A Guatemalan judge has sentenced General Efraín Ríos Montt to 80 years in jail for genocide and crimes against humanity during his de facto presidency between 1982 and 1983, with specific reference to the slaughter by his troops of some 2,000 members of the indigenous Ixil people in the mountainous region of El Quiché. The judgment has been hailed as a historic decision since it is the first time that a former head of state has been found guilty of genocide in his own country.
The Ríos Montt dictatorship saw the bloodiest period of a civil war between the state and communist insurgents, which lasted more than 30 years, ending only in 1996. Guatemala was a key Cold War theatre in Central America and the general was actively supported by the Reagan administration, which considered him a trusted ally in efforts to put down, by any means necessary, communist guerilla movements. Trained and armed clandestinely by the CIA and its proxies, and emboldened by official US policy, the Guatemalan army accordingly waged a merciless campaign against rural Mayan communities, whom they considered to be giving succour to the rebels.
General Ríos Montt’s trial and the guilty verdict, especially for genocide, have however opened old wounds in a polarised society, still to come to terms with the legacy of the civil war in which, according to some estimates, more than 250,000 people died. This is due mainly to the fact that, during the peace process, a Reconciliation Commission was hastily dissolved before it had achieved any semblance of national reconciliation. This was, in turn, because the military, in giving way to a civilian government, had laid down the conditions for an amnesty law whereby nobody – soldiers and guerrillas alike – felt threatened and people were content, for the most part, to let sleeping dogs lie.
Now, the ruling against Mr Ríos Montt threatens a socio-political upheaval in Guatemala, as the presiding judge has also ordered that the scope of the investigations into the genocide be widened to include other atrocities, which could very well lead to a deeper consideration of the traditional structures of social, political, economic and military power underpinning the brutal counterinsurgency.
Unsurprisingly, a number of military men and other hardliners have denounced the trial and have voiced strong support for the general. Also, the powerful Guatemalan private sector has criticised the judgment as flawed and unconstitutional, and has attacked the whole process as serving only to foment division and prove that “justice has been taken prisoner by ideological conflict.” This is not an entirely unsurprising attitude either, since part of the judgment states that the extermination of the Ixiles was a way of defending “the interests of national elites.” In Guatemala, the army has traditionally been perceived as an instrument of big money even though the private sector rejects this notion.
Mr Ríos Montt himself has called the proceedings “an international political show” and has shown no remorse, declaring that he had always complied with the law. Meanwhile, his lawyers are preparing for a lengthy appeal, which means that, realistically, it is unlikely that the ex-dictator, who is 86, will serve much of the 80-year sentence.
But the case and the judgment have huge symbolism for Guatemala. For the first time, the indigenous people, who comprise 40 per cent of the population, have been able to make their voice heard, without the intimidation of the past, in and beyond the courtroom, to combat the pervasive impunity which the powerful in that country have historically enjoyed at the expense of the weak and marginalised, and which was for too long a denial of the right of the victims to justice.
Rigoberta Menchú, the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize winner, believes, moreover, that the ruling can serve to introduce changes, which could give the indigenous people and mestizos the opportunity to move towards a more egalitarian society.
The condemnation of Mr Ríos Montt does not, however, reflect only the justice sought by the families of the indigenous victims of military atrocities. It is also an example for other parts of the world, where leaders past and present still enjoy immunity and impunity, in spite of their known involvement in similar crimes. Without having had recourse to the International Criminal Court, Guatemala has taken a courageous and important step towards putting an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most heinous of crimes.
