Francisco de Mata Vela

Cases
Location of case in SG report
2019-041-001
Relevant SG report
Year of the report
2019
Country Geolocation

Latitude: 15.783471

Longitude: -90.2307589999999

Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
Guatemala
From Region
UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
  • Assistant Secretary-General
  • UN Special Procedures: Thematic
Dates of prior UN action
30 April 2018; 18 September 2018; 30 January 2019; 25 April 2019
Type of record
Named individual
Gender
Male
Was the victim a foreign national?
No
Was the victim a minor?
No
Individual's/organization's activity

judges from the Constitutional Court seeking to protect the work and mandate of the CICIG

Type of rights defended
  • Accountability & impunity
Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
Yes
Reported trigger of reprisal

judges from the Constitutional Court seeking to protect the work and mandate of the CICIG

Engagement with UN body
  • CICIG
Dates of engagement
Unclear
Type of attempted engagement
  • Other
Dates of mentioned reprisals
Unclear
Reprisal information

Acts of reprisals reportedly took the form of misuse of legal impeachment proceedings (“antejuicios”) as well as public stigmatization and vilification campaigns in traditional and social media (GTM 7/2018; GTM 13/2018; and GTM 1/2019).

Types of reprisals suffered
  • Defamation / Defamation campaign
  • Family/friends/acquaintances targeted
  • Online harassment
  • Profession-related reprisal
Alleged/likely perpetrators
Both state and non-state actors
Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
No
Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
No
Government response dates
23 April 2019; 24 June 2019
Government response content

On 23 April 2019, the Government responded to the communication of 30 January 2019, including to the allegations related to CICIG 77 whose presence in the country, according to the Government, created pressures or interests alien to the rule of law. Thus, after the UN Secretary-General decided not to remove Commissioner Mr. Ivan Velasquez, the Government decided not to extend the agreement establishing the CICIG. According to the Government, the CICIG was not part of the UN. It became a failed experiment in the fight against corruption and impunity with a legacy that divided society and was highly detrimental to the rule of law.

On 24 June 2019, the Government responded with detailed (confidential) information about the latest security assessment and protection measures provided to those individuals mentioned above, as well as on complaints received.

Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
No
Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
No
Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
No
How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
3
In which SG report was this case followed up on? 0
2020
Follow up information provided in SG report 0

Reprisals and intimidation against judicial actors and civil society were included in the 2019 report of the Secretary-General (A/HRC/42/30, para. 54–55, Annex I paras. 40– 45). As noted by the High Commissioner in her July 2019 report, the pattern of attacks, reprisals and intimidation against judges and public prosecutors persisted in 2019, in particular against those presiding over cases related to transitional justice and corruption (A/HRC/43/3/Add.1, para. 33). Alleged acts of reprisals against Constitutional Court judges Mr. José Francisco de Mata Vela, Mr. Bonerge Mejía and Ms. Gloria Porras were included in the 2019 report of the Secretary-General regarding their work for the CICIG (A/HRC/42/30, para. 54, Annex I para. 41), and they continued to be targeted in the reporting period.

Followup Trends 0
Stayed same
In which SG report was this case followed up on? 1
2021
Follow up information provided in SG report 1
  1. On 22 October 2020 and 22 March 2021, special procedures mandate holders addressed intimidation and attempts to impeach the magistrates of the Constitutional Court and judges with competence in high-risk cases (GTM 10/2020 and GTM 3/2021, respectively). On 26 June and 18 November 2020 and 3 March 2021, the Supreme Court of Justice admitted proceedings to impeach magistrates of the Constitutional Court, Ms. Gloria Porras and Mr. José Francisco de Mata Vela. On 7 August 2020, the Attorney General’s Office referred additional requests to impeach magistrates Ms. Porras, Mr. de Mata Vela, and other magistrates of the Court, including substitute magistrate Mr. Mynor Par Usen who lost immunity on 14 April 2021 following the conclusion of his mandate as magistrate of the Constitutional Court. On 1 July and 25 November 2020, the Supreme Court admitted proceedings against two judges with competence in high-risk cases, Ms. Erika Aifán and Mr. Pablo Xitumul, respectively, referring these cases to the Congress to declare if admissible.
  2. Ms. Porras, former president of the Constitutional Court, was re-elected to the bench on 4 March 2021, and was due to resume her duties for another five-year term on 14 April
  3. On 23 March 2021, the Congress established an investigative commission to withdraw Ms. Porras and Mr. de Mata Vela’s judicial immunities. The UN Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers expressed concerns publicly on 19 April 2021 at Congress’s refusal to swear in Ms. Porras, condemning the continued harassment and intimidation of members of the judiciary in the country. 163 On 6 May 2021, the current President of the Constitutional Court responded to the Congress committee of enquiry that Ms. Porras no longer has immunity.
Date of follow up 1
22 October 2020, 22 March 2021,
Did the government respond? 1
Yes
Was this case followed up by a UN body? 1
  • UN Special Procedures: Thematic
In which SG report was this case followed up on? 2
2022
Follow up information provided in SG report 2

Mr. Francisco De Mata Vela reportedly continues to suffer retaliation in the form of requests by the Supreme Court of Justice and Congress to lift his immunity (A/HRC/49/20, para. 55).

Followup Trends 2
Deterioration/further reprisals
Date of follow up 2
22 March 2022
Did the government respond? 2
Yes
Was this case followed up by a UN body? 2
  • UN (Dep.) High Commissioner on Human Rights