Las Abejas Demands That Sabines Explain the Destiny of the Special Counsel For Acteal
** He never informed society about its results and it disappeared “silently,” they point out
By: Hermann Bellinghausen, Envoy
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas
Las Abejas of Acteal demanded an explanation from the government of Juan Sabines Guerrero as to the destiny of the Office of the Special Counsel for Acteal. This instance, the indigenous organization maintains, “was a State organ” that “never rendered a report to society about its results” and “disappeared as silently as it was created.”
They reiterated their disagreement with the way in which a civil process is pursued in the United States against former president Ernesto Zedillo, but not with the fact that all the intellectual authors of the massacre must be judged, including Zedillo of course, whose “immunity,” solicited by him and supported by the government of Felipe Calderón is unacceptable. “No one can be above the law, much less Zedillo, because he is stained with blood.”
They emphasize that the Frayba “our legitimate representative and assistance in the process, was repeatedly denied access to records,” to the degree that it had to file an injunction, “and even so it was not permitted to see everything that it needed.” Nevertheless, the special counsel’s report “appears quickly on a private web page in the United States that hopes to do a juicy business with the blood of our martyrs (on which they are putting the price of 50 million dollars).” And they ask the Chiapas government: “How do you justify that a private and foreign law office has announced what you did not announce to society or to the victims’ representatives?”
Therefore, Las Abejas demands an explanation from the Chiapas government and a public report of the activities and results of the special counsel.
They abounded: “There is no doubt for us that this crime was planned from the three levels of government, civilian and military, to finish off the organizations that defend their rights. The government offered the independent organizations death and displacement.”
About the material authors they express: “We are witnesses to the fact that the massacre was perpetrated by PRI and Cardenista paramilitaries.”
There is not much difference between the political parties, they point out. “The PRI planned the massacre and the murders of many indigenous compañeros in different places; the PAN was in charge of getting the paramilitaries out of prison, and the PRD government of Chiapas awarded them housing, land and a large quantity of money upon their release.”
As for the complaint filed in a United States court, they clarify that they are not against Zedillo being judged. “We want that he and many others be judged for the Acteal Massacre with all the weight of the law. But we are against the confusion and manipulation. We do not want attention to be lost in an accusation centered on only one person because it is a State crime and a counterinsurgency policy that has not been finished. We see the trap of Emilio Chuayffet who wants to present himself as the one that advised Zedillo of what was going to happen.” He is the very one who was never attentive to warnings by the Frayba and the Diocese of San Cristóbal.
About the complaint in Connecticut, Las Abejas reiterated that it is “absurd and suspicious” that the plaintiffs are anonymous. “The names of the victims and their families are public. We are not afraid because we owe nothing. We cannot support a complaint just because we are against Zedillo. In our tradition he who commits a wrong must answer to the community. Justice is not just that someone is punished, but also that a satisfaction be given to the community that he offended. The complaint against Zedillo is civil. He and his accomplices are guilty by omission and commission, and must be judged criminally.”
