Guatemala. Reservation made at the time of ratification) The Government of the Republic of Guatemala ratifies the American Convention on Human Rights, signed at San José, Costa Rica, on 22 November 1969, with a reservation as to Article 4, paragraph 4 thereof, since the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, in its Article 54, only excludes the application of the death penalty to political crimes, but not to common crimes related to political crimes. The instrument of ratification was received at the General Secretariat of the OAS on 25 May 1978 with a reservation. The notification procedure of the reservation was taken in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties signed on 23 May 1969. Withdrawal of Guatemala's reservation: The Government of Guatemala, by Government Agreement Nº 281-86, dated 20 May 1986, has withdrawn the above- mentioned reservation, which was included in its instrument of ratification dated 27 April 1978, considering that it is no longer supported by the Constitution in the light of the new legal system in force. The withdrawal of the reservation will become effective as of 12 August 1986, in conformity with Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, in application of Article 75 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Recognition of Competence: On 9 March 1987, presented at the General Secretariat of the OAS, the Government Agreement Nº 123-87, dated 20 February 1987, of the Republic of Guatemala, by which it recognizes the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the following terms:
Guatemala. Development of forest plantations The surface of artificial forests with an age up to 25 years, is increasing in Guatemala, with the effect, that the quantities of wood, result of forestry management, overpasses the possibilities to locate it on the market. Trimming and thinning are indispensable measures to maintain plantations healthy and with major productivity; nevertheless, the necessary investment (including costs of financing) for terminating this process is added to the costs of the final product, mature wood. However, many owners simply neglect the necessity of forestry management, and consequently loose great opportunities. But, the effects are more transcendental than just no-realise an opportunity: on the long term, artificial forests wouldn’t be able to provide enough wood in the quality and quantity in demanded. To generate an intermediate income during the forestry cycle, which covers the costs of management, the costs of finance and, eventually, resulting in an economical benefit, the owner needs a possibility to process and merchandise round small-diameter timber. Replanting about 1450ha in the region V (Chimaltenango y Sacatepéquez) produces annually a volume of approx.43.500 m³, which is added to the 830.000 m³ in roundabout 12.000 ha in stock. 24 Forest cover in Guatemala was 2,849.722 hectares in 2000. The annual establishment of new plantations has been estimated at 20,900 hectares in 2000.25 22 BUN-CA 1997, has been identified 3 potential project for cogeneration 23 MW, from a total portfolio of 283 MW at the regional level.23 Climate Change National Communication for Honduras, 200224 ESTUDIO DE PREFACTIBILIDAD , CONTECMA (CONSULTOR EN TECNOLOGIA DE MADERA),Dipl. Ing. Daniel Krabatsch, San Lucas, Sacatepéquez 200325 FAO Forestry [www.fao.org/forestry] Table 8. Plantation areas by species groups. Species group Area As shown in the table 9 the use of roundwood has increased in recent years only because the usage of wood as fuel has grown. The production of industrial roundwood, sawnwood or wood- based panels has been on the same level during the last years. Table 9. Forest Products Production 1998-200226: Units x100019981999200020012002RoundwoodCum1407614709150071533715674Industrial RoundwoodCum201506467467467Sawlogs and Veneer LogsCum159504464464464Other Indust RoundwdCum422333Wood FuelCum1387414203145401487015207SawnwoodCum308235220220220Sawnwood (C)Cum263195180180180Sawnwood (NC)Cum4540404040Wood-Based PanelsCum4343434343Veneer Shee...
Guatemala. From April 2009 through January 2011, the AIDSTAR-Two Project, in collaboration with its partner, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance and with funding from USAID Guatemala, provided technical support and grant funds to two multi- sectoral HIV and AIDS networks in the departments of Petén and Izabal with the goal of expanding services and improving the continuum of HIV prevention and care services for key populations including MSM, transvestite and transgender individuals, CSWs, and migrants. Additionally, NGOs affiliated with the networks received technical assistance to improve internal and external communications, expand their advocacy efforts and community engagement to better respond to the needs of key populations. The networks and their affiliates also designed and implemented an anti-stigma campaign with the support of Red Nacional de la Diversidad (REDNADS) reaching more than 10,000 community members, elected officials, and other stakeholders in Petén and Izabal. This campaign was designed using the results of a participatory communityassessment carried out with both networks and key population representatives. Program Dates: April 1, 2009 to January 31,2011 Challenges Addressed:• Increasing the involvement and representation of key populations within HIV and AIDS networks, as well as improving the networks’ internal structure and coordination.• Addressing social and structural barriers affecting access to services for key populations.• Identifying the level of knowledge among migrant populations regarding HIV prevention and the services available to them locally, as well as health care providers’ perceptions about migrant populations. Key Results• Increased the engagement of key populations by actively involving 27 new representatives of MARP-focused NGOs in the networks’ activities in Petén and Izabal, an increase of 100% from the project’s beginning.• Both networks successfully redefined their internal structures, developed governance manuals and trained their members how to use them. They effectively managed their grant funding and accomplished programmatic activities focused on advocacy, communications, better coordination, and M&E.• Both networks also were accepted for the first time as members of the National Legal Network and are now part of the national human rights movement to defend people living with HIV and AIDS.• Through eight small grants and direct technical assistance from AIDSTAR-Two, the NGO affiliates of the networks improved th...
Guatemala considered the issue of endocrine disruptors to be linked to the application of restrictive MRLs affecting agricultural production in tropical countries. Highlighting the importance of risk analysis, Guatemala stressed the need to take into account the agricultural production, disease control and environmental characteristics of other countries in the process. Guatemala reiterated the statements and requests it made in previous SPS Committee meetings.
Guatemala. ABSTRACT1 This case is about the killing of a human rights defender and social ac- tivist in Guatemala and the harassment and forcible displacement of his daughter, also a human rights defender and activist. Eventually, the state was found in violation of the American Convention for failing to prosecute those responsible for the death of the father and threats to the daughter, but not for loss of life and for failing to uphold the victims’ right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. I. Facts
Guatemala. After recognizing the merits of the request by Guatemala for restitution of 3,762 m³ of carrying capacity, the Commission agreed to consider the request favorably without further need for review, but conditioned the activation of the capacity on the approval by the Commission, at the first possible opportunity, of conservation measures that would counterbalance that capacity.The European Union indicated that, in addition to the adoption of conservation measures, it considers that the activation of the capacity should be conditioned on the adoption of a plan for reducing capacity in the EPO.The United States reiterated its position that acceptance in principle of the merits of Guatemala’s case and of any other pending case for granting, activating, or in any other way adding capacity, is conditioned on the adoption of commensurate conservation and management measures, to mitigate the addition of all new capacity. The United States suggested using the mechanism established in Resolution C-13-01 to achieve a conservation balance by increasing the days of fishing closure in the EPO, using the scientific staff’s analysis of 1.2 days of closure per 1,000 cubic meters of well volume added, and extending the resolution beyond 2016. There was no consensus on this approach.Guatemala made the following proposals for counterbalancing the impact of activating the capacity that had been favorably resolved:Global measures:
Guatemala and Venezuela, it was clear that their respective cases had already been solved at the 88th Meeting (Extraordinary) of the Commission and that the only remaining issue was that of the activation of the capacity that had been restored to them by the Commission’s decision at that meeting. In that respect, they considered that the conditions for activating this capacity had been met with the clarifications made at the recent meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee by the IATTC Scientific Coordinator who considered that only 52 days of closure are necessary, with the 10 additional days as a precautionary measure.
Guatemala. The 2004 ICA is rated Satisfactory. It was held in high regards for its credibility and technical quality. These characteristics made the findings a suitable benchmark for monitoring the competitiveness agenda. The report served to show where Guatemala was in terms of investment climate and how it compared to similar countries. In- country stakeholders noted, however, that (a) the general nature of the recommendations did not help them on specific actions and (b) policymakers did not have the time to read the entire report. The general recommendations point to a lack of knowledge of the institutions, as well as a weak grasp of the political economy. The latter was not a serious constraint for the 2004 ICA because those monitoring the competitiveness agenda were able to supply the missing ingredients.
Guatemala. In 1999 after conducting opinion research, a think-tank, advising the government identified a powerful trade union relentlessly opposed to any kind of reform or privatization as being the most critical stakeholder to address. The workforce was identified as an even more important stakeholder for the success of privatization, but this group was difficult to reach due to the union’s blocking of channels of communication. Workers were being misled and frightened by union leaders; therefore, government responded by sending a letter to the home of each factory worker, addressed not to the workers but to their wives outlining several benefits of privatization, such as share-options and potential redundancy benefits. In the end, the pressure from wives outweighed the objections of the trade union and the workforce supported the privatization (Adam Smith Institute, 2005 in Okocha, 2018).