VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGT #0353 0782251
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 182251Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5006
INFO RUEHZA/WHA CENTRAL AMERICAN COLLECTIVE
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 4776
RHMFIUU/CDR USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL

UNCLAS GUATEMALA 000353 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: MOPS MARR PHUM KDEM KCRM PGOV GT
SUBJECT: DECLASSIFICATION OF FOUR MILITARY PLANS RULED 
CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
REF: A. 07 GUATEMALA 1530 
     ¶B. GUATEMALA 256 
 
¶1. (U) Summary:  On March 5, the Constitutional Court 
unanimously rejected the appeal of former General Efrain Rios 
Montt and affirmed the decision of an appeals court to 
declassify four military plans executed during the early 
1980s at the height of the country's 36-year internal 
conflict.  The court rejected the arguments of Montt and the 
Ministry of Defense that the documents should continue to be 
protected as "matters of national security."  While this was 
a symbolic victory for human rights groups, it is not clear 
whether any documents relating to these 1982-83 military 
plans still exist.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) The Constitutional Court's ruling affirmed the July 
2007 ruling (ref A) of the First Criminal Court of Appeals, 
which ordered the declassification of four military plans -- 
Sofia 82, Victoria 82, Firmeza 83, and Operacion Ixil.  With 
the declassification of these four plans, human rights 
organizations hope to advance investigations of human rights 
abuses allegedly committed by the military during the 
government of Rios Montt, who served as chief of state from 
March 1982 to August 1983. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In a meeting with poloff March 13, Human Rights 
Legal Action Center (CALDH) Executive Director Mario Minera 
hailed the decision as a victory for the human rights 
community, especially for the organizations that initiated 
the legal case in Guatemala in 2001 against Rios Montt and 
others for human rights violations allegedly committed during 
the internal conflict.  Minera believed the ruling would 
contribute to efforts to combat impunity and to promote 
justice and reconciliation.  He feared, however, that the 
plans may have been compromised and that the Public Ministry 
would be slow to take action.  He said that CALDH has taken 
the case as far as it could, and that it was now up to the 
Public Ministry to implement the court's decision and to 
summon Rios Montt for questioning. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Guatemalan military contacts told Embassy officers 
that the military would comply fully with the court's ruling, 
but warned that the plans did not specify military practices 
utilized during the armed conflict, but rather provided a 
broad operational framework.  According to Colonel Edgar 
Mazariegos, Chief of the Human Rights Department of the 
Guatemalan Army, the general operational plans ordered the 
military to go to certain areas "to control the insurgency," 
but did not specify individuals or prescribe specific 
actions, tactics, or procedures in those areas.  He noted, 
however, that other military records that Colom ordered 
declassified (ref B) could help identify the units that were 
in certain areas during attacks on civilians, which could 
help identify the individuals involved in the alleged human 
rights violations. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Comment:  After seven years of stalled litigation 
and a December 2007 Constitutional Court ruling denying 
extradition, on jurisdictional grounds, of Rios Montt and his 
co-defendants for prosecution in Spain, this court ruling 
opens the way for use of previously classified military 
documents as evidence in Guatemalan court cases, as well as 
the possible declassification of other pre-1985 military 
documents.  The Constitution, which provides for public 
availability of government documents except those concerning 
military or diplomatic "matters of national security," was 
established in 1985 and generally does not apply 
retroactively.  Rios Montt has argued that he should not be 
held accountable for human rights violations that occurred 
Qheld accountable for human rights violations that occurred 
during military incursions while he was head of state since 
he did not design or order the plans.  While the court 
decision was a symbolic victory for human rights and freedom 
of information advocates, it is not clear that there are any 
existing military documents relating to these 1982-83 
operational plans to be declassified and turned over to the 
courts. 
Derham