• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

\\Server03\productn\F\FIN\24-3\FIN301.txt unknown Seq: 1 14-MAY-01 11:15 SPECIAL REPORT PRESUMED GUILTY?: CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN MEXICO Report of the Joseph R. Crowley Program in International Human Rights/Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustõn Pro Juarez (ªPRODHº): Joint 2000 Mission in Mexico* INTRODUCTION On June 2, 1990, Manuel ManrÂõquez San AgustÂõn (ªManuel ManrÂõquezº), a mariachi musician, was performing in a town square in Mexico City. Several men approached him, seeking the musical services of the mariachi band. Once the members of the band boarded the truck in which they traveled together, they were blindfolded and taken to the offices of the Public Ministry. The men who had approached them were agents of the Mexico City judicial police. At the Public Ministry, members of the judi- cial police detained Manuel ManrÂõquez without an arrest war- * The Joseph R. Crowley Program (ªProgramº or ªCrowley Programº) at Fordham University School of Law and The Miguel AgustÂõn Pro Juarez Human Rights Center (ªPRODHº) wish to thank everyone who met with our delegation and who provided advice and assistance throughout the project. The members of the Crowley Program as well as the other U.S. based participants are especially indebted to our colleagues at the PRODH, and many others without whom we could not have undertaken this mission. In particular, we would like to thank Edgar Cortez, Digna Ochoa, Mario Patron Sanchez, Michel Maza, and Laurie Freeman from the PRODH, attorneys Pilar Noriega, Barbara Zamora, and Israel Ochoa, professors Miguel Sarre and Santiago Corcuera, and law student and legal representative Ana Lorena Delgadillo. Their invaluable assistance, their courageous dedication to justice, and their tireless efforts to promote the rule of law will remain a constant source of inspiration to all of us who participated in the mission. In addition, the Crowley Program and the PRODH would like to record our debt to the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and in particular to Denise Gilman, for invaluable support and advice before, during, and after the mission. The Crowley Program and the PRODH would also like to thank Alejandra NuÂnez,Ä who, at the time, was a law student at the Autonomous Technical Institute of Mexico and Anilu Vazquez, a student at Fordham Law School, for their assistance with translation. Finally, the Co-Directors of the Crowley Program and the PRODH wish to single out the work of Peggy Healy, without whose extraordinary energy and dedication no mission would have been possible. 801 \\Server03\productn\F\FIN\24-3\FIN301.txt unknown Seq: 2 14-MAY-01 11:15 802 FORDHAM INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 24:801 rant1 and tortured him in order to force him to confess to a recent murder.2 They beat him on several parts of his body, burned his testicles, and put gas and chili peppers up his nose.3 Seven days later, when Manuel ManrÂõquez was brought before a judge, he revoked his confession, stating that he had been tortured and, as a result, signed a false confession. The coerced confession was the only piece of evidence linking him to the murder.4 Nevertheless, Manuel ManrÂõquez was convicted of homicide and sentenced to twenty-seven years in prison.5 An ap- pellate court affirmed that decision6 and subsequent motions to overturn his conviction were rejected.7 After serving nine years, Manuel ManrÂõquez was finally 1. See Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report No. 2/99 Manuel Manrõquez , para. 40(a) (1999), available at http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/98eng/merits/Mexico%2011509.htm [hereinafter IACHR Report on Manuel Manrõquez ]. 2. The confession states that a fight had ensued among several of Manuel ManrÂõ- quez's friends and two brothers, when Manuel ManrÂõquez arrived at the scene. One of the two brothers was already dead when he arrived and Manuel ManrÂõquez killed the other one. The confession further states that Manuel ManrÂõquez hired a driver with a pick-up truck to drive him and his accomplices to an area where they could dispose of the bodies, which they had placed in cardboard boxes. Manuel ManrÂõquez then helped to load the bodies into the truck and to dump them in a remote area. 3. See IACHR Report on Manuel Manrõquez , supra note 1, para. 3. The act of torture R was confirmed after a doctor examined Manuel ManrÂõquez in prison shortly after his detention. See Direccion General de Servicio de Salud de la Ciudad de Mexico [Medi- cal Certificate issued by the General Division of Health Services for Mexico City], June 8, 1990, cited in id. para. 49. The Mexican National Human Rights Commission (ªCNDHº) also found that Manuel ManrÂõquez had been tortured. See Recommenda- tion 35/94, CNDH GACETA, Mar. 17, 1994 (finding that ªthere is sufficient evidence to state that Manuel ManrÂõquez, during the time he was detained, was subjected to torture by those who apprehended himº); see also Decision of the 12th District Court in Crimi- nal Matters in Case 241/95, Nov. 21, 1996 (criminally convicting one of the agents of the judicial police who tortured Manuel ManrÂõquez). 4. See IACHR Report on Manuel Manrõquez , supra note 1, para. 66 (stating that ªthe R [Inter-American] Commission considers that in effect the confession of Manuel ManrÂõ- quez, obtained under torture, was the only part of the evidence that led the judges to determine that he was the direct perpetrator of the homicide of which he was ac- cusedº). 5. Decision of the 36th Criminal Judge, June 9, 1990. 6. See Decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice for Mexico City, Jan. 29, 1992 (relying on Manuel ManrÂõquez's confession to find that the trial court had sufficient evidence for a conviction). 7. See IACHR Report on Manuel Manrõquez , supra note 1, para. 4 (noting that motions R to overturn his conviction were rejected by the First Collegial Court on Criminal Mat- ters for Mexico City on October 15, 1992; the Ninth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice for Mexico City on August 31, 1994; and the First District Court for Criminal Matters on January 27, 1995). \\Server03\productn\F\FIN\24-3\FIN301.txt unknown Seq: 3 14-MAY-01 11:15 2001] HUMAN RIGHTS IN MEXICO 803 granted a judicial remedy known as recognition of innocence8 and released, which was prompted by the Inter-American Com- mission on Human Rights' (ªInter-American Commission'sº) findings that agents of the judicial police tortured him.9 One of the judges on the appellate panel that granted Manuel ManrÂõ- quez's release was, coincidentally, the same judge who had de- nied him an earlier appeal. When asked about his change of heart, the judge responded that although he personally still be- lieved Manuel ManrÂõquez was guilty, he reversed his decision for two reasons: an international human rights body had intervened in the case and, after nine years in prison, the judge believed that Manuel ManrÂõquez had served enough time for his crime.10 The Manuel ManrÂõquez case demonstrates that the Mexican criminal justice system is riddled with serious failings, but is sus- ceptible to reform. The failings include the arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals by the judicial police, the use of torture to obtain false confessions, and the evidentiary weight given to these confessions by judges, despite detainees' statements that they were obtained through coercion. The judge we inter- viewed, who was one of the judges on the panel that granted Manuel ManrÂõquez's release, for example, was not convinced of his innocence or of the compelling evidence of the torture he suffered. The judge also failed to recognize the need not to base convictions on confessions obtained through torture. Yet the case also demonstrates that justice can be achieved in the Mexi- can criminal justice system. Although Manuel ManrÂõquez served nine years in prison for a crime that he did not commit, he was eventually released through the recognition of innocence rem- edy, impelled by the Inter-American Commission's findings of torture. Indeed, at least according to some officials we inter- viewed, subsequent reforms to the criminal justice system have 8. This remedy may only be sought in very limited circumstances, when new incon- trovertible evidence is found that invalidates the evidence which served as the basis for the conviction. See C.F.P.P. [Federal Code of Criminal Procedure], art. 49, 96 [herein- after FCCP]; C.P.P.D.F. [Mexico City Code of Criminal Procedure], art. 49, 96 [herein- after MCCCP]; C.P.D.F. [Federal Criminal Code], art. 560; C.P.D.F. [Mexico City Crimi- nal Code], art. 614. 9. IACHR Report on Manuel Manrõquez , supra note 1, para. 40 (finding that ªit has R been shown irrefutably that Manuel ManrÂõquez was tortured by agents of the Mexican Stateº). 10. See Interview with Name Withheld, Mexico City Supreme Court Judge, Supe- rior Tribunal of Justice, in Mexico City, Mex. (May 25, 2000). \\Server03\productn\F\FIN\24-3\FIN301.txt unknown Seq: 4 14-MAY-01 11:15 804 FORDHAM INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 24:801 helped prevent this kind of a case from recurring.11 Abuse by police and prosecutorial agents can be remedied by a judicial system willing to act independently to ensure justice and to undertake reform. Nonetheless, too few necessary re- forms have been implemented and too few judges apply existing reforms with sufficient independence. Nor do other officials, such as prosecutors, show adequate concern for the protection of fundamental freedoms. The Manuel ManrÂõquez case, in sum, illustrates that Mexico has a long road to travel before its crimi- nal justice system becomes rooted in human rights principles.

Load more

  88

Copy Link