some of the women to flee to the mountains, where most of their young children perished due to lack of food, water, infections, and profound exhaustion since they had to move every day to avoid being located by members of the army who pursued them for years. One survivor lost all her children, who died one by one of hunger, fright or disease, while the women who did not flee were turned into sexual slaves and forced, on pain of death, to serve in the military detachments that were installed in their communities from 1982 to 1988.

The case was heard in one of four specialized High-Risk Criminal and Sentencing Courts of the First Instance.  In addition to the testimonies of the survivors and the expert opinions of more than 20 national and international experts, evidence presented to the court included reports on human remains exhumed in 2012 from a mass grave located in the community of Las Tinajas, where 51 bodies of the plaintiffs’ spouses, parents and children, detained, tortured and murdered by members of the army, were found. The evidence pointed to the intersection of racism and violence against the Mayan peoples of Guatemala and the gendered forms of violence suffered by women victims during the internal armed conflict. The fact that the surviving women, with the support of local civil society organizations, shared their experiences with their families, communities, and ultimately with the national and international community, was an important step in the fight against impunity for CRSV.

After 22 separate hearings, on March 2, 1996, the Court found Guatemalan army Lieutenant-Colonel Esteelmer Francisco Reyes Girón (who was 59 years old at the time of sentencing) guilty of the crime of murdering three women - a mother and her two girls, a one-year-old infant and a child of four. Reyes Girón received a sentence of 90 years for crimes against humanity, according to article 378 of the Guatemalan Penal Code, plus 30 years for sexual violence and humiliating and degrading treatment to the detriment of minors and against Maya-Q'eqchi' women, a total of 120 incommutable years in prison, according to the Court, for “authorizing and consenting to soldiers under his command, carrying out…cruel and inhuman acts.”^[62] Heriberto Valdez Asig (who was 65 years old at the time the sentence was issued), who had served as a Military Commissioner in the 1980s in the  region of Sepur Zarco, was  convicted of the crimes of forced disappearance, in accordance with Article 201 of the Penal Code, of seven men from those Q'eqchi' communities, receiving a total of 210 years in prison. This included 30 years for each disappearance and 30 years for crimes against humanity in the form of sexual violence that Valdez Asig perpetrated against Q'eqchi women and adolescents, receiving a total of 240 incommutable years in prison. Finally, the court issued 18 reparations measures for eleven surviving women of the 15 who had started the judicial process, which also included collective reparations for their communities.^[63]

The women of Sepur Zarco managed to travel the path of seeking justice accompanied by MTM, which supported them in building a strategic litigation strategy; ECAP, which provided emotional and psychosocial accompaniment throughout; and UNAMG, that supported a process of political empowerment amongst the survivors. As a result of these different forms of accompaniment, in 2014 the women formed the Jalok U Collective, which became a plaintiff in the criminal proceedings. Through this process the survivors, who had waited 30 years for their stories to be heard, became national and international actors showing the world that when there are impartial courts it is possible to bring the perpetrators of CRSV to justice. This was the first case in the world where a national court was able to prosecute perpetrators of sexual slavery which occurred within an internal armed conflict, using national legislation and international criminal law.

Case of the Maya-Achí women (2022)

At the beginning of the 21st century, numerous women of the Maya-Achí people faced multiple physical illnesses and emotional problems. They were all survivors of the internal armed conflict and were accompanied by the Popular Law Firm of Rabinal (BJPR) that was working to bring cases of massacres and forced disappearance to court. The women’s psychological and physical suffering related to the sexual violence perpetrated against them by the army when it attacked their communities, which were refusing to leave their lands which in 1975 the government had determined would be the site of construction of the Chixoy hydroelectric dam megaproject. Faced with the resistance of more than 30 communities to the dam project, the state expanded the armed conflict to the Achí region. The Maya-Achí people suffered disappearances, massacres and the destruction of their communities, to the extent that 20 percent of their population was annihilated by the Guatemalan army in its campaigns of extermination between 1978 and 1984. The military’s plan sought the destruction of entire communities, effected through the persecution of families, including brutal attacks on women, girls and the elderly. Paramilitary Military Commissioners and PACs subjected many Achí women to rape, sexual slavery, torture and murder, as part of a counterinsurgency strategy to demoralize and terrorize the civilian population.

By 2010, a group of Achí women from the Chihupac community who had survived a massacre were prepared to seek justice for the disappearance of their loved ones and it was in this context that their complaints about CRSV came to light. The BJPR advanced other cases in subsequent years, and in all of them women reported experiencing sexual violence, carried out by military and paramilitary forces in town squares, markets, in the women’s homes, by rivers, in military detachments, or in the mountains. A total of 36 women were willing to go to court, and in 2011 and 2012 indigenous lawyers Haydee Valey and Gloria Reyes Xitumul filed their complaints.

Subsequently, Maya-K’iche’ lawyer Lucía Xiloj joined the women’s legal team which presented facts, witnesses, expert opinions and other forms of evidence to the High-Risk Criminal and Sentencing Court of the First Instance that, in 2018, was headed by Judge Claudette Domínguez. Judge Domínguez questioned the validity of the survivors’ testimonies, and following the court’s ruling issued on June 21, 2019, released the alleged perpetrators from pretrial detention. Due to this resolution and other sentences, Judge Domínguez is seen by those seeking justice as one of numerous judges who defend members of the army and those responsible for committing crimes during the internal armed conflict. In addition, she exercised class and race discrimination against the Maya-Achí women and the indigenous lawyers representing them.

Faced with this setback, the BJPR appealed Judge Domínguez’s resolution and the case was sent on appeal to the High-Risk Criminal and Sentencing Court of the First Instance headed by Judge Miguel Ángel Gálvez, who opened criminal prosecutions against Juan Cecilio Guzmán, Pedro Sánchez, Damián Cuxum, Simeón Enrique Gómez, Felix Tum, and the brothers Bernardo and Benvenuto Ruíz Aquino, five of the seven former PAC who had been arrested in May 2018, accused of CRSV against the Maya-Achí women plaintiffs.^[64]

This was the second trial in Guatemala for CRSV against indigenous women, taking place some four decades after the violence occurred. The court heard the survivors’ testimonies and 20 national and international expert opinions. On January 24, 2022, Judge Gálvez’s court found the five accused guilty of crimes against humanity, slavery and sexual violence during the internal armed conflict, sentencing them to 30 and 40 years in prison. Despite decades of imposed silence and multiple difficulties, the Maya-Achí women successfully challenged impunity and achieved a measure of justice. Their struggle is a testament to their resistance and courage and highlights the importance of recognizing and addressing gender-based violence in conflict situations. With the support of sympathetic lawyers, these Maya-Achí survivors of CRSV broke their silence to publicly denounced their perpetrators and take legal action to bring them to justice. Their fight has been an inspiration to many other victims of sexual violence in conflict situations.^[65]

On January 28, 2022, the High-Risk Criminal and Sentencing Court of the First Instance led by Judge Iris Jazmín Barrios, determined reparations based on the sentence issued four days earlier on January 24, 2022. These covered four areas:  financial compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and non-repetition.^[66] The Maya-Achí women's search for justice was not limited solely to the persecution of those responsible, but also sought reparations that included psychological, social, and economic measures for their communities. As a collective, they fought for recognition of their suffering, emotional and psychological support, and development programs to ensure their economic autonomy and strengthen their participation in decision-making within their communities.

The Maya-Achí women’s struggle for justice is of signal importance on several levels. Resisting sexual violence and the patriarchy which underpins the Guatemalan state and its security forces, these women refused to be seen solely as victims and were empowered by speaking out and demanding justice. They emphasized that CRSV should be a central component in peace building and reconciliation processes.  Likewise, by challenging impunity they also underlined the need for an impartial and inclusive justice system. By succeeding in bringing the perpetrators to justice, despite their material poverty, and denouncing sexual violence, they sent a strong message that, despite the passing of the years, war crimes against women should not be go unpunished. Only through justice can the memory of all women victims of CRSV be honored.

CREOMPAZ Case

The Creompaz Case refers to a clandestine center for forced disappearance, torture, extrajudicial executions, forced disappearance, and rape in the department of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. It is the largest mass grave that has been discovered in Latin America to date; between 2012 and 2015 the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala (FAFG) exhumed 558 human remains in what was the site of Military Zone No. 21, located in Cobán, Alta Verapaz. This military site was one of the largest in the country, exercising coordination and military intelligence functions for the northern departments of Guatemala. ^[67] Here between 1975 and 1990 crimes of forced disappearance and crimes against humanity were committed on the orders of the military high command. Following the signing of the peace accords, the Regional Peacekeeping Operations Training Command (Creompaz) was established at the facilities.^[68]

Investigations to locate clandestine cemeteries at this site began in 2012. That same year, FAFG managed to start exhumations, finding skeletons with their hands tied behind their backs, feet tied, eyes blindfolded, some decapitated, others with bullet wounds to different parts of the body. The FAFG determined that of the 558 individual human remains, 90 corresponded to minors, 443 to adults, and 22 could not be identified. ^[69]  

Through DNA tests, the Public Ministry identified 128 individuals who were detained between 1981 and 1988. These people came from the community of Los Encuentros who had fled massacres of the community of Río Negro, from the community of Pambach, from the San Sebastián neighborhood of the municipality of San Cristóbal Verapaz, and from the municipality of Chisec. The Public Ministry’s Unit for Special Cases of the Internal Armed Conflict determined that 88 of the victims, including children, women, and men, were disappeared from the departments of Alta and Baja Verapaz. Three levels of responsibility were established: first, the Military High Command, comprising the President or Head of State as General Commander of the Army, the Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff. Second, the area of ​​intelligence, planning and supervision of the Army General Staff which gave orders to the military zones, under the control of General Benedicto Lucas García. And third, the bureaucratic hierarchy within each military zone that included intelligence, kidnapping, torture, rape, interrogation, execution, and burial operations.

Based on evidence from these four exhumations, the Public Ministry, for the first time in the history of Guatemala, brought charges against 22 high-ranking commanders of the Guatemalan army, including divisional and brigadier generals. In 2016 High-Risk Criminal and Sentencing Court of the First Instance issued their arrest warrants; 14 were detained and eight absconded.^[70] Once the public audiences began, the presiding judge, Claudette Domínguez, separated some soldiers from the case, released others, dismissed some of the charges, and challenged many of the facts presented by the public prosecutors, thus fragmenting the case and obstructing the search for justice for the victims. At the time of writing the case remains in suspension and has not yet reached the stage of evidence and debate, meaning the next of kin and community survivors have yet to secure any access to justice.

The Creompaz case seeks to clarify the truth about the crimes committed in that region of Guatemala during the internal armed conflict and prosecute those responsible. Investigation and documentation of the crimes committed during the internal armed conflict contributes to preserving historical memory of the communities, families, victims and survivors and to the public record, contributing to the non-repetition of similar atrocities in the future. The case also reveals how current state authorities work to protect the impunity of those responsible for these crimes. 

Comparative Analysis of the Cases: Similarities and differences in approaches to CRSV

The Sepur Zarco and Maya-Achí cases both sought specifically to prosecute and punish crimes of CRSV against indigenous women. The approaches employed to build the cases were similar, but the women survivors in the Maya-Achí cases were represented by three Mayan lawyers, which meant that the survivors could converse in their own Achí language with their legal counsel, who also thoroughly understood their cultural and local context.  The Creompaz case did not seek to prosecute CRSV, despite strong evidence to suggest that many of the women and girls found in the mass graves at the military base were raped prior to their murder.

The Sepur Zarco and Maya-Achí cases enabled survivors of violence and sexual slavery and servitude during the armed conflict to obtain recognition of the crimes committed against them, and a measure of justice through sentences and reparations. Both trials marked a milestone in the fight against impunity in Guatemala and the world: Sepur Zarco because it was the first case of CRSV that was tried in the same country where the crimes were committed and that sentenced members of the army for crimes of sexual violence such as sexual slavery and rape; the sentences in the Maya-Achí cases followed the innovative jurisprudence of the Sepur Zarco case. Both trials allowed the stories of the victims to be heard at national and international levels, together with expert opinions and evidence revealing the truth about what happened during the armed conflict. Victims’ statements and testimonies were an essential part of this process. Both trials become important precedents for future cases of sexual violence and crimes against humanity in Guatemala and in other countries,^[71] since they contributed to establishing the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of these type of crimes against the lives, bodies, families, and communities of women.

However, despite the progress achieved with these two trials, many other victims of CRSV have still not been able to overcome the legal and social obstacles to accessing and achieving justice. The Sepur Zarco and Maya-Achí cases focused on crimes of sexual violence and sexual slavery in only two specific regions of the country, while the CEH and REMHI reports indicate that CRSV was commonplace throughout the country during the internal armed conflict – impunity persists for the great majority of CRSV crimes. Before and during the trials, as well as after their conclusion, survivors and witnesses from both cases faced threats and intimidation in the absence of any guarantees of security from the justice system. Their experiences may dissuade other survivors from seeking justice through the courts. And although the trials provided a degree of reparations for the survivors and their communities, many of these reparations have yet to be fulfilled by the state authorities. If there is no compliance in the short term, many of the survivors will die before receiving reparations. It took decades for the national justice system to respond to women survivors of CRSV, in part because they were indigenous, poor, rural, monolingual, and powerless in the eyes of the state.

11. Impact on the approach to CRSV in Guatemala

As this report has indicated, sexual violence against indigenous women has deep historical roots in Guatemala, a country with high levels of impunity and lack of access to justice. In recent years, following the historic Sepur Zarco and Maya-Achí trials, there has been some increase in public awareness about these crimes and increased pressure from survivors and human rights organizations for state authorities to provide justice.

Over the last two decades multiple initiatives have been taken to address sexual violence against women in Guatemala. Laws to strengthen protection of women and punish aggressors have been approved, including the Law Against Femicide and other forms of Violence Against Women, approved in 2008,^[72] the Law against Sexual Violence, Exploitation and People Trafficking, approved in 2009, both of which expanded definitions of sexual violence and established more severe penalties for these crimes.^[73] In addition, a 2017 reform to the Penal Code defined the crime of femicide and established harsher penalties for those found guilty of this crime. Specialized institutions to handle cases of sexual violence have been created, such as the Special Prosecutor's Office against Sexual Violence, Exploitation and Human Trafficking, which aim to provide a more effective response for victims and ensure proper investigation and prosecution of these crimes.

Public awareness campaigns about sexual violence, its consequences and how to report it, seek to break the silence and stigma surrounding sexual violence, promoting a culture of respect and gender equality. Support for victims, including medical care services, psychological counseling, and legal assistance, do exist to support women survivors during and after the legal process. However, despite efforts to address all kinds of sexual violence against women in Guatemala, including CRSV, the backlash against human rights accountability and the continuation of impunity poses formidable challenges. Civil society organizations supporting investigation, prosecution and reparations of CRSV remain under resourced, and the justice system continues to be characterized by structural racism and discrimination. Sexual violence continues to be a problem rooted in the patriarchal structures of the state and in many other public and private institutions, requiring ongoing strategies to protect women of all ages and transform society.

Relationship with national/ international legal instruments on CRSV

The Sepur Zarco and Maya-Achí cases in Guatemala indicate the close relationship between national and international legal instruments on sexual violence. In terms of international legal instruments, both cases fall within the legal framework of human rights and international justice. At this level CRSV is considered a crime against humanity and a war crime, prohibited by international humanitarian law, established in the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols.^[74] In addition, sexual violence is considered a serious violation of fundamental human rights, protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[75] International Humanitarian Law.^[76] It is also addressed in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.^[77] The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) establishes states’ obligations to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women. It also guarantees access to justice and reparation for victims of gender violence.^[78] The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) establishes the ICC’s jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Sexual violence, including sexual slavery, is considered a crime against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population.^[79] Sexual violence is also considered in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.^[80] In addition, the international jurisprudence that other courts have used in similar crimes, such as that of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, especially regarding the assessment of testimonies of victims of sexual violence, had an influence on strategies in Guatemala.^[81]

As the lawyers who defended the Maya-Achí women explained, the application of international law is very important “since in these types of crimes there are often no witnesses to corroborate the statements of the victims”. In the opinion of lawyer Lucía Xiloj, Judge Gálvez did consider international jurisprudence when analyzing the investigation strategies and evidence presented by the Public Ministry. In addition, he spoke about the importance of knowing the context of the cases. The instruments listed above establish standards and obligations for states in the prevention, prosecution and reparation of sexual violence. At national level, states have a responsibility to implement and enforce these instruments through their domestic legal systems.

The Sepur Zarco and Maya-Achí cases were addressed through the Guatemalan legal system using domestic instruments related to war crimes and sexual crimes to prosecute perpetrators of these abuses. Relevant instruments included various articles of the Political Constitution of Guatemala,^[82] and the National Reconciliation Law, which establishes that crimes against humanity committed during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala cannot be subject to amnesty.^[83] This allowed perpetrators to be tried and convicted of crimes such as rape, sexual slavery, and labor slavery, as well as forced disappearance and murder. Both courts considered that the actions committed by the military constituted acts of forced disappearance.^[84] Taken together, international and national instruments provided a legal and normative framework to address sexual violence as a crime against humanity and a violation of human rights. Convictions of perpetrators via the Guatemalan legal system were based on principles and norms established in international instruments on human rights and international criminal justice. Despite the current context of backlash against accountability efforts these cases represent significant progress in the search for justice for women victims of CRSV and set an important precedent for future cases.

References

Barrios Klee, Walda (2021), Violencia en contra de la población LGBTI: el caso de Guatemala, FLACSO: San José de Costa Rica.

Boesten, Jelke (2022), “Transformative gender justice: Criminal proceedings for conflict-related sexual violence in Guatemala and Peru”, Australian Journal of Human Rights, 2022, Vol. 27(3): 487-504.

Boesten, Jelke (2018), “Revisiting Methodologies and Approaches in Researching Sexual Violence in Conflict. Introduction”. Special issue of Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, Vol. 25 (4): 457–468. 

Brett, Roddy (2016), The Origins and Dynamics of Genocide: Political Violence in Guatemala, Macmilllan Press: Basingstoke.

Burt, Jo-Marie (2018), “From heaven to hell in ten days: the genocide trial in Guatemala”. In Elizabeth A. Oglesby and Diane M. Nelson (eds), Guatemala, the Question of Genocide. Routledge: New York: 11-31.

Burt, Jo-Marie (2019), “Gender justice in post-conflict Guatemala: The Sepur Zarco sexual violence and sexual slavery trial. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3444514 Consulted February 2024.

Carey Jr., David (2013) I Ask for Justice: Maya Women, Dictators, and Crime in Guatemala, 1898 1944, University of Texas Press: Austin TX.

Carey, David and M Gabriela Torres (2010), “Precursors to femicide: Guatemalan women in a vortex of violence." Latin American Research Review, 2010, Vol. 45 (3): 142-164.

Casaus Arzú, Marta (2008), Genocidio ¿la máxima expresión del Racismo? F&G Editores: Guatemala City.

Centeno Martín, Héctor (2021), “Guatemala’s Commission of Historical Clarification: The Memory of silence or the silence of memory?” In Latin American Experiences with Truth Commission Recommendations: Beyond Words, Vol. 2, edited by Elin Skaar, Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm and Jemima García-Godos. Cambridge, UK: Intersentia.

Comisión de Esclarecimiento Histórico (CEH). (1999), Guatemala Memory of Silence. Tz’inil Na’ab’al. Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification. Guatemala City: CEH. https://hrdag.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CEHreport-english.pdf

Crosby, Alison and Brinton M. Lykes (2011), “Mayan women survivors speak: The gendered relations of truth-telling in postwar Guatemala”.  International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2011, Vol. 5,: 456-476.

Crosby, Alison, Brinton M. Lykes and Brisna Caxaj, Brisna (2016), “Carrying a Heavy Load: Mayan Women's Understandings of Reparation in the Aftermath of Genocide”. Journal of Genocide Research, Vol.18 (2-3): 265-283.

Domínguez Ogaldes, María Olga (2023) La gran lucha entre el machismo y el racismo, 6 June 2023, https://www.agenciaocote.com/blog/2023/06/06/la-gran-lucha-entre-el-machismo-y-el-racismo/ Consulted February 2024.

ECAP-UNAMG (2006), Tejidos que lleva el Alma. Memoria de las mujeres mayas sobrevivientes de violencia sexual durante el conflicto armado. ECAP-UNAMG: Guatemala City.

Epe Matthias and José Rodolfo Kepfer (2014), El enemigo interno en Guatemala. Contrainsurgencia y su herencia en la configuración de nuevos conflictos. CAFCA, Guatemala City.

Falla, Ricardo (2021), “Masacres, genocidio y acompañamiento en Guatemala: una experiencia personal”, Alteridades, vol. 31, núm. 62: 101-114.

Figueroa Ibarra, Carlos (1980), El Proletaria rural en el agro guatemalteco. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicos y Sociales de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City.

Fundación Contra el Terrorismo (2013), La farsa del genocidio en Guatemala. Conspiración marxista desde la iglesia católica. Fundación Contra el Terrorismo: Guatemala City.

García-Godos, Jemima and Luis Raúl Salvadó (2016), “Guatemala: truth and memory on trial”. In Transitional Justice in Latin America: The Uneven Road from Impunity towards Accountability, edited by Elin Skaar, Jemima García-Godos and Cath Collins, Routledge:  London and New York: 203-226.

Godoy‐Paiz, Paula (2012), “Not Just “Another Woman”: Femicide and Representation in Guatemala”. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, Vol.17 (1): 88-109.

LeDuc, Alicia (2018), “Strategic Alliances as an Impact Litigation Model: Lessons from the Sepur Zarco Human Rights Case in Guatemala”. Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution, Vol. 25, No. 2: 150-233.

Martínez Salazar, Egla (2014), Global Coloniality of Power in Guatemala: Racism, Genocide, Citizenship, Lexington Books: Maryland.

Masek, Vaclav (2023) “Ten Years After Genocide Trial in Guatemala, Justice System Suffering Trust Deficit”, IPI Global Observatory, May 10, 2023. https://theglobalobservatory.org/2023/05/ten-years-after-guatemala-genocide-trial-justice-system-suffering/ Consulted February 2024.

McAllister, Carlota and Diane Nelson (eds), War by Other Means: Aftermath in Post-Genocide Guatemala, 2013, Duke University Press: Durham NC.

Morales Trujillo, Hilda (2010) “Femicide and sexual violence in Guatemala”. In Rosa-Linda Fregoso and Cynthia Bejarano (eds.), Terrorizing Women: Feminicide in the Americas. Duke University Press: Durham NC: 127-137.

O'Rourke, Catherine (2013), Gender politics in transitional justice. New York: Routledge.

Oxfam Internacional Programa en Centroamérica (2022), Violencia estructural: situación de los derechos de las personas LGBTIQ+ en Guatemala, Honduras y El Salvador. Consulted February 2024.

REMHI (1998) Informe del Proyecto Interdiocesano de Recuperación de la Memoria Historica: Nunca Más, ODHAG: Guatemala City.

Rodríguez Barillas, Alejandro (2021), “Justicia transicional: el caso CREOMPAZ”, Revista Análisis de la Realidad Nacional, Guatemala City: Universidad de San Carlos: 66-96. https://ipn.usac.edu.gt/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Alejandro-Rodriguez-211.pdf Consulted February 2024.

SáCouto, Susana, Alysson Ford Ouoba and Claudia Martin (2022), Documenting Good Practice on Accountability for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: The Sepur Zarco Case, UN Women: New York.

 

Notes

^[1] For the full text of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the CEH’s report Guatemala Memory of Silence. Tz’inil Na’ab’al. Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification see https://hrdag.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CEHreport-english.pdf

^[2] Tejidos que lleva el Alma. Memoria de las mujeres mayas sobrevivientes de violencia sexual durante el conflicto armado. ECAP, UNAMG. Guatemala 2006. https://www.actorasdecambio.org.gt/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Tejidos-que-lleva-el-alma.pdf   Consulted 1 May 2023.

^[3] Falla (2021). 

^[4] Figueroa Ibarra (1980).

^[5] Epe and Kepfer (2014).

^[6] The Self-Defense Civilian Patrols (Patrullas de Autodefensa Civil, PAC) were created in 1981. See Vol. II chapter 2 of the REMHI report http://www.derechoshumanos.net/lesahumanidad/informes/guatemala/informeREMHI-Tomo2.htm#t2c2e3 Consulted February 2024.

^[7] Fundación Contra el Terrorismo, La farsa del genocidio en Guatemala. Conspiración marxista desde la iglesia católica. Fundación Contra el Terrorismo: Guatemala CITY, 2013; CACIF, Communiqué “CACIF llama a Corte de Constitucionalidad a preservar gobernabilidad y futuro del país”, 12 May 2013 (on file with the author).

^[8] On the case of Bishop Juan Gerardi, head of the REMHI report who was murdered by the military in 1998 see  https://www.derechoshumanos.net/genocidioguatemala/libro-cap3-crimenes-de-estado-procesos-judiciales.htm  Consulted 9 April 2023.

^[9] Casaus Arzú (2008).

^[10] Centeno Martín (2021).

^[11] On the justice-seeking efforts of the Maya Achi’ community of Río Negro, subject to massacres during the conflict, see.  https://summa.cejil.org/es/entity/hh9jedx3noa2lnmi   Consulted 10 April 2023.

^[12] See Guatemala Memory of Silence; Tejidos que lleva el Alma; Boesten (2022); Crosby and Lykes (2011); Crosby, Lykes and Caxaj (2016).

^[13]  Also known as the UN-supported Truth Commission.

^[14] The Recuperation of Historical Memory (REMHI) initiative, which produced the report “Guatemala Nunca Más” (Guatemala Never Again) was coordinated by the Catholic Church in Guatemala and led by Bishop Juan Gerardi. It aimed to document human rights violations and atrocities committed during the armed conflict. It focused on massacres of the Mayan population, forced disappearances, and crimes against humanity perpetrated by state security forces, paramilitary groups, and the guerilla.

^[15] Tejidos que lleva el Alma. Memoria de las mujeres mayas sobrevivientes de violencia sexual durante el conflicto armado. ECAP, UNAMG. Guatemala 2006. This book was one of the outcomes of a long-term project to accompany indigenous women survivors of CRSV coordinated by the civil society alliance the National Union of Guatemalan Women (Unión Nacional de Mujeres Guatemaltecas,UNAMG) and the NGO ECAP – the Community Studies and Psycho-Social Action Team (Equipo de Estudios Comunitarios y de Acción Psicosocial ECAP).

^[16] The CEH report recognized that its findings represented a minimum estimate, given the challenges of data collection it encountered.

^[17] Carey (2013); Martínez Salazar (2014).

^[18] Domínguez Ogaldes (2023).

^[19] Carey and M Torres (2010); Godoy‐Paiz (2012); Morales Trujillo (2010).

^[20] Barrios Klee (2021); Oxfam Internacional Programa en Centroamérica (2022).

^[21] At the Esquipulas II summit, held in August 1987, the Process to establish a Firm and Lasting Peace in Central America was approved. Peace negotiations began with President Vinicio Cerezo (1986-1991) and the URNG, which brought together the four guerrilla groups. The negotiations were held under the auspices of the United Nations and lasted several years, culminating in the signing of the Final Peace Agreement on December 29, 1996.

^[22] In the peace process, key agreements were signed between the Guatemalan state and the URNG, such as the Firm and Lasting Peace Agreement (1996), which established the framework for the peace process and outlined the commitments assumed by both parties. It covers human rights, socioeconomic development, indigenous rights and political reforms. The Agreement on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1995) recognizes the rights of the indigenous population and promotes the participation and inclusion of indigenous communities in political, social and economic matters. The Agreement on Economic and Social Aspects and the Agrarian Situation (1996) focuses on social and economic inequalities, reducing poverty, improving access to education and health care, and building institutions to address arable land distribution issues. The Agreement on the Strengthening of Civil Power and the Role of the Armed Forces in a Democratic Society (1996) aims to transform the role of the Guatemalan Armed Forces into a professional institution, respectful of human rights, apolitical and subordinate to civil authority. The Agreement on the Resettlement of Displaced Persons and Refugees (1994) addressed the issue of internally displaced persons and refugees who were forced to flee their homes during the conflict, and aided their return, resettlement and reintegration to the country.

^[23] Although the CEH was established by the Oslo Agreement of 1990, its work only commenced on 31 July 1997, following the signing of the final peace agreement. https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/GT_900330_OsloAgreement%28esp%29.pdf Consulted February 2024.

^[24] In writing this report, the author sought to contact Christian Tomuschat, but given his advanced age he declined to give an interview. Alfredo Balsells Tojo died in 2003.  Otilia Lux de Coti was contacted, but in the end was too busy to respond to questions.

^[25] See CEH, Vol. I, pp.33.

^[26] Interviewee who requested anonymity, interviewed 16 May 2023.

^[27] Úrsula Roldán currently directs the Center for Global Research at the Rafael Landívar University in Guatemala.

^[28] Interviewee who requested anonymity, interviewed on 16 May 2023.

^[29] García-Godos and Salvadó (2016); Brett (2016): McAllister and Nelson (2013).

^[30] The REMHI report was presented in the Metropolitan Cathedral by the Coordinator of the Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese, Monsignor Juan Gerardi on April 24, 1998. It consists of 4 volumes totaling 1,400 pages and includes more than 6,000 testimonies. 48 hours after presenting it, Gerardi was assassinated.

^[31] REMHI had between two and three coordinators for each diocese, each diocese corresponding to one of the 22 politico-administrative departments of Guatemala.

^[32] See the introduction of the REMHI report, p. XXI.

^[33] See Guatemala Nunca Más, Volume I Chapter 6, pp. 203-237, based on 185 testimonies and 24 interviews of women in different parts of Guatemala. 

^[34] See Guatemala Nunca Más Vol. I, chapter 6, p. 205.

^[35] See Guatemala Nunca Más Vol. I, chapter 6, pp. 212-214.

^[36] For more information about CONAVIGUA see https://conavigua.org.gt/es/  Consulted 1 May 2023.

^[37] For more information on FAMDEGUA see: https://memoriavirtualguatemala.org/?page_id=1990 Consulted 1 May 2023.

^[38] Burt (2018).

^[39] See https://caldh.org.gt/quienes-somos/#

^[40] See https://mujerestransformandoelmundo.org/

^[41] Burt (2019).

^[42] O'Rourke (2013); Boesten (2018).

^[43] Masek (2023).

^[44] Guatemala Memoria del Silencio, Vol. III, p. 13.

^[45] Guatemala Memoria del Silencio Vol. V, p. 28.

^[46] Guatemala Memoria del Silencio Vol. V, p. 44.

^[47] Prensa Libre, electronic version, consulted 19 May 2023.

^[48] https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2002/1308.pdf

^[49] See Vol. V, Guatemala Memoria del Silencio, pp. 62-65.

^[50] Ursula Roldán, interview, April 2023.

^[51] See https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/politica/se-reduce-asignacion-de-recursos-para-resarcimiento/ consulted 19 May 2023.

^[52] https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/ley_contra_el_femicidio_y_otras_formas_de_violencia_contra_la_mujer_guatemala.pdf

^[53] https://www.demi.gob.gt/-quienes-somos-.html Consulted 17 May 2023.

^[54] https://seprem.gob.gt/antecedentes/#:~:text=El%2017%20de%20mayo%20del,desarrollo%20de%20las%20mujeres%20guatemaltecas. Consulted 17 May 2023.

^[55] https://mingob.gob.gt/departamento-de-atencion-a-la-victima-de-pnc-unidad-especializada-para-recibir-denuncias-de-violencia-contra-la-mujer/ Consulted 17 May 2023.

^[56] https://seprem.gob.gt/wp-content/uploads/Planovi-2020-2029-1.pdf

^[57] https://ecapguatemala.org.gt/

^[58] https://womens-justice.org/who-we-are/

^[59] A second ethical tribunal entitled “Sexual Violence in the Past and Present is a Crime” was held at the University’s Cultural Center (CCU) Guatemala in June 2019.

^[60] On the first day, nine women gave their testimony and on the second day special expert witness reports were presented.

^[61] SáCouto, Ford Ouoba and Martin (2022).

^[62] See the sentence at https://mujerestransformandoelmundo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/sentencia_caso_sepur_zarco.pdf

^[63] SáCouto, Ford Ouoba and Martin (2022).

^[64] The obligatory PACs were created by the Guatemalan army in 1981; in many parts of the country, they were used to divide and control indigenous populations. See Vol. 2, chapter II of the REMHI report.

^[65] SáCouto, Ford Ouoba and Martin (2022); LeDuc (2018).

^[66] On the reparations see: https://prensacomunitaria.org/2022/01/como-parte-de-la-sentencia-condenatoria-dictan-medidas-de-reparacion-para-las-mujeres-achi/

^[67] Military zone No.21 was installed on lands stolen from the community of Chicoyoguito.

^[68] See: https://nisgua.org/portfolio-items/creompaz-informe/  Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[69] See: https://prensacomunitaria.org/2021/11/la-justicia-que-no-llega-para-las-victimas-de-creompaz/ Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[70] On the origins of the Creompaz case see Rodríguez (2021).

^[71] SáCouto, Ford Ouoba and Martin (2022).

^[72] http://ww2.oj.gob.gt/es/QueEsOJ/EstructuraOJ/UnidadesAdministrativas/CentroAnalisisDocumentacionJudicial/cds/CDs%20compilaciones/Compilacion%20Leyes%20Penales/expedientes/13_LeyContraFemicidio.pdf Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[73] The law can be consulted here: http://observatorio.mp.gob.gt/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ley-contra-la-violencia-sexual-explotacion-y-trata-de-personas_-_decreto_9-2009_-guatemala.pdf  Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[74] https://www.icrc.org/es/document/los-convenios-de-ginebra-de-1949-y-sus-protocolos-adicionales Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[75] https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/28141.pdf Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[76] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/FactSheet13sp.pdf Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[77] https://appweb.cndh.org.mx/biblioteca/archivos/pdfs/fas_CSIDH_DHMujeresJurisprudencia-3aReimpr.pdf Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[78] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cedaw_SP.pdf Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[79] https://www.un.org/spanish/law/icc/statute/spanish/rome_statute(s).pdf Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[80] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cat_SP.pdf Consulted 20 May 2023.

^[81] https://indret.com/wp-content/themes/indret/pdf/844.pdf Consulted 18 May 2023.

^[82] https://www.cijc.org/es/NuestrasConstituciones/GUATEMALA-Constitucion.pdf Consultado 17.05.2023

^[83] https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2002/0148.pdf Consulted 17 May 2023

^[84] Article 21 of the Guatemalan Penal Code establishes the prohibition and sanction of the forced disappearance of persons http://grupodeapoyomutuo.org.gt/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Desaparicio%CC%81n-forzada-en-Guatemala.pdf  Consulted 18 May 2023.