REPORT No. 144/10
PETITION 1579-07
ADMISSIBILITY
RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE OF CHICHUPAC AND THE HAMLET OF XEABAJ,
MUNICIPALITY OF RABINAL
GUATEMALA
November 1, 2010

I.

SUMMARY

1.
On December 13, 2007 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
the "Inter-American Commission", "Commission" or "IACHR") received a claim filed by the Asociación
Bufete Jurídico Popular (hereinafter "the petitioners"), on behalf of the residents of the village of
Chichupac and the hamlet of Xeabaj in the municipality of Rabinal, against the Republic of Guatemala
1
(hereinafter the “Guatemalan State,” “Guatemala,” or the “State”). The petition argues that 82 members
of the Maya Achí indigenous communities of Chichupac, Toloxcoc, Xeabaj, El Apazote, Chijom, and El
Tablón, in the municipality of Rabinal (hereinafter the “alleged victims”), were victims of massacres, rape,
failure to lend assistance, extrajudicial executions, torture, forced disappearance, illegal detentions,
and/or forced labor, carried out by the Guatemalan Army and its collaborators, as the result of a policy
aimed at persecuting and exterminating Mayan communities.
2.
The petitioners argue that the Guatemalan State violated Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right
to humane treatment), 6 (freedom from slavery), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 11(1)
(right to privacy), 12 (freedom of conscience and religion), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 15
(right of assembly), 16 (freedom of association), 17 (rights of the family), 21 (right to property), 22
(freedom of movement and residence), 24 (right to equal protection), and 25 (right to judicial protection)
enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the “American
Convention”), to the detriment of the alleged victims. Furthermore, they argue that the State is
responsible for the violation of Articles I, II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XVIII, XXI, XXII, XXIV, XXV and XXVI of
the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter, the “American Declaration”);
Articles I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII, XIV and XV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced
Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter the “Convention on Forced Disappearance”); Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 16 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter the
“Convention on Torture”); and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25 and 26 of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Universal Declaration”). With regard to the admissibility
requirements, they note that in this case the exceptions to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies
referred to in Article 46(2)(b) and (c) of the Convention both apply.
3.
The State does not dispute the facts alleged by the petitioners. However, it notes that the
complaint covers multiple cases of various kinds, which occurred in different places, times and
circumstances that have resulted in the investigation of various judicial cases, which would be
inappropriate to process together; thus, the State requested a breakdown of the petition and its
processing into separate cases. Regarding the admissibility of the claim, the State argues that domestic
remedies have not been exhausted.
4.
After analyzing the petition, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the
American Convention, as well as Articles 30 and 36, among others, of its rules, the IACHR concludes that
1

On March 19, 2010, the petitioners submitted a list naming 86 alleged victims: (i) with respect to four of them they did not
provide information on the acts of violence committed to their detriment – Manuel de Jesús Alarcón Morente, Patricio González
Xitumul, Pedro Pérez Amperez, and María Concepción Xitumul Xitumul; (ii) with respect to the other 82 alleged victims, 32 are
described as victims of torture and extrajudicial executions consummated in a massacre, 39 as victims of extrajudicial executions,
eight victims of forced disappearance, one victim of rape, one victim – a 5-year-old boy – who died due to lack of medical care as it
was impossible for his next-of-kin to seek assistance given the pattern of persecution to their detriment, and one victim of an illegal
detention.

Select target paragraph3