Chapter 1: A Few Essential Concepts
Agents or Perpetrators of Terror
Frequently, those who engage in terror, whether it be the State, a paramilitary group, a political organization, etc., maintain a public stance of denying or justifying their actions (Aldea and Rosseau: no date). Lira, Becker, and Castillo consider that one of the principal characteristics of an established policy of terror lies in its application and is manifested by the fact that "those who violate human rights do so in the name of society and, therefore, the perpetrator must remain anonymous. They are not motivated by personal interests, but rather by the ultimate good of the nation, and therefore act on behalf of everyone, including the victims," (Lira, et.al.: 1989).
These epistemological criteria would lead to the presumption that the agents or perpetrators of terror in Guatemala are linked to the government. It is enough to recall the speeches of General Ríos Montt, or his closest aides, between 1982 and 1983, in which these themes are expressed concretely in phrases such as: "yes, we shoot, but we do not kill for the sake of killing, because blood does not consolidate a government," and, "...we do not have a scorched earth policy, but we do have one of eradicating communists" (Cited in Falla: 1984); "The Army does not kill the indigenous people, rather it massacres demons, because the Indians are possessed by evil spirits, they are communists." "It is true, we have killed the Indians because they are communists or guerrilla collaborators." (Cited in Carillo: 1983).
In this regard, it can be asserted that in the case of Guatemala, especially during the period between 1978 and 1983, both mechanisms were used routinely to deny or justify crimes, both public and clandestine, committed by the government security apparatus. This conclusion is based on the criteria laid out above as well as written sources documenting it and patterns identified through the classification of cases of human rights violations.
In the majority of the cases classified, witnesses indicated that the accusations against the perpetrators were either denied or justified by the authorities. The only case in Guatemalan history that has been publicly recognized as a state crime by a court of law is the assassination of anthropologist Myrna Mack.
The information obtained and classified identifies three principal sources of state terror:
1. State security forces or regular forces.
These include soldiers, specialists, and uniformed or "secret" ("confidencial") officers, serving in the Guatemalan Army (ground, naval and air forces) and the Mobile Military Police (Policía Militar Ambulante); uniformed and special agents and officers of the National Police, Treasury Police and other specialized corps under their authority ("Comando 6," the Defense Intelligence Corps, the Detective Corps of the National Police known as "judicial police," etc.).
2. Paramilitary groups linked to the State.
Civil patrols, Military Commissioners and Military Reserves comprise the second category. A School of the Americas document defines paramilitary force as "forces or groups different than the regular armed forces of a given country, but similar to them in terms of organization, equipment, training or mission," (cited in CIDCA: 1980).
3. Civilian groups linked to the extreme right.
The third category is made up almost exclusively of the so-called "Death Squads." The School of the Americas document refers to these groups as irregular forces, and states that they are "armed groups or individuals that do not belong to the regular armed forces, the police, or any other internal security force" (cited in CIDCA: 1980).
As agents or perpetrators of terror, the forces belonging to the first two categories usually acted openly and were identified by their uniforms or institutional vehicles, or by their known relationship with the State security forces or the local authorities. In the case of the third category, it is presumed that these groups were composed of members of the security forces or paramilitary groups, but acted in a clandestine or semi-clandestine manner.
This "semi-clandestinity" was deliberately incorporated into the act of terror to increase its impact on the victims and their social sphere. This served to heighten the climate of arbitrariness and impunity as well as the feeling of vulnerability and defenseless of community members, all of whom became potential victims.
It is known that the architects of terror had different objectives based on their strategic needs. Consequently, when the commission of a violent act was ordered, it took on different forms to produce a certain effect on the victims specifically, and on the entire social milieu in general.