Last December 10, we celebrated one more Anniversary of the Human Rights Declaration, and it was also the International Day of the Indian Peoples. The celebration in Chiapas took place in the midst of many contradictions between the governmental statements and the current situation in the state. Many of us asked ourselves: why does the federal government not want to recognize the Rights of the Indian Peoples? Why does it not want to recognize Table 1 of the San Andrés Accords which it already signed with the EZLN? Why did it fail to keep its word and refuse to accept the proposal for a Law on Indigenous Rights and Culture drawn up by the COCOPA? Let us reflect on these questions, focusing on the results of the San Andrés Accords on Indigenous Rights and Culture (Table 1), Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Project of the American Declaration on the !Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Organization of American States (OAS), approved on January 26, 1997. With these reflections, we join the information campaign for the National Consultation.

The joint communiqué of January 22, 1998, of the National Intermediation Commission (CONAI), which Bishop Samuel Ruiz presided over), and the Commission of Concordance and Peace (COCOPA), made up of Federal and State Senators and Deputies from the PRI, PAN, PRD and PT parties, says: "The realization of the San Andrés Accords in matters of indigenous rights and culture, is the central point of the crisis in which the dialogue currently finds itself. Its renewal basically depends on their being carried out; thus, legislative reforms in indigenous matters should take first place in the strategy for reactivating it." For the CONAI and the COCOPA, the legislative proposal on Indigenous Rights and Culture of Table 1 of the San Andrés dialogue, made by the legislators in November, 1996, as a petition to the Parties (the EZLN and the Federal Government), is the document which they were both supposed to present to the Congress of the Union. However, t!he National Action Party (PAN), the Ecology Green Party of Mexico (PVEM) and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), together with the Executive), changed their minds concerning the proposal which they had drawn up, resulting in their being accused of negotiating with the federal government. And, in addition, the PAN presented its own legislative proposal.

President Zedillo argued that he had 27 observations concerning the COCOPA's legislative proposal on indigenous rights. Later, he reduced the number to 4, as a gesture of "good will", when, in fact, they were the same observations. In response to the EZLN's refusal to accept modifications to the original proposal, in March of 1998, the President sent his own proposal to the Congress of the Union, knowing full well that this unilateral action would definitively break off the dialogue, because the EZLN would not accept it, nor would the CONAI, nor would some of the political parties in the COCOPA, nor would many sectors of civil society. Thus, the EZLN's other condition for renewing dialogue was automatically discarded: "that the federal government make a serious proposal for Table II, Democracy and Justice".

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) stated on March 1: "By deciding to present to the H. Congress of the Union its proposal for an indigenous law - drawn up together with the COCOPA - the federal Executive is failing to carry out the San Andrés Accords in two senses: one, because the Accords note that they should be presented to the bodies of national debate in a joint manner; and the other, because the Executive's proposal does not recognize the documents signed by its representatives in San Andrés, it is based on the conception that the federal Executive has of the indigenous problem, and not on the program for a new relationship between the Indian peoples and the Mexican nation, as and how it was agreed at the dialogue table. These accords received the support of national and international civil society, of the chambers of the deputies and the senators, of the National Intermediation Commission and of the COCOPA. With its 'new' strateg!y, the Department of Government makes a mockery of everyone () The unilateral action of presenting an indigenous law project - whose approval was already agreed to by the legislators affiliated with Señor Zedillo - without the consensus of the counterpart - the EZLN and the Indian peoples - does not mean that the dialogue process was opened up. On the contrary, if it continues forward, it will collapse definitively. With this action, confidence and credibility are destroyed: it is not possible to dialogue and to negotiate in order to reach accords if there is no confidence that the parties are going to carry them out".

In the public communiqué issued by the CONAI on March 17, 1998, it stated that "the Presidential proposal departs from what was agreed to in San Andrés, and it affects the commitments assumed by the Mexican Government as a signatory of Convention 169 of the ILO", because:

1) It reduces the exercise of the Indian peoples' rights to the communities. It recognizes that "the indigenous peoples have the right to free will", but it reduces "the concrete expression of them to the autonomy of the indigenous communities". This violates the San Andrés Accords which establish "national legislation should recognize the indigenous peoples as the subjects of the rights of free determination and autonomy." It also violates the ILO Convention which attributes these rights to indigenous peoples as subjects.

2) It speaks of how the Constitution "grants" rights to the indigenous peoples, instead of simply recognizing them, as was agreed to at San Andrés. The new relationship between the State and indigenous peoples agreed to at San Andrés starts with the recognition of the pre-existence of these peoples and with the recognition of their rights in the Constitution; on the other hand, the Federal Executive refers to the granting of these rights, instead of recognizing them, as if it would be an act of the State which would create those rights.

3) It does not recognize the jurisdictional rights of the Indian peoples. The President only recognizes - which introduces a discretionary factor - that "the procedures, judgments and decisions" - of these peoples - "will be recognized", which violates the San Andrés Accords, which explicitly establishes "as a right, full access to justice () that the positive Mexican law recognizes the authorities, standards and procedures for the resolution of internal conflicts () and, through simple procedures, their judgments and decisions will be recognized by the jurisdictional authorities of the State".

4) It does not recognize the right of the Indian peoples to their territory. It omits the reference to the use and enjoyment of natural resources in reference to their lands and territories, which is explicit in the COCOPA and the San Andrés Accords texts. These establish that the Federal Government "should make effective those rights and guarantees which belong to them - such as - right to environment: the use and enjoyment of the territory in accordance with Article 13.2 of the ILO Convention".

5) It omits the mechanism established by the San Andrés Accords and Convention 169 for determining how a municipality, community, auxiliary body of a local council and related bodies, shall be defined as indigenous. The presidential text speaks only of predominately indigenous municipalities, and it omits the definitive criteria included in the COCOPA text, which violates the San Andrés Accords and the ILO Convention, which establish that "the consciousness of their indigenous identity should be considered as the fundamental criterion for determining the groups to whom the regulations" contained in these accords "should be applied". (There are two conceptions of the scope of association of municipalities: the unilateral proposal restricts it to what is already in place through Articles 9 and 115 of the Constitution, it proposes an apparent constitutional reform and, in the case of predominately indigenous municipalities, it tries to restr!ict it. The San Andrés Accords consider it as a measure for rebuilding the indigenous peoples).

6) It does not recognize, as does the COCOPA text, and as agreed at San Andrés, the indigenous communities "as entities of public law". The presidential proposal only considers the communities as part of the municipal structure; their association is restricted to economic and social aspects, a right which is already constitutionally established, not to the political nor the legal aspects. However, the San Andrés Accords (5,2 and II, 4) envision, in the free association of the communities, a means of rebuilding the indigenous peoples as "entities of public law".

7) It does not recognize the right of the Indian peoples to define "the procedures for the election of their officials". The presidential text establishes: "in municipalities with a primarily indigenous population, local legislation" - will be that which - "will establish the rules and methods for assuring the participation of the indigenous communities in the integration of the local councils ()" The COCOPA says "that in the municipalities, communities, auxiliary bodies of the local councils and related bodies () the right of their residents will be recognized to define, in accordance with the political practices of each of their traditions, the procedures for the election of their officials or representatives". This omission violates what was agreed to at San Andrés, which recognizes the right of the peoples "to freely designate their representatives, at a community level, as well as municipal government bodies, and their officials, !as indigenous peoples, in accordance with the institutions and traditions of each people".

There are other elements in the Executive's proposal which do not correspond with the letter or the spirit of the San Andrés Accords, of the COCOPA's proposal and of Convention 169 of the ILO:

8) Communications: It promotes a constitutional reform which does not alter current legislation: The Executive proposes that the indigenous communities can "Acquire, operate and administer their own communications media, under the terms established by laws in the matter" (Article 4, VII). The San Andrés Accords state (III, 8) that "it is indispensable to provide these 'peoples' with their own means of communication". For which it proposes "the drawing up of a new communications law which allows the indigenous peoples to acquire, operate and administer their own methods of communication". Convention 169 affirms that "Measures should be adopted in order to guarantee members of interested 'peoples' the possibility of acquiring an education at all levels, on at least an equal footing with the rest of the national community" (Article 26).

9) Education: the right to determine indigenous educational programs is only conceded to the Federal Executive. "The Federal executive, in 'consultation' with the indigenous communities , will define and develop educational programs with regional content" (Article 4, VII). The COCOPA proposes, in the place of "Federal executive", "The federal, state and municipal educational officials" The San Andrés Accords explains (3,5): "The state should respect the educational work of the indigenous peoples within their own cultural space"; it should allocate resources for the "educational and cultural activities which the indigenous communities and peoples determine" and allow the peoples and communities to determine their own educational programs, without mentioning their relationship with the federal authorities. The COCOPA's proposal grants this right to the "federal, state and municipal auth!orities, in consultation with the indigenous peoples". Convention 169 states that "The relevant authority should assure the training of members of these peoples and their participation in the formulation and execution of educational programs, with a view to the progressive transfer of the responsibility for the carrying out of these programs to these peoples, when there is space () In addition, the governments should recognize the right of those peoples to create their own institutions and educational means, as long as such institutions meet the minimal norms established by the competent authority in consultation with those peoples. They should be provided with appropriate resources for such an end" (Article 27).

10) Development Programs: They do not propose a new relationship between the state and the indigenous peoples. The President proposes that equality of opportunity be promoted, so that the indigenous peoples, 'through their own efforts', will have equal access to the distribution of the national wealth". This is a step backwards from Article 26 of the Constitution, which currently prevails. Convention 169 states that "measures should be adopted, with the participation and cooperation of the interested peoples, which are designed to overcome the difficulties which said peoples experience in facing new living and working conditions" (Article 5); "to establish measures for the full development of the institutions and initiatives of those peoples, and, in appropriate cases, to provide the resources necessary for that end" (Article 6); and, lastly, "the right to decide their own priorities concerning the development p!rocess, insofar as this affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual wellbeing and the lands which they occupy or utilize in any manner, and to control, insofar as possible, their own economic, social and cultural development () to participate in the formulation, application and evaluation of the plans and programs of national and regional development which can affect them directly." (Article 7).

One year ago, in November of 1997, the Mexican government presented more than 30 observations to the "Project of the American Declaration Concerning the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples" of the OAS:

11) OAS: "Reaffirming that the armed forces in indigenous areas should restrict their activities to the carrying out of their duties, and they should not be the cause of abuses or violations of the rights of the indigenous peoples". The Mexican government proposes: "To reaffirm that the armed forces in the indigenous towns and communities should guarantee and preserve order ()".

12) OAS: "Recognizing the preeminence and applicability of the States and the peoples ()". The Mexican government proposes: "eliminate the word 'peoples' (in this case, indigenous) () because the Declarations of international bodies are adopted by the States".

13) OAS: "The indigenous peoples have the right to special guarantees against discrimination ()". The Mexican government: "() it is incompatible with Article 4 of the Constitution, because it can be interpreted to discriminate against the indigenous communities".

14) OAS: "The indigenous peoples have the right to restitution in regards to the complete ownership of said patrimony from which they were dislocated, or () to indemnification on a basis not less than the standards of international law". The Mexican government: eliminate this paragraph and add: "They may participate in the administration and care of the monuments and archeological and ceremonial sites, which are State property and located on the lands of the indigenous peoples () In cases of indemnification, this should be considered under domestic laws".

15) OAS: (concerning radio and television transmissions) The Mexican government proposes to add at the end: "in accordance with the legal regulations of each State".

16) OAS: "The indigenous peoples will have the right to: a) define and apply their own educational programs, institutions and facilities; b) to prepare and apply their own teaching plans, programs, curricula and materials; and c) to educate, train and accredit their teachers and administrators ()'. The Mexican government: "The States will guarantee the indigenous peoples the right to participate ()".

17) OAS: "When sacred burial grounds and relics have been appropriated by state institutions, they should be returned". Mexican government: "When () they are the property of the State, the indigenous peoples will be able to participate in the administration and care of same".

18) OAS: "The indigenous peoples have the right to conserve, restore and protect their environment, and the productive capacity of their lands, territories and resources". The Mexican government adds: "with full respect for the forms, methods and limitations established for ownership by the Constitution and the laws of the State". OAS: "the indigenous peoples will have the right to assistance from their States for the purpose of protecting the environment, and they will be able to receive assistance from international bodies". The Mexican government adds: "with strict adherence to domestic legal codes".

19) OAS: "The indigenous peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and to freely promote their economic, social, spiritual and cultural development, and, consequently, they have the right to autonomy or to self-government relative to, among other things, culture, religion, education, information, means of communication, health, housing, employment, social wellbeing, economic activities, administration of lands and resources, environment and the entry of non-members; as well as in determining the resources and methods for financing these autonomous functions". The Mexican government: "It is considered inappropriate () The concepts of 'autonomy' and 'self-government' are contrary to constitutional precepts ()".

20) OAS: "The indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and to strengthen their legal systems ()". The Mexican government: "() the term legal or judicial systems will be substituted by the expression norms, uses and customs".

21) OAS: "National incorporation of the indigenous legal and organizational systems". The Mexican government proposes the title: "Participation of the indigenous peoples in government departments". OAS: "The relevant institutions of each State which serve the indigenous peoples, will be designed in consultation, and with the participation of, the interested peoples in order to strengthen identity, culture, traditions, organizations and values ()". The Mexican government: "() will promote the participation ()".

22) OAS: (concerning "territories") The Mexican government: "the indiscriminate use of the word 'territory' () as a space in which some kind of authority is exercised () substitute the concept of 'territories' for that of lands () The assignment of 'inalienability', 'indispensability' and 'non-appropriability' to the lands of the indigenous peoples is contrary to the constitutional code ()". They suggest: "() always and when it does not contravene what is stipulated by legislation () respecting the established forms, methods and limitations () The interested peoples should participate, whenever possible, in the benefits derived from such activities, or should receive indemnification () Unless exceptional, justified circumstances of public interest make it necessary, the States cannot move or relocate the indigenous peoples without free consent () The indigenous peoples have the right to restitution for their lands, respecting th!e forms of ownership established in the legislation of the States, as well as for the natural resources which they have owned ()".

23) OAS: "The indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment of the rights and guarantees recognized by international and national labor legislation, and to special measures, in order to correct, to make amends for and to prevent ,the discrimination to which they have been historically subjected". The Mexican government corrects: "The rights and guarantees recognized by national and international labor legislation which have been recognized by each State".

24) OAS: "The States recognize the right of the indigenous peoples to democratically decide the values, objectives, priorities and strategies which will prevail and guide their development, even when same are different from those adopted by the national State or by other segments of society () right () to obtain measures adequate for their own development () as distinct societies () to national development and international cooperation". The Mexican government: "() will guide their development, always and when they do not contravene those established by the national state. The States will establish in their budgets the resources necessary for the development of the indigenous peoples; any additional resources should be channeled through the corresponding state bodies".

25) OAS: "Except in exceptional circumstances, justified in the public interest, the States will take the necessary measures for decisions regarding all plans, programs or projects which affect the rights or the living conditions of the indigenous peoples, will not be made without the consent and free and informed participation of said peoples, and whose preferences will be recognized in that regard, and there will be no provisions which could result in negative effects for said peoples". The Mexican government: "() which affect the rights or living conditions of the indigenous peoples exclusively, will not be made without consultation and informed opinion ()".

26) OAS: "() the right to restitution and indemnification, on a basis no less than that of the standards of international law ()". The Mexican government: "() in conformity with the legislation of each State ()".

27) OAS: "() right () which the States will honor and respect said Treaties, Acts, conventions and constructive agreements ()". Mexican government: "() implicit agreements ()".

28) OAS: The Mexican government proposes, lastly, adding "Article XXIII. Flexibility in the application of the declaration: The regulations of this declaration will be applied by the States, with the necessary flexibility, taking into consideration each country's own conditions". With this article, the entire OAS Declaration is annulled.

"THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF THE LAW: IMPUNITY"

(Excerpt, Part XXVI)*

Article 17: Prohibition of forced displacements.

1. The displacement of the civil population for reasons related to the conflict may not be ordered, unless demanded by the security of civilian persons or for urgent military reasons. If such displacement must be carried out, all possible measures shall be taken to provide refuge for the civil population in satisfactory conditions of housing, health, hygiene, security and food.

2. Civilian persons may not be forced to abandon their own lands for reasons related to the conflict.

All of the residents of Guadalupe Tepeyac have been living in exile since the Mexican Army converted their village into a barracks (and a brothel) 3 years ago, without Zedillo resolving the wellbeing of those expelled (Fernández, P. From January 12 to December 22. La Jornada, 1/12/98, p. 14).

One after another, statements detailed the first weeks of their 1105 days of exile and total dislocation from their village, their lands and their belongings. The material enumeration is painful. "The bad government dislocated us for saying our word", the Guadalupanos say, who, until today, had 2260 hens, 1130 machetes, 230 hatchets, clothing for 500 persons, 339 pigs, 100 horses and mules, 30 stoves, 5 refrigerators, 126 maize grinders, 80 large tortilla cookers, 80 table presses, 70 sewing machines, 226 record players and radios, 80 electric irons. In addition, they denounced the looting of the canteen, a nixtamal mill, a community tailor shop with 9 sewing machines from the womens collective and 5 well-stocked shops (Bellinghausen, H. Testimony of Residents of Guadalupe Tepeyac to the International Civil Commission of Human Rights Observation. La Jornada, 2/21/98, p. 9).

The displaced population is losing their community identity, because the social fabric has been broken. Collective projects were destroyed, such as the cooperatives and the clinics. That is, what gives unity is destroyed. They also lost the individual, with the burning of homes, the destruction of the coffee and maize plantations (which is why the paramilitaries carry out more actions during harvest time). The aggressors displace the residents from their communities and obtain a political "triumph", but also economic gains. Without anything, the displaced lose their identity. "We don't know where we're from now, because now we're not from here or from there, because this isn't our land, but neither can I go into my community because I'm threatened with death by the PRI's and paramilitaries of Los Chorros", says Alonso Méndez, of the community of Los Chorros, in refuge in San Cristóbal de Las Casas. In the Northern and Los Altos zones, the war! changes terrain, and it is manifested in the promotion of massive displacements of the population, assassinations, ambushes, torture and the burning of the belongings of activists from those organizations which maintain a political activity in opposition to the government (Hidalgo, O. Fear as a Political Weapon. Masiosare. La Jornada, 1/18/98, p. 12).

Assassinations, rapes, kidnappings, intimidations and dislocations attributed to the PRI organization Peace and Justice, caused 4000 chiapanecos from four communities in the municipalities of Tila and Sabanilla to be displaced to other areas (Venegas, J. La Jornada, 3/30/97, p. 3).

At least 4112 indigenous EZLN sympathizers from the Northern zone of the state are still displaced from their communities "for political reasons", and "they are surviving in very precarious conditions due to the lack of support", representatives of the displaced reported today. (Henríquez, E. La Jornada, 10/17/97, P. 50).

"On August 15, 1996, PRI militants, Public Security, the federal army, federal judicial police, state judicial police, security officers, with orders from the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, and some 34 trucks, traveled towards the community of Tuitzol (municipality of Tila), where they were holding the community hostage. Two federation helicopters circled together, in order to fight against the campesinos in their rights; they expelled everyone, men, women and children, towards the mountain, threatened them with shots and grenades and bombardments from helicopters at the community" (Campesinos in the Northern Zone. Ojarasca. La Jornada, 3/11/98, p. 7).

Close to 70 families find themselves in refuges in the Sierra, and members of the Chiapas police forces are continuing to harass the zapatista families of San Pedro Nixtalucum. "More Mexican Army forces and Public Security officers are arriving in order to support and protect more PRI's", states Alvarez Gomez, who heads the popular local council of San Juan in El Bosque (Balboa, J. La Jornada, 3/17/97, p. 10).

The waters are troubled in Chenalhó. It gives the impression that a black hand wants to cloud them. PRI paramilitary groups, sponsored by the police and the army, operate blatantly. While weapons appear in Santa Marta, and Puebla is a firing range, total expulsions occur for sympathizing with the EZLN or the PRD, for supporting the autonomous municipality with its seat in Polhó, for not giving money to PRI activities or for the purchase of bullets in the communities. Every day in the communities it is about bullets (Bellinghausen, H. La Jornada, 9/28/97, p. 7).

The wave of violence worsened in Chenalhó last Thursday, when PRI's from the community of Los Chorros burned 14 homes (official figures) of zapatista families, who had to flee from there in order to not be attacked; the same was done to tzotziles in other locations (Henríquez, E. La Jornada, 9/24/97, p. 7).

"On the same September 17, in the ejido of Los Chorros, authorities from the official municipality also demanded monetary cooperation in order to finance the armed attack against the autonomous municipality. Those who refused to collaborate in this illegal conspiracy were arrested and beaten. There were seven illegal detentions. Also, that day, 14 houses were burned () there were 60 families displaced as a result of these events" (Bellinghausen, H. La Jornada, 9/25/97, p. 9).

More than 4500 EZLN sympathizers and members of civil society from the municipality of Chenalhó are in refuge in the mountain or in neighboring communities because of the violent events which have occurred over the last weeks, informed the PRD-zapatista autonomous municipal council. At the same time, police patrols and the presence of state, federal and army agents have notably increased, since this Sunday, in various communities in the municipality, for the purpose of preventing new acts of violence (Enríquez, E. La Jornada, 11.24.97, p. 3).

Two months later, surrounded by the Mexican army and the police forces, practically prisoners, 8000 tzotziles are concentrated in this large, hastily erected refugee camp (Polhó), where 2 children have already died of pneumonia (Bellinghausen, H. La Jornada, 12/31/97, p. 1).

Lacking professional medical attention, with food which barely reaches one meal a day and 110 examinations recorded daily for respiratory, skin and stomach infections, the indigenous displaced by the paramilitary groups in the area of Los Altos, are confronting an ever more critical situation. Ten days after concentrating in Polhó, three newborns have died of pneumonia (Gil Olmos, J. La Jornada, 1/6/98, p. 10).

Close to one thousand families from Chenalhó had to abandon everything in order to escape the threat of death. They left behind their maize plots, without harvesting them, their houses, their animals, their vegetable gardens, their tools. They also left their organic coffee plots, which they had tended for four years with a care that had earned them international recognition (the international organic certificate). Agustín Vázquez Pérez, of X'cumumal, is one of the conscientious coffee growers. Today he survives, displaced, in Polhó. He lost everything, except hope: "When the paramilitaries are done, then we want to return in order to begin, to rebuild our houses, to put the coffee fields back together, to have crops" () On December 23, we found out what had happened to our brothers in Acteal, and we saw the threats were real. We didn't want to die, and we agreed that it was better for all of us to come and take refuge in Polhó. We left on Decemb!er 26 at 6 in the morning () I left my 15 bags of certified coffee there which I had ready to send to the Union, it was the fruit of the entire year; from that I was going to get some money for all the expenses, and everything was stolen. It was organic coffee which the union was going to sell, and now the PRI's have certainly given it to the coyotes to buy weapons and bullets. I left my house which took me so much work to build. I left the tools that I was putting together little by little. All my clothes and linens. All my animals remained there. We didn't bring anything when we left, just the clothes we had on (...) Now we are living in Polhó, we eat a little tortilla every day, some maize we got from the aid that comes. Sometimes we have beans, rice and soup. The little there is shared with everyone, and we are many. There are days we don't even have salt for the tortillas, we don't have soap to wash with or to wash our clothes. Many are sick, because when we lef!t there was much rain and cold" (Pérez Grovas, V. It is Better to Resist. Masiosare. La Jornada, 1/18/98, p. 11).

The coexistence with the Mexican army makes life exasperating in the refugee camps. Over the last few days, the troops have tried to go into Acteal. In Poconichim, there was the threat of entry by Force and Reaction troops, the police body which is camped 200 meters from the more than 1300 refugees who are in this mountainous village (Bellinghausen, H. La Jornada, 1/20/98, p. 6).

Representatives of the displaced from the autonomous municipality of Polhó explain that the refugees are currently living in very difficult conditions. "Thousands of people are living under a small plastic roof, which doesn't protect at all from the rain or the cold, and many are living out in the open" (Bellinghausen, H. La Jornada, 1/21/98, p. 5).

In a large camp, on a hill, 56 families are housed, expelled from Tulantic, Chimix barrio (Chenalhó). On November 22, paramilitaries from Chimix (the same ones who participated in the Acteal massacre a month later) ejected them with gunfire () They have no belongings, and they built sleeping quarters which allow them to be covered from the elements by blue nylon () In the displaced camp of Poconichim, they are watched over by Public Security forces, just 100 meters away, and 200 meters more, a Mexican army camp () Poconichim lacks water, maize. Their conditions are even more critical than those of the refugees in Polhó; and they have been uprooted from their homes for more than half a year () "We don't see the paramilitaries stopping. Those that put us here are keeping watch over us. We don't know if some day we're going to have to run from here also", some of the residents say. (Bellinghausen, H. La Jornada, 1/22/98, p. 7).

A religious and political cleansing was recorded in Canolal today; all the residents who practiced the Catholic faith (located geographically at the edge of the village dominated by Presbyterians) abandoned their lands and left their parish church in neglect. "By force", remembers old Thomas () In order to accompany the 120 tzotziles from Las Abejas civil society and EZLN sympathizers, the military and police institutions mounted an impressive operation, and they utilized 150 troops; among these, the presence of the militarized anti-riot police officers was noteworthy, equipped with electric prods, riot gear, tear gas and acrylic shields (Balboa, J. La Jornada, 1/30/98, p. 3).

The refugee camp at Acteal is under a virtual state of siege by openly hostile groups of PRI's, in obvious collusion with the military checkpoints which are at the ends of the village (Bellinghausen, H. La Jornada, 2/13/98, p. 12).

In response to the new military actions today, the 18 families from the Yalchiptic ejido, municipality of Altamirano, decided for the second consecutive day to abandon their homes and to go to other villages, in fear of detentions by the soldiers (Gil Olmos, J. La Jornada, 1/3/98, p. 7).

"The Mexican Army has not increased the number of troops in Chiapas. The troops deployed in the state are carrying out social work, keeping watch over order and the security of the people, with special attention to the displaced, whom they are protecting and helping, in the face of the risk that they might suffer acts of violence" (Statements by the Mexican government to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. 2/19/98).

"The EZLN is protected by the Law for Dialogue, Conciliation and a Dignified Peace in Chiapas" (Roberto Albores Guillén, Governor of Chiapas. 1/23/98).

*Excerpt from the document, "The Unbearable Lightness of the Law: Impunity; Three Months from Acteal", by "Alternative Popular Communication, Working Group", from 4/11/98

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168