1. Introduction
The judgment in the Molina Theissen Case, delivered on May 23, 2018, examined events of exceptional gravity from Guatemala’s internal armed conflict. The Court convicted four defendants and acquitted Edilberto Letona Linares. This commentary focuses on the requirement to prove each defendant’s criminal responsibility individually. Evidence of a criminal context or serious events does not replace proof of the contribution, functional control or personal link required to attribute them to a specific person.
2. Background to the Molina Theissen Case
The domestic proceedings concerned the detention of Emma Guadalupe Molina Theissen in September 1981 and the disappearance of her brother Marco Antonio Molina Theissen in October 1981. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights had previously delivered its 2004 judgments in Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. The domestic criminal trial was heard by the First High-Risk Criminal Trial Court, Group C.
3. Offences charged in the proceedings
Edilberto Letona Linares was charged with crimes against the duties of humanity under Article 378 of the Criminal Code and rape with aggravating circumstances under Articles 173 and 174, as applied in the judgment. He was not charged with enforced disappearance in those proceedings.
4. The prosecution’s theory
The prosecution placed him as Second Commander of the General Manuel Lisandro Barillas Brigade or Military Zone in Quetzaltenango. Based on his office, the military structure and the established context, it sought to connect him to actions attributed to members of that command. The legal issue was whether the evidence proved that he exercised effective authority or made a functionally relevant criminal contribution.
5. The defence theory
The defence argued that the position of Second Commander did not by itself establish criminal responsibility. The office’s prescribed functions, its subordination to the Commander and the organisation of the S-2 Intelligence section prevented an automatic inference of functional command. Responsibility required specific proof of direction, decision, execution, knowledge or contribution.
6. The Court’s assessment of the evidence
The Court applied reasoned assessment rules and examined testimonial, expert and documentary evidence. It considered certifications from the Army’s General Adjutant Service, military manuals and the Army’s Constitutive Law. Although the documents established the office of Second Commander, the Court distinguished that formal fact from the evidence required to connect him to the actions of the S-2 section.
7. Grounds for the acquittal of Edilberto Letona Linares
The decisive ground was insufficient evidence of individual participation. According to the judgment, the functions of his office did not connect him to the actions of the S-2 Intelligence section, and he was subordinate to the Commander of the military zone. The Court concluded that he did not exercise functional command and that neither his participation nor his responsibility had been established. Applying in dubio pro reo and favor rei, it acquitted him and ordered his immediate release.
8. Comparison with other acquittals concerning the internal armed conflict
A cautious comparison may be drawn with the acquittal of José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez in the Ixil genocide proceedings. The files, evidence and charges differ. Their common point is not an automatic rule of acquittal, but the requirement to prove the personal link between the accused and the offence.
9. Legal significance for Guatemalan criminal law
The ruling is a useful reference for examining the prohibition on criminal responsibility based solely on office, rank or institutional membership. Attribution within an organisation requires an explanation and proof of the person’s individual contribution, effective authority and, depending on the alleged form of participation, functional control over the act.
10. Conclusions
The acquittal rested on a specific reason: the evidence did not establish that Letona Linares exercised functional command or participated in the acts attributed to him. The gravity of the context does not lower the evidentiary standard or remove the requirement of individual criminal responsibility.
11. Inproalegal’s professional participation
Attorneys Jorge Rodrigo Meoño and José Luis Alejos, founding partners of Inproalegal, were the sole lawyers responsible for Edilberto Letona Linares’s legal defence in these proceedings. They directly developed the defence strategy, presented its arguments and represented their client throughout the trial, professional work that culminated in the judgment acquitting him.