 I'm Julia Lieblik and I'm a professor of journalism at Loyola University of Chicago and I've written over the years about Guatemala and 25 years ago I talked to an editor at the New York Times to suggest an article about Guatemala and he said to me Guatemala is not on our map so you can imagine how happy I was a few weeks ago or a few days ago when I woke up to the New York Times and saw Victoria Sanford piece on the conviction and there have been so many other excellent articles. An excellent website the Open Society's Justice Initiative on the trial has been invaluable for many of us and one of the things I read was that the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights noted that in 2009 Guatemala's impunity index for past and present crimes was 98%. So how did this trial happen just a few years later and I'd like to introduce our panelists. Very happy you're here. The first is I'll make it quick so we can get right to the questions but Susan Kemp, born in Scotland, Attorney Susan Kemp has been working on human rights litigation and war crimes since 1996. She lived and worked in Guatemala from 1998 until 2002 as legal counsel at the Center for Human Rights and Legal Action. She coordinated evidence for the launch of domestic criminal suits in 2000 against presidents Lucas Garcia and Rios Montt and high commands. Ida Argeta is a scholar at the Giga Institute of Latin American Studies specializing in private security policies and human rights as well as organized crime in Central America. From 2006 to 2007 he was the technical secretary of the advisory council for the security of the Guatemalan government and Edgar Alvarez. Thank you very much for the invitation for the organizers of this very interesting panel. To this question I will refer first that this trial is the result of in my opinion of multiple processes which initiated some years ago. Starting with process of strengthening of civil society organizations in Guatemala, especially those organizations focusing on human rights and this process is very important because it is not only related to the specific point of the trial but for a lot of processes very in Guatemala political processes of struggles for land, for peace and organizations, human rights and in different topics. I think this is bigger process that leads to this trial and other processes in Guatemala. The second point is that starting with the peace agreements in Guatemala there is a very important international cooperation support in other solidarity organizations in Guatemala. This is very important because this introduces not only financial resources but also a political support, international political support for these processes of strengthening of the civil society and human rights organizations in Guatemala. Part of this international support is of course the group of scholars and activists in the international sphere. Forestry, anthropologists, psychologists, historians, sociologists in a very important group of scholars working on topics related to human rights violations, indigenous rights, human and other topics. This is very important because this created some basis, argumentative basis for the work of human rights defenders in Guatemala. Of course there is an international context which helps to strengthen these processes which occur in the Guatemalan context. But there is a third factor for me very important that lead to this very important trial and is some very specific institutional processes inside a Guatemalan state. One of these processes is the strengthening of the prosecution office, the ministerial public. This initiated around 2010 with the election of Amilcar Velasquez-Sarate. This is a very important point in this some contemporary history of Guatemala because it is the first time that a prosecutor was elected with a very important accountability process observing the election process. This was an antecedent. It was a very important starting point. And then of course the election of Claudia Pasipas which strengthened the processes of strengthening of the prosecution office. Of course part of this process is the role of CIC. In my opinion the support of the strengthening of the prosecution office and accountability processes on the judicial branch is the most important result of CIC. And this I think very important to mention and to make some limits about the role of CIC. For me in my opinion this is very important to mention. And part of this is the whole process is a process of gaining judicial independence in Guatemala. And this is a very important process, very long process in the future and it's of course one of the most political important process in Guatemala. I think these multiple factors from in my opinion is the most important processes that lead to this trial in Guatemala. Thank you. Edgar? Okay. Sorry, no speaking English. Okay. So that's it. Thank you. Well, from the motivations, okay, I'm sorry, the factors, let's say, around the fact that they were motivating a little the impulse of the case and that it would give a sentence after it was... The factors that influence the emergence of the case and also the conviction of Rios Montt. It's a little what I think of the colleague Otorgeta, let's say, a process, can you hear me? Well, a little process. Now? Yes? Yes. About the process of strengthening some institutions of justice, let's say, in it. I agree with what Otorgeta just said, the strengthening of the judicial body in Guatemala has been crucial. After the peace agreements, there has been an opening for the democratic process and for the participation of civil organizations. More or less, the victims, in association with the Association for Justice and Reconciliation, in 1998-1999, they began to organize. This was not given before 1996, in function of demanding that justice be done. The victims organize around the Association for Justice and Reconciliation, and this kind of organization could not have existed before the peace agreements. So, the Association joined the trial against Rios Montt, and this has all signed an openness for the participation of civil organizations. So, the social organizations in Guatemala have also been establishing strategic alliances to carry out the trial, but also to continue the process after the trial for seeking justice. So, I will finish there. I would like to hear what everybody else has to say. I think, first of all, I'm really glad that Otor mentioned CIC and mentioned their role in trying to improve the independence of the ministerial public. CIC was created after a long period of lobbying by a group of Guatemalan civil society organizations. Although it was a UN national hybrid, it also came out of alliances at the national level and the pressure from civil society. In terms of factors that are many, I think maybe I would like to mention one which might also have some kind of international reference point, and that would be the kind of gap filling that civil society did in Guatemala during the period when the ministerial public did not have the capacity to investigate these crimes. And the organization that Edgar was a member of was created in 2000, and together with the sense of human rights legal action, they carried out many of the things that the state should have been doing. And at the same time, the foundation of forensic anthropology were carrying out forensic excavations. These are state services, so in the post-conflict situation when people are searching for justice, what happened in Guatemala also happens in many other countries. Society will fill those gaps, will represent victims, gather evidence, provide security even. Back in 1997, 1998, Calde actually got money from international donors to provide satellite phones to provide security for the evidence. Psychosocial experts like Navies de Puy to accompany the process. Now over time, you hope that these diminish and that gradually the state does come in and start taking over its role. And what we're seeing now is exactly this kind of strengthening, but the lesson would be that the international community should support civil society and should not pull out too soon because it sometimes takes decades for the state institutions to get on their feet. And even afterwards, you still need a strong civil society to have oversight of these institutions. Thank you, Susan. Adar, you're particularly interested, you told me in the opposition and in links between the trial and conflict in Guatemala, and I'll throw in another part of the question because I don't know how we're doing in terms of time, but you said you could also address in that what can be done to promote independent judiciary. So I'll let all of you answer whatever piece of the question you want. Well, thank you very much. Yes, I'm not this debate about the trial. I am very interested in the question, why the opposition? And maybe it's more than a rhetoric question. I think it's very important for understanding the nature and the complexity of the Guatemalan society. I'm coming directly from Guatemala, and it is very interesting to observe how this world of the political and ideological confrontation works. And it is not only important the trial, but only how this opposition works. And I ask myself, okay, why the opposition? And the first point is to mention, Rios Mont was not one of the most important figures for the entrepreneurial sector and for the militaries as well, including Otto Perez Molina. And also for the oligarchy, the traditional oligarchy of Guatemala, he was not one of the most important representatives of these sectors. And then why the opposition? First, I would like to mention some ideas about the actors. We have the former militaries, glutinating in Ave Milgua, this association, and the Foundation Against Terrorism, who are actively impulsing a very aggressive campaign of discreet and disinformation of the trial and the actors related to this trial. This is one dimension. Why? These former militaries are interested in this process. Well, maybe there is a reaction against the possibility of being judged by these institutions. And there is an ideological factor, of course. There is also a number of former guerrilla members and some academics also participating in this campaign against the trial. Why? Well, maybe there is also a fear for being judged in Guatemala. And of course, the trial represents some kind of break in political structures in which these people participate and are part of the establishment. And then the third actor, Casif, the entrepreneurial. What is the important point for Casif to participate in this campaign? I don't know how much time do I have, not that much. Okay, I just want to bring the point of the opposition. I think the most important thing is to make a difference between the mechanisms through which this opposition works and the reasons. And the idea is to mention the importance of the independence of the judiciary. This is a very important point in Guatemala politics, not only in the long tradition of patrimonial politics, corruption, impunity, and of course, the system of domination, but just the idea of independence. Susan, did you want to talk about lessons learned? Do you want to get into that? Would you like to address that? I think it's important to remember, as Adi said, this judgment is a historical fact whether or not legally it will survive is a historical fact. It has impact in Guatemala and beyond. In terms of judicial independence, and in terms of the bad news that we see almost every day when we're following the case, we have to remember that we have an attorney general and a team of lawyers who back these victims. We have three judges, very, very qualified people, one with a doctorate, all with master's degrees, who day in, day out deal with complex criminal cases, money laundering, drug trafficking. They looked at all this evidence and they came to this conclusion. In the constitutional court you had two dissenting judges giving very, very strong dissents. I think among the bad news there are seeds of hope there and it really isn't all a bleak story. Before we take questions, do you want to respond to any of these? Okay. I agree with the two previous speakers. Now I want to focus on the opposition against the trial regarding political and ideological aspects. I will add two more actors to the ones that Otto already mentioned. The church, the oligarchy, the military and the family of the military. This group sanctioned what happened in Guatemala in the 80s. So in the 80s these groups denied the massacres and nowadays these groups are accepting that there were massacres but they are denying the fact that this should be considered a genocide. So there is like an improvement. Victoria. I would like to ask, could I do the question in Spanish and would you translate me? So I would like to know what happened with the Mayan intellectuals during the trial because they didn't seem to have a very, didn't seem to be very outstanding in public opinions. So I want to know what are your thoughts about that? Why is it that was the case? So there was an opinion the conservative elite and the oligarchy are the owners of the media in Guatemala. So for example now that the trial has been annulated in the newspaper that has the biggest circulation at a national level did not mention anything during one week. So the spaces to voice an opinion are pretty limited from 100% of the spaces you may have 5% to voice dissident opinions. Any other questions? I am from La Hora and not all the media in Guatemala are owned by the conservative or the military. Sorry Edgar but I can understand that most of the media can be under that umbrella but in my case it's unacceptable to listen that La Hora will be part of that story. I would like to add exactly the point that part of the mechanisms of the opposition was to control the main and the most important mainstream newspapers and television programs, internet, web page and even for example I don't know how to say the mantas, these pancartas. Okay thank you. In Guatemala it's amazing to see that in Guatemala which is a text of the heroic army, the army not all Guatemalans are genocide for example it was a very aggressive campaign and of course other intellectuals and organizations have to look for alternative means of media opportunities and there are some kind but maybe not with the projection of international echo. The coverage that we saw on a daily basis in the national press would have been unthinkable 15 years ago or when the case was started. This was on television, radio and newspapers every day. You had the symbolism of the former chief of the army and head of state in the dock and I think that we can't underestimate the power of that even if those spaces are not being taken advantage of by those who suffered. I think Ari and I are reminded me of Benedicto Lucas when he was talking about Michael Rose saying that people had done this to themselves. Benedicto Lucas 15-16 years ago said these clandestine cemeteries that was caused by the earthquake in 76. Nowadays that just wouldn't wash and I think people who are trying to deny the genocide are having to come up with different types of arguments legalistic arguments and national pride etc. So they're grasping at straws much more than they used to. Thank you. Victoria? I was wondering Otto if you could talk about what kinds of historical connections you can see between the different groups in the military responsible for the genocide and private security companies and clandestine groups that exist today. Thank you very much for the question. I think there is a link but very complex link because I'm not understanding why this kind of trials is very important in the context of conflicts in Guatemala. I make always the example of the mining explorations in Guatemala. What is the connection? My argument is that all businesses in Guatemala needs to have strong control of the judiciary to guarantee not only impunity but also the legal framework of business in Guatemala. And the army has been historically the defenders of this status quo and the social order in Guatemala trials like this is like a warning to the army and other political politicians to make some caution about what I am doing with the state. It's like an alert. The judiciary has some levels of independence and now, like the judge variable said, the idea is if you are in the state you are responsible for your acts and of course you have to have this responsibility, legal responsibility. But now with an army that can be judged in a trial, what is the option? What is the alternative for the entrepreneurial, the oligarchy and so on? The private security sector. We saw this in Guatemala right now in Chiquimula in this part of the country with private security companies addressing social protests. Why? Because private security companies cannot be in a trial and there is no accountability regulation for this sector, not only the national private security sector but also the international private security companies. This is the new alternative. Private security is the option for an army that can be a trial, an army that has to be more careful about their acts. What is the option for the oligarchy and the entrepreneurial sector? Private security. This is another dimension of the problem. Of course this process represents an opportunity to open the possibility to trial these different sectors, not only militaries but also entrepreneurs, private security owners and so on. Going back to speaking about the media in Guatemala, I was curious. I also really want to believe that even if this case continues to be annulled and doesn't move back forward that it's sort of opened up Pandora's box and we've moved forward nonetheless. But I'm wondering how it's seen in Guatemalan general opinion, whether the incredible campaigns of defamation and slander against the international community and against the civil society in Guatemala have been successful or that most Guatemalans sort of have been swayed by the evidence that was presented within the trial despite the fact that that evidence especially was almost not covered at all within the major newspapers in the country. Any one? Regarding public opinion, there is a difference between the urban areas and the rural areas and the media influence a lot of the opinion. So in the rural areas, this was the places where the atrocities were committed. So the people there revived the experience and they serve as a counterbalance for the public opinion in general. In this case, the Fundación Contra el Terrorismo manages the forms of communication because it has the money to access and influence fear. So it's difficult to determine where the opinion goes because there is a culture of fear for threats. But if there are sectors that are in favor, there are sectors that are not in favor, then it would really be necessary to make an equilibrium, a study to know the equilibrium there or the percentage of public opinion on the case. But a lot. It's difficult to make a balance to know. There are many people in favor and people against, I guess, the trial and the conviction of Realismont. And it's difficult to measure. So it would be necessary to make some sort of polling to figure out. But it's important to know the role that the association against the foundation against terrorism has played because they have instilled fear among the population. Thank you very much. Can I ask for a very short point? I agree with what Edgar said. I think it's very difficult to measure what is the opinion. For me, one of the most important things when I was in Guatemala was to see young people participating in the support to civil society organization and human rights offender. It's very important. It is clear that this support comes from the small groups of young people and organizations in the city. Guatemala is a country with a lack of an educational system that integrates a history in the program of education. The school in Guatemala history ends in 1944. And then, I don't know, maybe there are some efforts to introduce these topics in the educational system where there is a lack of knowledge about the history. And the other point is that in this elite debate of the trial, the most evident point that emerged with a very strong force is racism. Racism in Guatemala is amazing to observe how middle class, of course in other parts of the society, is an aggressive attitude from the racism. Racism emerged as a force in Guatemala to deny genocide, to say, I heard and I read some arguments saying that the guilt was where the Spaniards, the Spanish because they didn't exterminate Indians in Guatemala. Some extremes, I think it is amazing how racism emerged with this kind of debate in Guatemala. And this is, I think, very important to mention maybe for the next panelist. Susan, do you want to add anything from? No. Okay. Thank you.