Sign the petition for the Freedom of Political Prisoner Alberto Patishtán

Sign here:

http://www.avaaz.org/es/petition/Preso_Politico_Alberto_Patishtan_pide_apoyo_a_sociedad_civil_1/

Why it matters:

This month a court in Mexico will decide whether the political prisoner Alberto Patishtán is freed or will spend another 48 years in prison.

Patishtán is an indigenous Tzotzil teacher, who was very politically active in his community when he was arrested on June 19, 2000, and unjustly sentenced to 60 years in prison. In prison he has continued to fight for justice, organizing prisoners to demand humane conditions in prisons in Mexico. The Mexican government tried to stop his struggle by sending him to a maximum security prison where he suffered various forms of torture. Thanks to the intervention of civil society, after a year he returned to a prison near his family. He was awarded the jCanan Lum Prize in recognition of his struggle for “social transformation in a peaceful manner”. The people of his community to this day continue to demand Patishtán’s freedom.

Patishtán suffers from a brain tumour as a result of which he is losing his sight. He had an operation six months ago, but there are not adequate conditions for his recovery within the prison.

Patishtán has not given up and keeps fighting. His case reached the Supreme Court in Mexico where one of the judges said publicly that Alberto Patishtán is innocent and should be released immediately. Unfortunately the Supreme Court sent the case to another court which will decide this month whether he can be released. Overall the judicial system in Mexico is discriminatory, Patisthán is indigenous and therefore public support is important.

Alberto is currently fasting in prison; he calls on civil society to speak out for his freedom, so that justice can finally be achieved.

Sign this petition and share it with everyone!

Wording of petition:

Your Honours, you have in your hands the opportunity to give justice to Professor Alberto Patishtán, a man whose fundamental rights to due process and the presumption of innocence have been violated, and who was arrested because of his social struggle. We ask you to grant him his freedom through the recognition of his innocence.

The case of Alberto Patishtán Gómez and the Culpability of the Mexican State: “We are governed by Injustice”

Alberto Patishtán Gómez is a basic education teacher from the indigenous Tzotzil community of El Bosque, in the highland region of the state of Chiapas in South-east Mexico. Known as ‘the Professor’, he has now served nearly thirteen years of a sixty year sentence for, as his supporters say “struggling for social justice among the poor and indigenous”. This article seeks to question the reasons for his conviction for a crime he quite clearly did not commit, and the reasons for the extraordinary reluctance of the Mexican state and legal system to release him despite overwhelming juridical reasons to do so.  

Alberto was detained following an ambush, on 12^th June 2000, in which seven police officers were killed, a crime no one, from the state governor to the bishop, believes he committed. He has always had the full support of his community, who know very well he was elsewhere when the attack took place, as many witnesses testify. The true perpetrators of the crime remain unpunished.

As so often with cases of political prisoners, neither Alberto’s obvious innocence, nor the many violations of his human and legal rights, will be enough to secure his liberation, only with pressure from national and international solidarity will he be able to return to his family and community.

His time in prison

The Professor has suffered innumerable violations of his human rights and his rights to judicial guarantees and due process during his time in various prisons. He was arrested without a warrant, denied access to a lawyer or translator, and tortured physically and psychologically, all common practices in the treatment of poor indigenous prisoners. It is this remarkable man’s profound concern for the denial of basic rights to these prisoners that has led to his becoming an organizer for justice and human rights and for better conditions and treatment within the prisons, inspiring the setting up of groups of prisoners who participate in prayers and fasts, implement semi-permanent sit-ins, hold large annual events for their anniversaries and write powerful letters, all of this as adherents to the Zapatistas’ Sixth Declaration of the Lacandón Jungle. Alberto has organized, acted as spokesperson for, and participated in several hunger strikes, leading to the release of hundreds of indigenous prisoners. As a result he is greatly respected and has become the best-known, and the most iconic, political prisoner in Mexico.

Despite his almost universally acknowledged innocence and there being no credible evidence against him, despite having nearly lost his sight due to an unidentified brain tumour after years of being denied proper medical treatment while in prison, and despite having thousands of national and international supporters calling for his release, it seemed Patishtán had now exhausted all avenues of legal appeal when the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation refused to consider a motion for the Presumption of Innocence in his favour, in March 2013. But the appeal has been delegated to a local court, and those working for his release have launched another campaign. This may be the last chance.

Innocence does not Count

Just one week after it refused to hear the motion for the recognition of Patishtán’s innocence, which asked for his release on account of a profusion of violations of due process, the first hall of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Mexican Nation decreed the immediate liberation of Marcos Arias Pérez, accused and convicted of participating in the Acteal Massacre, in which 47 Catholic pacifists praying for peace were brutally slain on December 22, 1997. The reason given for his release was due process violations. “Impunity spreads like a bad weed in our country”, declared the Civil Society Las Abejas, victims of the massacre. “What we are seeing now in Mexico confirms what we have always said: the bodies for the procurement and administration of justice in Mexico are serving not justice, but the interests of the powerful.”

“Justice is upside down, since those who have committed a crime, like those sentenced for the Acteal case, are released, and the government keeps those who, like myself, are innocent, imprisoned”, said the Professor. “It seems that you have to kill to get out of prison”.

The reaction to both of the Court’s decisions was one of outrage. Arias Pérez is only the most recent of a large number of the paramilitary perpetrators of the Acteal Massacre to have been released. Their guilt is not in doubt; the reason for their release is failings in the legal process. On the other hand, Patishtán remains incarcerated, even though, as his lawyer Leonel Rivero Rodríguez points out about his case, “there is no controversy, no sector is opposed to his release or doubts his innocence”.

Who really committed the crime?

We are now in a time when killings and mutilations fill the news in Mexico. It was not so in 2000, and the events of the morning of June 12, in Las Lagunas de Las Limas, Simojovel, shocked the nation and grabbed the headlines. It appeared that a truck carrying eight police officers and a driver had been ambushed at a sharp bend on the road from Simojovel to El Bosque. It was said that a commando force of between ten and fifteen individuals, carrying high velocity firearms, had constructed trenches and barricades along the roadway in order to carry out the ambush. A great many shots were fired – 85 bullets from AK-47 and R-15 rifles were counted – and seven police were killed. One officer, and the driver, survived, both seriously wounded. It was in the period of the run-up to the elections, and tensions were already high.

The day following the ambush, the Clandestine Indigenous Revolutionary Committee, General Command of the EZLN declared in a communiqué: “According to information, the attack was carried out using the tactics of drug traffickers, paramilitaries or the military….The attack took place in an area saturated with government troops (Army and police), where it would have been very difficult to mobilize an armed group without being detected and without the complicity of the authorities. The attacking group had inside information about movements and the number of people ambushed. This information could only be obtained by people from the government or close to it……Everything points to those who carried out the attack being from the government (or under governmental auspices), since this would give them a pretext for increasing the militarization of Chiapas, and for justifying an attack on Zapatista communities or the EZLN. It is noteworthy that this act reinforces the climate of instability, with which the official candidate threatens [the state] if he doesn’t win”.

Nevertheless, on June 19^th, in the El Bosque municipal headquarters, the Army and the PFP detained the teacher Alberto Patishtán Gómez, without showing an arrest warrant. He was held for one month without charge. No one explained how one man, without experience of firearms, was supposed to have conducted this attack on his own. On July 10^th, two Zapatista support bases were also arrested, but they were subsequently released; Alberto alone was to be punished for the ambush. In March 2002, he was finally given the maximum sentence, one of sixty years in prison.

Situation in El Bosque

When Patishtán was arrested, “nobody believed it”, say his friends in El Bosque. People went into the streets, and occupied the City Hall. They knew that he was teaching at the time of the ambush, many witnesses had seen him, so they knew he could not have done it. There was great concern in El Bosque at this time about the corruption and the abuses being committed by the mayor and the local authorities. As a well-educated and respected member of the community, and an actively practicing Catholic, the Professor had helped to document these abuses and to write a letter denouncing them.

By a remarkable coincidence, the main witness to identify Alberto as having been involved in the ambush was Rosemberg Gómez Pérez,the son of that same mayor, who happened to have been the driver in the convoy, and who said he recognized Patishtán’s voice. Rosemberg is said to have later admitted, when drunk, to have fabricated the charge in return for a pickup truck from his father, Manuel Gómez Ruiz. The mayor, according to Patishtán’s fellow-teacher Martín Ramírez López, quoted in Mexican newspaper La Jornada, “was at the point of falling, the protection of the Deputy was no longer enough; nor was that of the Albores Guillén government…. So the massacre saved him, and even more so did the apprehension of his principal critic and denouncer….The danger was Patishtán, not the opposition movement; once he was a prisoner, the protest collapsed.”

Why does Patishtán remain a prisoner despite his obvious innocence?

“Since at least 2007, a question has been making the rounds among lawyers, bishops, human rights activists and observers of the legal process of Alberto Patishtán Gómez: if the evidence is so overwhelming that he was not involved in the ambush, then why is he still in prison, sentenced to 60 years? If more blatant cases resulted in the freedom of criminals who were caught in the act or who even confessed, when confronted by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), what walls prevent the Professor from going free? Who benefits from his imprisonment? Who would be affected by his acquittal?”

This is the question asked by an article in La Jornada on March 24^th, 2013, which highlights “the ‘special interest’ of the current Secretary of Government in Chiapas, Noé Castañón León, in the case”.  “Noé Castañón León….presided over the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of  the State (STJE) during the capture, processing and final imprisonment of Patishtán….. Having been at the head of the Chiapas tribunals both before and after the acts, Patishtán’s lawyers question whether any conflict of interest is implied by his current position of being responsible for the internal policies of the state, especially as the review of the case will soon be decided by a collegiate tribunal in Tuxtla Gutiérrez.”

“What is prohibiting Patishtán’s release?” writes the Chiapas Support Committee from California in its recent newsletter, “speculation is mounting that influential politicians in Chiapas may be to blame”.

Amnesty International calls for a “fair and exemplary decision”

On 20^th March 2013, Amnesty International wrote to the magistrates of the First Appellate Court of the Twentieth Circuit in Tutla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, who are due to

soon make the final decision on Patishtán’s case, calling for “justice without discrimination”.

“After thoroughly reviewing the case of Patishtán, Amnesty International has concluded that there were serious flaws in the process, including irregularities and inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness who identified Alberto Patishtán as responsible for the crimes. This testimony was taken into account, while evidence indicating that Patishtán was elsewhere during the ambush was discarded.

“The organization also believes that Alberto Patishtán did not have access to an adequate defence…. Amnesty International has documented several times how the justice system in Mexico fails to ensure fairness and equality of process, especially when the accused is an indigenous person with scanty economic and social resources.”

Take action

The Court has been asked to make a decision before the end of April.  In March, Alberto’s supporters launched a new campaign “Fighting for Patishtán’s Freedom, let’s celebrate his birthday, 19^th April – 4,686 days in prison”. They called for 4,686 letters to be written in his support, to the local court in Chiapas, to the Mexican President, and to Embassies and Consulates throughout the world. They also called for actions on Facebook and Twitter.  Protests are taking place in his support in many countries in the lead up to his birthday, 19th April.

17^th April is International Political Prisoners Day, when we remember and call for the release of political prisoners everywhere. Along with Bradley Manning, Mumia Abu-Jamal and numerous others, Alberto Patishtán Gómez has been unjustly imprisoned for his belief in true justice and in a fairer world for all. As he said in a telephone interview from prison last week, “We must all join the calls for truth and justice because justice is essential to build a new Mexico where there is room for everyone”.

For further information: http://www.albertopatishtan.blogspot.mx/

Karolina Caicedo Flórez | Itinerant Radio / Alba South

Tourism in Chiapas has become part of the strategy of big business and the government to break the resistance of the Zapatista communities in rebellion, and facilitate their dispossession from their territories.

Hermann Bellinghausen was born in 1953 in Mexico City. He studied medicine, but currently works as a journalist and writer. He is a correspondent in Chiapas for the newspaper La Jornada, where he writes about the Zapatista struggle and the aggressions suffered by these communities, and about political prisoners and megaprojects in the State. He is also director of the monthly supplement Ojarasca, which covers literature, art and indigenous struggles. He has directed films like ‘Corazón del tiempo’, about the Zapatista struggle. One of his most outstanding pieces of journalism was his reporting on the Acteal massacre. From his deep knowledge of the Chiapas reality, we spoke about the increasing development of tourism in the State and its various implications.

Karolina Caicedo Flórez: What have been the most common strategies of the Mexican government for developing tourist projects in Chiapas?

Hermann Bellinghausen: The first problem for the state, when they want to develop tourist projects, or any type of abusive use of space, is the dispossession of the lands. All the major resorts of Mexico started with dispossession. This is how Huatulco was made. And here it is the same. Chiapas has become popular as a tourist attraction because it has the most striking natural areas in Mexico; it is a place where water is plentiful, full of incredible rivers, landscapes, waterfalls, and great natural wealth. It is on these places where government pressure focuses to develop tourist projects. Furthermore, in the case of  Chiapas, the tourism hook is guaranteed because there is an attractive indigenous culture, there are handicrafts, countryside …. But in Chiapas [tourism] is the spearhead for something else, the real goal in Chiapas is not tourism, but the alienation of territory.

The problem is that these projects have met with the obstacle of the autonomous communities, in total resistance, or simply with organized communities. These have prevented the construction of the road to Palenque, an ambitious highway project which runs through all the traditional territory of the Tzeltal people.

Today the government of Chiapas has a deliberate policy of fostering tourism because it is a source of foreign currency earnings, but I think that this has a limit, there is a finite size for tourism. But if the result is that people lose control of their land, and this meansmaking way for mining, for hydroelectric schemes, for highways, now that is nothing to do with tourism.

Tourist projects are sold as being financially attractive for the inhabitants of these places, and they are told that they will have a job, they will receive income, but what we know is that they become employees or servants of tourism. They go from being the masters of their land to being bartenders, waiters, or slaves; once the owners of the area but now just employees in a place that once was theirs.

Figure 1 Palenque, photo by Javier Hidalgo

Of course the government carries out projects which apparently benefit people, cooperatives are created such as Agua Azul for example, or Las Guacamayas in the Lacandón Jungle, where it has been possible to have the luxury of making an indigenous group the beneficiaries. They do not even need an outside company, if the interest is greater than that, it can allow for a privileged group to become the beneficiaries of the business directly.

The most obvious case is that of Agua Azul. They have a cooperative, an ecotourist ejido, which is a very rare phenomenon, I don’t know of another. In Agua Azul the population has benefited greatly, they are wealthy, and doing well. But they are counterinsurgents, because they are surrounded by the conflict taking place in Chiapas, and they are the allies of the government against the other communities. We see it in the case of San Sebastián Bachajón, Bolom Ajaw, and other communities around the waterfalls, who are all Zapatistas. There are others which are not spoken of: San Miguel Agua Azul, and Nuevo Progreso, who are Zapatistas and who are also on the river. There the fight has been to strip the Zapatista communities of their land, and, in order to do this, to make use of the groups that are benefiting from tourism projects, who are receiving government programmes and are having visits from tourists, charging them, and receiving foreign currency.

What are the models of tourism development which have driven the Chiapas government?

They have established spa resorts in different parts of the jungle, such as Las Nubes, but they are subsidized; even Las Guacamayas, which seems to be the most successful, relies on the support of the government. Las Guacamayas is a very attractive hotel in a wonderful  spot across from the Montes Azules, next to the River Lacantún. It is like a hotel with walkways, all made of wood, like those used for adventure tourism in other parts of the continent, but subsidized by the government. Whenever television personalities visit, they take them to these places. And of course Agua Azul, because it is on the road between Palenque and San Cristobal, which is already a tourist route, and so has guarded against any claim of the indigenous peoples to exploit Agua Azul.

Now, in the Agua Azul area, a large river basin, what they want to do is to build hydroelectric schemes and dams. The Agua Azul river is just one, but there is also the Turijá river, the Bascal river, all these rivers are in the basin of the Grijalva river. And there is also the Usumacinta river basin, which is in the jungle. They have also spoken of building hydro schemes there, but these have not yet happened, which is why I think the most threatened sites are the ones near Agua Azul and Palenque, because there they have progressed with the highway and construction projects.

Coca Cola is very keen to have the water, as they were under previous governments, especially the government of Fox which was the government of Coca Cola, of which he was the director. They have great interest in the river basin. There is a lot of water in Huixtán and Coca Cola has concessions on it. Another case is Huitepec, the hill of water; Coca Cola is at the foot of Huitepec. So it happens that water is the tourist attraction, but that is only the hook for the real plans.

Chiapas is not Cancun, Chiapas is not Huatulco. Here, tourism is collateral to the real projects: mining, bio-prospecting, dams and energy. Tourism is, I repeat, the spearhead used to get hold of what really interests them, which is the natural resources, and tourism is the way to displace communities or deceive them. You offer them a tourism project, build them little cabins, create a mirage of prosperity, and what happens is they lose control of their lands.

Figure 2 Agua Azul waterfall, Karolina Caicedo Florez

Could you mention some of the impacts of tourism in Chiapas?

The impact of tourism in any traditional location is that it brings very different people, especially Europeans and Americans, to traditional areas as if they were anywhere in the world. There are then effects on the culture, and on the traditions of consumption, which have a direct impact on the indigenous population of Chiapas, which predominates in the ​​Highlands and Jungle area. A third of the state is indigenous, and it is most attractive to tourists because of its natural resources and because of the items sold by the indigenous.

San Cristóbal de las Casas is a city that has the problem that people come because there are Indians; people in San Cristóbal hate the Indians, but the tourists come to see the Indians, not the coletos. What do they sell? Crafts from Chamula or San Andrés, pictures of Indians, and visitors go to Chamula market to have the experience of an Indian village. If there were no Indians nobody would come to San Cristóbal, well, it would be a colonial town, but what gives it life is that it is truly indigenous, like Ecuador or Peru.

But I’m not sure if the cultural impact of tourism in Chiapas is so very negative, because there is a different social process here from that in other parts of the country. The Zapatista movement has been in contact with foreigners, who in another context would be tourists. Yes, Italians, French, Argentines, Basques come, but it is more about commitment, more militant, so people are more used to dealing with foreigners. San Cristóbal was also always a place for gringo anthropologists, for ethnic tourism, for taking good photos, so here they are accustomed to foreigners, and are less likely to be corrupted by them.

The tourism that comes here is not one of great economic power; in fact it is the misfortune of the coletos, who wanted rich gringos to come, that those who come are mainly backpackers, who are not grand tourism. A few years ago, when they started having inns and hostels in San Cristóbal, the hoteliers were furious because they said it was unfair competition, because they pay less tax, charge less, and because of the way tourism is here, they stopped going to the hotels which were not needed.

San Cristóbal also has much Mexican tourism, especially in the holiday seasons, because on the one hand Chiapas became fashionable, with the Zapatistas, and the soap operas, and secondly, because it is quieter than the rest of country. Nowadays it is risking your life to go to Acapulco, while in contrast you can come to San Cristóbal with your family, and it is attractive. And why is this happening in Chiapas? There are several explanations, but one is fundamental: there is the resistance of the indigenous Zapatistas, who control an area of territory, and that territory is safe: no migrants are passing through, drugs are not circulating, there is none of that illegality which has invaded the country, and there are no armed groups. There are paramilitaries, but what they want is to overthrow the Zapatistas; there is none of what is happening in the rest of the country.

Now the governments, especially all the recent and the current ones, have invented ecotourism, which is a means to justify entering the jungle and the reserves, with the idea that they will protect them. But they have endangered places like Lake Miramar, on the edge of the Montes Azules reserve, the only one of the large lakes in the jungle which is accessible, the others are inside. In principle it is a reserve, with no roads, no nothing, but Miramar can be reached by land or by air. Then they want to set up a tourist project that could do real damage, with roads, hotels, restaurants…..

Figure 3 Laguna Miramar, Karolina Caicedo Florez

What is attractive is that it is a truly virgin place, and people do not know virgin places, so they pay to go, and that is business. They come from Norway or London to see virgin territory, which is the appeal. But this makes those places no longer virgin. So, the great threat of tourism in Chiapas on the one hand is the appropriation of territory, and on the other hand is what follows after tourism.

For example, in Chiapas there are over fifty mining concessions, but they are halted. Much of the state already has concessions in the hands of mining companies who want everything, not just gold and silver, but also coltan (columbite–tantalite) and other minerals. But it so happened that they killed a leader, Mariano Abarca, and that caused a shock. And the government, wanting to look good, established a moratorium (delayed the mining projects). But when the concessions were given, they were given for a period, and I think that the miners were in no hurry for some reason, they could wait. But now I think that an offensive is underway for those concessions (from Canada, Korea, the US, including Mexico). They are going to apply pressure, and they will meet with resistance because Chiapas is a state where there is a lot of resistance: against the electricity tariffs, against Plan Puebla Panama ….. as well as the autonomous Zapatista resistance.

So returning to the idea of ​​tourism, in many places this it is the way to break the resistance. If they develop tourism projects people will lower their guard, and they will be able to advance. If what they want is to build a dam they will have to displace people, or at least take away their power over their territory. I believe that this is the great danger of tourism, especially ecotourism, because to develop subsequent projects, first they have to get rid of the population, who are not only the rightful owners, but are also the guardians of the land.

Could you give some concrete examples so we can understand why the development of tourism in Chiapas is also a counterinsurgency strategy?

Counterinsurgency aims to defeat the Zapatistas, but also to undermine their prestige. Some years ago the people realized that the Zapatistas have achieved things, so that what they want is to avoid contagion, to prevent people from discovering that they can have a good education system, or that they can have a good clinic, without government money. For example, the Zapatista healthcare system is the cheapest in Mexico, it is effective because it has the idea of ​​prevention, which is the logical idea of ​​medicine, what happens is that institutional and commercial medicine is dominated by pharmaceutical companies, which have to sell their merchandise. So prevention is no use to them: it is very cheap but does not sell their drugs. The Zapatista communities have developed clinics, and the result is that the women are boiling the water, are being monitored when they are pregnant, are vaccinating the children….. what is called preventive medicine. So what counterinsurgency seeks is to prevent people from getting infected, discovering that they can do things differently, to prevent this, to make things costly. So, if they are not very committed to the struggle, they  easily fall victim to anything else.

So I think the goal is to prevent people gaining control over their lives, and their government, and tourism is very attractive because it seems harmless, it puts them apparently in a party situation and what tourism is going to do is to encourage people to leave the countryside, that’s the other goal, to stop being campesinos and to become waiters, because capitalism wants there to be no more campesinos, so it all goes together; you cannot isolate things.

What are the tourist projects that threaten the Zapatista communities? Where does the money come from? What kind of projects are they?

Agua Azul has been a spa for fifty years. The project has been becoming increasingly successful and the community of Agua Azul is very prosperous; now they are no longer campesinos, because they are living from tourism: they are waiters, cooks, entertainers, drivers, tourism agents, which is not bad in itself, all work is worthwhile. But it has irradiated everything surrounding it, which also has tourist value, because it is not the only place which has waterfalls, but the other places are in the hands of campesinos who are not interested in handing them over to tourism, and most of them are Zapatistas or are in resistance.

Agua Clara is a different case, it is a more advanced spa. Agua Clara was a spa before, it was abandoned by the owner and the government established some tourism projects there, with their usual disdain. They did not attach much importance to the projects and put them in the hands of the PRI, the ruling party, and left them to it. Then the Zapatistas, who were also in that place, decided to recuperate the resort because it had been abandoned, and now it is the first Zapatista spa. Not that the Zapatistas have invested in tourism, what they are doing is taking care of the place, they are conducting true ecological tourism, without capitalist investment. The Zapatistas who are there are a bulwark against the privatization of the place.

Figure 4Tourists in San Cristobal de las Casas

What is the position of the Zapatistas as regards these tourist projects? Do they have the same position on all types of tourism or do they have different positions depending on the method of tourism?

They have not talked about it explicitly, but one can see the examples we have been speaking about. Agua Clara is an area of land which is no use for anything else, it is a very wide river bend, with flat areas, so they decided that it would be suitable for tourists. So you can say that there is a minimum of work for tourism, but that the result is the protection of the place; this is how ecotourism sells itself, but in this Zapatista case it is true. But neither do the Zapatistas have a theory or policy for tourism. That is, within a few kilometres there is a place where they oppose tourism and another place where they practice it.

Elsewhere, at the Misol Há waterfall, different groups converge, among them Zapatistas, and there has been an unusual agreement: the Zapatistas and non-Zapatistas have agreed to have a toll booth. But these are very specific cases. Tourism is not a Zapatista issue, either for or against, unless it threatens territories, when they are against it, as for example, in Montes Azules.

The Zapatistas resistance is not against tourism, neither for this nor against that, their resistance is in defence of territory. And the concept of tourism is not a Zapatista one, because it implies a capitalist mentality. Some might say, well, that those who go to the caracoles are tourists, especially Oventik, many arrive like tourists in Oventik, they take a taxi in San Cristobal, go to Oventik and say, I want to know about the Zapatistas, in the same way as they say I want to know about the pyramids, but it is the only place where this happens. There it is possible to talk about a degree of Zapatista tourism, and it is OK, because tourists can have a real experience, if they want to see an autonomous school, a good government junta, there it is, and here they are invited to buy crafts and leave currency. But that is not to say that it is a tourist attraction, but rather that there are people who want to know about it and if it means a minimal outlay of currency it is not wrong, if they want to buy crafts, amber …

So, considering these statements you’ve made, do you think that the now often-used category, “zapaturismo”, is contradictory?

Well, that is a joke, and it isn’t new. A few years ago they created the “Zapatour”, which consisted of people coming for revolutionary sightseeing. But that was not invented in Mexico either, there has always been revolutionary tourism, people coming to have revolutionary experiences. But in the case of the Zapatistas it is less now, because the communities have closed a lot. This experience had an especial value, because while there was movement of foreigners the army could not attack. The presence of gringos, even if they were idiots, was a shield, so it was not encouraging tourism, but visitors were welcome because while there were groups of foreigners present, it was difficult for the army to attack.

Now it does not seem possible, but ten years ago there was an emergency every day in the Zapatista communities, so much happened. So to have a family or a group of French people there, they were a shield. In fact many foreign people came as a shield, and maybe they were sunbathing in the jungle, but they were giving protection, so it made sense, and the Zapatistas never thought of it as tourism.

Do you think that modest ecological tourism projects promoted by the communities themselves, as in the case of Lake Miramar, can be an alternative to the mega resorts that are being implemented in Chiapas?

I am not sure that what is happening at Miramar is that innocent, it relies on outsiders. I find it hard to know what can be done in Chiapas, because there is an insurgency, but I can speak of other communities, in other parts of Latin America, such as Ecuador, where communities which have already achieved sovereignty over their territory, and are maintaining their way of life and their ways of farming and forestry, can have tourist projects under their own control. Even the little planes that take tourists from the city to the tourist attraction, are theirs. And there are even luxury tourist resorts, I do not like them, but they are in the hands of communities. I have not seen this in Mexico, but as there are projects which are aimed at making them submit, not freeing them, I distrust the arrival of tourist projects.

Jan de Vos, the historian of the Lacandón Jungle, in one of his last essays speaks very favourably of tourism, which he believed to be a way to stop the destruction of the rainforest. But I believe that he was wrong, and this is where I differ with him, in his optimism about the role of the state, because he believes that the state can be the agent to enable this to happen, and I think that there is always dispossession behind their actions. There is a current of opinion in favour of beneficial tourism but I, in the context of Chiapas, do not see  much future in it, not beyond what there currently is, I do not believe that communities need to develop tourism projects, if people want to go to see the river they can go and see it, but it is not necessary to build a hotel, and the hotel’s economic profit is not comparable with the cost of maintenance, and as they have to leave their rural work, it means it is not a business for them, it is a business for others.

The government is willing to subsidize such projects in order to weaken the community, and of course, it promotes an image, but not a business. Las Guacamayas is not a business, it’s a nice project, successful, but only because it is subsidized and cheap, nor is it that expensive to subsidize a hotel in the jungle and pay the indigenous, but what it achieves is that people stop being what they were.

To finish, do you think that the dynamics and impact of tourism in Chiapas have been given sufficient importance, or do you think it has been something marginal?

Not enough, because there is much conformity in what outsiders see of Chiapas. Other than from the areas of resistance, there is no critical view from here, whether environmental, or political. Criticism has not been sufficient and it has not been clear. The Zapatistas did not rise up in arms against tourism, but against the system, against the state, against capitalism, and if tourism is a collateral symptom of capitalism, it is one which could have other non-capitalist options. But the problem is not tourism, the problem is land ownership, sovereignty and self-determination.

If tourism is operated within the self-determination of peoples, after they have already obtained their sovereignty, well and good, but it is not the path to self-sufficiency or anything else, which is the government fallacy that says “set up your tourist project and things will be better for you”; no, first let them free themselves, and then they can have have tourist projects or whatever they want, but once they are free and deciding for themselves what is done with the land where they live. On the contrary, tourism prevents this from happening, because it changes the vocation of the space and the people; the river now will no longer be for fishing but for white people to swim in, and the work of the people who live in the territory will not be to sow corn but to serve beer; when this happens the counterinsurgency advances. I say again, here there is counterinsurgency because there is insurgency.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

Palabra del Ejido ch’ol Tila adherentes a la Sexta

A la comisión Sexta del EZLN

Al Congreso Nacional Indígena CNI

A la Junta de Buen Gobierno Caracol V.

A las y los adherentes de la Sexta Declaración de la Selva Lacandona

A las organizaciones y personas que luchan por dignidad y justicia

A las personas honestas quienes pueda llegar este mensaje

A los medios de comunicación indendientes y tradicionales

Queremos informarles que la discusion en la Suprema Corte sobre nuestro caso esta con el numero 1 del orden de la lista, y sera mañana lunes 1 de abril. Hemos tenido una larga espera para nosotros y nosotras como cientos de  familias ejidatarias del Ejido Tila para esta decisión sobre nuestras tierras que llevamos defendiendo de estas instancias del gobierno desde 1966 y hasta hoy que seguimos luchando. Se discutirá sobre nuestro amparo ganado en 2008 contra el Decreto 72 y el fraccionamiento de tierras ejidales que han hecho con ese decreto en sus manos.

Porque se va a ver si es la ley, la historia, la razon y los derechos de los pueblos indígenas lo que guia la decisión de la Suprema Corte o es la falsa información que han sembrado el Ayuntamiento y Gobierno del Estado para no cumplir la sentencia de restitución que es que si nos entregan las tierras destruiremos construcciones en el poblado de Tila.

Queremos DENUNCIAR PUBLICAMENTE que el Ayuntamiento Municipal que está apoyado por el Gobierno del Estado están provocando y hostigando en el poblado de Tila para hacernos caer en violencia que es una trampa para hacer violencia y la Suprema Corte decida no restituir a regimen ejidal todos los robos de tierra que han hecho por sus mentiras y falsedades que han ido a contar ahí para que les sea favorable a ellos la resolución o que se sigan poniendo obstáculos para que no se respete nuestro derecho como ejido y como Pueblo indígena.

La situación en el pueblo de Tila en estos días:

En su casa del comisariado ejidal han llegado personales de la policía sectorial estatal con miembros del ayuntamiento haciendo rondines en la calle para ver si se encuentra el comisariado y la siguiente vez fue con personales de la policía judicial portando videocámaras haciendo saber a la gente que el comisariado está siendo intimidado. Esto pasó a inicios del mes de marzo cuando el ejido mandó una comisión a Mexico esperando sobre el resultado y que salieron noticias sobre nuestro caso.

Este viernes 29 de marzo que fue antier entro la policia sectorial estatal por la calle por donde vive el comisariado ejidal y se detienen enfrente de su casa y quedan viendo la casa del comisariado. En la noche los vieron llegando la policia municipal atras de casa apagaron sus luces de la camioneta y se quedaron en la oscuridad, ya como 10 o las 11 encendieron sus luces pero enfocando en su casa del camisariado y luego se fueron.

La policía  pasa en altas horas de la noche para intimidar. Hace sus rondines en la calle. Las 10, 11, 12 de la noche se encapuchan. Andan en las camionetas de Municipales y Sectoriales gente de Paz y Justicia de la zona baja, la gente ya los tiene identificados. También está entrando la gente de la Procuradura General de Justicia del Estado. Las policias estatales entran pero en las camionetas de la policia municipal para esconderse pero se reconocen por sus uniformes.

También es de gravedad que el ayuntamiento estan entrando puros paramilitares porque el propio presidente municipal los esta reclutando. Ha buscado exsoldados para tenerlos en sus ordenes. Por eso esta pasando bien grave en comunidad autonoma del EZLN comandante Abel porque son mismas autoridades municipales quienes planean atacarlos. También están vigilando casas de ejidatarios y han entrado en casas habitaciones de personas ejidatarias del ejido sin permiso. No hay paz en el pueblo de Tila sino que estan comenzando las violencias y mostrarse la gente agresiva como en el periodo de tantas masacres por Paz y Justicia.

El sabado pasado 23 de marzo quisieron enfrentar un grupo de puesteros que son organizados por el Ayuntamiento con la comision de fomento del Ejido. Cada año en fiestas la comisión de Fomento sale a medir las calles para dar los espacios. Se juntaron esa gente que vieron que venia la comision de fomento agrario acompañados por el Consejo de Vigilancia. Cuando empezaron a medir un lugar no los dejaron diciendoles que porque tenian que llegar personas del ejido que no quieren que midan porque el lugar no es de la asamblea sino del ayuntamiento cuando es la asamblea la maxima autoridad. Entonces la comision vieron que los puesteros querian sacar palos y machetes y mejor se retiraron para no generar un enfrentamiento. El ayuntamiento le dio que firmaran un documento para solicitar la entrada de las policias estatales a ese grupo de puesteros ambulantes.

Hacemos publico este INFORME SOBRE EL AYUNTAMIENTO MUNICIPAL y su violencia y despojos por años para que se vea quienes son la otra parte que llega en la suprema corte para que no nos restituyan tierras y seguir haciendo toda su delincuencia:

Contamos en este periodo 2013-2015 que estamos ahorita; Segundo periodo de C. Limber  Gregorio Gutiérrez, para lograr este su segundo periodo sus componentes en el transcurso electoral, hubo mucho hostigamiento por parte de sus dirigentes que son Paz y Justicia que coordinan grupos paramilitares. Para hostigar  a la gente, estuvieron disparando armas de fuego en la plena población y hirieron a una persona perteneciente al (PRI).

Cuando fueron las elecciones subia gente de la zona baja que son paz y justicia porque estaba habiendo conflictos entre ellos partidistas por peleas. Por eso volvieron a tener presencia en el pueblo los de paz y juticia. Mucha gente lo vio que venian en carro de 3 toneladas lleno de la zona baja. Venian vestidos de civil pero con mucho coraje para intimidar a la gente. Esto fue cuando se hicieron las votaciones en julio del año pasado de 2012.

Fue en las fechas de 8 de noviembre donde policias municipales arribaron a sus acahuales de comisariado ejidal y los fueron a buscar pero se logro esconder. El estaba en su milpa y lo estuvieron buscando. Son policías municipales. Esto fue porque se  había realizado la marcha caravana a Mexico en agosto y estabamos por realizar la marcha por aniversario de la Revoluión de Tierra y Libertad.

El Ayuntamiento sigue promocionando que en el pueblo es fundo legal porque le dicen a la gente que si quiere comprar casa que hay lugar para hacer casa y construir sus viviendo controlado por el municipio que para hacer progreso. Se han estado organizando con paz y justicia diciendo a la gente que no queremos fundo legal.

En el periodo 2010-2011; Una vez que salio el C. Limber Gregorio porque termino su primer periodo puso a su esposa Sandra Luz Cruz Espinoza y ella siguio con el engaño de que el ejido les pertenece a la presidencia y mando poner dos letreros en las entrada de Tila sin consentiemiento de la asamblea. También mando a poner medidores de agua diciendo que ellos construyeron la obra pero esa obra es pago de daños al ejido causado el Ayutnamiento por destruir la antigua presidencia tradicional sin permiso. Le ganamos amparo 723/2000 y tuvieron que firmar convenio para pagar con construcción de obra de agua para todo el pueblo y una nueva casa ejidal por los daños y perjuicios cometidos.

En el periodo 2008-2010, el presidente municipal primer periodo de C. Limber Gregorio Gutiérrrez por ser concuño del que estuvo antes Juan José Diaz Solorzano. Para ganar su campaña intimido mucha gente para qe votaran por el. Compro un terreno sin consentimiento de la asamblea y comenzaron a hacer destrozos entonces el Ejido se amparo y gano y tuvieron que regresarlo el terreno pero amenazaron mucho con ordenes de aprension. En este tiempo ganamos el amparo y comenzamos a hacer movilizaciones de miles de familias de ejidatarios. Ahi empezaron las policías en altas horas de la noche, y tambien policias estatales, todo para intimidar a los ejidatarios y ejidatarias se encapuchan para no reconocer la cara portando armas de fuego y haciendo tiros al aire en las orillas del pueblo.

También estuvo registrando catastros en el registro publico de la propiedad. Fue en ese tiempo donde fueron engañados muchos de que si habia fundo legal y que compraran tierras y que habia registro de tierras en el registro publico de la propiedad.

2005-2007; periodo del C. Juan José Díaz Solórzano. El 14 de febrero del 2005 entro la sectorial a las 2:00 de la mañana haciendo desalojo y haciendo detenciones en casas de ejidatarios y se llevaron a una persona anciana la edad de 80 años y se le dio libertad en ese mismo día adelante de Salto de Agua todo mal herido. El siguiente dia  15 de febrero a las 2 de la tarde entro 2 helicópteros y 20 comboys  de sectorial tirando bombas lacrimógenos, intimidando a muchas personas, somatándoles las puertas y muchas familias huyeron en los montes y murieron dos recién nacidos por el gas lacrimógeno. Al momento que entro la sectorial a bombardear al pueblo con gas lacrimógeno estaba coordinado con los de paz y justicia y son ellos los que iban mostrando las casas donde se encontraban tales personas. Fue asi que agarraron a muchas personas del pueblo y detuveron injustamente.

Encarcelaron a 49 personas que no estaban involucradas, más bien iban de compras por necesidades alimenticias y fueron llevadas a la cárcel de Tuxtla Gutiérrez Chiapas, todo por una imposición de un presidente municipal llamado Juan José Díaz Solórzano y muchas familia quedaron traumados por los problemas del ayuntamiento que ha generado  en los últimos años cantidades de discriminación y sobre todo a los derechos humanos.

Perido 2002-2004; El presidente C. Jesús Méndez Gutiérrez, hizo su proyecto de fundo legal y con engaños lo hizo firmar a un ejidatario pero sin consentimiento de la asamblea. Ahi hubo despojo de tierras porque siguio registrando solares en el registro publico de la propiedad promocionando que Tila es fundo legal y que habia derecho a la compra y venta de tierras.

Periodo 1999-2001. Periodo del C. Carlos Torres López. En aquel entonces la seguridad pública mato a golpes a un campesino de la comunidad jolnopa Guadalupe en la salida de tila. Viendo el´pueblo protestaron la salida de la seguridad pública y el ayuntamiento. Mucha gente llegó en el pueblo y tomaron la presidencia. El Ayuntamiento convocó a Paz y Justicia y subieron de la zona baja esos paramilitares al pueblo tiraron balas al aire, golpearon gentes, machetearon puestos, entraron a robar en casas de ejidatarios del pueblo. Mucha gente huyeron en el monte. Después de eso el Ayuntamiento acusó a varias persona campesinas del ejido de  saqueo de la presidencia municipal y se dicto 29 órdenes de aprensión injustamente.

En 1999 destruyen construcción antigua de Autoridad Muncipal sin permiso de la asamblea. Viendo que lo habia tumbado se hizo asamblea y se demanda y se gana amparo 723/2000  y entonces se comprometio a pagar daños y perjuidicios que fue de realizar obras de agua potable para todo el pueblo de Tila y construcción de casa ejidal pero no lo hizo sino que quedo pendiente. Entonces construyó una nueva instalaciones del ayuntamiento sin informar a la asambla. Agarró sin permiso el terreno donde se hacia el teatro del pueblo y construyo la nueva presinedncia municipal.

El ayuntamiento municipal de periodo 1996-1998, su periodo del C. Carlos López Martínez en este tiempo fue cuando les dieron armas a paz y justicia y fue cuando hubo tanta masacre en la zona baja de tila. Fue cuando esa gente subia y golpeaban puestos casas, hacian muchos desastres porque estaban organizados por el gobierno federal y los manejaban.

En ese periodo acusaron y detuvieron a un ejidatario Patronato de Agua de cortar manguera y golpearon mucha gente que se oponía a su detencion. El ayuntamiento utilizo a un avecindado para que lo culpara y denunciara falsamente  pero como luego salio que el ayuntamiento habia pagado por ese falso testigo el compañero ejidatario salio.

En periodo de 1992- 1995; estuvo el C. Jesus Artemio Decelis Guillen, quien es hermano del que es secretario municipal actualmente y esta muy metido en varios periodos en Ayuntamiento. En este periodo el Ayuntamiento municipal con engaño agarró un terreno de hectárea y media y en una parte cometió daños y perjuicios, tumbo matas de café y entre otras siembras sin consentimiento de la asamblea. La autoridad ejidal convoco una asamblea general extraordinaria se discutió en uno de los  puntos principales del problema suscitado, un campesino procedente de la comunidad Mariscal Subicusqui lo insulto al presidente municipal. Ya terminada la asamblea el presidente lo buscó en el camino y lo mato con un arma de fuego y no fue castigado por el crimen cometido. Esto fue en febrero de 1994. Dejó el cargo y se huyó. Una vez huido la gente del partido PRD tomaron la instalaciones del ayuntamiento. Hicieron plantones. Y una vez que vieron que habia bastante gente el Ayuntamiento convoco los dirgentes de paz y justicia porque antes no se conocian y con esta accion se dieron a conocer como paramiliates de la zona baja que fueron convocado para hacer enfrentamiento. Se disperso la gente.

En 1993 este periodo quitaron el terreno del campo que se llama de futbol sin consentimiento de la asamblea. Metio tractor y construyo un auditorio muncipal. En ese campo se hacia la danza tradicional del carnaval y los bailes de las fiestas patronales. Ahi llegaban a hacer bailables.

Periodo de 1989-1991, presidete municipal C Arturo Sanchez Sanchez exigió a todos los ejidatarios a revisar su solar pero con policias armados. Donde habia terrenos los agrarraba y metia a otra gente que no era del pueblo. Primero hacian negocio en el ayuntamiento y salian con sus policias. Se exigieron con amenazas y violencia a muchas familias de ejidatarios del pueblo de que sacaran sus registros de catastros para meterlos en el registro publico de la propiedad. Ese presidente era muy violento. Fue en ese tiempo que quitó el casino del pueblo que era el lugar donde se hacian las asambleas del ejido y las fiestas tradicionales. Lo quito porque habia pedido la llave al ejido y ya no lo regreso y le metio otro tipo de llave, cambiola chapa y metio a su guardia y ya no dejaban entrar a nadie.

En el periodo de 1983-1985; el presidente municipal el C. Abraham Gutiérrez López, metió nueva brecha  de carretera afectando aproximadamente 15 hectareas de compañeros ejidatarios quedando el terreno sumamente  en pésimas condiciones. Habiendo carretera con brecha y metió otra brecha afectando en su totalidad los cultivos de café, maíz y entre otras, sin su consentimiento de la asamblea. La gente protesto pero no le hicieron caso.

En periodo de 1977-1979; se dicto 27 órdenes de aprensión fueron cateados en sus hogares dos compañeros ejidatarios por defender sus tierras, ordenadora la presidenta municipal América Pinto Gutiérrez, en su segundo periodo de la presidencia municipal. Porque estaban defendiendo sus casas porque el ayuntamiento estaba adjudicando sitios de vivienda de ejidatarios a otra gente y haciendo despojos de tierra de los campesinos sin permiso de los dueños y de la asamblema. Luego la gente se entero de que el ayuntmiento estaba solicitante del FUNDO legal y el decreto de Gobernador, La gente protestó y la sacaron del cargo y entró un consejo municipal.

En 1971-1973 la presidenta municipal ordeno quemar diez casas de familias campesinas es decir ejidatarios y fueron embodegadas  sus pertenencias dos años en la comandancia. Esto para construir sin permiso de la Asamblea -Escuela primaria del Estado Angel Albino Corzo.

Compañeros y compañeras y hermanos y hermanas: Vean quienes son y que han hecho el Ayuntamiento que son la parte contraria contra quienes nos defendemos del despojo y quienes también llegan en la Suprema Corte para que les den la razón pero no la tienen. Ellos promueven la violencia y la discrimación en contra de nosotros como Pueblo indígena.

Pero nosotros seguiremos en defensa de nuestra tierra y territorio como hombres, mujeres, ancianas ancianos y niños porque es un ejemplo para muchos Pueblos de que unidos como personas, colectivos, organizaciones, pueblos, tribus se puede lograr a que se respete nuestros derechos.

En nuestra parte esta la ley, la razón, la historia y nuestro derecho como ejido y como pueblo indígena. Lo miren que es lo que tienen ellos en su lado que es solo violencia, mentira, falsedad, son una mafia de malos gobernantes.

No más despojos. Ya no mas a la intimidación, a la discriminación y que viva la resistencia de los pueblos y la resistencia del pueblo ch’ol que lucha por una justicia verdadera. NUNCA MAS UN TILA, CHIAPAS Y MEXICO SIN NOSOTROS COMO PUEBLOS INDIGENAS. RESPETO.

Atentamente

Tierra y Libertad

Ejido Tila Chiapas

Organos de representación ejidal

Presidente del Comisariado Ejidal          Presidente de Consejo de Vigilancia

Sorry, this entry is only available in Español. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nNdfIBylryo

A 27 de marzo de 2013, San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.

A la Otra Campaña
A la Sexta Declaracion de la Selva Lancandona.
Al Congreso Nacional Indigena
A los Centros de Derechos Humanos Honestos e Independientes
A los medios de Comunicacion
A la sociedad Civil Nacional e Internacional
A los pueblos creyentes
A la opinión publica.

Hermanas y hermanos esta es nuestra palabra sencilla y humilde.

Nosotros hombres, mujeres y niñas  desplazados del paraje Banavil, municipio de Tenejapa, Chiapas, Mexico, somo simpatizantes del EZLN fuimos desplazados 13 personas desde el 04 de diciembre de 2011, durante este tiempo hasta la fecha estamos exigiendo justicia y que  ejecuten la orden de aprension contra las 11 personas que son las que estan acusados de homicidio de Alonso Lopez Luna y de las lesiones de Lorenzo Lopez Giron hasta el momento las autoridades no lo quieren ejecutar las ordenes de aprension.

Nosotros los desplazados nos hemos enfermado mucho, pero mas las mujeres y las niñas se enferman de tos, gripa y calentura y no han recibido atencion medica porque no tenemos dinero para comprar medicamentos y tampoco el gobierno nos da atencion medica, no tenemos ningún apoyo. Y nuestro alimento no nos al cansa para comer no tenemos servicio de agua cuando encontramos agua lo guardamos en botes, estamos tristes por nuestra situación porque  además no encontramos trabajo, También hace poco nos enteramos que nuestras tierras, que esta en el ejido de Santa Rosa en el mismo municipio de aproximadamente cinco hectareas y media, los priistas lo invadieron y los tienen posesionados una parte los estan parcelando para repartirse entre los agresores priistas, el que ordena estas posesiones son estos lideres. Agustin Mendez Luna, Pedro Mendez Lopez, Alonso Lopez Ramirez y Agustin Guzman Mendez. Una parte de nuestras tierras lo vendieron estos agresores hasta la fecha nos sabemos con quienes lo vendieron pero si sabemos que son dos hectareas  tres cuartos que ya estan vendidas y que el comprador ya esta haciendo su milpa en nuestras tierras.

El 8 de marzo, tuvimos una reunion con el Juez Propietario Joaquin Intzin Lopez en la fiscalia indigena junto con el Licenciado Lesther Gutierrez Duran, para pedir que nos den seguridad y entrar a sacar nuestras cosas como, maiz, chicharo, avas, ropa, machete, azadon , hacha, son cosas que necesitamos para sobrevivir. Pero el juez dijo que no podia decidir, que solo esta trabajando por su sueldo y que  recibe ordenes del presidente municipal de Tenejapa que se llama Esteban Guzman Jimenez, ese dia nos dijo que no se queria meter en este problema, pero que se ha reunido con el grupo priista agresor.  Por telefono le dijo al licenciado Lester que ya no hay maiz en nuestra casa, pero Lester es testigo que si quedo dejamos maiz dentro de nuestras casa. En varias ocasiones hemos acudido al mesa seis que esta en la fiscalia indigena para solicitar copias de la averiguacion previa pero no nos quieren dar, siempre cuando vamos nos salen preguntando para que nos va servir las copias, que si somos licenciados para checar y ver, que porque nosotros no tenemos derecho de pedir las copias, ni siquiera nos dan información de como se encuentran las averiguaciones previas tampoco vemos avances de parte de la mesa seis de la fiscalia indigena, solo nos dicen que estan trabajando mandando escritos, y cuando pedimos que nos de copias nos dicen que no. Que tienen firmado un acta de acuerdo el fiscal, el director y el sub director de averiguaciones previas de la fiscalia indigena para que no nos den ningun documento. Sabemos que Pedro Mendez Lopez y Manuel Mendez Lopez trabajan en la presidencia municipal de Tenejapa, estas dos personas son los que mataron a mi padre Alonso Lopez Luna hasta fecha sigue desaparecido y estas dos personas tienen orden de aprension y no la ejecutan las autoridades. El dia lunes 18 de marzo de este año los agresores priistas amenazaron a Francisco Santiz Lopez en devolverlo a la carcel por cien años mas y que también a Lorenzo Lopez Giron.  En el paraje de banavil estan reuniendo cinco mil pesos por cada persona, para venir  a comprar a los de la fiscalia para que nos busquen mas delitos, sabemos que en el ejido mercedez juntaron 25 mil pesos y Alonso Lopez Mendez vino a dejar en el paraje banavil para comprar a los de la fiscalía indígena.

Por ultimo denunciamos estos hechos y exigimos al señor gobernador Manuel Velasco Coello y el señor Enrique Peña Nieto, que resuelva nuestro problema, exigimos nuestras cosas, nuestras tierras y casas.

¡¡CASTIGO POR LOS ASESINOS!!
¡¡PRESENTACION EN VIDA DE MI PADRE ALONSO LOPEZ LUNA!!

ATENTAMENTE LOS DESPLAZADOS DE BANAVIL

LORENZO LOPEZ GIRON

MIGUEL LOPEZ GIRON

PETRONA LOPEZ GIRON

ANITA LOPEZ GIRON

ANTONIA GIRON LOPEZ

MARIA MENDEZ LOPEZ

PETRONA MENDEZ LOPEZ

The Alberto Patishtán Case

____________________________

The Simojovel Massacre

Chronicle of an (almost) forgotten police massacre

** Seven uniformed (police) were ambushed and killed on June 12, 2000

** The EPR, paramilitaries and Zapatistas were accused

** A week later, Alberto Patishtán, a teacher, was detained

** The PGJE also blamed an indigenous man, Salvador López

By: Hermann Bellinghausen

San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, March 22, 2013

The notoriety gained by Alberto Patishtán Gómez’ struggle to attain his freedom has prevented the crime that led to his personal misfortune of spending 12 years in prison (and with 48 more still to serve, according to his sentence) from being forgotten, which is certainly contrary to the wishes of many authorities, at least the state ones, from 2000 to the present, including four governors, literally from every party. What happened on the morning of June 12, 2000 in Las Lagunas de Las Limas, Simojovel? What could be the motive of the perpetrators? What was going on there in those days?

The murder of seven police –the state commander Francisco Pérez Morales, five officers under his command, and the El Bosque municipal commander, Alejandro Pérez Cruz – represented an act of enormous gravity. Today perhaps we have become accustomed to that level of news, but back then, even for the militarized and para-militarized Chiapas, it was extraordinary. It of course occupied all the newspaper headlines the next day.

Three weeks later, the elections would be held in which the PRI would lose the Presidency, and in August the governorship. President Ernesto Zedillo, historically and personally involved with the development of the war against the indigenous of Chiapas, in general, and of those from El Bosque, in particular, was ready to visit the state on Tuesday, the 13th, to inaugurate a highway in the Lacandón Jungle, but suspended his tour. The PRI candidate for governor, Sami David, did the same. The federal Army sent hundreds of soldiers, occupied the place of the ambush, the municipal headquarters, the roads, and immediately entered the Zapatista communities. Nevertheless, the first hypothesis of the Secretary of National Defence was that it could be dealing with “a cell of the Revolutionary Popular Army (EPR, its initials in Spanish)” (La Jornada 13/06/2000), something that surprised people because not then, nor ever, did it have a presence in the zone.

That same day, the hypothesis of the Independent Centre of Farmworkers and Campesinos (CIOAC) seemed more credible, due to their historic presence in the region: they could be “paramilitaries from the Mira” (although with hindsight, the paramilitary group in El Bosque, terrifying and lethal, was known as Los Plátanos from the name of the community where they had settled, together with judicial police: it was from here that they went out on June 10, 1998, to participate in the massacre of Zapatistas in Unión Progreso. This reporter was present in Los Plátanos, months before the ambush, at a “burning for the media” of marijuana plants with the aim, which failed in the end, of blaming the EZLN).

The federal police initially talked about drug traffickers. The movement of marijuana coming from Huitiupán was no secret.

The massacre was on a Monday. The previous Saturday the Zapatistas had commemorated the second anniversary of what happened in Unión Progreso and Chavajeval and the incarceration of the autonomous authorities of San Juan de la Libertad. Diego Cadenas, then a young lawyer with Frayba, stated to La Jornada on the day of the ambush that that on June 10, when he was traveling to Unión Progreso to participate in the religious acts for the second anniversary of the 1998 massacre, at the military checkpoints at Puerto Caté and San Andrés Larráinzar the soldiers told him that: “individual rights were suspended.” This was not the case.

Two days later, a commando force of between 10 and 15 individuals, with barricades constructed and high-powered weapons, efficiently ambushed the dark green pick up coming from Simojovel, in which eight police were traveling with the official driver of the municipality of El Bosque, the younger son of the Mayor Manuel Gómez Ruiz. Gravely injured, the young Rosemberg Gómez Pérez, who was driving the vehicle with the two commanders in the cabin, and Belisario Gómez Pérez, the Public Security agent who was in the back with his compañeros from the (police) corporation, were left for dead by the attackers, and by surviving became the only eyewitnesses.

La Jornada also reported that this was “the eighth ambush” so far in the year 2000. The attacks had already left 20 dead and an equal number injured. The policemen killed in Las Lagunas were Francisco Escobar Sánchez, Rodolfo Gómez Domínguez, Guadalupe Margarito Rodríguez Félix, Arbey Vázquez Gómez and Francisco Pérez Mendoza. Two of them are still remembered today by cement crosses at the bend where they were riddled with bullets. 85 bullets from AK-47 and R-15 rifles were counted.

The EZLN distances itself and investigates

The day following the ambush, the Clandestine Indigenous Revolutionary Committee, General Command of the EZLN declared in a brief communiqué: “According to information, the attack was carried out using the tactics of drug traffickers, paramilitaries or the military. The use of the so-called ‘coup de grâce’ is recurrent in these armed groups. The attack took place in an area saturated with government troops (Army and police), where it would have been very difficult to mobilize an armed group without being detected and without the complicity of the authorities. The attacking group had inside information about movements and the number of people ambushed. This information could only be obtained by people from the government or close to it.”

The rebel commanders pointed out: “The EZLN is investigating to clarify the identity and motive of the attacking group. Everything points to those who carried out the attack being from the government (or under governmental auspices), since this would give them a pretext for increasing the militarization of Chiapas, and for justifying an attack on Zapatista communities or the EZLN. It is noteworthy that this act reinforces the climate of instability, with which the official candidate threatens [the state] if he doesn’t win.

“Open provocation or not, the violent act is already an argument for increasing military presence throughout the state, even in zones very far away from the scene of the crime,” the communiqué adds (13/6/2000), detailing that: “in the last three hours, the federal barracks at Guadalupe Tepeyac, in Las Margaritas; Cuxuljá, in Ocosingo; Caté, in El Bosque, and the municipal headquarters of Simojovel and El Bosque have been reinforced even more. Similarly, the number of armed aircraft and flyovers has increased in the Highlands (Altos), Jungle (selva) and Northern Zones.” And finally, “the EZLN disclaims itself from [responsibility for] this act and calls on public opinion not to permit deceit.”

Patishtán’s capture

Nevertheless, the state government of Roberto Albores Guillén, through their prosecutor, Eduardo Montoya Liévano, immediately fostered the hypothesis that the attackers could be Zapatistas, in alleged revenge for the massacre against them ordered by the very same Albores Guillén two years before, although he also recognized that they could be “robbers.” The convoy attacked, he said, was patrolling to “combat gangsters.”

Senator Carlos Payán Velver, a member of the Cocopa, proposed that the legislative commission travel to the state, because the situation was “grave and critical.” Deputy Gilberto López y Rivas, also a member of the Cocopa, pointed out that it had the appearance of “a provocation from the paramilitaries who were set up by the state government itself” (La Jornada 14/6/2000).

On the same date, Víctor Manuel Pérez López, leader of the CIOAC, revealed that in 1997 the Chiapas government armed and financed “dissidents of the Labour Party (Partido del Trabajo)” to fight the short-lived municipal government of this [Labour] party and the CIOAC. “Everyone in the zone knows who they are,” he said, and: “once the objective” of returning the municipal presidency to the PRI had been fulfilled, they “dedicated themselves to robbery and drug trafficking.” They act, he added, “with complete impunity, in broad daylight, even when the military and police undertake frequent patrols.”

By then, in two previous ambushes, four people had been murdered; according to the CIOAC, they were “Zapatista bases.” On January 13, on the road to Chavajeval, heavily armed masked men murdered Martín Sánchez Hernández, and later, on February 1, Rodolfo Gómez Ruiz, Lorenzo Pérez Hernández and Martín Gómez, all of them Tzotziles.

Deputies of the PRD and PAN accused the secretary of Government, Mario Lescieur Talavera, of negligence, and said that the ambush would be used as a pretext for the arrival of more members of the Federal Preventive Police. The tanks, helicopters and the federal Army’s artillery had already arrived.

The episode was ditched; damage control was urged. The government wanted to attain it, so that President Zedillo could travel to Marqués de Comillas on June 19 to inaugurate his highway. That same day, in the El Bosque municipal headquarters, the Army and the PFP captured the teacher Alberto Patishtán Gómez, without showing an arrest warrant. A group of residents, identified as PRI members, “visibly emotional” (La Jornada, 20/6/2000), requested the state Congress’ intervention, maintaining that the detainee was innocent, “they distanced themselves from the violent acts of June 12” and argued that they were not armed nor did they belong to any paramilitary group. No attention was paid to them, instead they were threatened.

Patishtán was kept for one month illegally “under house arrest” in the Safari Hotel in Tuxtla Gutiérrez. His family, friends and co-religionists occupied the town hall and demanded the teacher’s release. Not even their own party backed them up. And not only that, the then PRI deputy Ramiro Miceli Maza, friend of the mayor (municipal president), and godfather of the young Rosemberg, turned out to be key in intimidating and accusing the teacher and community leader, who ended up imprisoned in Cerro Hueco Prison.

Also on June 19, when giving his opinion on the imminent elections of July 3, 2000, Subcomandante Marcos wrote: “Meanwhile, we are trembling here. And it’s not because ‘Croquetas’ Albores has contracted Alazraki so that ‘he lifts up’ his image (probably Albores already looks for money in the promotion of dog food), not for the six hundred thousand dollars that are going to be paid him (with money originally allocated to ‘solve the conditions of poverty and marginalization of indigenous Chiapanecos,’ Zedillo dixit). Neither is it because of the barks from the ‘puppy’ Montoya Liévano (now he is more nervous because it is being discovered that his ‘boys’ –in other words, his paramilitaries– were the ones responsible for the attack on the Public Security (police) in El Bosque, last June 12). No, we are trembling because we are soaked with rain. And it’s the case that, between helicopters and storms, we can’t find a good roof.”

Now against the Zapatistas

The following July 10, after the federal elections, one month after the ambush, state police detained two EZLN support base residents of Unión Progreso in Bochil, accusing them of participating in the crime. They did this even though the Attorney General of the Republic maintained that the attackers had been a group of PRI dissidents, among them Patishtán. These accusations crossed with Mayor Manuel Gómez Pérez, who they had been attacking for months because of his scandalous corruption.

The State’s Attorney General of Justice (PGJE, its initials in Spanish) had his own lines of investigation. “Resorting to the police posted in Los Plátanos, who know about this, the authorities planted weak evidence of a crime on two indigenous men from Unión Progreso” (La Jornada, 15/7/2000). One of them, Salvador López González, was tortured and interrogated without a translator, he signed an ad hoc confession and was incarcerated. In prison he met his co-accused: Patishtán. Without even knowing each other, both were charged with all the weight of the ambush.

La Jornada reported from Unión Progreso: “The police detachment that detained the Zapatistas has had the marijuana plants in Los Plátanos in sight for a long time. The internal violence in that population centre, controlled by a known paramilitary group, has always served as a pretext for accusing and attacking the neighbouring Zapatistas. According to the representative from Unión Progreso, ‘they accuse us of what they themselves do.’ The federal Army has entered Los Plátanos to destroy these crops, the only ones detected in the area, on at least on two occasions, although without detainees.”

Salvador and his brother Manuel “were seized” on July 10. Their families stated: “The Public Security (SP, its initials in Spanish) police beat them, took off their shoes and clothes, and left Salvador unconscious.” With the detainees were a little boy (“who cried a lot”) and a teenager, who “came to advise that they had taken the compañeros away.”

As the captors were not from Bochil, but rather from El Bosque, “they rented a jail for a while.” The detainees were quickly sent to Cerro Hueco (state prison). “Those from the SP put a handful of marijuana and a handful of bullets” on them and they stole 28 boxes of soft drinks from them. Manuel would soon be released.

Exactly one month before, on June 10, hours before the police killings, the SP quartered in Los Plátanos intercepted a truck from Unión Progreso. The driver was the same Salvador. “They interrogated him about a list of names. Since then they wanted to blame the compañeros,” a representative of his community declared: “We don’t know how many are on the list. At best, we are all accused.” (Curiously, Patishtán’s fellow believers had expressed their respective fear with almost the same words when he was detained).

With two scapegoats as dissimilar as Alberto and Salvador, the case started to be “resolved,” or at least forgotten by the national media.

Originally Published in Spanish by La Jornada

Saturday, March 23, 2013

En español: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/03/23/politica/002n1pol