Chapter 1: A Few Essential Concepts
A discussion of violence as a historical-social phenomenon limited by time and space is essential to this report. In other words, violence is linked to specific places and times as well as to the relationships through which it becomes a reality and is sustained and reproduced in social structures.
In general terms "violence is produced when an individual or group acts unilaterally, imposing its opinion without allowing space for negotiation; when the power of each side is not equal. This imposed action can affect the body, life, future, or plans of the other, whether an individual or group," (Aldea and Rosseau: no date.).
Institutional violence and social violence
In this regard, other authors suggest that when violence is exercised by oppressed or dominated groups in society against the legally established order with the goal of bringing about social change, it is termed social violence. When violence is exercised by dominant groups through the government apparatus against subordinated classes in order to maintain the status quo, it is termed institutional violence (CIDCA: 1980; Cassese: 1991)
Within the legal-political framework of the State, the assumption is that violence committed by "non-state groups" infringes upon the legal order. It is established that state organisms have a monopoly on the use of violence as a coercive method to maintain public order and security within the framework of law and respect for human rights (Aguilera: 1979).
According to Aguilera Peralta, from this point of view the aspect of legitimacy is not addressed since "an activity can be legitimate or illegitimate depending on the point of view of the social group from whence the analysis comes." (Aguilera: 1979). In this sense, the use of violence from and by the State always seeks legitimacy in the name of society and "for the common good," as part of the structure of domination found in political models that exercise power through the use of force.
From a broader perspective, Aldea and Rosseau point out that, as a social product, violence is intimately linked to lifestyles, world view, culture, and forms of social organization. Consequently, it can assume different forms, two of which typically stand out: state or organized violence and domestic or common violence (Aldea and Rosseau: no date).
The concept of organized violence refers to "violence employed by a group, government, or institution against individuals or groups. That is, it involves unilateral decisions and actions without negotiations with the affected individuals, carried out for the exclusive benefit of a social subgroup," (Aldea and Rosseau: no date).
In general, this type of violence targets political, ethnic, or religious groups or those from specific socio-economic sectors. The authors point out that, in this case, the State bears a large share of the responsibility for organized violence, either by planning and executing it, or because it is incapable of protecting the population from the violence.
In any case, this type of violence occurs when arbitrariness replaces political consensus and social dialogue, and it is based on a climate of impunity which offers sufficient protection to those who commit crimes and creates circumstances conducive to their future recurrence. This situation is summarized as "the lack of truth -- truth regarding the act itself and the authors of the crime -- and the absence of justice -- justice being the lack of punishment of those responsible, in addition to the injustice committed against the victim, the family, and their associates" (Rojas: 1993).
Drawing from this last concept, this report uses the concept of political violence to define human rights violations based on their origin and occurrence in a political context in which power is exercised through threats and repression. Besides the deterioration of lives and possessions, this also signifies the establishment of permanently subordinated relationships, legally ensured through the enactment of laws and decrees with counterinsurgency content, whose dynamics are generalized and actions extended to encompass the entire population.
The concept of terror refers, in the broadest sense, to the systematic and organized use of repressive actions within a program or strategy with clearly defined objectives (Gomis, et. al.: 1983). Terror is defined by Lira, Becker, and Castillo as "a form of government, or put another way, governance through intimidation, expressed both in the official discourse and through repressive acts that turn threats into reality," (Lira, et. al.: 1989).
Terror occurs when the dominant sectors lose their political ability to control society, but wish to preserve their privileges, "so that they must recur to measures of physical domination when faced with any attempt to question their authority," (Gomis, et. al.: 1983).