Symposium on Advancing Effective and Comprehensive Reparation for Victims of the War in Ukraine: Lessons on Victim Participation for the Reparation of Indigenous Women Victims of Sexual Violence and Other Forms of Torture in Guatemala

[Lucía Inés Xiloj Cuin is a human rights and Indigenous peoples’ rights lawyer in Guatemala. She has litigated several cases related to crimes committed during Guatemala’s internal armed conflict, including the case concerning the massacre at the Spanish Embassy and the Mujeres Achi case. She is also a member of the Red Latinoamericana de Litigio Estratégico en Género (RELEG)]

This article presents the case of the Achi women, who organized themselves to seek justice and obtain reparations for the sexual violence they suffered during Guatemala’s internal armed conflict. Despite facing numerous obstacles, in 2022 and 2025 they achieved landmark convictions in which members of paramilitary forces were found responsible for the abuses and reparation measures were ordered. To reach these rulings and secure meaningful reparations, the Achi women received psychosocial support and training in human rights. This accompaniment enabled them to remain engaged in the legal process despite the stigma directed against them, and it empowered them to reflect on, design, and request comprehensive reparation measures that genuinely addressed their needs and expectations.

To ensure the effective implementation of these measures, this case also underscores the need for the responsible institutions to have trained and sensitized personnel. Such capacity is essential to prevent revictimization, to guarantee that reparations reach those who need them promptly and without excessive bureaucratic hurdles, and to ensure that these measures genuinely contribute to rebuilding the victims’ life projects—individually, within their families, and across their communities.

This experience can help inform the mechanisms and approaches through which victims of the war in Ukraine might be repaired, as it highlights the importance of victim participation in every phase of the reparation process. For this to be possible, victims must be emotionally prepared and have knowledge of their rights.

The Pursuit of Justice for Acts of Sexual Violence Committed Against Indigenous Women

According to the Guatemala: Nunca Más Report of the Project for the Recovery of Historical Memory, during the 36 years of Guatemala’s internal armed conflict (1960–1996) there were more than 200,000 victims, including those killed and disappeared; 669 massacres; 1,464 documented acts of sexual violence against women; and more than one and a half million people forcibly displaced from their communities due to violence. The Commission for Historical Clarification (CHC) concluded that the Guatemalan Army went so far as to commit acts of genocide against Indigenous peoples and was responsible for more than 90% of the violations committed against the civilian population.

According to the CCH, sexual violence was part of the counterinsurgency and “scorched earth” strategy, used to destroy the social fabric and subjugate communities—often as a prelude to killing. Most victims were Indigenous Maya women. The CCH attributed the overwhelming majority of human rights violations, including sexual violence, to state forces and paramilitary groups. After the formal end of the war, several survivors from different regions of the country began organizing to seek justice for the abuses they had endured. In Rabinal, Baja Verapaz—one of the municipalities most severely affected by the armed conflict—a group of women (Achi Women) filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the sexual violence they had suffered.

Victim Participation and Psychosocial Support

In Guatemala, victims of human rights violations can only access judicial reparations by reporting the crimes and pursuing criminal proceedings. This requires obtaining a conviction, which then allows for the holding of a “dignified reparation” hearing, during which victims may request reparation measures that can ultimately be granted by the court.

Filing the complaints for the Achi women was not easy, as they felt fear, shame, and guilt for the sexual violence they had endured. For many years, they faced stigmatization and judgment from within their own communities. Because of this, psychosocial support for them and their families, as well as human rights training, became essential and was provided by civil society organisations.

Psychosocial accompaniment has consisted of group workshops and individual home visits where the women can speak from their own experiences, discuss what happened with their families, and come to understand that what they suffered was not their fault. Speaking out and realizing that other women had also experienced what they themselves had kept silent for so long, motivated them to bring their case before the Guatemalan justice system.

In addition, learning that sexual violence is a violation of their human rights and that laws exist to prosecute these crimes has enabled them to demand justice with confidence. Their voices have become the most important evidence sustaining the legal process.

The path toward advancing the case was filled with obstacles: the lack of adequate interpreters so they could express themselves in their mother tongue; the hostile environment of courts located many kilometers from their communities; and the stigmatization displayed by some judges and officials involved in the case. However, being emotionally prepared and knowing their rights prevented them from abandoning their goal: achieving justice.

Transformative Decisions for Victims of Sexual Violence in the Achi Case

Thanks to the coordinated efforts of civil society organizations and the leadership of the Achi women, some of those responsible were convicted more than 40 years after the crimes were committed. Importantly, these judicial proceedings also included orders for comprehensive reparations.

The Achi women’s case has resulted in the granting of comprehensive reparation measures. In 2022 and 2025, these women brought criminal proceedings against former paramilitaries, who were subsequently convicted. The first judgment (24 January 2022) ordered 12 reparation measures, while the second (30 May 2025) ordered 19.

The reparations requested by the survivors were designed and articulated by the women themselves, ensuring that they reflected their beliefs, as well as their individual and collective priorities. These measures were beyond just compensation and sought to provide a sense of meaningful reparation and to create the basic conditions necessary for them to rebuild their life projects within their families and communities.

In terms of rehabilitation, the judgments ordered the implementation of individual health plans for each victim, including psychological, psychiatric, and gynecological care tailored to their specific needs, as well as the provision of medical examinations, treatment, and medication until full recovery. The State must also cover related costs such as transportation and food to ensure access to care. In addition, a permanent and specialised programme for the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of survivors of conflict-related sexual violence was ordered, with access for the victims of the case and other women from Rabinal requiring gynecological and obstetric care. The six survivors were also to be included in a national food security programme to support their nutritional and health recovery, with a specific focus on older persons.

As measures of satisfaction, the judgments included a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility and apology for the violations committed against the Achi women, to be held in the municipal capital of Rabinal and broadcast live through official State channels. It also mandated the creation of a mural recognising the survivors’ struggle for justice in the Achi women’s case.

The judgments also included measures of restitution and guarantees of non-repetition, alongside individual compensation for the survivors. In terms of restitution, it mandated the allocation of a parcel of land suitable for housing and cultivation to each direct victim, recognising that many women had been forced to flee their communities for safety reasons and consequently lost their homes and property.

With respect to guarantees of non-repetition, the judgment required the inclusion of the history of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala’s national curriculum, drawing on the findings of the CCH and the Achi Women’s case. It also ordered specialised training for members of the State security forces on the prevention of gender-based violence, particularly sexual violence in both conflict and peacetime contexts, as well as on racism. In addition, the State was instructed to establish a public memory museum dedicated to preserving and disseminating the historical memory of the armed conflict, including the Achi Women’s case.

The Achi women were also awarded compensation as other form of reparation.

Challenges for implementation of reparation

A key challenge in the implementation of reparations is the absence of a single coordinating authority responsible for ensuring compliance with reparation measures. Given that multiple State institutions are involved in their execution, survivors are required to engage separately with each agency, resulting in significant burdens in terms of time, financial resources, and emotional labour.

As a result, victims have turned to institutions such as the Presidential Commission for Peace and Human Rights (COPADEH) to request that it assume a coordinating role. COPADEH’s mandate includes:

“advising and coordinating with Executive Branch agencies on the planning and management of human rights policies and compliance with the Peace Accords, in order to contribute to the consolidation of democracy in Guatemala.”

However, the response has been negative, as institutional representatives have indicated that their mandate does not extend to the implementation of domestic court judgments, and that they only follow up on decisions issued by international bodies.

Another structural obstacle is the lack of dedicated funding. Public institutions do not have specific budget allocations for the implementation of reparation measures, which often results in long delays, as survivors must wait for agencies to incorporate these actions into annual planning and budgeting cycles.

In addition, bureaucratic processes further hinder implementation. Institutions lack specific protocols or guidelines for complying with judgments recognising gross human rights violations. As a result, they apply general administrative procedures, placing the burden on survivors to comply with rigid requirements and formalities that are not adapted to their situation.

A further challenge lies in the lack of awareness among public officials. Many do not fully take into account that the individuals concerned have been formally recognised as victims of serious human rights violations, that they are women with significant health conditions, and that many are elderly. This often leads to a failure to prioritise their cases.

Community-based measures also face challenges when implemented without adequate prior information or engagement. In contexts of armed conflict, the social fabric of communities is deeply affected, with consequences that persist across generations. These dynamics are exacerbated when the State fails to provide adequate historical information or civic education. As a result, certain community-based reparations—particularly symbolic or satisfaction measures aimed at restoring dignity—may be met with resistance, as some community members may feel excluded or misrepresented. In this regard, public interventions must be properly informed and explained to avoid revictimisation and to clarify the scope and purpose of the measures being implemented.

These challenges can be addressed through the meaningful participation of victims in identifying and simplifying procedures that would enable institutions to implement reparation measures more effectively, as well as in designing appropriate modalities for their execution.

It is also essential to adopt legislation establishing a coordinating authority with a clear mandate to ensure compliance across State institutions, require dedicated budget lines within each public agency for the implementation of reparations, and establish binding timelines for execution.

Prior to implementation, public officials should receive adequate training to ensure that their interventions are guided by human rights, gender, and—where relevant—ethnic and intercultural approaches, particularly in cases involving Indigenous victims. Such training is essential to prevent further harm and avoid revictimisation.

Conclusion

The meaningful and informed participation of victims is essential for the design, request, and implementation of reparations that genuinely reflect their needs and priorities, and that avoid the imposition of externally designed measures by State officials.

Drawing on the experience of the Achi women’s case, which required many years to achieve a conviction –more than 40 years in this case- followed by the issuance of reparation measures, it is evident that administrative reparation mechanisms should be considered a key avenue for ensuring effective redress for victims of the armed conflict. These mechanisms should therefore be prioritised within ordinary legislation in order to reduce the burden on victims and the State in judicial proceedings. Such systems must include clear standards, comprehensive reparation measures, appropriate prioritisation criteria, and specific implementation timelines.

With respect to lessons learned from judicial reparations, while legal pathways in the context of Ukraine differ from the Guatemalan experience, and particularly in the context of Russia’s occupation where clear willingness by perpetrators to provide reparation appears to be lacking and a complex reparation system is expected to be implemented, several relevant elements can nonetheless be identified. First, empowering victims to lead reparation processes enhances the legitimacy and sustainability of both judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. Second, the articulation of specific reparation measures, including but not limited to compensation, and the designation of responsible implementing authorities enables more effective monitoring and follow-up. Finally, it is essential to promote a victim-centred approach among both authorities and practitioners as a cross-cutting principle in all reparation processes.

Photo attribution: “A yellow field with trees and a blue sky” is by “Wolfgang Hasslemann”