Historic Ríos Montt Conviction Annulled in Guatemala

Updated May 24—On May 20, Guatemala’s Constitutional Court voided a historic conviction of José Efraín Ríos Montt, who was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity just 10 days earlier. A general who took power through a coup and ruled Guatemala from 1982 to 1983, Ríos Montt was sentenced to 80 years in prison by the First High-Risk Tribunal A court. The three-judge panel ruled that the former leader oversaw the murders of 1,771 indigenous Mayans by armed forces, the forced displacement of 29,000 people, sexual violations, and torture. The decision marked the first time a domestic, rather than international, court found a former head of state guilty of genocide. An estimated 200,000 people died or went missing during Guatemala’s 36-year civil war that ended in 1996.

In its 3-2 decision, the Constitutional Court annulled the trial as of April 19. The Court accepted a challenge from Ríos Montt’s laywers, who claimed the defendant’s due process was violated when one of his attorneys was expelled on the first day of the trial. The proceedings began on March 19, and the testimony heard through April 19—most of the defense’s case and all of the prosecution’s—still stands. However, everything after that date was invalidated, including the conviction and sentence. The Constitutional Court ordered the case to return to the original three judges, instructed to comply with the decision within 24 hours. It’s unclear, though, whether the case will remain in that court or move to another set of judges.

The ruling meant Ríos Montt would be able to return to house arrest after he was imprisoned on May 10. (He did not stay long; he was transferred to a hospital for medical tests on May 13.) The Constitutional Court’s decision also had repercussions for the second defendant. José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez, Ríos Montt’s chief of military intelligence, faced the same charges as Ríos Montt but was acquitted. The new ruling means Rodríguez Sánchez could potentially be convicted.

The decision to annul the verdict drew contrasting responses both in and outside of Guatemala. Nery Rodenas Paredes, director of the Archbishop’s Human Rights Office of Guatemala, called the Court’s decision a setback for justice in the country. “It makes us look like a backwards country because justice does not apply to those whom have always enjoyed privileges,” said Rodenas, quoted in El Periódico de Guatemala. “It’s a bad message for the country and for the international community.” But the head of Cacif, a Guatemalan business association, welcomed the decision as “good news for the country that the Court strengthens respect for due process.” The group—described by The New York Times as “[r]epresenting the country’s deeply conservative oligarchy”—had assailed the genocide verdict. The group says no genocide occurred and the world would place Guatemala in the “select club of genocidal states” such as Nazi Germany or Cambodia. The group also published an editorial stressing the importance of knowing “when to leave the past behind.”

But some take a middle path on the Court’s annulment of the verdict. The Guatemala’s human rights ombudsmen, Jorge de León Duque, stressed the need to respect the decision. The Pan-American Post’s Geoffrey Ramsey said that, while human rights groups will see the annulment as a step backwards, a large portion of testimony was heard by April 19. “If the same tribunal is charged with overseeing the proceedings, another outcome is unlikely,” he writes. “And if a new tribunal is appointed, the amount of evidence already admitted prior to April 19 will make it difficult for judges to draw a different conclusion without being accused of political bias or corruption.” However, Guatemala-based journalist Nic Wirtz writes in the AQ blog that the May 10 verdict faced a rising backlash and warns: "As numerous other unheard appeals mount up from both sides, the chances of a mistrial being called are increasing."

Legal developments continue as the case moves to an appeals court. On May 24, a three-judge panel will consider recusals filed by Ríos Montt’s attorneys against two of the justices who convicted the former general. The appeals court’s ruling must then be ratified by the Constitutional Court, which could take months, reports Reuters. After the recusal is resolved, the case is likely to be sent to a new set of judges.