Annual Report 2018 - Chapter II.G.1. Mexico
MEXICO
MONITORING SHEET ON REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT No. 24/09
CASE 11.822
REYES PENAGOS MARTÍNEZ ET AL.
(Mexico)
I. Case summary
|Victim(s): Reyes Penagos et al. |
|Petitioner(s): Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH) |
|State: Mexico |
|Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement: 24/09, published on March 20, 2009 |
|Associated rapporteurship: Persons Deprived Of Liberty |
|Topics: Persons deprived of liberty/Detention centers/Conditions of detention/Police stations/Care and custody/Investigation/Corrections |
|system/Police violence/Torture/Criminal due process/ Protest |
| |
|Facts: The petitioners alleged that on December 16, 1995, more than 600 members of the Public Security forces, state-level Judicial Police, |
|and Army, using 25 vehicles and three helicopters, evicted a sit-in of women at the bridge that provides access to the ejido of Nueva |
|Palestina, using tear gas. During the operation, the inhabitants of the ejido who were at the sit-in were violently evicted, several homes |
|were searched, and 17 persons were unlawfully detained, among them Reyes Penagos Martínez, Enrique Flores González, and Julieta Flores |
|Castillo. After they were detained they were placed in an automobile of the Office of the Attorney General of Chiapas, and questioned about |
|the Unión Campesina Popular Francisco Villa [farmers union]. The petitioners indicated that when the family members of Mr. Reyes Penagos |
|Martínez went to the Office of the Attorney General of Chiapas, the authorities denied he had been detained. They noted that on December 17, |
|1995, the alleged victims were transferred at approximately 4:00 a.m. to the city of Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, where they were placed in |
|another vehicle and taken to an unknown place. The petitioners alleged that Reyes Penagos Martínez, Julieta Flores, and Enrique Flores were |
|tortured during their detention: they had gases introduced into their nasal cavities, crushed glass placed on their feet, they were beaten, |
|and during the days that they were deprived of liberty clandestinely they did not receive water or food. Unknown substances were injected into|
|Mr. Reyes Penagos Martínez and pressure was applied to his testicles. On the morning of December 18, 1995, Reyes Penagos Martínez and Enrique |
|Flores were tortured, beaten, and forced to do 2,000 sit-ups. They state that Ms. Julieta Flores was also the victim of rape during the time |
|that she was detained and that she had electric shocks applied to her nipples and legs; carbonated water with chili pepper was poured into her|
|nose, which, together with the torturous treatment described above, caused her to lose consciousness. The petitioners said that on December |
|18, 1995, during the early morning hours, Reyes Penagos Martínez was taken to an unknown location; his dead body was found that same day near |
|Jaltenango. Enrique and Julieta Flores were taken to the Cerro Hueco prison, where they remained for approximately two months. |
| |
|Rights allegedly violated: In the petition it is alleged that the State was responsible for the violation of rights enshrined in Article 4 |
|(right to life), Article 5 (right to humane treatment), Article 7 (right to personal liberty), Article 25 (right to judicial protection), and |
|Article 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) of the American Convention, since on December 16, 1995, Reyes Penagos Martínez, Enrique Flores |
|González, and Julieta Flores Castillo, who belonged to the Unión Campesina Popular Francisco Villa, would have been unlawfully detained by |
|public employees of the state of Chiapas, interrogated, and tortured; and that on December 18, 1995, Mr. Reyes Penagos Martínez was allegedly |
|extrajudicially executed by public employees. |
II. Procedural activity
1. The IACHR requested updated information from the parties on October 4, 2013; December 12, 2014; September 30, 2015; October 20, 2016; September 26, 2017; and July 18 and September 14, 2018.
2. The state provided information on January 23, 2015 and June 6, 2017.
3. The petitioners presented information on January 13 and December 1, 2015.
4. The parties did not submit updated information on compliance in 2018.
III. Analysis of compliance with individual clauses of the friendly settlement agreement
|Agreement clause |State of compliance in |Relevant information provided by the parties |
| |2018 | |
|FIRST. The following persons shall be beneficiaries of |Declarative clause |
|this reparation of the harm, insofar as they are “injured | |
|party” either as victim or as victim’s family members: | |
|[...] | |
|THIRD. The reparation under this agreement should be paid for the material and non-material injury caused, and should also include other |
|measures of reparation (measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition). |
|a) Public Recognition of the International Responsibility of the|Full[1] |
|Mexican State. | |
|The State undertakes to make a public pronouncement in which it | |
|recognizes ITS RESPONSIBILITY IN the facts described in the first | |
|section, considering that the death of Reyes Penagos Martínez and the| |
|detention and torture of Julieta Flores Castillo and Enrique Flores | |
|González, committed by various public servants of the state of | |
|Chiapas, are imputable to it. | |
| | |
|The State also undertakes to apologize publicly to the victims and | |
|their family members for the facts reported to the IACHR, which were | |
|the result of a violation of human rights. This pronouncement may be | |
|made at the moment the payment is made to make reparation for the | |
|material and non-material injury agreed upon in the preceding | |
|paragraphs. | |
|Likewise, the State undertakes to publish the public pronouncement in| |
|two local newspapers. | |
|b) Investigation and punishment of the persons responsible |Pending |In 2013, the State reported that the Office of the |
|In addition, the State undertakes to continue the investigations | |Prosecutor Specialized in Human Rights of the Office |
|until attaining the sanction of the persons responsible for those | |of the Attorney General of the State of Chiapas was |
|crimes, through a serious and impartial investigation according to | |the institution entrusted with seeing to it that the |
|the international human rights standards, for the purpose of avoiding| |investigations be conducted in a diligent manner. It |
|their re-victimization due to lack of access to justice. | |also reported that the Office of the Public Prosecutor|
| | |(Ministerio Público) filed a criminal action on |
| | |September 13, 2012, against seven persons. It |
| | |highlighted that the victim has been able to gain |
| | |access to the files and to the proceeding and ratified|
| | |its commitment to guarantee her right to assistance. |
| | |As regards the investigation into the crimes committed|
| | |against Reyes Penagos and Enrique Flores, the State |
| | |indicated that the administrative and criminal |
| | |investigations into the public servants involved were |
| | |exhausted and the corresponding sanctions applied. |
| | |In 2015, the State said in relation to investigation |
| | |No. 197/2012 into the rape of one of the victims that |
| | |on June 25, 2013, Jaime Arturo Cabrera Ferro had been |
| | |arrested and had filed amparo petition No. 1083/2013. |
| | |It also reported that Bulmaro Trejo Lopez had been |
| | |arrested. However, he had filed an amparo petition and|
| | |succeeded in having the arrest warrant declared |
| | |unfounded and obtaining a ruling that the criminal |
| | |action had lapsed. Francisco Hernández Chacón also |
| | |filed an amparo petition (No. 946/2013), on which a |
| | |decision was issued on October 13, 2013, invalidating |
| | |the arrest warrant and the criminal proceeding. Cesar |
| | |Montes Alegría, filed amparo petition No. 1284/2013, |
| | |on which a decision is currently pending. Arrest |
| | |warrants remain outstanding for Dagoberto García |
| | |Cisneros, Martin Hernández Ocaña, and Juan Otilio |
| | |Lopez Guillen. |
| | |In 2017, the State reported that the warrant of arrest|
| | |issued against Martín Hernández Ocaña on September 13,|
| | |2012, remained in force. The petitioners did not |
| | |provide any information at that time. |
| | | |
| | |No information provided: The parties have not |
| | |presented information on measures adopted to implement|
| | |this part of the agreement. |
| | | |
| | |The IACHR urges the State to submit specific and |
| | |up-to-date information on the outcome of the |
| | |investigation, as well as on efforts it has made to |
| | |try and punish those responsible for the violations |
| | |pertaining to the instant case. |
| | | |
| | |Taking into consideration the information available, |
| | |the Commission considers that this point of the |
| | |agreement is still pending for compliance. |
|FOURTH. In this regard, it should be understood that the friendly |Declarative |
|settlement process will continue until such time as the | |
|investigations and proceedings that derive from the prosecution of | |
|the persons responsible for the facts that motivated the petition | |
|have fully concluded. | |
|SIXTH. Material injury. In general, to establish the actions or |Full[2] |
|amounts of reparation, one takes as a reference the impact on the | |
|life, integrity, liberty, public image, and life project. The amounts| |
|assigned below are those agreed upon by the parties, and shall be | |
|distributed as per the following categories: | |
| | |
|Beneficiary | |
|For | |
|Amount | |
| | |
|1. Penagos Roblero family* | |
|Consequential damages | |
|$ 52,548.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|Loss of earnings | |
|$ 105,354.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|SUBTOTAL | |
|$ 157,902.00 MN | |
| | |
|2. Julieta Flores Castillo | |
|Consequential damages | |
|$ 52,548.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|Loss of earnings | |
|$ 12,640.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|SUBTOTAL | |
|$ 65,187.00 MN | |
| | |
|3. Enrique Flores González | |
|Consequential damages | |
|$ 52,548.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|Loss of earnings | |
|$ 12,640.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|SUBTOTAL | |
| $ 65,187.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|TOTAL 1 | |
|$ 288,278.00 MN | |
| | |
|SEVENTH. Non-material injury. Following we refer to the first form of|Full[3] |
|making reparation for this type of injury. The sums agreed upon are | |
|as follows: | |
| | |
|Beneficiary | |
|For | |
|Amount | |
| | |
|1. Penagos Roblero family* | |
|Non-material injury | |
|$ 342,098.00 MN | |
| | |
|2. Julieta Flores Castillo | |
|Non-material injury | |
|$ 228,951.00 MN | |
| | |
|3. Enrique Flores González | |
|Non-material injury | |
|$ 228,951.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|TOTAL 2 | |
|$ 800,000.00 MN | |
| | |
| | |
|NINTH. Considering the changes in the living conditions of the |Partial |In its Homologation Report, the IACHR mentioned that |
|victims and their family members, the Office of the Attorney General | |the Mexican State, through the government of the state |
|of Chiapas undertakes to take whatever efforts necessary, before the | |of Chiapas, will grant monthly economic compensation of|
|competent authorities, so that scholarships be granted to the three | |$2,500 (two thousand five hundred Mexican pesos) to |
|youngest children of Mr. Reyes Penagos. While the Office of the | |Bersabé de Jesús, and $2.000 (two thousand Mexican |
|Attorney General cannot guarantee that the result of those efforts | |pesos) to each of the other two minor children of the |
|will be positive, it nonetheless expresses its commitment to | |victim, Reyes Norberto and José Adrián, all with the |
|diligently pursue such requests, and to seek a favorable outcome for | |last name Reyes Penagos, until they complete their |
|the children of Mr. Reyes Penagos. | |professional program of studies; and through the |
| | |Secretariat of Interior of the state of Chiapas the |
| | |means will be sought to ensure that Bersabé de Jesús |
| | |enters to the tourism program at the Universidad |
| | |Autónoma de Chiapas or, if that were not possible, at |
| | |the Universidad Intercultural de Chiapas. In this way, |
| | |the State will carry out the obligations assumed in |
| | |relation to student scholarships for the minor children|
| | |of the victim Reyes Penagos Martínez. |
| | | |
| | |In 2015, the State said that the General Secretariat of|
| | |the Government of the State of Chiapas had awarded |
| | |monthly educational scholarships to the three |
| | |beneficiaries since 2008. |
| | | |
| | |No information provided: The parties have not presented|
| | |information on measures adopted to implement this part |
| | |of the agreement. |
|TENTH. Along the same lines, the State undertakes to make efforts for|Full[4] |
|the beneficiaries to obtain medical insurance. | |
IV. Analysis of the information provided
5. The Commission notes that the parties have not submitted information on the implementation of the friendly settlement agreement.
6. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that there is no information available by which to analyze compliance with the friendly settlement agreement in 2018.
V. Level of implementation in the case
7. The Commission notes with concern that there has been no substantive progress in the implementation of the measure relating to justice in the friendly settlement agreement.
8. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented. Consequently, the Commission will continue to monitor clauses 3.b and 9 of the friendly settlement agreement until they are implemented in full.
VI. Individual and structural outcomes of the case
A. Individual outcomes of the case
• The payments corresponding to the amounts awarded in economic compensation to the victims and their families were made;
• The act of acknowledgment of responsibility was held;
• Health care coverage was provided to the agreement beneficiaries;
• The educational expenses of the agreement beneficiaries are being covered.
MONITORING SHEET ON REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT No. 90/10
CASE 12.642
JOSÉ IVAN CORREA ARÉVALO
(Mexico)
I. Case summary
|Victim(s): José Iván Correa Arévalo |
|Petitioner(s): Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH) |
|State: Mexico |
|Report on Admissibility: 83/07, published on October 16, 2007 |
|Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement: 90/10, published on July 15, 2010 |
|Associated rapporteurship: Rights of the Child/Memory, Truth and Justice Unit |
|Topics: Children and adolescents/ Young people /Investigation |
| |
|Facts: According to the petitioners, José Iván Correa Arévalo, a 17-year-old student, died on May 28, 1991, after being struck in the head by |
|a firearm projectile. They maintained that the killing of the alleged victim –which reportedly had to do with his position as an independent |
|student leader– was not diligently investigated by the Mexican authorities and that those responsible for his death were never convicted. The |
|petitioners said that on May 27, 1991 –the day before he died– José Iván had had a dispute over a strike with another student leader at the |
|Colegio de Bachilleres Plantel 01 (COBACH) in the city of Tuxtla Gutiérrez. They said that as a result of that dispute that student had |
|threatened to kill José Iván Correa. They held that the following day, May 28, 1991, whilst in the company of three other COBACH students José|
|Ivan sustained a fatal bullet wound. As to the circumstances in which this is said to have occurred, the petitioners argued that, regardless |
|of what the three above-mentioned youths said in their statements to the effect that Correa Arévalo had taken his own life by shooting himself|
|in the temple after having consumed alcoholic beverages, they were the persons responsible for the death of the alleged victim. They added, |
|however, that the latter had been protected by the government authorities in Chiapas at the time on account of the family ties that linked one|
|of the alleged culprits in the homicide to the then-Secretary of the Interior of the State of Chiapas. They said that, as a result, the facts |
|were not properly investigated by the relevant authorities. In particular, they claimed that Preliminary Inquiry 2062/ZC/91 carried out by the|
|Office of the Attorney General for the State of Chiapas was not diligently pursued and was fraught with serious irregularities. |
| |
|Rights declared admissible: The Commission concluded that it was competent to take up the instant case, that the petition was admissible in |
|relation to Articles 4 (right to life), 8 (right to a fair trial), 17 (rights of the family), 19 (rights of the child), and 25 (right to |
|judicial protection) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and that the petition met the requirements |
|set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of that instrument. The commission also decided to notify parties and to publish its report in its annual |
|report. |
II. Procedural activity
1. The IACHR requested updated information from the parties on September 30, 2015; October 21, 2016; September 16, 2017; and July 18 and September 14, 2018.
2. The State provided information on April 21, 2015; March 7, 2017; and September 4, 2018.
3. The petitioners submitted information on December 7, 2017.
III. Analysis of compliance with individual clauses of the friendly settlement agreement
|Agreement clause |State of compliance in|Relevant information provided by the parties |
| |2018 | |
|The Mexican State, through the Ministry of Justice of the State of |Partial |In 2015, the State said that the Second |
|Chiapas, undertakes to proceed with the investigation in a diligent | |Criminal Court Judge had ruled that the crime |
|and exhaustive manner and to open new lines of inquiry in order to | |alleged in case 408/2010 had prescribed under |
|ensure the prompt clarification of the truth surrounding the homicide | |the statute of limitations. The State |
|of José Iván Correa Arévalo. In the course of the investigation, | |indicated that those proceedings had thrown |
|working panels will be held between the agents in charge of same and | |light on the facts in which the victim had |
|the coadjutors, in order comprehensively to review the case file. | |lost his life and that the perpetrators had |
| | |been identified. However, due to the statute |
| | |of limitations, it had not been possible to |
| | |punish the perpetrators. |
| | | |
| | |On December 27, 2017, the State reiterated the|
| | |information presented in 2015 and requested |
| | |that monitoring of the friendly settlement |
| | |agreement cease because it was impossible to |
| | |punish the perpetrators of the crimes as the |
| | |statute of limitations had run. That |
| | |information was relayed to the petitioners on |
| | |March 14, 2018, and reiterated on June 21, |
| | |2018, so that they might present such |
| | |information as they deemed appropriate. |
| | | |
| | |No information provided: The parties have not |
| | |presented information on measures adopted to |
| | |implement this part of the agreement. |
| | |Taking into consideration the available |
| | |information, the Commission considers that the|
| | |level of compliance of this clause remains |
| | |partial. |
|2. The Mexican State, through the Ministry of Justice of the State of |Full[5] |
|Chiapas, undertakes to hold a public ceremony of recognition of | |
|responsibility and make a public apology for the failure of the | |
|authorities to conduct a diligent investigation into the homicide of | |
|José Iván Correa Arévalo. This public recognition and apology shall be| |
|published in the newspapers with the widest circulation in the State | |
|of Chiapas. The petitioners undertake to submit a draft text of public| |
|recognition of responsibility and apology within 15 days counted from | |
|today’s date. The draft shall be analyzed by the authorities of the | |
|State of Chiapas within 15 days of its receipt. The final text shall | |
|be agreed by the parties. In response to the request of the | |
|petitioners that the above public ceremony be presided over by the | |
|head of the executive branch of the State of Chiapas, the Ministry of | |
|Justice undertakes to present that request to said authority, and | |
|failing that, agrees that the head of the Ministry of Justice shall | |
|preside over the ceremony. The parties shall agree on a date for | |
|holding the public ceremony, endeavoring to ensure, if at all | |
|possible, the presence of Commissioner Florentín Meléndez, Rapporteur | |
|for Mexico. In agreeing on the aforesaid ceremony the parties state | |
|that the possibility exists of signing a friendly settlement agreement| |
|in this case. | |
|3. The Mexican State, through the Ministry of Justice of the State of |Full[6] |
|Chiapas, undertakes to offer psychological treatment to Mr. Juan | |
|Ignacio Correa López and to include him and his family in the Seguro | |
|Popular Health Care Program, as agreed in the Minute of the Working | |
|Meeting signed in the State of Chiapas on October 8, 2008. | |
|4. The Mexican State, through the Ministry of Justice of the State of |Full[7] |
|Chiapas, undertakes to include Mr. Juan Ignacio Correa López in the | |
|Social Assistance Housing Program under the terms of the Minute of the| |
|Working Meeting signed in the State of Chiapas on October 8, 2008. | |
|5. The Mexican State, through the Ministry of Justice of the State of |Full[8] |
|Chiapas, undertakes to include Mr. Juan Ignacio Correa López in the | |
|Economic Recovery Program of the State of Chiapas for the purpose of | |
|obtaining a business loan. The Ministry of Justice of the State of | |
|Chiapas undertakes to arrange, as necessary, the repayment of the loan| |
|and its nonreimbursement on behalf of the petitioner. | |
|6. The Mexican State, through the Ministry of Justice of the State of |Full[9] |
|Chiapas, undertakes to grant compensation for material damages and | |
|emotional distress to Mr. Juan Ignacio Correa López in the total | |
|amount of $600.000 pesos (six hundred thousand Mexican pesos) clear, | |
|free, and unencumbered. | |
|7. The Mexican State, through the Ministry of Justice of the State of |Full[10] |
|Chiapas, undertakes to make arrangements with the Municipality of | |
|Tuxtla Gutiérrez in the State of Chiapas to have the street where José| |
|Iván Correa Arévalo was deprived of his life named after him; or, | |
|failing that, to make arrangements with the relevant education | |
|authority for a commemorative plaque recording the facts in the | |
|instant case to be put up at Colegio de Bachilleres Plantel 01 | |
|(COBACH), which José Iván Correa Arévalo attended. | |
IV. Analysis of the information provided
4. The Commission notes that the parties have not submitted information on the implementation of the friendly settlement agreement.
5. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that there is no information available by which to analyze compliance with the friendly settlement agreement in 2018.
V. Level of implementation in the case
6. The Commission notes with concern that there has been no substantive progress in the implementation of the measure relating to justice in the friendly settlement agreement. The Commission takes note of the obstacles to punishing those responsible mentioned by the State and considers it important for the State to clarify whether the individuals identified as having caused the death of the victim are state officials, so that it can be determined if an extrajudicial execution may have occurred in this case, which, as a gross violation of human rights, is not subject to the statute of limitations, in accordance with the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and of the Commission.
7. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented. Consequently, the Commission will wait for the State to provide specific information on the status of the individuals identified as perpetrators, so that it can appraise whether it would be appropriate or not to close the matter
VI. Individual and structural outcomes of the case
A. Individual outcomes of the case
• The payments corresponding to the amounts awarded in economic compensation to the victims and their families were made;
• The act of acknowledgment of responsibility was held;
• Health care coverage was provided to the victim for psychological treatment;
• Social rehabilitation measure were provided;
• The educational expenses of the agreement beneficiaries are being covered;
• A plaque was made to memorialize the case.
MONITORING SHEET ON REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT No. 65/14
CASE 12.769
IRINEO MARTÍNEZ TORRES AND CANDELARIO MARTÍNEZ DAMIÁN
(Mexico)
I. Case summary
|Victim(s): Irineo Martínez Torres and Candelario Martínez Damián |
|Petitioner(s): Alfonso Otero |
|State: Mexico |
|Report on Admissibility: 72/10, published on July 12, 2010 |
|Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement: 65/14, published on July 25, 2014 |
|Associated rapporteurship: Persons Deprived Of Liberty |
|Topics: Persons Deprived of Liberty/ Care and custody/ Investigation/ Police violence/ Criminal due process |
| |
|Facts: On July 25, 2014, the IACHR issued report No. 65/14 approving the friendly settlement agreement reached in favor of Irineo Martinez |
|Torres and Candelario Martinez Damián, members of the Purépecha indigenous people from Ahuirán, in the state of Michoacán, who were alleged to|
|have endured violations of rights protected under the American Convention during their arrest and in the criminal proceedings against them. |
|The petitioners were reportedly physically assaulted by judicial police at the time of their arrest and, during the criminal proceeding |
|against them, the court-appointed defender allegedly failed to act in an efficient manner. Nor was an interpreter provided for them, even |
|though their native language is Purépecha (Tarasco) and they lacked proficiency in both understanding and speaking Spanish. |
| |
|Rights declared admissible: The Commission concluded that it was competent to take up the instant case, that the petition was admissible in |
|relation to Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial |
|protection) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and that the petition met the requirements set forth |
|in Articles 46 and 47 of that instrument. The commission also decided to notify parties and to publish its report in its annual report. |
II. Procedural activity
1. The IACHR requested updated information from the parties on October 20, 2016; September 27, 2017; August 29, 2017; and July 19 and September 24, 2018.
2. The State provided information on December 23, 2016 and October 19, 2018.
3. The petitioners have not submitted updated information since the approval of the friendly settlement agreement.
III. Analysis of compliance with individual clauses of the friendly settlement agreement
|Agreement clause |State of compliance in|Relevant information provided by the parties |
| |2018 | |
|1) Bearing in mind that 95.5% of the community is not |Full[11] |
|registered with any health institution, the State pledges to | |
|do the following this year: | |
|a. Disseminate information about the requirements that have to| |
|be met to be admitted into Mexico’s health system. | |
|b. Install a health forum in charge of providing advisory | |
|services to all persons of the community who request it to | |
|guarantee their right to health and, once these requirements | |
|have been met, to proceed with their registration (SS, state | |
|government). | |
|2) On the basis of the community assessment, it was concluded |Full 2018 |In 2017, the State reported that under the 2018 |
|that there is a large segment of the population of working age| |National Development Plan, action goal IV was |
|affected by the low demand for labor. The State of Mexico | |included, Prosperous Mexico, under which objective |
|urges the Purépecha Community of Ahuirán to organize | |4.3 was incorporated, Promote quality employment; and|
|themselves with their traditional authorities and/or families | |that specifically under strategy 4.3.2 Promote a |
|to draw up a project that would improve the locality’s | |Dignified and Decent Job, it is contributing to |
|conditions for the families and community and provide | |eliminating inequality and discrimination in the |
|temporary financial support for as many persons as the project| |labor market. Lastly, the State reiterated the |
|requires. This program is being offered to men and women 16 | |request to declare full compliance and to terminate |
|years old and over who wish to implement projects that would | |monitoring of implementation of the friendly |
|contribute to improving family or community conditions. In | |settlement agreement. |
|that regard, the State shall grant, at the request of the | | |
|party, advisory services to draw up the project and would be | |On October 19, 2018, the state reported on the |
|able to pay daily wages equivalent to 99% of the minimum wage | |results of the investments that it had made since |
|for the region. | |2012 with the aim of improving conditions in the |
| | |community. The State said that it had urged the |
| | |Purépecha Community of Ahuirán in Michoacán state to |
| | |organize through their traditional authorities in |
| | |order carry out project that would improve conditions|
| | |in the locality. The State reiterated that it |
| | |provided counseling for the municipal authorities in |
| | |Paracho and supplied records of the requests for |
| | |temporary assistance for projects carried out in |
| | |recent years, including details on amounts allocated |
| | |to wages and materials, job creation data, and other |
| | |information. The State reiterated its request that |
| | |this point be declared implemented in full. |
| | | |
| | |Taking into consideration the information submitted |
| | |by the State and the absence of observations from the|
| | |petitioners since the Approval Report was issued in |
| | |2014, the Commission considers that the State has |
| | |implemented this aspect of the agreement in full and |
| | |so it declares it. |
|3) The State, through the Attorney General’s Office of the |Full[12] |
|Republic, the National Indigenous Language Institute | |
|(Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas—INALI), the Foreign | |
|Affairs Secretariat (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores—SER),| |
|and the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous | |
|Peoples (Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos | |
|Indígenas), pledges to design an informative campaign using | |
|various media, including radio and print, so that the | |
|Purépecha community can learn about their rights if they are | |
|arrested and urging the community to exercise their rights | |
|(PGR, INALI, CDI, SER). | |
|4) The State shall conduct a certification program for the |Full[13] |
|training of interpreters in indigenous languages of the State | |
|of Michoacán in the field of law enforcement and | |
|administration of justice (together with the University of | |
|Michoacán, PGR or PGJ, and the Judicial Branch of Government | |
|or the Federation), so that those earning the certification | |
|diploma can be mainstreamed into the roster of interpreters | |
|and translators of indigenous languages, with the Federal | |
|Government pledging that they shall promote their use (INALI).| |
|5) On-site interviews with the petitioner and the families of |Full[14] |
|the petitioners indicate that they have traditionally worked | |
|as wood craftsmen. Nevertheless, because of their | |
|socioeconomic status, they were quickly required to diversify | |
|their sources of income. The State of Mexico, recognizing | |
|their wish to work exclusively as craftsmen and taking into | |
|account that it is because of the absence of inputs and tools | |
|that they are prevented from doing so, is offering to | |
|rehabilitate the traditional woodworking shops of the two | |
|families using the Program to Support Indigenous Productivity | |
|and the Program for the Productive Organization of Indigenous | |
|Women in amounts that vary depending on the project submitted | |
|by the petitioners (DCI, petitioners, and the Municipality of | |
|Paracho) and in accordance with what is set forth in the | |
|following subparagraph. | |
|6) In compliance with the agreements of March 26, 2011, |Full[15] |
|reached during the 141st period of sessions of the IACHR, the | |
|State offers to grant reparations for harm caused in the | |
|amount of 500,000 pesos (SEGOB). | |
|TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT |
|a) The State must show and pay the amount of 125,000.00 pesos to each one|Full[16] |
|of the persons I represent by August 15, 2011 at the latest | |
|b) The State must begin to take the steps to start the activities aimed |Full[17] |
|at rehabilitating the traditional woodworking shops within 15 days after | |
|acceptance of the State’s proposal and shall keep the representative of | |
|the petitioners informed of the progress of these activities so that the | |
|work can be completed as quickly as possible. | |
|c) Likewise, the State must make a public statement in the Community of |Full[18] |
|Ahuirán about the human rights situation at the time of the arrest and | |
|trial of Messrs. Irineo Martínez Torres and Candelario Martínez Damian. | |
|d) The State must begin implementing the remaining programs within 30 |Full[19] |
|days as of the proposal’s acceptance. | |
IV. Analysis of the information provided
4. The Commission considers the information provided by the State in 2018 to be relevant given that it is up-to-date and includes measures adopted to comply with at least one of the causes of the friendly settlement agreement. The petitioners, for their part, did not provide information within the time provided by the IACHR.
5. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that there is sufficient information to analyze compliance with the friendly settlement agreement in 2018.
V. Level of implementation in the case
6. The Commission finds that the State provided information that enabled verification of the measures adopted by the State to implement the only point pending in the agreement, which related to the investments for community development; therefore, it declares clause 2 of the friendly settlement agreement implemented.
7. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been implemented in full. Consequently, the Commission hereby decides to cease its monitoring of the implementation of the agreement and to close the case.
VI. Individual and structural outcomes of the case
A. Individual outcomes of the case
• The craft workshops of both families of the victims were rehabilitated;
• The economic compensation amount awarded as reparation was paid.
B. Structural outcomes of the case
• Information was disseminated about the requirements to be admitted into Mexico’s health system;
• A health forum was installed that is in charge of providing advisory services to everyone in the community who requests them to guarantee their right to health and proceed with their registration;
• A labor and workforce mapping was performed in the community;
• By way of social rehabilitation measures, productive projects were carried out with individual families in order to advance community development;
• An information campaign was designed using various media, so that the Purépecha community can know their rights if detained;
• A shall certification program was carried out for training interpreters in indigenous languages of the State of Michoacán in the field of law enforcement and administration of justice.
MONITORING SHEET ON REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT No. 81/15
CASE 12.813
BLANCA OLIVIA CONTRERAS VITAL
(Mexico)
I. Case summary
|Victim(s): Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital |
|Petitioner(s): Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital, José de Jesús Esqueda Díaz |
|State: Mexico |
|Report on Admissibility: 13/11, published on March 23, 2011 |
|Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement: 81/15, published on October 28, 2015 |
|Associated rapporteurship: Persons Deprived Of Liberty |
|Topics: Persons Deprived of Liberty/ Criminal due process |
| |
|Facts: In Report No. 81/15 of October 28, 2015, the IACHR approved the friendly settlement agreement between the parties on October 5, 2012, |
|for the redress of violations to the right to a fair trial of Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital and Roberto Clemente Álvarez Alvarado, who did not|
|have adequate defense counsel and, consequently, received arbitrary convictions, which ran afoul of the American Convention. The victims in |
|this case were deprived of liberty at the time the petition was lodged, and subsequently regained their freedom, inasmuch as they served their|
|entire sentences. Therefore, the purpose of the petition and of the friendly settlement agreement was to obtain compensation for the damages |
|caused. |
| |
|Rights declared admissible: The Commission concluded that it was competent to take up the instant case, that the petition was admissible in |
|relation to Articles 7 (right to personal liberty) and 8 (right to a fair trial) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) |
|thereof, and that the petition met the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of that instrument. The commission also decided to notify |
|parties and to publish its report in its annual report. |
II. Procedural activity
1. The IACHR requested updated information from the parties on October 20, 2016; September 27, 2017; and July 18 and August 27, 2018.
2. The State provided information on August 17, 2018.
3. The petitioners submitted information on March 10, 2016 and September 27, 2017.
III. Analysis of compliance with individual clauses of the friendly settlement agreement
|Agreement clause |State of compliance in |Relevant information provided by the parties |
| |2018 | |
|COMPREHENSIVE REPARATION FOR INJURIES CAUSED |
|VII.1 Compensatory damages |
|FIRST. Based on the case law of the Inter-American |Full[20] |
|System for the Protection of Human Rights, the State | |
|will disburse the sum of $336,000.00 (three hundred | |
|thirty-six thousand Mexican pesos 00/100) to Mr. | |
|Roberto Clemente Álvarez Alvarado for the comprehensive| |
|reparation of harm and for housing assistance. | |
|SECOND. Based on the case law of the Inter-American |Full[21] |
|System for the Protection of Human Rights, the State | |
|will disburse the sum of $382,000.00 (three hundred | |
|eighty-two thousand Mexican pesos 00/100) to Mrs. | |
|Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital for the comprehensive | |
|reparation of harm and for housing assistance. | |
|THIRD. The compensation sums to which the victims are |Full[22] |
|entitled will be paid by the State within 30 business | |
|days of the signing of this Agreement, through the | |
|Human Rights Defense and Promotion Unit of the SEGOB. | |
|VII. 2. Measures of Satisfaction and Guarantees of Non-Repetition |
|VII.2.1 Mrs. Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital |
|VII.2.1.1 Housing Support |Partial 2018 |On August 17, 2018, the State reported that on|
|FIRST. The Human Rights Defense and Promotion Unit and the Bureau of | |August 9, 2018, internal authorities held a |
|Human Rights and Democracy will take the necessary steps to enroll Mrs. | |meeting in order to devise a strategy for |
|Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital in the Tu Casa program of the National | |implementing the remaining clauses of the |
|Affordable Housing Trust Fund at the Zacatecas Office of the Ministry of | |agreement. Specifically on the issue of |
|Social Development. This program grants subsidies to low-income Mexican | |housing, it was decided that the |
|households living below the poverty line with inadequate housing quality | |Under-secretariat of the State of Zacatecas |
|and space, in order for them to purchase, build, expand, or improve their| |would donate an area of land to the |
|housing. | |beneficiary Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital |
| | |based on an agreement to be concluded with the|
| | |National Affordable Housing Trust Fund |
| | |(FONHAPO). In that connection, FONHAPO will |
| | |provide the resources to subsidize the |
| | |construction of a home for the beneficiary. In|
| | |addition, the Human Rights Defense and |
| | |Promotion Unit will submit to the Human Rights|
| | |Obligations Compliance Trust the relevant |
| | |documentation to enable coverage of the |
| | |payment necessary for Blanca Contreras’ |
| | |“beneficiary contribution.” Likewise, the |
| | |State reported that the beneficiary had |
| | |already been informed about the documentation |
| | |that she would need to provide and dates had |
| | |been set to that effect. |
| | | |
| | |Taking into consideration the information |
| | |submitted by the State and the absence of |
| | |observations from the petitioner, the |
| | |Commission considers that the State has |
| | |partially implemented this aspect of the |
| | |agreement and so it declares it. |
|VII.2.1.2 Psychotherapeutic Treatment for JCC |Full[23] |
|FIRST. The Human Rights Defense and Promotion Unit and the Bureau of | |
|Human Rights and Democracy will take the necessary steps before the | |
|Office of the Ombudsman for Crime Victim Services to obtain psychological| |
|services for Mrs. Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital’s son, the minor child | |
|JCC, at their home or at the nearest Victim Services facility, as decided| |
|by the victim and her son. | |
|VII.2.1.2 Educational Scholarship for JCC |Full[24] |
|FIRST. - The Human Rights Defense and Promotion Unit and the Bureau of | |
|Human Rights and Democracy will take the necessary steps before the local| |
|Ministry of Public Education office in the State of Zacatecas (OSFAE) and| |
|before the Ministry of Education and Culture in the State of Zacatecas in| |
|order for the latter agency to provide an educational scholarship to Mrs.| |
|Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital’s son, the minor child JCC, of at least | |
|$150.00 (one hundred fifty Mexican pesos 00/100) and, at the discretion | |
|of the State Secretary of Education and Culture, up to $300.00 (three | |
|hundred Mexican pesos 00/100). This sum shall be disbursed monthly until | |
|the conclusion of his secondary education, and shall be subject to the | |
|conditions stipulated by the Ministry of Education and Culture in the | |
|State of Zacatecas. | |
|VII.2.1.4 Self-Employment Training |Full[25] |
|FIRST. The Human Rights Defense and Promotion Unit and the Bureau of | |
|Human Rights and Democracy will take the necessary steps before the | |
|National Employment Service of Zacatecas to enroll Mrs. Blanca Olivia | |
|Contreras Vital in the Bécate sub-program of the Ministry of Labor and | |
|Social Welfare for self-employment training. | |
|VII.2.2 Mr. Roberto Clemente Álvarez Alvarado |Partial 2018 |On August 17, 2018, the State reported that on|
|VII.2.2.1 Housing Support | |August 9, 2018, internal authorities held a |
|FIRST. The Human Rights Defense and Promotion Unit and the Bureau of | |meeting in order to devise a strategy for |
|Human Rights and Democracy will take the necessary steps to enroll Mr. | |implementing the remaining clauses of the |
|Roberto Clemente Álvarez Alvarado in the Tu Casa program of the National | |agreement. |
|Affordable Housing Trust Fund at the Aguascalientes Office of the | | |
|Ministry of Social Development. This program grants subsidies to | |Regarding the measure concerning housing for |
|low-income Mexican households living below the poverty line with | |Roberto Clemente Alvarez Alvarado, the State |
|inadequate housing quality and space, in order for them to purchase, | |reported that it was agreed at the meeting |
|build, expand, or improve their housing | |that FONHAPO would submit an application to |
| | |the Secretariat for Agrarian, Land, and Urban |
| | |Development (SEDATU), in order to continue the|
| | |process of gathering information on the |
| | |beneficiary, since hitherto it had not been |
| | |possible to finalize that process. An |
| | |alternative means of providing the beneficiary|
| | |with housing was reportedly being examined. In|
| | |addition, the Human Rights Defense and |
| | |Promotion Unit undertook to contact the |
| | |Housing Office of the State of Aguascalientes |
| | |to examine another way of providing housing. |
| | |Finally, the State reported that Mr. Alvarado |
| | |had been informed that a housing information |
| | |file (Cédula de Información de Vivienda) had |
| | |been opened in order to enable the housing |
| | |application process to continue; however, the |
| | |State said that it had not been possible to |
| | |contact him directly for that purpose. |
| | |Taking into consideration the information |
| | |submitted by the State and the absence of |
| | |observations from the petitioner, the |
| | |Commission considers that the State has |
| | |partially implemented this aspect of the |
| | |agreement and so it declares it. |
|VII.2.2.2 Self-Employment Training |Full[26] |
|FIRST. The Human Rights Defense and Promotion Unit and the Bureau of | |
|Human Rights and Democracy will take the necessary steps before the | |
|National Employment Service of Aguascalientes to enroll Mr. Roberto | |
|Clemente Álvarez Alvarado in the Bécate sub-program of the Ministry of | |
|Labor and Social Welfare for self-employment training. | |
IV. Analysis of the information provided
4. The Commission considers the information provided by the State in 2018 to be relevant given that it is up-to-date and includes measures adopted to comply with at least one of the causes of the friendly settlement agreement. The petitioners, for their part, did not provide information within the time provided by the IACHR.
5. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that there is sufficient information to analyze compliance with the friendly settlement agreement in 2018.
V. Level of implementation in the case
6. The Commission finds that the State provided information that enabled verification of the measures adopted by the State to fulfill its obligation to provide housing or the beneficiaries of the agreement; therefore, it declares that obligation partially implemented.
7. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented. Consequently, the Commission will continue to monitor those two aspects of the agreement until they are implemented in full.
VI. Individual and structural outcomes of the case
A. Individual outcomes of the case
• The payments corresponding to the amounts awarded as comprehensive reparation for the injuries caused compensatory damages and housing support were made;
• Educational scholarships were awarded to the son of one of the victims;
• Psychotherapeutic treatment was provided to the son of one of the victims;
• A vocational training course specializing in customer service was provided under the Bécate sub-program to one of the beneficiaries of the agreement, for which she received financial support and was hired by a local company.
MONITORING SHEET ON REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT No. 15/16
PETITION 1171/09
ANANÍAS LAPARRA AND FAMILY
(Mexico)
I. Case summary
|Victim(s): Ananías Laparra and family |
|Petitioner(s): Thomas Antkowiak, Ricardo Lagunes Gasca, and Alejandra Gonza, International Human Rights Clinic of the University Of Washington|
|School of Law |
|State: Mexico |
|Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement: 15/16, published on April 14, 2016 |
|Associated rapporteurship: Persons deprived of liberty |
|Topics: Persons Deprived of Liberty/ Care and custody/ Investigation/ Police violence/ Criminal due process/ Torture |
| |
|Facts: The case refers to incidents that occurred on October 14, 1999, in the city of Tapachula, Chiapas, United Mexican States, to the |
|detriment of Mr. Ananías Laparra, who was illegally and arbitrarily detained and subsequently convicted on the basis of a confession obtained |
|through torture by agents of the Judiciary Police of the state of Chiapas. The two children of Mr. Ananías Laparra, who at the time were |
|minors—14-year-old José Ananías and 16-year-old Rocío Fulvia Laparra Godínez—as well as his wife, Rosa Godínez, were tortured and forced to |
|sign statements that incriminated Mr. Ananías Laparra as the person guilty for the homicide of the young man Elvis Díaz Martínez, from the |
|colony Unión Roja, municipality of Cacahoatán, Chiapas. |
| |
|Rights allegedly violated: The petitioners argued that the State was responsible for violation of the rights recognized in Articles 5 (right |
|to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 25 (right to judicial protection), 19 (rights of the child), |
|and 2 (domestic legal effects [duty to adopt measures under domestic law]) of the American Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction |
|with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Ananías Laparra Martínez and his family. |
II. Procedural activity
1. The IACHR requested updated information from the parties on July 18 and September 26, 2018.
2. The parties held working meetings facilitated by the Commission on March 17 and April 25, 2017.
3. The state provided information on August 4, 2017 and September 4, 2018.
4. The petitioners have not submitted updated information since the approval of the friendly settlement agreement.
III. Analysis of compliance with individual clauses of the friendly settlement agreement
|Agreement clause |State of compliance|Relevant information provided by the parties |
| |in 2018 | |
|VIII.1. RESTITUTION |
|[…] to take all the necessary administrative and other| |
|kinds of measures to establish his innocence. […] |Full[27] |
|VIII.2 REPARATION FOR NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES AND MEASURES OF SATISFACTION |
|VIII.2.1. FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR NON-PECUNIARY |Full[28] |
|DAMAGES for Rosa Godínez Chávez, Rocío Fulvia Laparra | |
|Godínez and José Ananías Laparra Godínez | |
|VIII.2.2. MEDICAL INSURANCE | |In its Approval Report, the Commission noted that the State had|
|The Mexican State agrees to make the necessary | |mentioned that, in the event that the victims may require |
|arrangements to provide the victims with comprehensive| |medical care, the Highly Specialized Regional Hospital in |
|preferential health care free of charge. In addition, | |Tapachula, Chiapas, was available for them to go and receive |
|they shall have access to the pharmaceutical goods and|Full 2018 |immediate care. The State, through the Ministry of the |
|services established under the medical coverage | |Interior, promised to send a circular to the appropriate health|
|provided by the Seguro Popular. If the victims change | |bodies reminding about the specific circumstances of the case |
|their domicile to another federative entity of the | |and instructing them to continue to provide Mr. Laparra with |
|Mexican Republic, medical care shall be provided in | |the appropriate care. |
|the new place of residence through the Seguro Popular | | |
|or a similar program that offers the same level of | |In its 2017 annual report, the Commission mentioned that the |
|care as established under this agreement. In the event| |State reported that on May 23, 2017, a meeting was held in the |
|that the medical services required are provided at | |facilities of the Secretariat of the Government of the State of|
|facilities outside their area of residence, they shall| |Chiapas, where it was identified that the problem presented by |
|be entitled to defrayment of their travel and per diem| |the petitioners was that they were not being provided with eye |
|expenses by the Mexican State. This obligation shall | |drops free of charge. Accordingly, the Executive Commission for|
|be met within six months of the signing of this | |Services to Victims (Comisión Ejecutiva de Atención a |
|agreement. | |Víctimas—CEAV) indicated that, once registered, the petitioners|
| | |would receive a reimbursement for the expenses incurred. |
| | | |
| | |On September 4, 2018, the State provided a chronological report|
| | |on the medical treatments given to the beneficiary, in addition|
| | |to his personal medical file. The State also mentioned that |
| | |medical assistance has been provided to the other beneficiaries|
| | |of the agreement. The State reported that the enrollment of the|
| | |beneficiaries had been requested in the National Victim |
| | |Assistance System. |
| | | |
| | |The petitioner did not offer any observations on the |
| | |information supplied by the State. |
| | | |
| | |Taking into consideration the information submitted by the |
| | |State and the absence of observations from the petitioners |
| | |since the Approval Report that was issued in 2016, the |
| | |Commission considers that the State has implemented this aspect|
| | |of the agreement in full and so it declares it. |
|VIII.2.3. PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT | |In its Approval Report, the Commission mentioned that the State|
|Once the agreement is signed, the Human Rights Defense| |had indicated that the victim had not made use of the service. |
|Unit and the Department of Human Rights and Democracy | |The SEGOB pledged to hold, along with the Executive Commission |
|of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will make the | |for Services to Victims, a working meeting in the city of |
|necessary arrangements for the Executive Committee for|Partial |Tapachula, Chiapas, for the purpose of informing the Laparra |
|Victim Assistance to provide psychological treatment | |family and its representatives about the procedure to follow to|
|to the victims Ananías Laparra Martínez, Rosa Godínez | |provide them with psychological services and to provide them |
|Chávez, Rocío Fulvia Laparra Godínez, and José Ananías| |with the service protocol in writing. |
|Laparra Godínez for as long as necessary at the | | |
|facilities of the Victim Assistance Center (Centro de | |On March 17, 2017, the parties held a working meeting where the|
|Atención a Víctimas y Ofendidos) closest to their | |petitioners requested an alternative measure for healthcare to |
|domicile or at any other facility of that center that | |Ananías and his family. No information was provided as to what |
|the victims may choose and for as long as they may | |that alternative measure might be; it was simply mentioned at |
|require. The psychological and medical treatment | |the working meeting. |
|should take into account that they are victims of | | |
|torture, that one of them has been deprived of liberty| |No information provided: The parties have not presented |
|for 12 years, and that the treatment should be | |information on measures adopted to implement this part of the |
|provided in accordance with international standards | |agreement. |
|and the standards of care envisaged in the Istanbul | | |
|Protocol. | |The IACHR urges the State to submit specific and up-to-date |
| | |information on this aspect of the agreement. |
| | | |
| | |The Commission considers that implementation of this measure |
| | |remains partial and it urges the State to further expedite |
| | |steps for its full implementation. |
|VIII.2.4. ADDICTION TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION | |In its Homologation Report, the Commission mentioned that the |
|The Mexican State undertakes to make necessary and | |State indicated that the Ministry of Health of the State of |
|reasonable arrangements to identify the needs of José | |Mexico and Mr. José Ananías Laparra had scheduled an |
|Ananías Laparra Godínez, in coordination with his | |appointment on October 1, 2015 at Uneme Capa, Chimalhuacán, for|
|family and having special consideration to his |Partial |an initial evaluation. However, the representative of the |
|vulnerability, and on the basis thereof, to provide | |victims reported on October 8, 2014, that the young man had |
|him, with his consent and at his request, treatment | |moved to Tapachula. In that regard, the Minister of Health said|
|for his addictions through the appropriate health care| |that there was an opening for Mr. José Ananías Laparra. |
|bodies. Such arrangements shall begin within six | | |
|months of the signing of the agreement and the | |On March 17, 2017, the parties held a working meeting where the|
|obligation may be deemed to have been met once the | |petitioners requested an alternative measure for healthcare to |
|Mexican state makes the necessary and reasonable | |Ananías and his family. |
|arrangements for José Ananías Laparra Godínez to have | | |
|access to the relevant treatment, regardless of | |No information provided: The parties have not presented |
|whether or not he chooses to accept it. | |information on measures adopted to implement this part of the |
| | |agreement. |
| | | |
| | |The IACHR urges the State to submit specific and up-to-date |
| | |information on this aspect of the agreement. |
| | | |
| | |The Commission considers that implementation of this measure |
| | |remains partial and it urges the State to further expedite |
| | |steps for its full implementation. |
|VIII.2.5. EDUCATIONAL SCHOLARSHIPS | |In its Homologation Report, the Commission mentioned that on |
|The Mexican State agrees to award educational | |July 17, 2015, the State explained that at a meeting held on |
|scholarships to Rocío and José Ananías Laparra Godínez| |April 17, 2015, the Technical Committee had approved the |
|to enable them to complete the necessary and | |creation of sub accounts for Mr. Laparra's children and, |
|appropriate preparatory studies to pursue a university| |therefore, reported that the State was willing to comply with |
|or technical degree of their choosing. Owing to the | |the measure. It also advised that on May 15, 2015, the victims'|
|fact that Rocío would be unable to study for a law | |representative sent documents requesting the release of the |
|degree outside the Municipality of Tapachula, Chiapas | |check for the 2015-2016 school year for Rocío Fulvia Laparra. |
|State, the relevant arrangements shall be made to | | |
|cover the cost of university studies for a degree in | |On September 4, 2018, the State said that the scholarship for |
|law or another field of her choice in the City of | |Fluvia Laparra Godínez was guaranteed by Decision 5/3 of the |
|Tapachula, Chiapas State. Moving elsewhere to pursue |Full 2018 |Third Special Meeting of the Technical Committee of the Human |
|her studies would prevent her from achieving that. | |Rights Obligations Compliance Trust of October 15, 2014. On |
|Given that the city of Tapachula, Chiapas state, does | |September 27, 2017, the scholarship was paid for the 2017-2018 |
|not have a public law school, a degree in law | |school year; with regard to the 2018-2019 school years, the |
|initially being the preferred choice of Rocío Fulvia | |State is waiting for the beneficiaries to provide the |
|Laparra Godínez, should the victim so request, the | |appropriate documentation to the Trust. |
|State of Chiapas shall make appropriate arrangements | | |
|to reach an accommodation with private law schools | |The petitioner did not offer any observations on the |
|that have an agreement with the government, or other | |information supplied by the State. |
|institutions of her choice, so that a grant may be | | |
|extended to Rocío Fulvia Laparra Godínez to cover the | |Taking into consideration the information submitted by the |
|shortfall, thus ensuring an effective scholarship to | |State and the absence of observations from the petitioners |
|complete her studies. | |since the Approval Report was issued in 2016, the Commission |
|After a medical and psychological assessment of José | |considers that the State has implemented this aspect of the |
|Ananías Laparra is performed, the appropriateness of | |agreement in full and so it declares it. |
|this measure will be evaluated and, should his health | | |
|preclude it, it will be replaced with another, more | | |
|suitable one (such as a craft or a trade), in | | |
|coordination with the victims, in order to enable him | | |
|to lead a decent life off the streets. | | |
|Payment of the educational scholarships shall be | | |
|arranged by the Human Rights Defense Unit in | | |
|accordance with the Rules of Operation of the Human | | |
|Rights Obligations Compliance Trust, once the | | |
|appropriate requirements have been met by the victims,| | |
|which shall be done within six months. | | |
|VIII.2.6. PUBLIC ACT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF |Full[29] |
|RESPONSIBILITY | |
|In keeping with best practices in cases in which the | |
|international responsibility of the Mexican State has | |
|been established, based on a free and informed | |
|agreement with the victims and the petitioners, a | |
|public act of acknowledgment of responsibility and | |
|apology will be held by senior officials at the | |
|national and state level. The act will be attended by | |
|representatives of the State Executive Branch, the | |
|Judiciary of the State of Chiapas, the Ministry of the| |
|Interior, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs The act | |
|must be held within 12 months of the signing of this | |
|agreement. Said act will allow for the participation | |
|of the victims and whomsoever they may designate and | |
|reference and shall be made to the innocence of Mr. | |
|Ananías Laparra Martinez, the unlawful detention, | |
|torture, lack of protection for children, and | |
|violations of the rights to humane treatment and a | |
|fair trial suffered by all the victims. It shall be | |
|disseminated in different mass media with local and | |
|national coverage, and shall be published on an | |
|Internet site of the Federal Government and the State | |
|Government of Chiapas. | |
|VIII.2.7. PUBLICATION OF THE REPORT OF THE IACHR | |No information provided: The parties have not presented |
|The Mexican State agrees to publish one time only in | |information on measures adopted to implement this part of the |
|the Official Gazette of the Federation, the Official | |agreement. |
|Gazette of the State of Chiapas, and a broadly | | |
|distributed national and local newspaper a summary of |Pending |The IACHR urges the State to submit specific and up-to-date |
|the facts in the case recognized by the Mexican State | |information on this aspect of the agreement. |
|and the human rights violations recognized and | | |
|established in the report of the IACHR, as agreed upon| |The Commission considers that this clause of the agreement is |
|in advance with the victims and their representatives.| |still pending for compliance. |
|In addition, the Mexican State undertakes to post for | | |
|one year on the web site of a number of the following | | |
|authorities a public version of the report of the | | |
|IACHR, as agreed upon in advance with the victims: the| | |
|Government of the State of Chiapas, the Superior Court| | |
|of Justice of the State of Chiapas, the Office of the | | |
|Attorney General of the State of Chiapas, the Human | | |
|Rights Council of the State of Chiapas, and the | | |
|Ministry of the Interior or Ministry of Foreign | | |
|Affairs. The foregoing is on the understanding that | | |
|the publication shall be done on the web site of at | | |
|least one of the aforementioned federal authorities | | |
|and two of the aforementioned state authorities. This | | |
|obligation shall be performed within six months of the| | |
|publication of the report of the IACHR. | | |
|VIII.3. REPARATION FOR PECUNIARY DAMAGES | |
| |Full[30] |
|VIII.3.1. LOSS OF PAST AND FUTURE INCOME | |
|VIII.3.2. SOCIAL HOUSING | |
|VIII.3.3. EXPENSES AND COSTS | |
|IX. GUARANTEES OF NON REPETITION | |
|IX.1. INVESTIGATION OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE | |As to judicial recognition of innocence for Ananías Laparra |
|FAIR-TRIAL GUARANTEES OF MR. ANANÍAS LAPARRA MARTÍNEZ | |Martínez, in its Homologation Report, the Commission noted that|
|AND HIS FAMILY | |on January 27, 2015, the Constitutional Court of the Superior |
|The duty of the Mexican State to investigate and | |Court of Justice of the State of Chiapas meeting en banc in |
|punish those responsible. The Mexican State, through | |special session adopted a decision approving by a majority of |
|the Office of the Attorney General of Chiapas, agrees | |votes the petition for recognition of innocence presented by |
|within a reasonable time to conduct and diligently | |Ananías Laparra, declaring it admissible, as agreed upon in the|
|pursue all the necessary investigations and steps to |Partial |friendly settlement agreement, in connection with the |
|identify those responsible and, where appropriate, | |conviction pronounced on January 31, 2002 by the Judge of the |
|impose punishment for the crime of torture. That duty | |First Criminal Courts of the Judicial District of Soconusco |
|includes the acts and omissions committed to the | |against the petitioner and other individuals for the crime of |
|detriment of the victims that engaged the | |aggravated homicide of Elvis Diaz Martinez. The State also |
|international responsibility the Mexican State. In | |provided a copy of the Official Gazette of the Ministry of the |
|complying with that obligation, the State must remove | |Interior of Chiapas dated February 11, 2015, which published |
|all de facto and de jure obstacles that preserve | |the operative parts of the ruling of recognition of innocence |
|impunity, bearing in mind the facts established in | |in favor of Ananías Laparra Martínez, who was a victim of human|
|this agreement, and enable the effective participation| |rights violations in the criminal proceeding involving the |
|of the victims. | |aggravated homicide of Elvis Diaz Martinez, in relation to |
|The obligation to investigate ex officio. The Mexican | |criminal case no. 273/1999. |
|State acknowledges that the investigations must comply| | |
|with all the obligations set down in the Constitution | |As to the investigation of the events that led to the petition |
|of the United Mexican States, in particular Article 1 | |lodged with the IACHR, in its Homologation Report, the |
|thereof, and in the international treaties to which | |Commission noted that the State reported in its communication |
|the Mexican State is party. | |of July 17, 2015, that on April 6 and 7, 2015, the Office of |
| | |the Attorney General of Chiapas carried out a psychological |
|The petition for recognition of innocence. In | |assessment with the assistance of the Chiapas delegation of the|
|accordance with Section VIII.1 (Restitution) herein, | |Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and added that |
|the Mexican State shall take the necessary steps to | |at a meeting with the representative of Mr. Laparra, it was |
|comply with that part of the agreement. | |agreed that he would request an evaluation of Mr. Laparra |
| | |Martínez under the Istanbul Protocol by the Commission on Human|
| | |Rights of the Federal District (CDHDF). The State informed that|
| | |said Commission forwarded the evaluation of the victim under |
| | |the Istanbul Protocol and that, at that time, the Office of the|
| | |Attorney General of Chiapas was using it as evidence to |
| | |continue the investigations. |
| | | |
| | |The Office of the Prosecutor for Human Rights and the victims' |
| | |representative agreed to hold a working meeting with the |
| | |Special Anticorruption Prosecutor on October 2, 2015, for a |
| | |briefing on the status of the relevant investigations. |
| | |Likewise, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs agreed to advise the |
| | |Office of the Prosecutor in Chiapas on the absence of a statute|
| | |of limitations on torture, based on international standards. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |In his 2017 Annual Report, the Commission mentioned that the |
| | |State had reported that this had begun and that it was waiting |
| | |for the response that the Criminal Proceedings Prosecution |
| | |Service would provide to the Office of the Attorney General of |
| | |Mexico City so that the relevant procedures could be carried |
| | |out and the psychological opinion of January 14, 2013, |
| | |ratified. As a result of the above, the State pledged to keep |
| | |the petitioners and the IACHR apprised of any progress made |
| | |toward full implementation of this clause. That information was|
| | |forwarded to the petitioners for comment. |
| | | |
| | |On September 4, 2018, the State reported that ratification had |
| | |been requested of the victim's evaluation under the Istanbul |
| | |Protocol. In that regard, one of the three experts that took |
| | |part in that evaluation has ratified the opinion and |
| | |ratification by the other two professionals is pending. |
| | | |
| | |The petitioner did not offer any observations on the |
| | |information supplied by the State. |
| | | |
| | |Bearing in mind the information submitted by the State, the |
| | |Commission considers that implementation of this measure |
| | |remains partial and it urges the State to further expedite |
| | |steps for its full implementation. |
|IX.2. TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THE JUDICIARY OF THE STATE | |
|OF CHIAPAS, THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE |Full[31] |
|STATE OF CHIAPAS, THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY OF | |
|THE STATE OF CHIAPAS, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE OF | |
|THE STATE OF CHIAPAS, AND THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS | |
|COUNCIL | |
|The Mexican State, through the experts selected by the| |
|Human Rights Defense Unit in agreement with the | |
|representatives of the victim and the Government of | |
|the State of Chiapas, undertakes to provide training | |
|to persons involved in the administration of justice | |
|at the highest international standards, so that they | |
|may identify, respond to, correct, protect against, | |
|prevent, report, and punish the use of torture and | |
|coercion. The training shall also cover the most | |
|stringent international standards on compliance with | |
|due process of law in order to avoid any violation of | |
|rights by penal, law enforcement, and justice | |
|administration officials. Particular consideration | |
|will be given to the prerequisites for making an | |
|arrest, the need for a proper defense, the need to | |
|correct improper application of the principle of | |
|procedural immediacy, the need to advance ex officio | |
|investigations of complaints of torture made by | |
|individuals facing criminal charges, application of | |
|the Istanbul Protocol, the scope of the principle of | |
|presumption of innocence, application of the concept | |
|of unlawful evidence and its invalidity, and | |
|invalidity of statements obtained under duress or | |
|torture, in accordance with decisions of the Supreme | |
|Court of Justice of Mexico and international | |
|jurisprudence. Attention shall also be given to the | |
|special protections established for children in | |
|criminal matters. | |
|The persons involved in the administration of justice | |
|who take part in the program mentioned in the | |
|foregoing paragraph shall include members of the | |
|judiciary, Office of the Attorney General, Ministry of| |
|Public Security, the Chiapas Public Defender Office, | |
|and the Commission on Human Rights. | |
|This training shall be provided within one year of the| |
|signing of this agreement. | |
|IX.3. PROMOTION OF LEGISLATIVE DEBATE ON RECOGNITION | |In its Homologation Report, the Commission noted that on |
|OF INNOCENCE IN THE EVENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS | |September 24, 2015, the Mexican State, through the Government |
|The Mexican State, through the Government of Chiapas, | |of the State of Chiapas, agreed to send the petitioners the |
|with advice from the Human Rights Defense Unit, | |legislative bill for harmonizing the crime of torture with |
|undertakes to promote legislative debate on the causes| |international standards and inclusion of a declaration of |
|for admissibility of petitions for recognition of |Pending |innocence in cases involving human rights violations. It also |
|innocence in cases involving human rights violations. | |promised to involve the petitioners in the legislative debate. |
|Furthermore, the Mexican State, through the Government| | |
|of the State of Chiapas, agrees to accelerate the | |In its 2017 Annual Report, the Commission said that the State |
|process of consolidation of the State Human Rights | |reported that on April 26, 2017, the state of Chiapas pledged |
|Council, so that it may address underlying grievances | |to urge the Legislative Branch of Government to conduct the |
|and issue recommendations on human rights violations; | |debate agreed upon with the petitioners. |
|and to introduce an initiative in the local | | |
|legislature that includes the possibility that | |The petitioners, for their part, have not provided any |
|recommendations on human rights violations may provide| |information in that regard. |
|the basis for applications for recognition of | | |
|innocence. | |No information provided: The parties have not presented |
|Those initiatives shall be presented within one year | |information on measures adopted to implement this part of the |
|of the signing of this agreement. | |agreement. |
| | | |
| | |The IACHR urges the State to submit specific and up-to-date |
| | |information on this aspect of the agreement. |
| | | |
| | |Taking into consideration the available information, the |
| | |Commission considers that this clause of the agreement remains |
| | |pending for compliance. |
IV. Analysis of the information provided
5. The Commission considers the information provided by the State in 2018 to be relevant given that it is up-to-date and includes measures adopted to comply with at least one of the causes of the friendly settlement agreement. The petitioners, for their part, did not provide information within the time provided by the IACHR.
6. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that there is sufficient information to analyze compliance with the friendly settlement agreement in 2018.
V. Level of implementation in the case
7. The Commission finds that the State provided information that enabled verification of the measures adopted by the State to implement in full the measures related to the provision of health care and education services to the beneficiaries of the agreement; therefore, it declares clauses VIII 2.2 and 2.5 fully implemented.
8. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented. Consequently, the Commission will continue to monitor clauses VIII 2.3, 2.4 and 2.7, and IX.1 and 3.
VI. Individual and structural outcomes of the case
A. Individual outcomes of the case
• On January 27, 2015, the Constitutional Court of the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Chiapas meeting en banc in special session adopted a decision approving by a majority of votes the petition for recognition of innocence presented by Ananías Laparra;
• On July 15, 2015, the Federal Judicature Council expunged Mr. Laparra’s criminal record;
• The IACHR verified the publication in the Official Gazette of the State of Chiapas of the decision to admit the petition for recognition of innocence;
• On December 1, 2014, the amount agreed upon by the parties for compensation and housing assistance in Annex 1 of the friendly settlement agreement was paid;
• The active recognition of responsibility was held on September 5, 2014. In the act, the President of the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Chiapas offered a public apology; direct responsibility for the events was acknowledged; and recognition of the innocence of Ananías Laparra and his family was made.
B. Structural outcomes of the case
• A training course on “Human Rights and the Crime of Torture: Identification, Punishment, and Prevention” was held at the offices of the Supreme Court of the State of Chiapas for persons involved in the administration of justice in said federative entity. The course focused in particular on the prohibition of torture, application of the Istanbul Protocol, and fair-trial guarantees in accordance with the standards of the inter-American human rights system.
MONITORING SHEET ON REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT No. 16/16
CASE 12.847
VICENTA SÁNCHEZ VALDIVIESO
(Mexico)
I. Case summary
|Victim(s): Vicenta Sánchez Valdivieso |
|Petitioner(s): Juan Carlos Santiago Sánchez and Isidro Santiago Sánchez |
|State: Mexico |
|Report on Admissibility: 159/11 published on November 2, 2011. |
|Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement: 16/16, published on April 14, 2016 |
|Associated rapporteurship: Not applicable |
|Topics: Due process/Judicial guarantees |
| |
|Facts: The case refers to the violation of the human rights of Vicenta Sánchez Valdivieso, a Zapoteca indigenous woman, as a result of the |
|failure to implement a labor-related ruling issued for her benefit on August 13, 1999, which had sentenced the employer to pay 97,827.60 |
|Mexican pesos. In view of the failure to make this payment, a lien had been placed on the motor vehicle of the debtor and Ms. Esther Jiménez |
|Guerra was appointed as depository of the asset; afterwards, on March 2, 2000, the employer with a group of persons had gone to the house of |
|the depositary of the lien and had violently seized the car. Because of the above, Vicenta Sánchez had filed criminal proceedings for theft on|
|March 3, 2000 and, as part of these proceedings, a warrant of arrest had been issued against Santana Lopez, but he had not been arrested, |
|because he had been chosen to be an electoral candidate in the federal elections. |
| |
|Rights declared admissible: The Commission concluded that it was competent to take up the instant case, that the petition was admissible in |
|relation to Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American |
|Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and that the petition met the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of that|
|instrument. The commission also decided to notify parties and to publish its report in its annual report. |
II. Procedural activity
1. The IACHR requested updated information from the parties on July 18 and October 3, 2018.
2. The State has not submitted updated information since the approval of the friendly settlement agreement.
3. The petitioners submitted updated information on October 30, 2018 and later modified their draft.
III. Analysis of compliance with individual clauses of the friendly settlement agreement
|Agreement clause |State of compliance in|Relevant information provided by the parties |
| |2018 | |
|SECOND. The State commits to providing, in accordance with| |
|the Inter-American Court of Human Right’s case law, as | |
|comprehensive redress for harm caused, a total of | |
|$498,927.00 Mexican pesos (four hundred and ninety-eight | |
|thousand, nine hundred and twenty-seven and 00/100). |Full[32] |
|The amount of $378,927.00 Mexican pesos (three hundred and| |
|seventy-eight thousand, nine hundred and twenty-seven and | |
|00/100) will be paid by the Secretariat of the Interior, | |
|via the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human | |
|Rights, by means of delivery of the pertinent commercial | |
|documents within 30 business days as from the signature of| |
|this friendly settlement agreement. | |
|The amount of $120,000.00 Mexican pesos (one hundred and | |
|twenty thousand and 00/100) will be paid by the Government| |
|of the State of Oaxaca, via the Office for Human Rights | |
|Assistance, by means of delivery of the pertinent | |
|commercial documents within 30 business days as from the | |
|signature of this friendly settlement agreement. | |
|THIRD. The Mexican State commits to including Ms. Vicenta Sánchez Valdivieso in the following programs offered by the government of the |
|State of Oaxaca: |
|“Productive program” under the Institute for Employment |Full[33] |
|Training and Productivity of the State of Oaxaca. | |
|Seed program and job training stipend. |Full[34] |
|Medical insurance through the State of Oaxaca’s public |Partial |In its Homologation Report, the Commission noted that the State |
|insurance program. | |had reported that the victim had indicated she did not need |
| | |coverage under the public insurance programs because she had the |
| | |insurance provided by the Health Secretariat of the State of |
| | |Oaxaca because her son worked in that agency. Nevertheless, at a |
| | |working meeting held on February 13, 2015, the parties signed a |
| | |memorandum of understanding whereby the State pledged the |
| | |following: |
| | |First: The representative of the Health Secretariat shall take |
| | |steps with the Aurelio Valdivieso General Hospital of Oaxaca, to |
| | |provide care to the beneficiary C. Vicenta Sanchez Valdivieso: to|
| | |this end, he shall request the intervention of the Secretariat of|
| | |the Interior to ascertain whether or not it is possible to absorb|
| | |the costs in order to perform the knee surgery she needs, if it |
| | |is appropriate. [...] |
| | | |
| | |In 2018, the petitioners said that the condition of the knees of |
| | |the beneficiary of the agreement had worsened, yet the State had |
| | |not taken any additional steps to fulfill the agreed-upon |
| | |measures. At present the beneficiary has to use a wheelchair as |
| | |she is unable to walk unaided due to the seriousness of the |
| | |condition. |
| | | |
| | |Bearing in mind the information submitted by the petitioners, the|
| | |Commission considers that implementation of this measure remains |
| | |partial and it urges the State to further expedite steps for its |
| | |full implementation. |
|Housing improvement support. |Partial |In its Homologation Report, the Commission noted that the State |
| | |had reported that the State Housing Commission had paid a visit |
| | |to the victim’s home on November 7, 2012 in order to conduct a |
| | |technical assessment of the damage that needed to be repaired; |
| | |however, Ms. Sanchez Valdivieso indicated that she what she |
| | |needed was a new house, not repairs. The State furnished a copy |
| | |of the State Housing Commission’s Official Memo 2543 on its |
| | |technical assessment, which included a record of the petitioner’s|
| | |request and as well as an invitation for her to join the |
| | |landowner building assistance program. |
| | | |
| | |In this regard, during a working meeting held in Mexico City on |
| | |September 24, 2015 at the behest of the IACHR, the State |
| | |indicated that it remained willing to make improvements to the |
| | |house if the petitioner and the victim so desired, but also |
| | |stated that it would be impossible to provide a new house as that|
| | |went beyond the stipulations of the agreement. |
| | | |
| | |The State furnished a copy of the State Housing Commission’s |
| | |Official Memo 2543 on its technical assessment, which included a |
| | |record of the petitioner’s request and as well as an invitation |
| | |for her to join the landowner building assistance program. |
| | | |
| | |Bearing in mind the information submitted by the petitioners, the|
| | |Commission considers that implementation of this measure remains |
| | |partial and it urges the State to further expedite steps for its |
| | |full implementation. |
|Educational stipends for children between the ages of 4 |Full[35] |
|and 14. | |
IV. Analysis of the information provided
4. The Commission considers the information provided by the petitioners in 2018 to be relevant given that it is up-to-date and includes measures adopted to comply with one of the causes of the friendly settlement agreement. The State did not provide information within the time provided by the IACHR.
5. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that there is sufficient information to analyze compliance with the friendly settlement agreement in 2018.
V. Level of implementation in the case
6. The Commission notes that the petitioners provided information by which it was able to verify that since the Homologation Report was issued the State has not taken steps to perform its outstanding obligations under the present friendly settlement agreement. The Commission notes with concern that Mrs. Vicenta Sanchez Valdivieso is in a position of extreme vulnerability, given her advanced age, physical disability, and situation of poverty, and that the State has not taken the agreed-upon steps to alleviate that state of vulnerability.
7. At the same time, the petitioners have requested that the friendly settlement agreement be reformulated in order to incorporate clauses that were not included in the original friendly settlement agreement. In addition, they said that the friendly settlement agreement was unilaterally drafted by the State and that it does not provide for comprehensive reparation. In that regard, the Commission recalls that before the Approval Report was issued, the victim’s consent on the friendly settlement agreement was verified and the implications of adopting an Approval Report were explained to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is worth clarifying that when the Commission decided to adopt and publish Report No. 16/16, it assessed the contents of the friendly settlement agreement in the light of human rights standards and concluded that it was compatible with the standards on comprehensive reparation. In that regard, at this point the case moved into the monitoring stage and the agreement reached by the parties cannot be voided or the process moved backwards.
8. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented. Consequently, the Commission will continue to monitor items 3 and 4 of the third clause of the friendly settlement agreement.
VI. Individual and structural outcomes of the case
A. Individual outcomes of the case
• Two checks payable to Ms. Sanchez Valdivieso were delivered: one check issued by the government of Oaxaca in the amount of one hundred and twenty thousand Mexican pesos (MX$120,000.00), as well as a check issued by the Secretariat of the Interior in the amount of three hundred and seventy-eight thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven Mexican pesos (MX$378,927.00);
• On December 10, 2012, the government of Oaxaca furnished property to the victim and her family under the “Self-Employed Occupational Initiative” that included a chicken rotisserie machine for Ms. Vicenta Sánchez Valdivieso and equipment to start her own business, “Rosticería Ña Vicenta.”;
• Training was provided to the petitioners in the use and operation of the chicken rotisserie, in keeping with the plan for self-employment. The seed program is focused on business project development through the financing of activities to help launch entrepreneurial endeavors;
• Checks to pay for scholarships were given to the petitioner's relatives.
MONITORING SHEET ON REPORT ON FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT No. 92/17
CASE 12.627
MARÍA NICOLASA GARCÍA REYNOSO
(Mexico)
I. Case summary
|Victim(s): María Nicolasa García Reynoso |
|Petitioner(s): Dinah Laureano, María Nicolasa García Reynoso |
|State: Mexico |
|Report on Admissibility: 53/07 published on July 24, 2007 |
|Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement: 92/17 published on July 7, 2017 |
|Associated rapporteurship: Human Rights Defenders |
|Topics: Threats, acts of intimidation, and harassment/ Investigation |
| |
|Facts: On August 4, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received a complaint lodged by Frente Mexicano Pro Derechos Humanos, |
|in which they asserted the international responsibility of the United Mexican States for alleged assaults, acts of intimidation, and threats |
|against Ms. María Nicolasa García Reynoso, in reprisal for her work as a human rights defender in Mexico and for the subsequent lack of |
|effective investigation of those acts, particularly given her continual denunciation of commercial sexual exploitation of children in Puerto |
|Vallarta, Jalisco. |
| |
|Rights allegedly violated: The petitioners argued that the facts alleged constituted violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 (right |
|to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 15 (right of assembly), 16 |
|(freedom of association), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (“the American Convention”) in relation to |
|the obligations under Article 1(1) of that international instrument. |
II. Procedural activity
1. The IACHR requested updated information from the parties on July 18 and August 24, 2018.
2. The State has not submitted updated information since the approval of the friendly settlement agreement.
3. The petitioners have not submitted updated information since the approval of the friendly settlement agreement.
III. Analysis of compliance with individual clauses of the friendly settlement agreement
|Agreement clause |State of compliance in |Relevant information provided by the parties |
| |2018 | |
| |
|VI. COMPREHENSIVE REPARATION FOR HARM DONE |
|VII.1 Compensation for damages | |
|FIRST. Based on case law of the inter-American | |
|system for the protection of human rights, the | |
|Mexican State will hand over the sum of | |
|$465,400.00 (four hundred and sixty-five thousand |Full[36] |
|four hundred Mexican pesos) as comprehensive | |
|reparation for harm done. | |
|SECOND. The compensation amounts owed to the | |
|victim will be paid by the Mexican State within 30| |
|business days of the signature of the present | |
|Agreement through the Unit for the Promotion and | |
|Defense of Human Rights of the Secretariat of the | |
|Governance. | |
|VIII.2 Measures of satisfaction/apology and guarantees of non-repetition |
|VIII.2.1 Investigation of the facts of the case and punishment of those responsible |
|FIRST. The Office of the Attorney General of the |Partial |In its Homologation Report, the Commission noted that on May |
|Republic, through the Unit Specializing in | |4, 2015, the State reported that several steps and inquiries |
|Terrorism and the Stockpiling of, and Trafficking | |had been conducted to obtain sufficient evidence to accredit |
|in, Firearms, commits to keeping the investigation| |commission of the crimes denounced by the victim, which had |
|open in the AC/PGR/SIEDO/UEITA/131/20D7, and to | |not however yielded sufficiently convincing grounds for |
|continue pursuing any lines that result from it, | |obtaining new lines of investigation. On this, Ms. Maria |
|on account of the possible commission of federal | |Nicolasa García Reynoso indicated that the State had not |
|offenses: an investigation that it has conducted | |delved further in the investigations into the facts derived |
|diligently and that it will continue in a prompt | |from her activity as a human rights defender, on account of |
|and expeditious manner, till the matter is | |which she had been exposed to risk, and the witnesses that |
|resolved in accordance with law. | |had been indicated had not been questioned. |
| | | |
| | |On August 2, 2016, the State pointed out that on September |
| | |23, 2015; the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic |
| | |had indicated that steps had been taken to identify the |
| | |perpetrators. Thus, on August 6, 2015 it had been decided to |
| | |give verification record AS/PGR/SIEDO/UEITA/131/2007 the |
| | |status of prior investigation in File No. |
| | |AP/PGR/SIEDO/UEITA/184/2015, in order to elicit more data |
| | |that would make it possible to identify those responsible for|
| | |the facts. |
| | | |
| | |On April 25, 2017, during the working meeting facilitated by |
| | |the IACHR, the petitioner reiterated that the criminal |
| | |investigations into the threats and assaults against her had |
| | |not resulted in punishment of those responsible and asked |
| | |that the State undertake to review the investigations. For |
| | |its part, the State agreed to compile and deliver the |
| | |information regarding the investigations. |
| | | |
| | |On November 6, 2018, the petitioner informed that the State |
| | |has not informed the conclusion of the investigations of the |
| | |facts of the case, nor the punishment of those responsible. |
| | | |
| | |The State did not submit updated information on |
| | |implementation of this aspect of the agreement in 2018. |
| | | |
| | |The Commission considers that implementation of this measure |
| | |remains partial and it urges the State to further expedite |
| | |steps for its full implementation. |
|SECOND. The Unit Specializing in Terrorism and the|Full[37] |
|Stockpiling of, and Trafficking in, Firearms | |
|(UEITA) will continue to provide escort and | |
|protection services to Ms. María Nicolasa García | |
|Reynoso, on the understanding that this service | |
|may be withdrawn only once the Mechanism envisaged| |
|in the Law for the Protection of Human Rights | |
|Defenders and Journalists is up and running and | |
|providing protection services to Ms. García | |
|Reynoso in her capacity as a human rights | |
|defender. | |
|THIRD. The Unit for the Promotion and Defense of |Partial |In its Approval Report, the Commission noted that the State |
|Human Rights of the Secretariat of the Governance | |had pointed out that on October 30, 2015, during the |
|commits to making all arrangement needed, once the| |Nineteenth Regular Session of the Governing Board of the |
|Mechanism mentioned in the foregoing clause is | |Mechanism, an updated risk assessment had been submitted, |
|operating, to have Ms. María Nicolasa García | |based on which the Governing Board had determined, in |
|Reynoso covered by it in light of the risk to | |Agreement JG/ORD/352/2015, that a very high level of risk |
|which she is exposed as a human rights defender; | |existed and established a protection plan for the beneficiary|
|accordingly, she will be granted such prevention | |that included: a) digital closed circuit television; b) five |
|and/or protection measures as are needed to | |digital channel surveillance cameras; c) an acoustic alarm |
|protect her life and integrity, in accordance with| |system with an alert module for a cellphone via text message |
|the provisions of the Law for the Protection of | |or voice mail; d) three door and window sensors; e) a |
|Human Rights Defenders and Journalists. | |wireless sensor for detecting movements inside the house; f) |
| | |a video intercom with electromagnetic lock; g) a high |
| | |security drill-proof door lock; h) four electrically |
| | |installed lighting reflectors with reflector channels; i) a |
| | |new alarm button with leasing of the line and cellphone, with|
| | |an immediate response location app. On April 25, 2017, at |
| | |the meeting facilitated by the IACHR, Ms. García Reynoso |
| | |acknowledged the progress made with respect to the |
| | |implementation of protection measures on her behalf; and she |
| | |reiterated the importance of continuing to provide her with |
| | |said protection. |
| | | |
| | |On November 6, 2018, the petitioner informed that on August |
| | |31, 2018, the State ratified to continue with the protection |
| | |measures because the danger of risk has not been |
| | |extinguished. Additionally, he indicated that the State |
| | |continues with the protection measures of escort, closed |
| | |circuit cameras and video intercom. |
| | | |
| | |The State did not submit updated information on |
| | |implementation of this aspect of the agreement in 2018. |
| | | |
| | |The Commission considers that implementation of this measure |
| | |remains partial and it urges the State to further expedite |
| | |steps for its full implementation. |
IV. Analysis of the information provided
4. The Commission considers the information provided by the petitioners in 2018 to be relevant given that it is up-to-date and includes measures adopted to comply with one of the causes of the friendly settlement agreement. The State did not provide information within the time provided by the IACHR.
5. Accordingly, the IACHR finds that there is sufficient information to analyze compliance with the friendly settlement agreement in 2018.
V. Level of implementation in the case
6. The Commission notes with concern that there has been no substantive progress in the implementation of the friendly settlement agreement since its approval.
7. In light of the foregoing, the IACHR urges the parties to set up a working group to prepare a roadmap for implementing the measures pending and to keep the Commission apprised of any progress, so that it can evaluate compliance with its decision.
8. The Commission regards the agreement as partially implemented. Accordingly, it will continue supervising compliance by the Mexican State with the commitments established in the first and third items of clauses VIII.2.1.
VI. Individual and structural outcomes of the case
A. Individual outcomes of the case
• A check in the amount of $465,400 (four hundred and sixty-five thousand four hundred Mexican pesos) was delivered to Ms. María Garcia Reynoso as financial compensation;
• The beneficiary was granted protection measures that include a) an alarm button; b) installation and operation of a video intercom with electromagnetic lock in her home; c) installation and operation of an alarm system with an alert module for her cell phone; d) a request had been made to restore the escort service for the beneficiary, which had been provided before but was then withdrawn.
-----------------------
[1] IACHR, Report No. 24/09, Case 11.822, Friendly Settlement, Reyes Penagos Martínez et al., Mexico, March 20, 2009.
[2] IACHR, Report No. 24/09, Case 11.822, Friendly Settlement, Reyes Penagos Martínez et al., Mexico, March 20, 2009.
[3] IACHR, Report No. 24/09, Case 11.822, Friendly Settlement, Reyes Penagos Martínez et al., Mexico, March 20, 2009.
[4] IACHR, Report No. 24/09, Case 11.822, Friendly Settlement, Reyes Penagos Martínez et al., Mexico, March 20, 2009.
[5] IACHR, Report No. 90/10, Case 12.642, Friendly Settlement, José Iván Correa Arévalo, Mexico, July 15, 2010.
[6] IACHR, Report No. 90/10, Case 12.642, Friendly Settlement, José Iván Correa Arévalo, Mexico, July 15, 2010.
[7] See IACHR, 2012 Annual Report, Chapter III. D. Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, par. 873.c.
[8] IACHR, Report No. 90/10, Case 12.642, Friendly Settlement, José Iván Correa Arévalo, Mexico, July 15, 2010.
[9] IACHR, Report No. 90/10, Case 12.642, Friendly Settlement, José Iván Correa Arévalo, Mexico, July 15, 2010.
[10] IACHR, Report No. 90/10, Case 12.642, Friendly Settlement, José Iván Correa Arévalo, Mexico, July 15, 2010.
[11] IACHR, 2017 Annual Report, Chapter II. F Status of compliance with recommendations, par. 1918.
[12] IACHR, Report No. 65/14, Case 12.769, Friendly Settlement, Irineo Martínez Torres and Candelario Martínez Damián, Mexico, July 25, 2014.
[13] IACHR, Report No. 65/14, Case 12.769, Friendly Settlement, Irineo Martínez Torres and Candelario Martínez Damián, Mexico, July 25, 2014.
[14] IACHR, Report No. 65/14, Case 12.769, Friendly Settlement, Irineo Martínez Torres and Candelario Martínez Damián, Mexico, July 25, 2014.
[15] IACHR, Report No. 65/14, Case 12.769, Friendly Settlement, Irineo Martínez Torres and Candelario Martínez Damián, Mexico, July 25, 2014.
[16] IACHR, 2015 Annual Report, Chapter II. D. Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, par. 1336.
[17] IACHR, 2015 Annual Report, Chapter II. D. Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, par. 1336.
[18] IACHR, 2015 Annual Report, Chapter II. D. Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, par. 1336.
[19] IACHR, 2015 Annual Report, Chapter II. D. Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, par. 1336.
[20] IACHR, Report No. 81/15, Case 12.813, Friendly Settlement, Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital et al., Mexico, October 28, 2015.
[21] IACHR, Report No. 81/15, Case 12.813, Friendly Settlement, Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital et al., Mexico, October 28, 2015.
[22] IACHR, Report No. 81/15, Case 12.813, Friendly Settlement, Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital et al., Mexico, October 28, 2015.
[23] IACHR, Report No. 81/15, Case 12.813, Friendly Settlement, Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital et al., Mexico, October 28, 2015.
[24] IACHR, Report No. 81/15, Case 12.813, Friendly Settlement, Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital et al., Mexico, October 28, 2015.
[25] IACHR, Report No. 81/15, Case 12.813, Friendly Settlement, Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital et al., Mexico, October 28, 2015.
[26] IACHR, Report No. 81/15, Case 12.813, Friendly Settlement, Blanca Olivia Contreras Vital et al., Mexico, October 28, 2015.
[27] IACHR, Report No. 15/16, Petition 1171-09, Friendly Settlement, Ananías Laparra Martínez and Family, Mexico, April 14, 2016.
[28] IACHR, Report No. 15/16, Petition 1171-09, Friendly Settlement, Ananías Laparra Martínez and Family, Mexico, April 14, 2016.
[29] IACHR, Report No. 15/16, Petition 1171-09, Friendly Settlement, Ananías Laparra Martínez and Family, Mexico, April 14, 2016.
[30] IACHR, Report No. 15/16, Petition 1171-09, Friendly Settlement, Ananías Laparra Martínez and Family, Mexico, April 14, 2016.
[31] IACHR, Report No. 15/16, Petition 1171-09, Friendly Settlement, Ananías Laparra Martínez and Family, Mexico, April 14, 2016.
[32] IACHR, Report No. 16/16, Case 12.847, Friendly Settlement, Vicenta Sanchez Valdivieso, Mexico.
[33] IACHR, Report No. 16/16, Case 12.847, Friendly Settlement, Vicenta Sanchez Valdivieso, Mexico.
[34] IACHR, Report No. 16/16, Case 12.847, Friendly Settlement, Vicenta Sanchez Valdivieso, Mexico.
[35] IACHR, Report No. 16/16, Case 12.847, Friendly Settlement, Vicenta Sanchez Valdivieso, Mexico.
[36] IACHR, Report No. 92/17, Case 12.627, Friendly Settlement, María Nicolasa García Reynoso, Mexico.
[37] IACHR, Report No. 92/17, Case 12.627, Friendly Settlement, María Nicolasa García Reynoso, Mexico.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- world health report 2018 pdf
- amazon annual report 2018 pdf
- amazon 2018 annual report sec
- starbucks annual report 2018 pdf
- 2018 target annual report 10k
- annual report amazon 2018 pdf
- annual report 2018 pdf
- annual report apple 2018 pdf
- microsoft annual report 2018 pdf
- annual report of apple 2018 19
- apple annual report 2018 pdf
- article ii section 1 of the constitution