AMERICAS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN SERIES

MEXICO BACKGROUND PAPER

May 2014

Regional Bureau for the Americas United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees P.O. Box 2500, 1211 Geneva 2

E-mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.unhcr.org

RBA/COI/MEX/14/01

The document was prepared by UNHCR on the basis of publicly available information and analysis. All sources are cited. This paper is not, and does not purport to be fully exhaustive with regard to conditions in the country surveyed, or conclusive as to the merits of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. The paper is available online at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld.

© United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 2014.

2

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 6 2.1 Political and institutional developments ...... 6 2.2 Legal Human Rights framework ...... 7

3. SECURITY SITUATION AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST CRIMINAL DRUG- TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATIONS ...... 14 3.1 Criminal drug-trafficking organizations ...... 16 3.2 Impact of criminal violence on civilians ...... 19 3.3 Deployment and intervention of the armed forces ...... 21

4. SELECTED HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS...... 24 4.1 Right to life, personal security and physical integrity ...... 24 4.2 Enforced or Involuntary disappearances ...... 28 4.3 Right to freedom of expression, opinion and association ...... 30 4.4 Rights of migrants ...... 33

5. THE SITUATION OF PERSONS WITH SPECIFIC PROFILES ...... 36 5.1 Public officials and members of the security forces ...... 36 5.2 Human rights defenders ...... 37 5.3 Women with specific profiles or in specific circumstances ...... 40 5.4 Children and adolescents with specific profiles or in specific circumstances ...... 43 5.5 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) individuals ...... 45 5.6 Journalists ...... 47 5.7 Certain categories of professionals (trade unionists, educators and members of religious communities) ...... 49 5.8 Businessmen and independent workers ...... 49 5.9 Former members of criminal groups ...... 50 5.10 Families of individuals associated with (or perceived to be supporting) criminal groups ...... 50 5.11 Victims of human trafficking ...... 50 5.12 Indigenous people with specific profiles or in specific circumstances ...... 52

3

Acronyms

CAT Convention Against Torture, and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CATWLAC Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and Children in Latin America CDHDF Human Rights Commission of the Federal District () CEDAW Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women CENCOS National Center for Social Communication (Centro Nacional de Comunicación Social) CERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination CMDPDH Mexican Commission for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights (Comision Mexicana de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos) CNDH Mexican National Commission for Human Rights (Comision Nacional de los Derechos Humanos) CONAPO National Council for Population (Consejo Nacional de Población) CONAPRED National Council to Prevent Discrimination (Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación) IACrtHR Inter-American Court of Human Rights FEADLE Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Freedom of Expression (Fiscalía Especial para la Atención de Delitos Cometidos contra la Libertad de Expresión) FEADP Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Journalists (Fiscalía Especializada para la Atención de Delitos cometidos contra Periodistas) FELAP Latin American Federation of Journalists (Federación Latinoamericana de Periodistas) FIDH International Federation for Human Rights (Federación Internacional de Derechos Humanos) IACHR Inter-American Commission on Human Rights INEGI National Statistics and Geography Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía) NGO Non-Governmental Organization OCNF National Citizens’ Observatory on Femicide (Observatorio Ciudadano Nacional de Feminicidio) OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights PAN National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional) PGR Federal Attorney General’s Office (Procuraduría General de la República) PROVICTIMA Secretary of Social Atention to Victims of Crimes (Procuraduría Social de Atención a Víctimas de Delitos) PRD Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática) PRI Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) PVEM Ecologist Green Party of Mexico (Partido Verde Ecologista de México) SEGOB Secretary of State (Secretaría de Gobernación) 4

SCJN Supreme Judicial Court of the Nation (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación) UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

5

1. INTRODUCTION

This document presents an overview of the human rights situation in Mexico as it relates to individuals who may seek asylum. This document does not reflect nor seek to make any value judgment on the Government or on the policies of the country’s authorities; rather, it aims at identifying, based on objective and reliable sources, situations in which the human rights of certain persons or groups could be particularly affected, giving rise to a need for their international protection. While the document mainly covers events of the last four years, reference to earlier events is made to provide background and context to the situation described.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 Political and institutional developments Mexico is a democratic, representative and federative republic, comprising 31 States1 and one Federal District, situated in . The Federal Government of Mexico is based on a presidential system, in which the President of the Nation is both Head of State and Head of Government within a multiparty system.2 With about 118 million inhabitants,3 it is a country with a high human development index4 and is one of the continent’s principal economies, with a GDP of 3.3 at the end of 2012.5

Mexico is also a country of contrasts in terms of distribution of wealth, and population diversity.6 Inequality, discrimination and social exclusion affect millions of people, in both rural and urban settings.7 According to CONAPRED (National Council to Prevent Discrimination), six out of ten people in Mexico believe that wealth is the factor that divides society the most, followed by political opinion and level of education.

The human rights situation is deeply rooted in the country’s political history. In the last decade, the country embarked upon a process of promotion of human rights and reform of the political system encouraged by a series of constitutional amendments adopted between 2008 and 2011.8

The security situation is a recurrent theme in Mexico and has been a priority for the last three governments. At the start of 2007, the then Federal Government of President Felipe Calderón formally launched the “Comprehensive Strategy for Crime Prevention and Fight against Delinquency”, commonly known as “the war on organized crime”9 or “the anti-narco struggle”. It sought to eradicate the influence of criminal drug-trafficking organizations in the different spheres of public administration, to fight the various criminal activities in which these organizations are involved and to reduce the alarming statistics on public security.10 The plan included the involvement of the armed

1 According to Article 40 of the Mexican Constitution, the Mexican States are free and sovereign in everything relating to their internal affairs. 2 Available at: www.electionguide.org/country.php?ID=140 and www.presidencia.gob.mx 3 The States with the largest population are Estado de Mexico, Distrito Federal and . Data provided by CONAPO (Consejo Nacional de Población) available at: www.presidencia.gob.mx 4 Mexico occupies the 61st place in this index drawn up by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), according to its 2013 report, available at: www.hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2013 5 Data provided by INEGI, available at: www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/comunicados/pibbol.pdf 6 Brookings Institution, Mexico: A bad case of the blues, 15 January 2010, available at: http://www.brookings.edu 7 CONAPRED, Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación, Encuenta Nacional sobre discriminación, Resultados Generales, 2010, available at: www.conapred.org.mx/userfiles/files/Enadis-2010-RG-Accss-002.pdf 8 Further information will be presented in section 2.2 of this document. 9 This policy began with the deployment of troops to the State of Michoacán in support of the Federal Police on 11 December 2006 and spread rapidly to other states where these criminal groups had a presence. International Crisis Group, Peña Nieto’s Challenge: Criminal Cartels and Rule of Law in Mexico, Latin America Report N°48, 19 March 2013, available at: www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/mexico/048-pena-nietos-challenge-criminal-cartels-and-rule-of-law-in- mexico.pdf 10 Further information will be presented in section 3.1 of this document. 6 forces in control of public security, in areas traditionally reserved to the various security and police agencies at federal, state and municipal levels. According to the Federal Attorney General’s Office (PGR), between December 2006 and September 2011, about 48,000 people lost their lives as a consequence of the violence in the context of the fight against criminal organizations.11

President Enrique Peña Nieto12 took office on 1 December following the 2012 national elections13, and launched a national plan, with the backing of the three biggest political parties, which included police and justice reforms.14 The avowed main objective of Peña Nieto’s government was to ensure that all had access to the rights guaranteed in the Mexican Constitution.15 President Peña Nieto promised to reduce the murder rate,16 and the State Secretary of Interior (SEGOB), reported a decrease of 17% in homicide related to organized crime during the first four months of 2013 and a decrease of 13% between December and July 2013 when compared to the same period in 2012.17 State Secretary of Interior, Miguel Angel Osorio Chong, reported that Mexico registered a total of 4,249 homicides related to organized crime between 1 December 2012 and 31 March 2013.18 In July 2013, President Peña Nieto officially reported that organized crime-related homicides during the first seven months of 2013 were down to 7,110 compared to 8,631 during the same period in 2012.

2.2 Legal Human Rights framework In recent years, Mexico has embarked upon a process of constitutional reforms to strengthen its legal framework for human rights. Some of the advances in the area include the ratification of international human rights instruments, a presidential proposal to withdraw reservations made to specific human rights treaties, and the adoption of domestic legislation on a range of human rights issues.

2.2.1 Ratification of international human rights instruments

Among the international human rights instruments ratified in the past decade are:19 i) Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; ii) Convention on the non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity; iii) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict; iv) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; v) Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; vi) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women; vii) Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; viii) Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; ix) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and x) Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

11 Lizárraga, “¿El Gobierno contó bien a los muertos?”, Animal Político, 24 January 2012, available at: www.animalpolitico.com/2012/01/el-gobierno-de-calderon-conto-bien-los-muertos-de-2011-lo-sabremos-en-12-anos 12 Available at: www.presidencia.gob.mx/presidencia/presidente/ 13 Available at: www.eleccion2012mexico.com/ 14 International Crisis Group, Peña Nieto’s Challenge: Criminal Cartels and Rule of Law in Mexico, Latin America Report N°48, 19 March 2013, available at: www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/mexico/048-pena-nietos-challenge- criminal-cartels-and-rule-of-law-in-mexico.pdf 15 Available at: www.presidencia.gob.mx/5-ejes-para-lograr-una-democracia-de-resultados/ 16 Ibid. 17 Primer informe de Gobierno 2012-2013, available at: www.presidencia.gob.mx/informe 18 Wells, “México Reporta Caída en Homicidios Relacionados al Crimen Organizado”, Insight Crime, 11 April 2013, available at: www.es.insightcrime.org/noticias-del-dia/mexico-reporta-fuerte-caida-en-asesinatos-relacionados-con-el- crimen-organizado 19 Mexico ratified the majority of the instruments on Human Rights both at Inter-American and at universal level. Therefore this list is not exhaustive; it is limited only to those instruments ratified during the Presidencies of Vicente Fox (2000-2006) and Felipe Calderón (2006-2012). Specific mention is made only of those which have the most direct bearing on the contents of this document. More information on Mexico’s adhesion to international instruments available at: www.sre.gob.mx 7

2.2.2 National legislation

In terms of the adoption of domestic legislation on human rights, important advances have also been made, especially in three areas particularly relevant to the subject of this document: comprehensive protection of women, non-discrimination, and the reform of the judicial system. Of particular relevance are:

i) Adoption in 2003 of the Federal Law to prevent and eliminate discrimination; ii) Adoption in 2007 of the General Law on access by women to a life without violence; iii) Adoption in 2012 of the Law for the protection of human rights defenders and journalists; iv) Adoption in June 2012 of the new General Law on trafficking;20 v) Approval on 9 January 2013 of the General Law on victims;21 vi) Promulgation on 2 April 2013 of a new Law on “Amparo”22 to regulate Constitutional articles 103 and 107.

The latter three laws, in particular, have filled a legal gap and were long advocated for by the Mexican civil society23 involved in the protection of human rights, and those of victims in particular.

2.2.3 Comprehensive reform of the judicial system

In 2008, a comprehensive reform of the judicial system24 introduced the accusatory and oral procedure for criminal trials and the elimination of the probative value of the confession before an authority that is not a judge. Many of the initiatives introduced by the reform can have an important impact in the struggle against impunity and the search for greater transparency in the justice system. However, these changes will not be effective until the implementation of the reform is achieved throughout the territory by 2016. To date, only three States (Chihuahua, Estado de Mexico and Morelos) have completely implemented the reform, and 10 States are in the process of doing so.25 While considered positive in general terms, the reform also introduces some concepts that are controversial such as the so-called “arraigo” [or preventive custody]. Most analysts consider this to be incompatible with due process obligations.26

20 Decreto por el cual se expide la Ley General para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar los delitos en materia de Trata de Personas y para la Protección y Asistencia a las Víctimas de esos Delitos (Law to prevent, punish and eradicate crimes on human trafficking and to protect and assist the victims of these crimes), 13 June 2012, available at: www.sre.gob.mx/images/stories/docsdh/boletines/2012/agosto/b6.pdf 21 Decreto por el que se expide la Ley General de Víctimas (General Victims Law), 9 January 2013, available at: http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5284359&fecha=09/01/2013. An important antecedent for this legislation is the Law for the Protection of Victims in the State of Chiapas of 1997, available at: http://docs.mexico.justia.com/estatales/chiapas/ley-para-la-proteccion-a-victimas-del-delito-en-el-estado-de-chiapas.pdf 22 Decreto por el que se expide la Ley de Amparo, Reglamentaria de los artículos 103 y 107 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos; se reforman y adicionan diversas disposiciones de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial de la Federación, de la Ley Reglamentaria de las fracciones I y II del artículo 105 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, de la Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal, de la Ley Orgánica del Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y de la Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República (Law on Amparo), 2 April 2013, available at: www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/lamp/LAmp_orig_02abr13.pdf 23 As an example, the civil society movement “Movimiento por la Paz” defend the protection and respect of victims’ rights. 24 Valencia Carmona, “Constitución y Nuevo Proceso Penal”, Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual”, available at: www.juridicas.unam.mx/publica/rev/refjud/cont/13/pjn/pjn4.htm 25 Civil Society, Informe conjunto presentado por organizaciones de la sociedad civil mexicana para la segunda ronda del Examen Periódico Universal a México, 4 March 2013, available at: www.scribd.com/doc/153093859/EPUMEXICO-pdf document sociedad civil EPU 2013 26 The “arraigo” permits agents of the public prosecutor’s office, after judicial authorization, to detain for up to 80 days persons who are presumed to have participated in criminal activities before accusing them of a specific crime. Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de Derechos Humanos, Arraigo made in Mexico: A violation to Human Rights, October 2012, available at: www.cmdpdh.org/english/?p=1439 8

Reform of the justice system was welcome, in a country which had come up for criticism in the past both domestically and internationally. As explained in the introduction to the 2011 report of the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers:

“The Special Rapporteur observes that persistent structural and organizational flaws in the judicial system, especially at the level of the federative entities, have an impact on the independence and autonomy of judicial authorities.”27

The same source also examined challenges facing effective implementation of the 2008 reform:

“32. The chief aim of the constitutional reform of the criminal justice system approved in 2008 is to convert the country’s semi-inquisitorial system into an oral, adversarial system of criminal justice. The reform’s positive aspects include its incorporation of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the provision that any statement that is not made in the presence of a judge is invalid. The reform will contribute to greater transparency, more effective public information services and better access to the criminal justice system. Difficulties have been encountered in its implementation, however, and the advancement of the reform process does not appear to be underpinned by a determined, constant and steady foundation of political will. The escalation of violence and growing lack of public safety have been cited as reasons for delaying or weakening the implementation of this reform. In some cases, such as in Chihuahua, counter-reforms have been brought to the fore that reduces the new system’s effectiveness in guaranteeing fundamental rights.”28

The Rapporteur’s report contains valuable information about the general state of the system of administration of justice in the country, especially with regard to its diverse deficiencies and the advances that have been recorded since 2008.29 The UN Human Rights Committee pronounced in similar terms with respect to the challenges facing the implementation of this reform.30

2.2.4 Effective access to justice

While the comprehensive reform of the justice system advances, a series of factors still make effective access to justice difficult for the population in general.31 According to National Statistics and Geography Institute (INEGI) only 523 sentences were issued in the 27,500 homicides registered in Mexico in 2012. As the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers notes:

“74. Mexicans, and especially vulnerable groups and people living in marginal areas, generally see the justice system and judicial officials as being remote from their daily lives and not readily accessible. 75. The actual physical distance between the places where people live and the courts in some regions, a lack of infrastructure and of suitable facilities for persons with disabilities, and discriminatory treatment of certain groups are some of the factors that interfere with people’s access to justice. In the most remote areas of the country, infrastructure is inadequate, and victims, parties to a trial, other litigants, lawyers and public defenders have to travel long distances to reach the courts. The Special Rapporteur has also observed that, mainly at the local level, the courts have difficulty in ensuring access to persons with disabilities.”32

27 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers : Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 18 April 2011, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/50f036da2.html 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, 7 April 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, paragraph 14, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.MEX.CO.5_E.PDF 31 The situation of some groups and individuals for whom access to justice and effective recourses of protection may be more complex are presented in more detail in section 5 of this document. 32 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: Addendum, 9

Discrimination based on gender, ethnic, cultural or social origin also plays a determining role in the barriers, formal and informal, which these sectors of the population encounter in their access to justice.33

Judges, agents of the public prosecutor’s office, and legal professionals are not immune from being victim to pressure, threats, intimidations and harassment within the framework of the fight against organized crime.34 Criminal organizations have also managed to reach judicial bodies through the corruption or extortion of officials at different levels of the administration of justice.35

As described in subsequent sections, impunity is another prevalent factor within the system. A high percentage of crimes are not reported and, among those that are recorded and investigated, only a tiny fraction of criminals are identified and punished.36 The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers places particular emphasis on this point in various sections of her report:

“54. The Special Rapporteur believes that widespread impunity, which has come to be seen as commonplace, is one of the major challenges to be faced by Mexico. Its causes appear to include a flawed system of crime investigation and repeated jurisdictional disputes between federal and state authorities which hinder the State’s efforts to mount an effective response. 55. In addition, a number of sources, including senior officials, have informed the Special Rapporteur about widespread corruption in the police force, particularly at the municipal and state levels, which criminal groups appear to have infiltrated to a greater extent. The current structure of the country’s police apparatus is not conducive to its control and oversight either, since 92 per cent of the country’s approximately 420,000 police officers work in the state and municipal forces. At the municipal level alone, there are some 22,000 different police forces. The Federal Government is seeking to overhaul this apparatus by establishing a single leadership structure in each state as a means of increasing the professional stature of the police force and strengthening oversight and accountability. 56. Corruption is found at all levels of the justice system. Although the Government has introduced “confidence checks” and reviews of the finances of police officers, public prosecutors and the staff of other judicial bodies in an effort to address this problem, these measures do not appear to have been enough to eradicate corruption.”37

It is important to define some concepts that have been mentioned with respect to their reach and contents. “Amparo” is the legal concept which is used to protect human rights, enshrined at constitutional level, in the face of a broad spectrum of arbitrary violations and restrictions to which they can be subjected. The April 2011 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers had noted that:

Mission to Mexico, 18 April 2011, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, paragraphs 74-75, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/50f036da2.html 33 Civil Society, Informe conjunto presentado por organizaciones de la sociedad civil mexicana para la segunda ronda del Examen Periódico Universal a México, 4 March 2013, available at: www.scribd.com/doc/153093859/EPUMEXICO-pdf document sociedad civil EPU 2013 34 Further information will be presented in section 5.1 of this document. 35 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 18 April 2011, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/50f036da2.html; and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Defensores de los derechos humanos frente a la mutación política y la violencia, February 2009, page 59, available at: www.fidh.org/Defensores-de-Derechos-Humanos,6329 36 Martinez, “Impunes, más del 98% de los delitos en el país: Plascencia”, El Universal, 1 March 2011, available at: www.eluniversal.com.mx/estados/79721.html 37 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 18 April 2011, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, paragraphs 54-56, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/50f036da2.html 10

“49. Amparo proceedings, which are an institution of Mexican origin, appear to have become an inaccessible, slow, complicated and costly remedy that is out of the public’s reach. A reform is currently under discussion which, in the view of the Special Rapporteur, ought to afford broader access to amparo proceedings, provide for the recognition of legitimate interests, permit the institution of collective amparo proceedings, give general effect to amparo decisions under certain circumstances, and strengthen the role of this legal institution in protecting human rights.”38

On 6 June, 2011, the Government of Mexico promulgated an amendment to the Constitution concerning the remedy of amparo, establishing the possibility of filing a writ of amparo in cases involving possible violations of rights guaranteed not only by national law, but also by international treaties ratified by the State of Mexico.39 Subsequently, on 2 April 2013, the law on amparo,40 strengthened the remedy as a legal tool for the protection of human rights.41

According to Mexican law, “arraigo”42 is a precautionary measure that justifies preventive detention for up to 80 days of a person during the investigation stage of an offence related to organized crime. During this stage the detainee is at the disposal of agents of the public prosecutor’s office, without access to a judge or a formal charge against him/her. Despite being considered a mechanism of an arbitrary character and incompatible with the principle of presumption of innocence,43 arraigo was given constitutional rank in the reform of 2008. The September 2013 ruling (contradicción de tésis 293/2011) of the Mexican Supreme Court ruling mentioned that the Mexican Constitution will prevail over international treaties when the Mexican Constitution establishes a particular restriction on human rights. The Human Rights Commission of the Federal District (CDHDF) and Amnesty International voiced their objection to the ruling, arguing that it marked a major setback in the consolidation of a democratic society based on respect for the rights of all people.44 With this decision of the Supreme Court, the figure of arraigo will prevail, even if questioned by international instruments.45

In the words of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers:

“64. Under the provision governing preventive custody, persons may be detained for the purpose of an investigation, whereas the appropriate and correct course of action would be to swiftly undertake an effective investigation and then proceed to make an arrest. The use of preventive custody is the outgrowth of a poorly functioning system for investigation and the administration of justice. It creates incentives that run counter to the enhancement of judicial authorities’ investigative capacity and may be conducive to other human rights violations. The Special Rapporteur therefore considers that the legal institution of preventive custody should be expunged from Mexico’s criminal justice system.”46

38 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 18 April 2011, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, paragraphs 49, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50f036da2.html 39 Organization of American States, Press Release 30 September 2011, available at www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2011/105.asp 40 The law on amparo contains regulations pertaining to articles 103 and 107 of the Mexican Constitution. 41 UN Human Rights Council, National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution: Mexico, 6 August 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/17/MEX/1, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/526794d54.html 42 Human Rights Watch, Neither Security nor Rights: Executions, Disappearances and Torture in the ‘war on drug- trafficking’ in Mexico, November 2011, page 65, available at: www.hrw.org 43 Human Rights Watch, Country report, Mexico, January 2012, available at: www.hrw.org 44 Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal, Boletín 313/2013 La determinación de la SCJN sobre tratados internacionales marca un retroceso para los derechos humanos en México, 3 September 2013, available at: http://www.cdhdf.org.mx/index.php/boletines/3406-boletin-3132013 45 Martinez, “La “anacrónica” SCJN aplica un revés a los derechos humanos en México y pone en riesgo a ciudadanos: IMDHD”, Sin Embargo, 4 September 2013, available at: http://www.sinembargo.mx/04-09-2013/742001 46 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 18 April 2011, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, paragraphs 64, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50f036da2.html 11

The UN Human Rights Committee made similar comments on the occasion of the final observations on the fifth periodic report presented by Mexico:

“15. The Committee expresses its concern regarding the legality of the use of “arraigo penal” (short-term detention) in the context of combating organized crime, which allows the possibility of holding an individual without charge for up to 80 days, without bringing him before a judge and without the necessary legal safeguards as prescribed by article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It regrets the lack of clarification regarding the level of evidence needed for an “arraigo” order. The Committee underscores that persons detained under “arraigo” are exposed to ill-treatment (articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).”47

The Committee Against Torture noted, in its 2012 Concluding Observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico, that:

“11. The Committee notes with concern that, the recommendations that it made in its previous concluding observations notwithstanding, the State party accorded constitutional status to the procedure of arraigo in 2008. Provision for this procedure is also made in the laws of some states, such as the State of . The Committee is concerned by documented reports of torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty under arraigo orders, in some cases in military facilities. Despite the delegation’s assurances that fundamental safeguards are complied with in these cases, the Committee notes with concern that recommendation No. 2/2011 of the Human Rights Commission of the Federal District indicates otherwise, inasmuch as, in that recommendation, the Commission decries the undue restriction of fundamental rights, failures to monitor persons being held in arraigo detention, the lack of effective oversight of the Prosecution Service and the absence of criteria for ensuring that the principle of proportionality is respected when determining the duration of arraigo detention. The Committee observes that the remedy of amparo is ineffective in cases of arraigo detention. It also observes that arraigo detention has been conducive to the admission into evidence of confessions presumably obtained under torture (arts. 2 and 11).”48

The Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Mexico noted that during the Universal Periodic Review, the Representative of “PROVÍCTIMA” reported that arraigo is under debate within the Federal Congress and in the congress of some of the State’s legislatures. The Representative noted that this is not only because of the deep commitment of Mexico towards full protection and the recognition of procedural rights for the detainees, but also because of the recognition that such measure shall only be applied in exceptional circumstances as a precautionary measure to protect life and under judicial control and overview by the human rights bodies. The report contains several recommendations on arraigo including:

“148.60. Abolish the practice of arraigo, as recommended by the Committee against Torture ( 5)/Abolish the “arraigo penal” at the federal and state level as it is contrary to international human rights standards (); 148.61. Take as soon as possible effective measures to bring conditions of detention in line with international standards, in particular to reduce overcrowding and to abolish the system of ‘arraigo’ and promote non-custodial measures (Austria); 148.62. Eliminate the practice of ‘arraigo’ at the Federal and State level and ensure that all detentions are carried out legally and recorded in a national database to which all of the parties will have access (Belgium);

47 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, 7 April 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, paragraph 14, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.MEX.CO.5_E.PDF 48 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), 11 December 2012, CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/ 12

148.63. Set up specialized bodies to investigate and prosecute allegations of flagrant violations of human rights committed in the framework of ‘arraigo’ (Belgium);” 49

2.2.5 Constitutional reform in the area of human rights

In May 2011, Mexico celebrated the entry into force of a comprehensive constitutional reform in the area of human rights,50 which recognized the pro-homine principle as guiding principle for the interpretation and application of the law.51 The reform in itself introduced a change of focus in the constitutional text that goes beyond the purely semantic, replacing the epigraph of Title I, Chapter I of the Constitution “On individual guarantees” to “On Human Rights and their Guarantees”. As a recognized academic explains:

“Both denominations, so as not to be reduced to a programmatic declaration, rightly put the accent on guarantees, but the second expressly places it first what it is that is being guaranteed, that is rights additionally defined as human, thus considering that they are not reduced to their constitutional recognition nor do they depend upon it. The Constitution is obliged to offer guarantees since it recognizes that there are rights situated above it and thus constituting the indispensable premises for any power, including the constituent and that of reform.”52

In this sense, the core of this reform lies in conferring constitutional rank to the human rights recognized in international treaties to which Mexico is party, through amendment of article 1 of the Constitution:

“In the United Mexican States, all individuals shall be entitled to the human rights granted by this Constitution and the international treaties signed by the Mexican State, as well as to the guarantees for the protection of these rights. Such human rights shall not be restricted or suspended, except for the cases and under the conditions established by this Constitution itself. The provisions relating to human rights shall be interpreted according to this Constitution and the international treaties on the subject, working in favor of the protection of people at all times. All authorities, in their areas of competence, are obliged to promote, respect, protect and guarantee the human rights, in accordance with the principles of universality, interdependence, indivisibility and progressiveness. As a consequence, the State must prevent, investigate, penalize and redress violations to the human rights, according to the law. (…) Any form of discrimination, based on ethnic or national origin, gender, age, disabilities, social status, medical conditions, religious, opinions, sexual orientation, marital status, or any other form, which violates the human dignity or seeks to annul or diminish the rights and freedoms of the people, is prohibited.”

A “bloc of constitutionality” is thus established with the constitutional obligation of the authorities, administrative or judicial, to investigate, sanction and redress violations of human rights committed in the national territory. In the words of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers:

“(…) this reform would contribute to the effective protection of human rights, to the implementation of recommendations and judgements issued by international human rights organizations and to the development of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in the area of human rights.”53

49 UN Human Rights Council, Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Mexico, 25 October 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/17/L.5 available at: http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/mexico/session_17_- _october_2013/a_hrc_wg.6_17_l.5_mexico.pdf 50 Sepúlveda, “Análisis sobres los aspectos de la reforma constitucional relacionados con el ámbito internacional (asilo y refugio), UNAM, June 2012, available at: www.juridicas.unam.mx 51 Supreme Judicial Court of the Nation, available at: www2.scjn.gob.mx/red/constitucion 52 Clavero, “México: Reforma constitucional, derechos humanos y pueblos indígenas”, América Latina en Movimiento, 14 March 2011, available at: http://alainet.org/active/45070 53 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 18 April 2011, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, paragraphs 44, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50f036da2.html 13

In September 2013, the Mexican Supreme Court granted constitutional status to international treaties signed and ratified by Mexico. The Supreme Court further ruled that the jurisprudence of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR) is binding for Mexican judges even when the IACrtHR does not explicitly mandate or name Mexico in its ruling.54 The same ruling establishes that when there is an express restriction in the Constitution on the exercise of human rights, the Mexican Constitution should prevail.

2.2.6 Legal and Institutional developments with regards to victims

PROVÍCTIMA (Procuraduría Social de Atención a las Víctimas de Delitos) is a decentralized agency of the Mexican Federal Government providing assistance to victims of crime, and the families of missing persons, created on 6 September 2011. In their first year and a half, PROVÍCTIMA participated in the identification of just over 10% of the 895,000 people registered as missing. Of the 201 persons located, three out of four were found alive.55 PROVÍCTIMA has found many retractors within civil society,56 and many others who are very supportive of their assistance and support programs for victims.

The 2013 Victims Law57 established the National System for Victims (Sistema Nacional de Ayuda, Atención y Reparación Integral de Víctimas), and a fund for victims that will be established and administered by an Executive Federal Commission (Comisión Ejecutiva Federal). The law also provides for a federal office to provide victims with legal representation and counsel to defend their interests; a national victims’ registry, which will contain data on the victims who avail themselves of the national victims’ services system; and a comprehensive redress and assistance fund to provide the necessary resources for victims’ services.58

In January 2014, PROVÍCTIMA was transformed by Presidential decree into the Executive Commission for Victims’ Attention (Comisión Ejecutiva de Atención a Victimas) with the aim to advance in the implementation of the Victims Law.59

3. SECURITY SITUATION AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST CRIMINAL DRUG-TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATIONS

The national report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council report for the Seventeenth session of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review states that:

“In the area of security and justice, the challenge is to reduce violence, to ensure that the rule of law prevails and to foster harmonious coexistence. To achieve this, a full-fledged State policy has been designed and implemented. This policy defines lines of action involving all authorities and levels of government which focus on the shared objective of attaining a peaceful Mexico, a target reflected in the National Development Plan for 2013–2018. [The goals of the National Development Plan] are to make Mexico a peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, globally responsible

54 Supreme Judicial Court of the Nation, Contradicción de tesis 293/2011, 3 September 2013, available at: www.scjn.gob.mx/Paginas/Inicio.aspx 55 PROVICTIMA, Press Release 9 May 2013, available at: www.provictima.gob.mx/2013/05/201-personas-han-sido- localizadas-con-apoyo-de-provictima 56 Turati, “Las víctimas de Províctima, otro engaño del sexenio”, Proceso, 6 October 2012, available at: http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=321882 and Soberanes, “Sicilia dice que la Ley de Víctimas de Calderón es una traición", CCN Mexico, 3 September 2012, available at: http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2012/09/03/sicilia-dice-que-la-ley-de- victimas-de-calderon-es-una-traicion 57 The law was modified by a Decree of 3 May 2013, amending Sections 1 to 180 and derogating Sections 181 to 189. 58 Available at: www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5298421&fecha=09/05/2013 59 Presidence of the Republic, Diario Oficial de la Federación, 8 January 2014, available at: www.presidencia.gob.mx/se- transforma-provictima-en-la-comision-ejecutiva-de-atencion-a-victimas/ 14

country which provides its people with a quality education. A nationwide, inclusive and pluralistic process was used to develop this plan under the leadership of the President”. 60

In 2010, the Federal Government of Mexico produced an analysis61 of the incidence and activities, in certain areas of the country, of criminal drug-trafficking cartels and other criminal organizations within the framework of the security policies introduced to fight organized crime. This analysis found that the security situation was due to the consolidation of a series of factors that have been occurring for decades. Among them, the most notable are the expansion and strengthening of the drug- trafficking cartels (and other organized criminal groups), the weakness of the security and justice systems and also the existence of social and economic conditions62 that encourage the recruitment of low-income people by these criminal organizations.

Further, the security situation in 2013 was also influenced by the appearance of armed vigilante groups whose objective is to fight crimes connected to cartels, including kidnapping, extortion and drug dealing. Despite the fact that armed vigilante groups have detained suspected criminals and have been supported by local residents, there are concerns that some groups are being used by criminal groups to fight their rivals and to wield control over a particular territory. Armed vigilante groups have been reported in at least nine States, particularly in Michoacán and Guerrero.63

During the 1980s, the main drug cartels entering the of America (USA) did so by the Caribbean route, mainly from Colombia. The incidence of criminal drug-trafficking organizations in Mexico was negligible in comparison with the growth of the Colombian cartels, such as those of Cali or Medellín.64 With the controls progressively imposed by the US on this route, from the 1990s onwards, and particularly in the past decade, the Colombian cartels began to supply drugs to the US market through Mexico and , establishing alliances with local cartels and favouring the consolidation of home-grown structures dedicated to drug trafficking, which would eventually take total control of the business.65

Since then, and according to the analysis undertaken in 2010 by the Government of Mexico, violence began to rise in the country alongside the diversification of the activities of these criminal drug- trafficking organizations was diversified and the security and justice institutions failed to deal with the phenomenon adequately.66 A phenomenon of insecurity was thus generated, which is widespread in some parts of the country, given the great capacity of these criminal groups to infiltrate the public

60 Un Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, National Report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution, Mexico, 6 August 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/17/MEX/1, available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/MXSession17.aspx 61 Federal Government, “Información sobre el fenómeno delictivo en México”, August 2010, available at: http://www.cedoh.org/documentacion/page30/files/Mexico%20seguridad.pdf. 62 Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2011, Report on Mexico, available at: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2011&country=8091; and Brookings Institute, Mexico: A bad case of the blues, 15 January 2010, available at: http://www.brookings.edu 63 International Crisis Group, Justice at the Barrel of a Gun: Vigilante Militias in Mexico, Latin America Briefing N°29, 28 May 2013, available at: www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/mexico/b029-justice-at-the-barrel-of-a-gun- vigilante-militias-in-mexico.pdf 64 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), The Threat of Narco-Trafficking in the Americas, October 2008, available at: www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/OAS_Study_2008.pdf 65 International Crisis Group, Peña Nieto’s Challenge: Criminal Cartels and Rule of Law in Mexico, Latin America Report N°48, 19 March 2013, available at: www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/mexico/048-pena-nietos-challenge- criminal-cartels-and-rule-of-law-in-mexico.pdf 66 Federal Government, “Información sobre el fenómeno delictivo en México”, August 2010, available at: www.cedoh.org/documentacion/page30/files/Mexico%20seguridad.pdf. The growth in violence responds to three initial factors: the increase in domestic consumption of drugs in the country, the struggle between gangs of drug traffickers seeking to control this market and the traffic to the north and the growth in the logistical capacity (firearms) of these criminal groups to exercise territorial control over their competitors. At the same time, the weaknesses of the law enforcement institutions are manifested through poorly paid and badly equipped police forces, inefficient and poorly professionalized public prosecutor’s office and antiquated legal frameworks. This confluence of factors meant that in some cases institutions and public officials were open to influence, be it through corruption or threats from these criminal groups. 15 institutions, particularly at local level, and to carry out acts of violence through ever more bloody confrontations with rival groups or with the security forces.67

3.1 Criminal drug-trafficking organizations According to various sources, at least seven big “cartels” or criminal organizations linked to drug- trafficking activities (among other illicit activities) operate in different parts of the country. At the same time an undetermined number of other minor criminal associations exist, which are linked to some of these cartels or which provide complementary “services” to their activities. Equally, links have been confirmed between these organizations in Mexico and similar ones in Central America.68

The seven cartels referred to operate mainly (although not exclusively) in the northern border areas of the country, in the States of the Gulf of Mexico and in some areas of the southern States. They control most of the traffic in drugs and arms, as well as people trafficking and the smuggling of migrants, gambling and other criminal activities such as prostitution or kidnapping and extortion of businessmen as principal means of financing.69 As mentioned earlier, these criminal groups have sufficient resources to infiltrate different spheres of the political and institutional life of the country, corrupt officials of the security forces and of the armed forces at all levels, and have gained ever greater public notoriety as a result of acts of appalling violence in which they are alleged to have participated,70 generating an often widespread feeling of insecurity among the population and causing forced displacement.71

i) The Beltrán Leyva Cartel.72 This group is led by the Beltrán Leyva brothers73 and was originally linked to the , operating mainly in the State of Sinaloa. This cartel has been accused of atrocious acts and recognized for its killings of high-profile officials and rival leaders. These include the assassination of the director of the Federal Police, Edgar Millán Gómez, on 8 May 2008 and that of the son of the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, Edgardo Guzmán, during a clash between both groups on the same date.74 Currently this group has been weakened by clashes with rival cartels and the capture or death of several of its leaders.75 At the same time it is reported that it has associated with the Zetas group and could be collaborating in the clashes between this group and the .

67 For more information refer to section 4 of this document. 68 Especially with the two most important criminal groups of that region, the so-called “maras” belonging to MS-13 and Barrio 18. For more information see Vanguardia, “Revela Guatemala vínculo entre la Mara Salvatrucha y Zetas”, citing the Mexican newspaper El Universal, 7 April 2012, available at: www.vanguardia.com.mx/revelaguatemalavinculoentremarasalvatruchayzetas-1259867.html; and Excelsior, “La estrecha relación entre pandillas salvadoreñas y los carteles mexicanos más violentos”, 22 July 2012, cited by América Economía, available at: www.vanguardia.com.mx/revelaguatemalavinculoentremarasalvatruchayzetas-1259867.html 69 Insight Crime, 9 September 2012, available at www.insightcrime.org/organized-crime-profile/mexico#activities. According to various media sources, the criminal organizations linked to drug trafficking have become more involved in other illicit activities such as those mentioned, particularly in the extortion of businessmen/women and kidnapping for moneymaking reasons and trafficking in persons for sexual exploitation. As shown in section 5 in greater detail, the impact of some of these criminal activities disproportionately affects certain sectors of the population or foreigners migrating through Mexico in search of better living conditions in the US or Canada. 70 The local and international press have recorded countless cases of massacres, executions, disappearances, mutilations and dismemberments, tortures and other atrocious acts committed by these groups between 2006 and the present. By way of reference, note the extremely high number of deaths attributed to these groups by the federal authorities as referred to in section 2, last paragraph of this document. 71 The notion of a feeling of general insecurity in certain parts of the country is referred to by various credible and recent reports, such as, for example, the chapters by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International on Mexico in 2012, or the reports by Special Rapporteurs of the UN and the IACHR. This is presented in greater detail in section 4 of this document. 72 Insight Crime, “Beltrán Leyva Organization”, February 2011, available at: www.insightcrime.org/groups-mexico/beltran- leyva-organization 73 The brothers Alfredo, Héctor, Marcos Arturo, Mario Alberto and Carlos Beltrán Leyva were originally commanders of the Sinaloa Cartel, from which they later split and with which they are currently in conflict over territorial issues. 74 US Congressional Research Service, Mexico’s Drug Trafficking Organizations: Source and Scope of the Rising Violence, 7 January 2011, available at: www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/155587.pdf 75 Alfredo Beltrán Leyva was arrested in January 2008 in Sinaloa, Arturo Beltrán Leyva was killed in a clash with marines in December 2009 in Cuernavaca and in the same month his brother Carlos Beltrán Leyva was arrested in Culiacán. 16

ii) Group.76 Originally made up of a group of former military officials drawn from various special units of the Mexican armed forces,77 Los Zetas formed towards the mid-1990s as the armed and security wing of the Gulf Cartel. They were instrumental in the rise of the Gulf Cartel and the control of the area of Matamoros and Tamaulipas by this group and have been characterized by the violence with which they carry out their activities. Towards the middle of the first decade of the , differences began to arise between the leadership of both groups and finally in 2009 Los Zetas split from the Gulf Cartel and began to carry out activities independently.78 These activities include kidnapping, vehicle theft, homicide, extortion and trafficking of drugs, arms and migrants as well as trafficking in persons. Their areas of operation include the States of Tamaulipas (Nuevo Laredo and San Fernando), Nuevo León (Monterrey, Cadereyta and other areas), the area of the Gulf Coast of Mexico (including parts of the States of Tabasco, Chiapas and Veracruz) and some areas of the Pacific Coast and Mexico City. This group is also known to act in association with other criminal operators, particularly in Guatemala with the “Kaibiles” group.79 The leader of the group, Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales, was captured by Mexican authorities in July 2013.80 During the first decade of the 21st Century both the security forces and rival criminal groups killed several original members of the group,81 generating a progressive loss of professionalism and identity within the group. Faced with this reduction in its ranks, in the last few years Los Zetas have been recruiting young people from disadvantaged segments of society and that also lack education, converting this group into one of the most dangerous, violent and sought after in the country.

iii) La Familia Cartel.82 Also known as “”, this group comes from the State of Michoacán and initially emerged in the middle of the first decade of this century as an actor whose main declared objective was to fight “thieves, rapists, traffickers and kidnappers”.83 At the same time however, the group maintains control of the traffic in drugs and people in that State and in neighbouring areas of the State of Guerrero. Some sources describe the group as a “pseudo- religious cult” due to the fact that they seek to justify barbaric acts such as torture, mutilations and homicides as part of a plan of “divine justice”.84 This group was considered to be one of the biggest criminal groups in the central and northern area of the country, establishing temporary alliances with Los Zetas and later with the Gulf Cartel. Currently, and after the arrest or death of some of its main leaders, as well as the split from it by a group known as “The Knight Templars”,85 its range of operation has been severely limited.86

76 InSight Crime, Zetas, June 2011, available at: www.insightcrime.org/groups-mexico/zetas 77 The term “Zeta” refers to the call sign used by the . For reference about the recruitment of this group, see: www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=109186&tabla=nacion 78 Some media sources attribute the split to a pact between the cartels of Sinaloa and Juárez and the Beltrán Leyva brothers to oppose their former associates, the Gulf Cartel. Aside from their temporary alliances, the Zetas are recognized as one of the cruellest groups operating in Mexico. 79 Vanguardia, Zetas reciben entrenamiento de Kaibiles: Aljazeera, 15 August 2011, available at: www.vanguardia.com.mx/zetasrecibenentrenamientodekaibilesaljazeera-1069849.html 80 Resendiz, “Enorme, el golpe a "zetas": Osorio”, El Universal, 18 July 2013, available at: www.eluniversal.com.mx/primera-plana/2013/impreso/osorio-eu-no-ha-solicitado-extradicion-de-trevinio-42553.html; Randal, “Drug Kingpin is captured in Mexico Near Border”, NY Times, 15 July 2013, available at www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/world/americas/drug-kingpin-is-captured-in-mexico-near- border.html?ref=americas&gwh=5C8CFF9F6D0DB8ECF3047EA7D0491B0E; and Gomora, “Capturan al líder de los Zetas”, El Universal, 16 July 2013, available at: www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2013/capturan-a-lider-de-los- zetas-936307.html 81 The security forces killed the original leader of the group, Arturo Guzmán Decenas, alias Z1, in 2002. 82 InSight Crime, Familia Michoacana, April 2011, available at: www.insightcrime.org/groups-mexico/familia-michoacana 83 El Mundo, El cartel mexicano de la La Familia Michoacana ofrece ’disolverse’ a cambio de seguridad en el país, 10 November 2010, available at: www.elmundo.es/america/2010/11/10/mexico/1289414842.html 84 US Congressional Research Service, Mexico’s Drug Trafficking Organizations: Source and Scope of the Rising Violence, 7 January 2011, available at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41576.pdf 85 For some sources, this group – which formed in March 2011 – is simply a restructuring of the members of La Familia, since it stems from a split within it and maintains the same tactics and activities as it. 86 Federal forces killed the leader of the group, Nazario Moreno González, on 10 December 2010, along with some of his lieutenants. Following this death, other members of the group tried to negotiate disarmament with the authorities, talks which appear not to have borne fruit, while another sector founded the “Knights Templars” group. 17

iv) Sinaloa Cartel.87 This cartel is the one that has possibly managed to wield the greatest influence in the political and economic spheres of the country. Several sources agree that it is a cartel with great involvement in the drug business, accounting for about 45% of the domestic market and up to 65% of drugs reaching the US. It is also a cartel with international connections throughout the continent.88 Based mainly in Culiacán, Sinaloa, its operations are centred on the States of the east and of the . Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, one of the country’s most wanted fugitives, was the leader until arrested in February 2014. From early 2010 the group has forged alliances with local groups in their zones of influence against Los Zetas and the Beltrán Leyva Cartel. v) Juárez Cartel.89 This is one of the oldest and most powerful criminal groups in the country. It controls the most important drug-trafficking route to the US, based in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, where it has strong links with local authorities and municipal and state security forces. It is currently immersed in a ferocious confrontation with the Sinaloa Cartel for control of this border city. Some sources report that, since mid-2011, it has been allied with Los Zetas group. The group has changed its leadership in recent years because of the arrests carried out by the security forces, its current leader being , who has been in custody since 2009. vi) Gulf Cartel.90 This group operates from Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and has traditionally maintained considerable influence in the States of the Gulf of Mexico. It currently maintains a strategic alliance with the Sinaloa and La Familia cartels, and is considered a promoter of the armed group known as “Mata Zetas”91 (Zeta Killers), which hunts down members of that cartel, which was once the armed wing of the Gulf Cartel. Since the arrest of its historic leader, Osiel Cárdenas Guillén, in 2004, and his extradition to the US in 2007, the cartel has lost prominence within the country’s criminal groups and reduced its territorial presence significantly, while remaining strong in its native Tamaulipas. The former leader of the Cartel, Jorge Eduardo Costilla Suárez, a former policeman from Matamoros, was captured by the police in September 2012.92 The leader of the Cartel is Mario Ramírez Treviño, alias X20, was captured in August 2013. Following his arrest, the power vacuum has generated a territorial dispute resulting in an increase in violence in the State of Tamaulipas. In the first two months of 2014, the number of homicides has increased by 24% according to official figures.93 vii) .94 Formerly a powerful criminal group, the growing clashes with the security forces, and in particular the operations of the Army in Baja California, have disintegrated the power of the group, and its action significantly in recent years. This cartel is also known as the “Arellano Félix Cartel” in reference to the family that founded and leads the group. Originally from Tijuana, the Arellano Félix family controlled not only the traffic in drugs but also the majority of criminal activities up to the middle of the first decade of the century, when arrests and killings among its leading members began to occur and the Sinaloa Cartel gained power in the fight for territorial

87 InSight Crime, Sinaloa Cartel, 8 February 2011, available at: http://insightcrime.org/groups-mexico/sinaloa-cartel 88 El Mundo, El cartel de Sinaloa, el mayor de México por su capacidad para corromper, 19 January 2011, available at: www.elmundo.es/america/2011/01/19/mexico/1295469251.html 89 InSight Crime, Juarez Cartel, 29 January 2011, available at: www.insightcrime.org/groups-mexico/juarez-cartel 90 InSight Crime, Gulf Cartel, 29 January 2011, available at: www.insightcrime.org/groups-mexico/gulf-cartel 91 The Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons Deprived of their Liberty of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IACHR), Rodrigo Escobar Gil, condemned the existence of armed actors of a paramilitary character such as the Mata Zetas group, and warned that the existence of these actors could produce an intensification of violence and human rights violations in the country. See: Proceso magazine, Paramilitares, fuente de violencia: relator de la IACHR, 30 September 2011. 92 Proceso, Captura la Marina a “El Coss”, líder máximo del cártel del Golfo, 12 September 2012, available at: www.proceso.com.mx/?p=319702 93 Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública, Informe de víctimas de homicidio, secuestro y extorsión, 2014, available at: http://www.secretariadoejecutivosnsp.gob.mx/work/models/SecretariadoEjecutivo/Resource/1406/1/images/Victimas01- 04_2014.pdf; and, Macías, “Crece violencia en Tamaulipas24%”, El Economista, 15 April 2014, available at: http://eleconomista.com.mx/seguridad-publica/2014/04/15/crece-violencia-tamaulipas-24 94 InSight Crime, Tijuana Cartel, 6 May 2011, available at: http://insightcrime.org/groups-mexico/tijuana-cartel 18

control of the state. Its current leader is Fernando Arellano Félix, nephew of Eduardo and Ramón, the founders and historic leaders of the group. The alliances which these groups forge between themselves are temporary and volatile or simply linked to short-term objectives of mutual convenience, which means that it is not possible to draw clear lines of territorial control, and networks associated with these groups are found in practically all the States of the country.

3.2 Impact of criminal violence on civilians In July 2013, President Peña Nieto reported that Mexico experienced a gradual decrease of violence during the first seven months of his presidency, although, according to the President “there is still a long way to go”.95 A total of 869 homicides "related to federal crimes" were registered from June 1 through June 30 2013, compared to 955 such homicides in the same period of 2012.96

In 2010, according to statistical data from the National Statistics and Geography Institute (INEGI),97 five municipalities accounted for 32% of the homicides in the country: Ciudad Juárez, Tijuana, Chihuahua, Culiacán and Monterrey. This percentage refers to homicides recorded in all categories, not only those referring to the violence derived from the fight against criminal drug-trafficking organizations. However, if these statistics are compared with those provided by the Office of the Attorney General (PGR)98 for the percentage of homicides at national level linked to criminal violence, the picture of the most-affected States is the same: Chihuahua (30%), Sinaloa (13%), Baja California (6.3%), Michoacán (5.4%), Tamaulipas (3%) and Nuevo León (2.6%). This statistical information refers only to the presence and activity of the criminal organizations described. It is also indicative, but not exclusively, of the areas of the country where violence derived from the clash between criminal actors or with the security forces is most widespread.

In the eight States most affected by the activities of organized crime and where the Federal Government has carried out major operations against it (Baja California Norte, Chihuahua, Guerrero, Michoacán, Sinaloa, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas and Veracruz) the homicide rate for the period 2008- 2011 practically doubled the rate over the previous decade. Within those States, about a third of the total number of homicides linked to organized crime during 2010 and 2011 were concentrated in only five cities. The levels of violence present in these localities have been unprecedented and the activities of these criminal organizations are often characterized by the commission of atrocious acts against innocent victims or against members of rival organizations with the aim of demonstrating their power or control over a certain area, challenging the authorities and generating a feeling of terror within the population and fuelling a rise in the prevailing perception of general insecurity and causing forced displacement.99 According to data from Mexico's National Citizen Observatory, criminal homicides in Jalisco increased 6.2% in the first third of 2013 in comparison to the same period in 2012. This means

95 Animal Político, Presume Peña Nieto baja gradual de la violencia en México, 19 July 2013, available at: www.animalpolitico.com/2013/07/resalta-pena-nieto-baja-gradual-de-la-violencia-en-mexico/#axzz2ZlIylwM3 96 Official Bulletin 182, Boletín Conjunto de Seguridad SEGOB, PGR, CNS, SEDENA. SEMAR, 11 July 2013, available at: www.gobernacion.gob.mx/es/SEGOB/Sintesis_Informativa?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.SEGOB.swb%23swbpress_Content %3A4259&cat=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.SEGOB.swb%23swbpress_Category%3A1 97 See 2010 statistics on deaths available at: www.inegi.org.mx 98 See report and statistical data in reference. Federal Government, “Información sobre el fenómeno delictivo en México”, August 2010, available at: http://www.cedoh.org/documentacion/page30/files/Mexico%20seguridad.pdf 99 The “perception of insecurity” to which this commentary refers is a concept repeated in several of the reports cited later during the analysis of the immediate causes of the insecurity in the country in section 4, in particular (but not limited to) in those reports of international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and it is clear from formal and informal statements of people consulted in these reports. Additionally, it is possible to consult the “Index of perception of public security” recorded by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) that, while they do not pick out the occurrence of violent acts directly related to the fight against criminal drug trafficking organizations, it represents a good parameter at national level of the perception of criminality at an overall level, see the report of CNN en Español, April 2011, at: http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/04/06/la-sensacion-de-inseguridad-en-mexico-sube-por-tercer-mes-consecutivo 19 that in part of 2013, Jalisco had the third highest number of criminal homicides of Mexico's 32 States, after Guerrero and Chihuahua.100

Another factor, which makes it difficult to gauge the scale of this phenomenon, is the lack of adequate investigation of denunciations presented by victims of these crimes. Even among those denunciations duly investigated, the majority remain unpunished. For example, taking the total number of deaths recorded in the context of the fight against drug trafficking, it is estimated that 98% are not adequately investigated.101 The Mexico Evalúa report calculated that the national impunity rate for homicides in 2010 was of 80.4%, with the worst rate – 96.4% – in the State of Chihuahua.102 In September 2012, the Attorney General’s Office reported that only 30% of those detained on drug trafficking charges in Mexico are actually convicted.103

On 1 November 2013, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) held a public audience on the situation of persons affected by internal displacement in Mexico. During this session, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested the Mexican Government to set-up specific nation-wide policies to address the issue of forced displacement. The Inter-American Commission appreciated the 2013 Victims Law, but noted the importance of moving towards more specific public policies and a federal law on the issue of internal displacement.104 Among the petitioners at the audience, the International Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) noted that there is a causal relationship between violence and displacement and that the rate of people leaving municipalities facing a situation of violence is 4.5 higher than the one for non-violent municipalities of similar socio-economic conditions.105 Both the government and petitioners agreed that the phenomenon is difficult to quantify in term of magnitude and in its impact on the affected population. Reports and figures gathered by the press vary significantly according to the source or the place of occurrence, although all agree that a phenomenon of forced displacement as a result of criminal violence does exist. For example:  The British publication “The Economist” reported in November 2010 that hundreds of people were displaced in Ciudad Miguel Alemán, Tamaulipas, as a result of clashes between Los Zetas and the Gulf Cartel.106  The Telesur television channel reported that at least 1,800 families from Michoacán and Nayarit left their homes in the first few months of 2011 as a consequence of a clash between rival cartels.107  The EmeEquis weekly magazine, citing a national survey carried out by the NGO Parametría during 2010 and 2011, reported that about 700,000 people had been displaced as a result of violence.108

100 O’Neill, New Generation Jalisco Cartel Leader Captured In Mexico, InSight Crime, 22 July 2013, available at: www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/new-generation-jalisco-cartel-leader-captured-in- 101 Martinez, “Impunes, más del 98% de los delitos en el país: Plascencia”, El Universal, 1 March 2011, available at: www.eluniversal.com.mx/estados/79721.html. Among the reasons cited to justify the high level of impunity are the justice power’s human and resource limitations for such a high number of causes, the risk of investigating causes related to organized crime, the lack of clarity with respect to the applicable jurisdiction and the lack of professionalization in the manipulation of evidence and scenes of crimes on the part of the security forces. This contributed to generating a situation of lack of confidence in the institutions that explains the low proportion of crimes effectively denounced to the authorities. 102 México Evalúa, “Seguridad y justicia penal en los estados”, 26 March 2012, available at: www.mexicoevalua.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/MEX-EVA_INDX_SJPE-LOW.pdf 103 Ramsey, In Mexico, Only 30% of Drug Arrests Lead to Conviction, InSight Crime, 17 September 2012, available at: www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/30-percent-drug-trafficking-suspects-in-mexico-convicted 104 Organization of American States, available at: www.oas.org/es/cidh/multimedia/sesiones/149/4viernes1b.asp 105 Ibid. 106 The Economist, The drug war's first displaced-persons camp, 15 November 2010, available at: www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/11/organised_crime_mexico. 107 Telesur, Enfrentamientos entre bandas del narcotráfico dejan 29 muertos y causan éxodo en México, 26 May 2011, available at: http://exwebserv.telesurtv.net/index.php/noticias/93376-NN/enfrentamientos-entre-bandas-del-narcotrafico- dejan-29-muertos-y-causan-exodo-en-mexico/ 108 Semanario EmeEquis, 700 mil desplazados por la violencia: Nos tuvimos que ir, 22 August 2011, available at: www.m- x.com.mx/xml/pdf/261/18.pdf 20

 On 18 July 2013, different media sources reported that 600 persons abandoned four villages in the municipalities of Arcelia and San Miguel Totolapan, in the State of Guerrero, due to threats from drug cartels.109

3.3 Deployment and intervention of the armed forces President Peña Nieto has made reducing violence and preventing crime a key element of his security strategy, while Felipe Calderon focused on targeting criminal kingpins.110 According to the First Government Report (Primer Informe de Gobierno 2013), from January to August 2013, 28,676 interventions were undertaken in the fight against organized crime, exceeding by 2.4% the annual target of 28,000 interventions, in addition a total of 11,659 persons were arrested for crimes against health.111

The use of a militarized strategy as a complement to the policy of public security seems to have had a mixed impact. According to a 2011 report on the subject by Human Rights Watch, the number of homicides related to organized crime rose dramatically in 2010 and 2011.112 This fact is important, particularly because at the same time the security forces, with the support of the armed forces, recorded notable advances in the capture or death of several of the main leaders of the country’s drug- trafficking cartels.

In addition to Human Rights Watch, other sources113 agreed in stating that the deployment of the armed forces in this context, as part of the policy of public security, failed. Not only has violence not diminished, but also there has been an increase in human rights violations as a direct consequence of the activity of security forces.114 Among the human rights violations attributed to the armed forces are: forced disappearances, killings, torture, sexual violence and arbitrary detention. These abusive practices are considered, according to the testimonies gathered by Human Rights Watch and others, to be endemic.

The real magnitude of the abuses committed by security forces in the framework of the struggle against drug trafficking is also difficult to gauge. By way of example, the Mexican National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH) has maintained a register of the formal complaints of alleged abuses committed by members of the armed forces. Between 2003 and 2006, 691 such complaints were received, while between 2007 and 2010 the figure rose to 4,803. In 2011, the CNDH reported a total of 1,626 complaints.115 In the same vein, the CNDH issues recommendations in which it concluded that federal authorities had direct responsibility in the commission of human rights violations.116

109 Flores, Por amenazas del narco, 600 personas abandonan cuatro poblados de Guerrero, Proceso, 18 Julio 2013, available at: www.proceso.com.mx/?p=347755 110 Cawley, Mexico Reports Drop in Crime-Related Homicides, InSight Crime, 12 July 2013, available at: www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/mexico-reports-drop-in-crime-related-homicides 111 Primer informe de Gobierno 2012-2013 available at: www.presidencia.gob.mx/informe 112 Human Rights Watch, Neither Security nor Rights: Executions, Disappearances and Torture in the ‘war on drug- trafficking’ in Mexico, November 2011, available at: www.hrw.org 113 Amnesty International, Mexico: new reports of human rights violations by the military, 2009, available at: www.ai.org; International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Los derechos humanos en México en el contexto de la guerra contra el crimen organizado, 25 July 2011, available at: www.fidh.org/los-derechos -humanos-en-Mexico-en; and Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Instituto Iberoamericano de Derechos Humanos, Elementos para la construcción de una política de Estado para la seguridad y la justicia en democracia, August 2011, available at: www.unam.mx/contenidoEstatico/archivo/files/pdfs/propuesta_s.pdf 114 International Crisis Group, Peña Nieto’s Challenge: Criminal Cartels and Rule of Law in Mexico, Latin America Report N°48, 19 March 2013, available at: www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/mexico/048-pena-nietos-challenge- criminal-cartels-and-rule-of-law-in-mexico.pdf 115 Ibid. 116 Mexican National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH), Available at: www.cndh.org.mx/Recomendaciones 21

Similarly, the IACHR received several formal complaints and in many cases has issued precautionary measures117 to protect the affected rights of the victims.118 These precautionary measures and interventions of the IACHR have been reinforced by the work that the IACrtHR has carried out in the pursuit and judgment of several cases presented by individuals affected by human rights violations at the hands of the armed forces. In various exemplary judgments, the Court reiterated that the military jurisdiction should not be the competent forum in these contexts, since this always corresponds to ordinary justice.119

The UN Human Rights Committee specifically pronounced in similar terms:

“11. The Committee notes the State party’s affirmation that no state of emergency has been declared on its territory. It remains concerned, however, at reports that in some regions, certain rights have been subject to derogations in the context of the fight against organized crime. Furthermore, the Committee remains concerned at the role of the armed forces in securing public order and the increasingly frequent reports of human rights violations which appear to be perpetrated by the military. Despite the State party’s clarification regarding the proposed amendments to the Law on National Security, the Committee is also concerned that these amendments may have negative effects on the implementation of rights recognized in article 4 of the Covenant, insofar as they broaden the powers of the armed forces to ensure public security (articles. 2 and 4 of the Covenant).”120

As indicated at the end of the previous section, impunity is one of the factors which most contributes to generating this general perception of insecurity. The prevalence of the system of military justice in the investigation and punishment of crimes attributable to elements of the armed forces, even if committed against civilians, also favours this perception. This situation was already noted by the UN Committee against Torture on the occasion of the review of the Fourth Periodic Report on Mexico in 2007121 and by the UN Human Rights Committee, on the occasion of the Final Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report presented by Mexico in 2010:

“18. The Committee notes with concern that cases of torture committed by military personnel against civilians during the performance of their duties continue to be tried in military courts. The Committee is also concerned that, while reforms have been proposed in this area, torture inflicted on military personnel is still not defined as an offence under military law. The Committee is also concerned that victims or families of victims do not have access to a remedy, including amparo [protection], in such cases (articles. 2, 14 and 26 of the Pact).” 122

117 More information on precautionary measures issued by the IACHR in cases of Mexican citizens available at: www.oas.org/es/IACHR/decisiones/cautelares.asp 118 The Federal Government and the Presidency are not immune from these denunciations and in many cases have assumed responsibility for them and taken the actions imposed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in those cases in which a judgment has been issued. For example, on 6 March 2012, in the municipality of Ayutla de los Libres, Guerrero, an act of recognition of state responsibility took place for the violation of the human rights of an indigenous woman by the armed forces in 2002. The Inter-American Court issued a judgment in 2010 on this case, and on that of the indigenous woman Me`phaa Inés Fernández Ortega and for another similar one in the case of Mrs. Valentina Rosendo Cantú. For more information, see: http://www.oas.org/es/IACHR/decisiones/archivos.asp. 119 For reference alone, see: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Radilla Pacheco vs. United Mexican States, Sentence of 23 November 2009, paragraph 10; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fernández Ortega et al vs. Mexico, sentence of 30 August 2010 and Rosendo Cantú et al vs. Mexico, sentence of 31 August 2010; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores vs. Mexico, Sentence of 26 November 2010, paragraph 198. 120 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, 7 April 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, paragraph 14, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.MEX.CO.5_E.PDF 121 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Mexico, 6 February 2007, CAT/C/MEX/CO/4, paragraph 14, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/465edc832.html 122 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, 7 April 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, paragraph 18, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.MEX.CO.5_E.PDF 22

In the same sense the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers stated with respect to the competence of the military jurisdiction:

“38. In accordance with article 13 of the Constitution, offences and contraventions of military discipline fall within the purview of the military justice system, but military courts “may not, under any circumstances or for any reason, extend their jurisdiction to include persons who do not belong to the Army”. In addition, “when a civilian is implicated in an offence or contravention of military law, the case shall be heard by the corresponding civil authority”. This provision is clearly stated and is in line with international standards relating to the jurisdiction of military courts, which, by definition, is of an exceptional nature. 39. The wording of article 57 of the Code of Military Justice and, in particular, of section II (a) is a cause of concern, however, inasmuch as offences against military discipline are defined as including ordinary and federal offences when they are “committed by military personnel when on duty or as a result of acts related thereto”. As a consequence of this open-ended wording and the even broader way in which it has been interpreted, military personnel alleged to have violated the human rights of civilians have been tried in military courts. This is a source of serious concern at a time when military personnel are serving as public security forces.”123

According to the Human Rights Watch report mentioned above, of a total of 3,671 investigations initiated by the Attorney General of Military Justice for human rights violations committed by soldiers against civilians between 2007 and 2011, only 15 led to a conviction. That is, less than 0.5% of all the cases initiated.

The Human Rights Watch report was unequivocal in stating that:

“The Mexican military court system is failing miserably to provide justice in cases involving military abuses against civilians. Although the opaque nature of the system and the fact that the authorities do not publicly report on the outcome of most cases obscures a complete picture of what happens in all cases, it is still evident that very few cases lead to convictions for the crimes committed.”124

On 6 July 2011, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico issued a judgment in which it ruled that, thenceforth, civilian tribunals should judge human rights violations committed by members of the armed forces.125 This ruling stemmed from the high tribunal’s recognition of the State’s responsibility in the case of the disappearance of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco at the hands of the military, which occurred in the State of Guerrero in 1974, as established in the judgment of the IACrtHR issued on this same case in November 2009.126 The effective implementation of this judgment, however, is linked to the speed with which reform of the military justice system is conducted, a process that at the time of writing this document has not been formally concluded.

The 2012 Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture, on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session, noted that:

123 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 18 April 2011, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, paragraphs 38 and 39, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50f036da2.html 124 Human Rights Watch, Uniform Impunity: Mexico’s Misuse of Military Justice to Prosecute Abuses in Counternarcotics and Public Security Operations, 29 April 2009, page 3, available only in Spanish, available at: www.hrw.org/es/reports/2009/04/28/impunidad-uniformada 125 Human Rights Watch, México: La Corte Suprema confirma la obligación de reformar el fuero militar, 6 July 2011, available at: http://www.hrw.org/es/news/2011/07/06/m-xico-la-corte-suprema-confirma-la-obligaci-n-de-reformar-el-fuero- militar 126 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of 23 November 2009, Series C No. 209, available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_209_ing 23

“10. The Committee is concerned by reports of an alarming increase in the use of torture during the interrogation of persons who have been arbitrarily detained by members of the armed forces or State security agencies in the course of joint operations to combat organized crime. It is gravely concerned by consistent reports that, before detainees are handed over to the Prosecution Service, they are tortured and mistreated in order to force them to confess and make self-incriminating statements which are later used to cover up irregularities committed during their detention (arts. 2, 11 and 15).”127

According to InSight Crime, accusations were filed against Mexican security and judicial authorities for 21 extrajudicial killings and 20 forced disappearances in the first five months of 2013, with the army heading the list for killings, which continues to show worrisome human rights trends. The National Alert System of Human Rights Violations (CNDH) human rights complaint compilation from January to May 2013 is mainly against security forces.128

4. SELECTED HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS

As set out in section 3, the activities of criminal organizations linked to drug trafficking affect large sectors of the population and are characterized by a high degree of violence that generates a persistent feeling of insecurity in the population. According to the Executive Secretary of the IACHR, Emilio Alvarez Icaza, Mexico was the country with the highest number of complaints received by the IACHR in 2012, with 1,800 cases.129

The report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Mexico, by the UN Human Rights Commission, in the words of the Mexican authorities themselves, notes that:

“12. The report presented by Mexico is based on the premise that corruption, public insecurity and impunity are a threat to human rights. Organized crime has killed citizens, journalists, prosecutors, police officers and members of the armed forces. Criminal groups use kidnappings, blackmailing and violence, and also employ corruption against institutions, eroding them and violating the rights of Mexicans (…).”130

4.1 Right to life, personal security and physical integrity Among the rights of the population most affected in the fight against criminal organizations and drug traffickers are those related to life, liberty, personal security and physical integrity, in the form of killings, extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detentions, kidnappings, torture and enforced disappearances, among others. These human rights violations have been committed both by criminal organizations and security forces.131 During 2011, the number of victims caused by the violence in the country surpassed the number in previous years:132

127 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), 11 December 2012, CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/ 128 Cawley, Mexico Security Forces Facing More Scrutiny After Accusations of Abuse, InSight Crime, 10 July 2013, available at: www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/mexican-officials-accused-of-41-killings-disappearances-in-2013 129 Animal Politico, México lidera quejas ante CIDH, 6 February 2013, available at: www.animalpolitico.com/2013/02/mexico-lidera-quejas-ante-cidh/ 130 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Mexico, 17 May 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fMEX%2fCO%2f5&Lang =en 131 International Crisis Group, Peña Nieto’s Challenge: Criminal Cartels and Rule of Law in Mexico, Latin America Report N°48, 19 March 2013, available at: www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/latin-america/mexico/048-pena-nietos-challenge- criminal-cartels-and-rule-of-law-in-mexico.pdf 132 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Instituto Iberoamericano de Derechos Humanos, Elementos para la construcción de una política de Estado para la seguridad y la justicia en democracia, August 2011, available at: www.unam.mx/contenidoEstatico/archivo/files/pdfs/propuesta_s.pdf. 24

“The government of President Calderón continues to deploy 50,000 soldiers and a growing number of marines to combat the drug cartels. During the year the latter fought among themselves and against the security forces for territorial control in certain states, such as Chihuahua, Nuevo León, Veracruz, Coahuila, Tamaulipas and Guerrero. More than 12,000 people lost their lives in the resulting violence. The vast majority of these homicides were never investigated. In April the National Human Rights Commission reported that there were 8,898 unidentified bodies in the country’s morgues and that 5,397 people had been reported missing since 2006. More than 40 soldiers and more than 500 police officers were killed in 2011.”133

While discrepancies exist with respect to the real number of homicides in the country, if only the official figures published by the National Institute of Statistics and (INEGI) are taken, about 132,000 people have been killed from the beginning of 2006 until the end of 2012.134 The number of homicides in certain localities (such as Ciudad Juárez and Tijuana) greatly exceeds the regional average and even the rates in cities such as Medellín, Cali (Colombia) or Caracas (Venezuela). As previously stated, the Secretary of State reported that Mexico registered a total of 4,249 homicides related to organized crime between 1 December 2012 and 31 March 2013.135 In May 2013, PROVICTIMA reported that, since their creation on 10 October 2011 until 31 March 2013, they provided assistance to 15,781 persons. Additionally, their call centre received 15,341 calls, of which 49 per cent were first callers, 38% follow up calls, and 4%, requests for information.136

Likewise, the atrocious conditions in which these deaths occur are a cause for concern. In a growing number of cases, massacres include the commission of various acts of torture, including sexual violence against women, prior to the death of the victims, who are subsequently found in public places mutilated or cut to pieces. In other occasions, the bodies of the victims are dumped in mass graves, mutilated or burnt in order to render their identification more difficult. These manifestations of violence seem to vary according to the message that the criminal groups wish to send to their rivals or to the local or federal authorities. To illustrate these horrendous acts just a few137 examples committed in the last years are cited:  The massacre of 72 irregular migrants attributed to the Zetas criminal group in August 2010 in the northern border of the State of Tamaulipas;138  The kidnapping followed by the death of 20 Mexican tourists in the Acapulco area, in a case of mistaken identity supposedly at the hands of members of the Beltrán Leyva Cartel in October 2010;139  The enforced disappearance of four young people in Ciudad Juárez in March 2011, presumably at the hands of the municipal police;140  The kidnapping, torture and death of six people, found later in a mass grave, at the hands of the Zetas group in San Fernando, Tamaulipas, in April 2011;141

133 Amnesty International, México: Annual Report. Executive Summary, 2012, available at: www.amnesty.org 134 Data provided by INEGI, available at: http://www.inegi.org.mx/lib/olap/consulta/general_ver4/MDXQueryDatos.asp?#Regreso&c=28820; and UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Global Study on Homicide 2013, April 2014, available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf 135 Insight Crime, México Reporta Caída en Homicidios Relacionados al Crimen Organizado, 11 April 2013, available at: http://es.insightcrime.org/noticias-del-dia/mexico-reporta-fuerte-caida-en-asesinatos-relacionados-con-el-crimen-organizado 136 PROVICTIMA, www.provictima.gob.mx/2013/05/provictima-atendio-a-casi-16-mil-personas-en-18-meses/ 137 Acts of this nature are reported daily in different parts of the country, sometimes individually, sometimes in number. A glance at any local newspaper will confirm this. The selection of cases here exemplifies the variety of acts of violence that are reported in different parts of the country at the hands of different actors. 138 Amnesty International, Mexico government must act now to end kidnapping and killings of migrants, 27 August 2010, available at: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18966. 139 BBC News, “Mexico drugs baron admits tourist deaths mistake”, 24 November 2010, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11834379 140 Human Rights Watch, Mexico: Investigate Forced Disappearances in Ciudad Juárez, 4 April 2011, available at: http://www.Human Rights Watch.org/news/2011/04/04/mexico-investigate-enforced-disappearances-ciudad-juarez 25

 The massacre of 20 young people in a nightclub in the north of the city of Monterrey and the appearance of 11 decapitated bodies in the Torreón area in less than 48 hours in June 2011;142  The massacre of 53 people in a fire at a casino in Monterrey in August 2011 at the hands of an undetermined criminal group;143  The appearance of two vehicles loaded with the mutilated bodies of 35 people, 12 of them women, in Veracruz in September 2011;144  The appearance of 15 decapitated bodies near a market in the Acapulco area at the hands of persons unknown in January 2011;145  The discovery of 21 mutilated bodies (bound hand and foot, with signs of torture) in June 2011 in different parts of Morelia, attributed to the Knights Templars group;146  The discovery of 193 bodies, some dismembered, in some 47 mass graves over a period of two months, in Chihuahua, attributed to struggles between rival cartels;147  The massacre and mutilation of the bodies of 49 people, at the hands of the Zetas group, in Nuevo León in May 2012;148  The discovery of 9 dismembered bodies inside a vehicle in , Taumalipas, in April 2013.149

As the examples show, these deaths occurred in the context of other serious crimes, such as kidnapping, torture and enforced disappearance.

The use of torture (and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment) is not exclusive to the criminal drug-trafficking organizations. On the contrary, it is also endemic within the security forces at all levels,150 especially in securing confessions during the investigation of crimes committed by organized crime.151 In July 2013, the Rehabilitation Coordinator of the Collective Against Torture and Impunity (CCTI), noted that out of 327 cases treated between 2004 and 2013, 57 women reported sexual torture. She further noted the high risk for women when detained by the police, as almost all of them are subjected to the sexual torture. Further to this, a lawyer of the Human Rights Centre Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez (Centro PRODH), expressed her concern as sexual torture is a repeated and common practice in Mexico, especially against women. She further noted that there are no conditions in Mexico to report this crime.152 In 2012, the report "The situation of torture in Mexico" detailed that

141 Telesur, “México: Capturan a presunto responsable de la masacre de inmigrantes en Tamaulipas”, 17 June 2011, available at: www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/94205 142 Siglo Veinteuno, “Ola violenta en norte y centro de México deja 41 muertos”, 10 July 2011, available at: http://m.s21.com.gt/node/58621 143 Telesur, Ataque a casino en el norte de México deja más de 50 muertos, 25 August 2011, available at: http://exwebserv.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/96951-NN/ataque-a-casino-en-el-norte-de-mexico-deja-mas-de-50-muertos/ 144 CNN en Español, “La policía de México encuentra 35 cadáveres en Veracruz”, 21 September 2011, available at: http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2011/09/21/la-policia-de-mexico-encuentra-35-cadaveres-en-veracruz/ 145 El País Internacional, “ La policía mexicana halla los cuerpos decapitados de 15 personas en Acapulco”, 8 January 2011, available at: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2011/01/08/actualidad/1294441212_850215.html 146 Telesur, Autoridades encuentran más de 80 cadáveres en varios estados de México, 9 June 2011, available at: http://exwebserv.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/?ckl=93910-NN&idafondo=341 147 Telesur, Encuentran fosa clandestina con siete cadáveres al norte de México, 29 August 2011, available at: http://exwebserv.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/?ckl=97097-NN 148 Voz de América, “Los Zetas ordenaron masacre en Nuevo León”, 21 May 2012, available at: www.voanoticias.com/content/mexico-drogas-masacre-zetas/843071.html 149 El Universo, “Policía de México halla 9 cuerpos mutilados”, 2 April 2013, available at: www.eluniverso.com/2013/04/03/1/1361/policia-halla-9-cuerpos-mutilados.html 150 Municipal, state and federal. It also includes the various components of the armed forces operating against organized crime. 151 Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch publish reports each year on the incidence of acts of torture in the country, as well as following up the cases of people who have been subjected to this treatment and have denounced it. 152 Lizbeth Ortiz Acevedo, “Tortura sexual contra las mujeres, pan de cada día Agentes del Estado, principales agresores”, CIMAC Noticias , 18 July 2013, available at: www.cimacnoticias.com.mx/node/63821 26 detained women are subjected to rape, sexual harassment, humiliation, death threats, mock executions, electric shocks, mutilation, beatings, suffocation, electric shocks, are deprived of food and liquids, and denied medical care.153

As indicated in section 2.2 of this document, one of the main objectives of the justice system reform process is precisely to reduce the incidence of this type of situation and the feeling of impunity that springs from the lack of effectiveness in the criminal investigations. The UN Committee against Torture referred to these circumstances in its examination of the report presented by Mexico in 2007.154 The UN Human Rights Committee made a similar point:

“13. The Committee observes with concern the persistence of torture and ill-treatment on the part of the police authorities, the low number of convictions of those responsible and the light punishments imposed on the authors. It also remains a cause for concern that the definition of torture featured in the legislation of all the states does not cover all forms of torture. Although it takes note of the initiative of preparing a more systematic medical-psychological documentation of torture and ill-treatment in accordance with the Manual for the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Istanbul Protocol), the Committee is concerned that only some states have agreed to apply this system. It is also concerned that only a small number of victims have been awarded remedy after the judicial processes (Article 7 of the Covenant).155

Further, in its 49th Session in December 2012, the Committee Against Torture concluded that:

“10. The Committee is concerned by reports of an alarming increase in the use of torture during the interrogation of persons who have been arbitrarily detained by members of the armed forces or State security agencies in the course of joint operations to combat organized crime. It is gravely concerned by consistent reports that, before detainees are handed over to the Prosecution Service, they are tortured and mistreated in order to force them to confess and make self- incriminating statements which are later used to cover up irregularities committed during their detention (arts. 2, 11 and 15).”156

The incidence of kidnapping has also increased since the start of the fight against drug trafficking in 2006, not only in the form of arbitrary detentions and/or enforced disappearances, but also in the form of kidnapping for ransom. The type of kidnapping which has increased the most recently is linked with the extortion of migrants and their families who are intercepted by criminal groups in transit through Mexico towards their destination in the US and Canada. This will be developed in more detail in section 4.5. At the same time the number of kidnappings for ransom, of the type known as “virtual” or “express”, has also increased. In the first case it is a form of extortion normally carried out by telephone to a family member of a person supposedly kidnapped so that money is deposited to free them, although in reality nobody was kidnapped. In the second, a person is taken at random by a criminal or group of criminals and made to visit various ATMs and/or homes of members of his/her family or friends to gather money in cash. This type of “express” kidnapping normally lasts only a few hours. Finally, the “traditional” type of kidnapping in Mexico, in which ransom money is demanded in exchange for the person’s freedom, has also increased alarmingly in recent years. While in 2005 the

153 Joint report Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los derechos para Todas of Todos” (RedTdT) y la Organización Mundial contra la Tortura (OMCT), The Situation of Torture in Mexico, November 2012, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/OMCT_Mexico_CAT49_sp.pdf 154 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Mexico, 6 February 2007, CAT/C/MEX/CO/4, paragraph 14, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/465edc832.html 155 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Mexico, 17 May 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fMEX%2fCO%2f5&Lang =en 156 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), 11 December 2012, CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/ 27 number of kidnappings reported was 325 (fewer than in previous years), from 2006 to 2010 the figures grew by 317%, with about 2,000 cases recorded.157 Only in the State of Morelos, kidnappings increased by 107% from 2012 to 2013.158 Different sources agree that one of the factors which have led to this increase, as well as the incidence of other crimes, is the diversification of the activities of criminal drug trafficking organizations. According to the Citizenship Council for Public Security and Criminal Justice (CCSPJP), 5 out of every 100 kidnaping victims were killed in 2012.159

4.2 Enforced or Involuntary disappearances On 18 March 2008, Mexico ratified the International Convention for the Protection of all People from Enforced Disappearances, which came into effect at international level in December 2010, and currently forms part of the norms at constitutional level.160 Mexico is also part of the Inter-American Convention on the Enforced Disappearance of Persons of 1994, although at the moment it exercises a reservation to article IX on its application to the military jurisdiction.

In March 2011, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances visited the country “to learn about the efforts made by Mexico to deal with enforced disappearances, to assess the progress of investigations and the measures adopted to prevent and eradicate disappearances and to combat their impunity”.161 The Working Group concluded that the violence resulting from the fight against criminal drug trafficking organizations has had a strong impact on the number of complaints of possible situations of enforced disappearance received during the visit:

“17. Many cases of abduction and offences similar to enforced disappearances are committed by organized criminal groups. However, apparently, not all disappeared persons were abducted by independent organized criminal groups; the State is also involved in enforced disappearances in Mexico. The Working Group received specific, detailed and reliable information on enforced disappearances carried out by public authorities, criminal groups or individuals with direct or indirect support from public officials.”162

A second important conclusion was that, due to the prevailing high level of impunity and inefficacy of the justice system in investigating these crimes, many cases which could come under the scope of the offence of enforced disappearance are reported and investigated either as different offences or are not investigated at all. The report cites as an example the case of the so-called “levantones”163 (abductions) or the recording of people as “missing” or “lost” even when the evidence suggests that these could be cases of disappearances.164

157 For details on the figures and more information on the phenomenon of kidnappings, see: InSight Crime, Tracking the Evolution of Kidnapping in Mexico, 13 September 2011, available at: www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/tracking-the- evolution-of-kidnapping-in-mexico. 158 Morelos Cruz, “Se han incrementado 107% los secuestros en Morelos este ano”, La Jornada, 16 July 2013, available at: www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/07/16/estados/031n1est 159 Proceso, “Asesinan a 5 de cada 100 víctimas de secuestro en 2012”, available at: http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=344701 160 As a result of this reform, both the Federal Penal Code and legislation in different States on the subject should be made compatible with the letter of the Convention. Currently, some local legislation do not share a single definition of the crime of enforced disappearance, and for example only acts committed by public officials are referred to and not those perpetrated by organized groups or individuals who act with the support of, in the name of, or with the authorization or acquiescence of the State. 161 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 20 December 2011, A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, Introduction, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-58-Add2_en.pdf 162 Ibid, para. 17 163 Levantón is normally used to designate a disappearance stemming from a settling of scores between criminal groups, which are not normally solved because of lack of interest or inability of the authorities to do so. 164 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 20 December 2011, A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, page 7, paragraph 18, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-58-Add2_en.pdf 28

With respect to statistical data, the Working Group refers mainly to the information collected by the CNDH that has recorded a steady increase in the number of complaints of enforced disappearance between 2006 and 2010. The CNDH Programme for Disappeared Persons recorded the alleged disappearance of 346 people in 2010, in contrast with the PGR data that only counted 63 investigations of this nature.165 The overall figure is even more striking, since the CNDH recorded 5,397 “disappeared” or “missing people”.166

Both the CNDH and the Working Group agree in identifying some groups as being in a particularly vulnerable situation. Irregular migrants transiting the country are amongst the most vulnerable.167 The CNDH reported the kidnapping, mainly at the hands of criminal groups, but in many cases with the acquiescence or tolerance of local authorities, of at least 11,000 people in the period from April to September 2010.168 Other groups that are particularly affected are women, human rights defenders and social communicators.169

The Working Group was extremely critical of the role of the armed forces in the commission of these acts, stating that:

26. The Working Group received credible information regarding civilians who were reportedly detained by military personnel and brought to military facilities. In many cases, the military personnel and other security forces which had made the arrests allegedly used the excessively broad concepts of quasi-flagrante delicto and equipollent flagrancy, which allow any person to arrest another several hours or even days after the commission of an offence. The elimination of the concept of equipollent flagrancy from the Constitution in 2008 will come into force at the very latest in 2016. The Working Group also received detailed documentation on various cases of enforced disappearance that were said to have been perpetrated by military personnel in many States such as Coahuila, Guerrero, Chihuahua, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas. In short, the military forces have stayed far beyond the duration of the security operations. The Working Group received allegations regarding cases in which military personnel reportedly questioned detainees and in which they allegedly used torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Working Group also received information regarding members of the army and other security forces who were purportedly involved in enforced disappearances for short periods of time. Allegedly, the detention was not acknowledged and the detainee was not brought before the civil authorities for several days.”170

Finally, the Working Group highlighted the difficulties family members and friends of the victims face to report and seek justice vis-à-vis these situations. Most troubling are the reports of threats, intimidation and reprisals and the policy of certain authorities of trying to discredit victims because of their role as human rights defenders or their link to criminal organizations. These occur both in the civil and military jurisdiction171 and mark to entrench impunity.

165 Ibid, para. 19. 166 While it is not possible in all cases to verify that they are enforced disappearances as classified in the Convention, because of the context in which these disappearances occur and information from those who report them, the presumption is that the majority of them correspond to this situation. See Olson, “La CNDH revela que están sin identificar ocho mil 898 muertos desde 2006”, Excelsior, 3 April 2011, available at: www.excelsior.com.mx/index.php?m=nota&id_nota=726972 167 Normally referred to as “transmigrants”, they are mainly people from Central and South America whose destination is the US or Canada. More information in section 4.4 of this document. 168 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 20 December 2011, A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, page 15, paragraph 69, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-58-Add2_en.pdf 169 Ibid, paras. 66 onwards. 170 Ibid, para. 26. 171 Ibid, paras. 33 onwards. 29

Other credible sources share a similar analysis. Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned the lack of adequate investigation of multiple denunciations of presumed involuntary disappearances.172 The UN Human Rights Committee, meanwhile, expressed similar concerns over the lack of appropriate legal definition in the classification of the crime of involuntary disappearance.173 Most recently, the Washington Post published an article stating that Mexico’s Attorney General compiled a list showing that more than 25,000 adults and children have gone missing in Mexico over the past six years.174

In the Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico adopted by the Committee at its 49th session (29 October–23 November 2012), the Committee stated the following:

“The Committee is concerned by the increasing number of enforced disappearances that are apparently being committed by public authorities or by criminal or private groups acting with the direct or indirect support of Government officials in such states as Coahuila, Guerrero, Chihuahua, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas, as reported by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, paras. 16 to 31), (art. 2).”175

In February 2013, the Government of Mexico reported that the total number of disappeared persons registered in the data base of the Sistema de Registro Nacional de Datos de Personas Extraviadas o Desaparecidas amounted to a total of 26,121 between December 2006 and November 2012.176 Undersecretary of the Interior for Human Rights, Lia Lemon, reported that there is no set date for the federal government to clean this list of missing persons.177

The February 2013 Human Rights Watch report Mexico’s Disappeared states that Human Rights Watch only documented nearly 250 “disappearances” that have occurred since 2007. According to the report, these documented cases by no means represent all the disappearances that occurred in Mexico during that period. Human Rights Watch was told by Officials in Coahuila, that 1,835 people had disappeared in that State alone from December 2006 to April 2012.178

4.3 Right to freedom of expression, opinion and association Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Mexican Constitution establish the right to freedom of expression, opinion and association. Mexico is also a party to the American Convention on Human Rights and to other international treaties on the subject, which currently have constitutional rank and which also guarantee the free exercise of these rights for the entire population. The national authorities maintain an open policy with respect to the exercise of these rights, as shown in public statements and established in programmatic plans. However, as has been stated earlier, there is a gap between the letter of the law and public discourse and the effective exercise of these rights by any citizen of the Republic; in particular for some categories such as journalists, teachers, trade unionists or human rights defenders,

172 See Amnesty International, Public Statement, “Mexico: Enforced Disappearance, a state crime ignored and downplayed”, AMR 41/018/2012, 8 March 2012. 173 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, 7 April 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, paragraph 14, paragraph 12, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.MEX.CO.5_E.PDF 174 Booth, William, “Mexico’s crime wave has left about 25,000 missing, government documents show, The Washington Post, 29 November 2012, available at: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-29/world/35584943_1_mexico-city- mexican-government-human-rights 175 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), 11 December 2012, CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/ 176 Animal Político, “SEGOB reporta 26mil 121 personas’no localizadas’ en México”, 27 February 2013, available at: www.animalpolitico.com/2013/02/segob-reporta-26-mil-121-desaparecidos-en-mexico/#axzz2YRlq4haj 177 La Vanguardia, available at: www.vanguardia.com.mx/aunnohayfechaparadepurarlistadedesaparecidoslialimon- 1736056.html 178 Human Rights Watch, Mexico’s Disappeared: The Enduring Cost of a Crisis Ignored, February 2013, available at: www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/mexico0213_ForUpload_0_0.pdf 30 among others. Since the start of the fight against criminal drug-trafficking organizations, levels of violence against these categories have risen worryingly, not only perpetrated by criminal groups but also on the part of various national, state and municipal authorities, or with their acquiescence or tolerance.179

Faced with this situation, in 2006, the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Journalists (FEADP) was created with the aim of investigating and bringing to justice violations of fundamental freedoms against journalists. In July 2010, the FEADP was abolished and the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) was created with identical attributions. However, the effectiveness of this body has been severely criticized because, despite the rise in the number of claims received, only one case reached a final conviction.180

Annual country reports produced by Amnesty International and by Human Rights Watch for 2012181 highlight three factors which directly harm freedom of opinion and expression: i) the alarming rise in the number of journalists who have been victims of serious persecution and attacks, in particular those that carry out investigations linked to drug trafficking or have taken critical positions towards the security forces and authorities; ii) the threats and attacks against people who are not journalists, but participate in other forms of social communication, for example in social networks, to share information or denounce acts of violence; iii) the climate of impunity and self-censorship due to incapacity in some cases and reluctance in others, to adequately investigate and judge crimes against the press and those that in another way affect freedom of expression and opinion.

The UN Human Rights Commission, in presenting its Concluding Observations to Mexico on implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2010, expressed its concern about this dichotomy between the law and the public discourse on one hand and the effective possibility of exercising the right and obtaining protection on the other:

“20. The Committee welcomes the establishment of a Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Journalists, but regrets the lack of effective measures taken by the State party to protect their right to life and security and to sanction the perpetrators of such violations. It also welcomes the decriminalization of slander and libel at the federal level, but remains concerned at the lack of such decriminalization in many states (articles 6, 7 and 19 of the Covenant).”182

Between 9 and 24 August 2010, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission made a joint mission to Mexico. As a result of this mission two situation reports183 were produced and published jointly by the Office in Mexico of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).184 Both reports are highly critical with respect to the lack of guarantees for social communicators in the exercise of their fundamental human rights in

179 As an introduction to the subject, see: Freedom House, Freedom in the World, Country Report: Mexico, 2011, available at: www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2011&country=8091 and see also: Artículo 19, Silencio forzado: El Estado cómplice de la violencia contra la prensa en México, informe 2011, available at: www.articulo19.org 180 For detailed information on the workings of the FEADP, see the report: Silencio forzado: El Estado cómplice de la violencia contra la prensa en México, informe 2011, page 57 onwards, available at: www.articulo19.org 181 See reports at www.amnesty.org y www.hrw.org 182 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, 7 April 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, paragraph 20, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.MEX.CO.5_E.PDF. See particularly the four recommendations made to the State in following up this observation. 183 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 19 May 2011, A/HRC/17/27/Add.3, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50f3df002.html; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2010 Special Report on Freedom of Expression in Mexico (OEA/Ser.L/V/II), 4 March 2011, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/reports/countries/2010%20FINAL%20CIDH%20Relator%C3%ADa%20Informe%20 Mexico%20Libex_eng.pdf 184 The complete document with both reports in Spanish is called “La libertad de expresión en México: Informes de misión de las relatorías de la ONU y la IACHR” and is available at: http://www.hchr.org.mx/files/doctos/Libros/2011/LEOk.pdf 31 the face of the prevailing situation of violence as a consequence of the fight against criminal organizations in the country:

“16. A widespread climate of impunity concerning cases of violence against journalists, even with respect to the most serious acts such as killings, disappearances and kidnappings. During his visit, the Special Rapporteur did not receive concrete and sufficient information about criminal and administrative convictions in these cases. Impunity prevails and encourages the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defencelessness of victims and their families.”185 “8. Nonetheless, the full enjoyment of freedom of expression in Mexico faces grave obstacles of various kinds, among them the murders of journalists and other extremely serious acts of violence against those who disseminate information, ideas and opinions, and the widespread impunity that holds sway in such cases.”186

CENCOS (Centro Nacional de Comunicación Social) Report, “¿Por qué tanto silencio? Daño reiterado a la libertad de expresión 2012”, documented a total of 258 attacks against journalists, ranging from killings, threats, armed attacks, to enforced disappearances. The document notes that the main perpetrators were linked to organized crime, however, government agents were also responsible in particular cases, both by directly assaulting the journalists and by denying protection. Veracruz was the State where most serious assaults occurred against journalists in 2012, followed by Oaxaca (35), Baja California (16), Michoacán (12), Puebla (11), Coahuila (11), Tamaulipas (10), and Sonora (10).187

In the face of this lack of guarantees self-censorship in the exercise of the right is often as a form of self-protection:

“24. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the Special Prosecutor’s Office has ordered police authorities to adopt 48 precautionary measures in favour of journalists, their families and media outlets. However, the fact that journalists are defenceless and receive no support from the authorities means that self-censorship is being used as a means of selfprotection. Increasingly, information is being withheld for fear of possible reprisals and investigations into possible acts of corruption are being abandoned. Fear of seeking and disseminating information is spreading because of the lack of protection and effective safeguards. In some states where there is a major presence of organized crime, such as Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Guerrero, Michoacán, Nuevo León, Sinaloa and Tamaulipas, self-censorship has reached such serious levels that the local press has been reduced to silence and does not report on extremely violent events occurring in the area. At best, such events will be reported in the national press.”188

185 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 19 May 2011, A/HRC/17/27/Add.3, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2010 Special Report on Freedom of Expression in Mexico (OEA/Ser.L/V/II), paragraph 16, 4 March 2011, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/reports/countries/2010%20FINAL%20CIDH%20Relator%C3%ADa%20Informe%20 Mexico%20Libex_eng.pdf 186 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2010 Special Report on Freedom of Expression in Mexico (OEA/Ser.L/V/II), paragraph 8, 4 March 2011, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/reports/countries/2010%20FINAL%20CIDH%20Relator%C3%ADa%20Informe%20 Mexico%20Libex_eng.pdf 187 Cencos, Porqué tanto silencio? Daño reiterado a la libertad de expresión en México, 2012, available at http://issuu.com/cencos/docs/porquetantosilencio-web 188 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 19 May 2011, A/HRC/17/27/Add.3, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50f3df002.html 32

It is also a cause for concern, as the CNDH indicated in a 2011 press release, that among the authorities allegedly responsible for the commission of assaults, threats and aggressions against journalists and other communicators are those charged with ensuring their rights: the Attorney General’s Office, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of National Defence, among others.189

Human rights defenders are another group particularly affected in their rights to freedom of expression, opinion and association. Due to their interventions in favour of different causes or groups of people, human rights defenders have been the target of threats and attacks both by criminal organizations and authorities at different levels of government. As mentioned in the Human Rights Watch’s annual report on Mexico for 2014:

“Human rights defenders and activists continue to suffer harassment and attacks, often in the context of opposition to infrastructure or resource extraction “mega-projects.” In many cases, there is evidence—including witness testimony or traced cell phones—that state agents are involved in aggressions against human rights defenders. Of 89 aggressions against human rights defenders registered by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights between November 2010 and December 2012, none resulted in a conviction.190

This is despite the introduction of a law specially aimed at protecting these two groups of people.191 Human Rights Watch also maintained that the law to protect human rights defenders and journalists, which was passed in June 2012, has still to be fully implemented due to few and inadequately trained staff, delays in accessing funds, coordination failures with state-level institutions and poor dissemination to those at risk.192 Specific information about the number of aggressions, threats and other acts of violence against communicators will be dealt with in sections 5.2 and 5.6 of this document.

4.4 Rights of migrants Mexico is a country with a long tradition of migration. Today’s situation includes its nationals abroad and foreigners who enter as immigrants or as so-called “transmigrants”193 in transit through the country.

Mexico is party to the majority of the international and regional instruments dealing with the protection of human rights and has played a leading part in the promotion of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.194 On 24 May 2011, a new Migration Law195 was promulgated, updating the legislation dating from 1974 which was considered anachronistic and restrictive in terms of human rights. This new law seeks to repair flaws through a series of principles that, if they were to be implemented adequately, would result in a major advance in the protection of the human rights of migrants in Mexico. The main point of the new law lies in recognizing that the full enjoyment and exercise of the rights and liberties constitutionally enshrined in the country should not be subject to the verification of any migratory status of a person. The new law protects everyone – foreigners and nationals – equally, regardless of

189 Mexican National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH), Press release CGCP/001/11, 2 January 2011, available at: http://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/fuentes/documentos/Comunicados/2011/COM_2011_001.pdf 190 Human Rights Watch, Word Report 2014: Mexico, 2014, available at: http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country- chapters/mexico?page=1 http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/mexico?page=1 191 For more information on the law, see section 2.2 of this document and the analysis prepared by the NGO Artículo 19, available at: http://www.articulo19.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=301:posicionamiento-ante- aprobacion-de-ley-de-proteccion&catid=6:posicionamiento&Itemid=20 192 Human Rights Watch, Word Report 2014: Mexico, 2014, available at: http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country- chapters/mexico?page=1 http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/mexico?page=1 193 The term usually describes irregular migrants “in transit” for territory intending to reach the US or Canada as their final destination, i.e. not pursuing to remain in Mexico. 194 Mexico ratified the Convention in 1999, being one of the first countries to do so and a major promoter for others to do so until achieving its coming into force in 2003. 195 For the complete text of the 2011 Migration Law, see: www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LMigra.pdf 33 their migratory status, based on the principle of non-discrimination, and guarantees access to basic services such as health and education and the possibility for any foreigner present or staying in an irregular manner in the country to voluntarily present him/herself to the migratory authority in order to verify under what circumstances he/she can regularize his/her status. In addition, the legislation seeks to bring its text into line with the international commitments assumed by the country, for example regulating the periods of administrative detention applicable to foreigners with an irregular status or establishing procedures for differential treatment of vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors.

Some civil society actors, who work in the area of migration, have been critical about both the capacity and the political and institutional commitment to implement and enforce this law. They claim that widespread corruption, institutional weaknesses and violations of human rights by those responsible for implementing the law are factors which must be resolved before it is possible to bring about a real change in the country’s migratory policy.196

Mexico is arguably the riskiest country in the continent for the transit of migrants, where an estimated 400,000 annually enter or pass197, particularly the most vulnerable within this population, such as children and women. The vulnerability of this group is increased by their irregular status (documented or not), which makes access to the protection of the authorities difficult, and by the growing involvement of criminal drug-trafficking organizations in the business of human trafficking and smuggling. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) has produced a study in which human rights violations committed against undocumented migrants in transit through the country are recorded and evaluated. This is also an interesting analysis of Mexico’s migration policy and practice up to the entry into force of the new migration law.198 In the same way, various reports from Mexican civil society organizations and international NGOs warn about the extremely high risk to which migrants who enter or pass through the country are exposed, through extortion, kidnapping, harassment, sexual violence and killing.199 For example, in recent years, the number of kidnappings of migrants was higher than the number of victims of this crime of national origin and led the CNDH to produce an exhaustive report on violence against migrants in 2011.200 For the CNDH, while it is difficult to provide exact figures, kidnappings of migrants could reach 18,000 a year and occur mainly on the southern border (States of Chiapas and Tabasco) to transmigrants of Central American origin. In the words of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, in the report of his last mission to Mexico in 2009:

“65. Transnational migration continues to be a business in Mexico, largely operated by transnational gang networks involved in smuggling and trafficking in persons and drugs, with collaboration of the local, municipal, state and federal authorities. These practices are directly related to the rise in cases of violence against women and children, especially along the northern and southern borders, and at transit points. As such, impunity for human rights abuses against migrants is rampant. With the pervasiveness of corruption at all levels of government and the close relationship that many authorities have with gang networks, incidences of extortion, rape and assault of migrants continue. The majority of the cases seem to be against migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua.”201

196 Martinez, “Manifiestan ONG rechazo de la nueva Ley de Migración; no da garantías”, La Jornada, 26 May 2011, available at: www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/fuentes/documentos/informes/especiales/2011_secmigrantes.pdf 197 Official estimates from the Mexican National Migration Institute. 198 International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR), Muros, abusos y muertos en la fronteras: Violaciones flagrantes de los derechos humanos de los migrantes indocumentados en camino a Estados Unidos, March 2008, available at: www.fidh.org/Muros-abusos-y-muertos-en-las 199 The 2010 Amnesty International report “Invisible Victims: migrants on the move in Mexico” is possibly the best compilation of denunciation and analysis of the context in this sense, available at: www.amnesty.org/es/news-and- updates/abusos-generalizados-migrantes-mexico-crisis-ddhh-2010-04-28. Credible sources such as Human Rights Watch or the CNDH estimate that there are about 20,000 kidnappings annually against the migrant population. 200 Mexican National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH), Informe especial sobre secuestro de migrantes en México, 22 February 2011, available at: www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/fuentes/documentos/informes/especiales/2011_secmigrantes.pdf 201 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Jorge Bustamante, Addendum, Mission to Mexico, 24 May 2009, A/HCR/11/7/Add.2, available at: www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/Migration/SRMigrants/Pages/AnnualReports.aspx 34

This issue is recognized as a cause for concern by the National Migration Institute itself, which in recent years has put into effect internal measures to tackle it.202

It should be noted that the authorities’ responsibility is not limited to protecting from but also to preventing the commission of these abuses and crimes against the migrant population. As stated in the Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 on the legal status and human rights of undocumented migrants of 17 September 2003, the IACrtHR establishes the States’ obligation to respect and guarantee the fundamental rights of migrants. The IACHR, for its part, has also repeatedly denounced violations of the human rights of migrants in Mexico and has called on the State to prevent these abuses through the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the issue.203 In August 2011, this Rapporteur’s office presented a preliminary report204 on his visit to Mexico which highlights the advances in terms of migration law and the issues still pending with respect to its implementation as well as the prevalence of serious human rights violations against the migrant population.

As explained in section 2, the risk for migrants has increased notably since criminal drug-trafficking organizations have extended their networks to the business of trafficking of persons and smuggling of migrants, with kidnapping of migrants for ransom and disappearance followed by the death of those who cannot pay for their safety, in cash or in kind, being a widespread practice among these groups. Some sources allege, likewise, the complicity of security forces in the commission and/or tolerance of these crimes.205 The Mexican press has been vocal on reporting violent acts committed against the migrant population, such as the tragic massacre of 72 migrants (the majority of them of Central American origin) in Tamaulipas in August 2010.206 During its Fourteenth Session, the UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families noted that:

“The Committee is deeply concerned by the alarming number of cases of kidnapping and extortion of undocumented migrant workers coming up from the southern border and by the acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, disappearances and killings of these migrants, primarily at the hands of national and international organized criminal groups. The Committee is also concerned by allegations that public authorities participate in these human rights violations, or that they are carried out with the complicity, consent and/or collusion of federal, state and municipal authorities. It is also concerned that violence against migrants has extended beyond the border areas and spans the main transit routes used by the migrant population. The Committee notes the various actions which the authorities have taken to combat the kidnapping of migrants. However, it is concerned that impunity for these crimes prevails, especially in paradigmatic cases such as the kidnapping and murder of 72 Central American and South American migrants in August 2010 in Tamaulipas and the kidnapping of 40 migrant workers in the State of Oaxaca in December 2010.207

202 Carmona, “Iniciará INM acciones para combatir abusos contra migrantes”, WRadio, 15 May 2011, available at: www.wradio.com.mx/noticias/actualidad/iniciara-inm-acciones-para-combatir-abusos-contra- migrantes/20110515/nota/1472466.aspx 203 The reports and press releases of the Rapporteur’s office can be consulted at www.iachr.org/migrantes/defaultmigrants.htm 204 Organization of American States, Preliminaries Observations of the Relateurship on the Rights of Migrants Workers on its Visit to Mexico, available at www.oas.org/en/iachr/migrants/docs/pdf/Mexico2011.pdf 205 Amnesty International, Mexico: 2012 Annual Report, available at: www.amnesty.org 206 Jornada, Zetas ejecutaron a 72 migrantes; no pudieron pagar el rescate, August 2010, available at www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/08/26/politica/002n1pol 207 UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Fourteenth session 4–8 April 2011, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 74 of the Convention, Concluding observations on Mexico, 3 May 2011, CMW/C/MEX/CO/2, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/docs/CMW.C.MEX.CO.2_en.doc 35

During its Eightieth session in March 2012, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted that:

“The Committee remains concerned about the situation of migrant workers, most of whom come from indigenous communities in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, and migrants in transit, especially with regard to women who are the victims of abuse. The Committee expresses its deep concern at the vulnerability of these communities to kidnapping, torture and murder, and is also extremely concerned that their fear of being subjected to discrimination and xenophobia prevents them from seeking assistance and protection when needed (art. 5 (e) (i)).208

Since migrants are not part of the national population, analysis of the risk level of this group should also be undertaken in the light of the situation in their country of origin and their initial reason for leaving.

5. THE SITUATION OF PERSONS WITH SPECIFIC PROFILES

In the context of the prevailing security situation in Mexico, certain persons or groups of people could be particularly affected in the exercise of their basic human rights and could require particular attention. In some cases, the effects or the risk stem from the role they play within Mexican society; that is, through their identification (real or attributed) with certain institutions or organizations, values or ideals, ideological or political positions or their social, cultural, ethnic or religious origin. The following are some examples that are not meant to be exhaustive.

5.1 Public officials and members of the security forces This group includes any person who individually or collectively represents the state in one of its basic functions of governing, administering justice or maintaining order and public security (i.e. mayors; prosecutors, judges, lawyers and other operators of justice; representatives of public bodies;209 members of the various security forces and members of the armed forces who are involved in the fight against criminal drug-trafficking organizations). It also includes candidates for elective office and any person who holds elected posts in the different levels of the public administration (federal, state or municipal).

These categories of persons are often the target of intimidation, threats or attacks on the part of criminal groups and drug traffickers who see the public functions and responsibilities as opposed to their own interests. In June 2013, the president of the Association of Local Authorities of Mexico, acknowledged that in particular locations, mayors are not only victims of threats, but have also been asked to give a percentage of the municipal budget in exchange for being able to serve as mayors. Some councillors were forced to leave their towns due to this situation of intimidation.210

Threats and homicides against these categories of persons are well documented. Perhaps the most notable was the assassination of the director of the Federal Police, Edgar Millán Gómez, which took place on 8 May 2008 and was attributed to the Beltrán Leyva Cartel,211 or the assassination of the candidate for Governor of Tamaulipas, Rodolfo Torre Cantú, carried out in June 2010 by as yet

208 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Eightieth session 13 February–9 March 2012, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention, Concluding observations, 4 April 2012, CERD/C/MEX/CO/16-17, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/50619e132.html 209 For example, representatives of bodies such as the National Migration Institute or the Federal Electoral Institute, among others. 210 Informador, Alcaldes viven bajo amenazas de carteles, June 2013, available at: www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2013/463715/6/alcaldes-viven-bajo-la-amenaza-de-los-carteles.htm 211 González, “Sí traicionaron a Edgar Millán”, El Universal, 12 May 2008, available at: www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/506205.html 36 unidentified authors, but in which local drug cartels are presumed to have been involved.212 Intimidation is perhaps the aim behind the selective homicide of mayors213 and police chiefs of small towns214 in various States of the country or the kidnappings or killings of members of the armed forces. In some cases, the direct participation of members of the security forces in the acts has been reported.215 Along the same lines there are numerous reports of intimidation and killing of judges who investigate cases related to organized crime; and in particular threats to lawyers who represent a party in cases against criminal groups.216 In general, as can be seen in the reports consulted and what was set out in sections 2 and 3 of this document, one of the main risk factors for these groups lies in the prevailing impunity in the justice system and the limited State capacity or willingness to respond and protect. Several NGOs have published analyses of this problem.217

5.2 Human rights defenders Human rights defenders as a group continue to be one of the most persecuted in Mexico, receiving threats and intimidation from State actors or from those linked to the State as well as criminal organizations. In the words of the last annual Human Rights Watch report:

“Human rights defenders continue to suffer harassment and attacks, often in the context of opposition to infrastructure or resource extraction “mega-projects.” In many cases, there is evidence—including witness testimony or traced cell phones—that state agents are involved in aggressions against human rights defenders. Of 89 aggressions against human rights defenders registered by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights between November 2010 and December 2012, none resulted in a conviction.”218

The OHCHR in Mexico analysed the situation of human rights defenders in the country between 2009 and 2010.219 The report and an update describe the problems faced by human rights defenders in a clearly adverse context. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders makes special reference to the situation in Latin America and highlights that defenders continue to be exposed to high levels of violence in Mexico.220 The work carried out by these persons is often unrecognized or underestimated by society and the authorities who often criticize and question the legitimacy of defenders and their work.221

212 En Informador, Vinculan a Yarrington con el asesinato de Torre Cantú”, 11 February 2012, available at: www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2012/356671/6/vinculan-a-yarrington-con-el-asesinato-de-torre-cantu.htm 213 Siglo Veintiuno, Alcaldes del norte de México están amenazados, 24 September 2010, available at: www.s21.com.gt/internacionales/2010/09/24/alcaldes-norte-mexico-estan-amenazados 214 A landmark case in this sense is that of Marisol Valles García who became chief of police in the town of Pradexis, Guerrero, after the decapitation of her predecessor and sought asylum in the US after receiving threats shortly after taking office. Available at: www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2011/276405/6/estados-unidos-analiza-dar-asilo-a-marisol-valles.htm 215 See, for example, the kidnap and torture of 12 federal agents in July 2009 with the presumed participation of municipal police linked to the La Familia Cartel, available at: www.noroeste.com.mx/publicaciones.php?id=493975 216 The Washington Post, Defence attorneys in lawless Juarez besieged on all sides, 1 February 2009, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101995.html 217 See the more recent annual reports on Mexico by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 218 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014: Mexico, 2014, available at: www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country- chapters/mexico?page=1 219 The reports “Defending human rights between commitment and risk: Report of the situation of human rights defenders in Mexico”, OHCHR 2009 and its update “2010 Update: Report on the situation of human rights defenders in Mexico”, OHCHR 2010 are available at: www.hchr.org.mx/documentos/libros/informepdf.pdf and www.hchr.org.mx/Documentos/Libros/2010/L241110B.pdf 220 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, 20 December 2010, A/HRC/16/44, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/defenders/docs/A-HRC-16- 44.pdf; and UN General Assembly, Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, 5 August 2013, A/68/262, available at: http://daccess-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N13/418/11/PDF/N1341811.pdf?OpenElement 221 Amnesty International, available at: www.amnesty.org/es/region/mexico/report-2011 37

To better understand the work carried out by human rights defenders FIDH published “Mexico: Human rights defenders in the face of political change and violence”.222 This report together with those produced by OHCHR and Amnesty International “Demanding justice and dignity: human rights defenders in Mexico, 2010”,223 recount hundreds of events of violence directed against this group, ranging from harassment, threats or intimidation, arbitrary detention or imprisonment on false charges, to involuntary disappearances, torture and homicide against them and their families:

“Their work is carried out in an adverse context, in which they face high levels of violence and insecurity, in dark areas in which the democratic transformations experienced in the country in recent years have been unable to penetrate, with resistance and prejudice from some social sectors resistant to moral and social changes, as well as with an economic model that being unable to reduce the gaps of inequality, generate confrontations between the interests of economic groups and the rights of those persons who are marginalized from the benefits of development.”224

Human rights defenders carry out advocacy activities to promote economic, social and cultural rights, including poverty and environmental questions, issues of great importance in a country with a large rural population and wide ethnic diversity in some regions. In recent years, greater visibility has been given to the promotion of the rights of indigenous people and the protection of the environment vis-à- vis the advance of large-scale production projects and the interests of landowning sectors who promote economic models despite the impact which they may have on the collective rights of indigenous populations or their environmental impact.225

Attacks have also multiplied against defenders who work on the rights of migrants, as described in section 4.4. The IACHR condemned the death threats received in May 2012 by one of the most prominent of the defenders of the migrants’ rights, Catholic priest Alejandro Solalinde (and others), who coordinate the Social Pastoral Centre for Human Mobility in Tehuantepec (Oaxaca), and which forced him to temporarily leave the country to protect his life and the safety of those who work with him.226 Similar threats were recorded against the head of “Shelter of the 72” in Tabasco, Brother Tomás, and against Rubén Figueroa of the Migrant Movement in the same State. In April 2013, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of Fray Tomás González, Ruben Figueroa and staff and migrants staying at the “Shelter of the 72". Despite this, in June 2013, part of the shelter staff decided to leave Tenosique indefinitely fearing for their lives and physical integrity after receiving new threats.227 In May 2014, the IACHR expressed concerns over the alleged attacks of some 300 migrant persons, as well as their subsequent detention, in the State of Tabasco. The Commission also reiterated its concern about information concerning alleged attacks directed against defenders of migrants’ rights and beneficiaries of previous precautionary measures granted by the same Commission.228

222 El Observatorio para la Protección de los Defensores de los Derechos Humanos, México: Defensores de derechos humanos frente a la mutación política y la violencia, February 2009, available at: http://www.omct.org/files/2009/02/5368/informe_mision_mexico.pdf 223 Amnesty International, Standing up for justice and dignity: Human rights defenders in Mexico, 2010, available at: www.amnesty.org/es/library/asset/AMR41/032/2009/es/30eef2b9-7f45-47bb-8397-bd9beb0a5cf4/amr410322009eng.pdf 224 OHCHR, Defender los derechos humanos: entre el compromiso y el riesgo, 2009, executive summary, available at: www.hchr.org.mx/documentos/libros/informepdf.pdf. 225 Numerous examples exist of this situation, in particular in the country’s southern States (Chiapas, Tabasco, Oaxaca among others) where the indigenous populations retain their cultures, practices and ways of life of the most traditional kind, see in particular: supra note 230, section VI i) and iv), pages 20 and 22. 226 Organization of American States, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2012/054.asp 227 Movimiento Migrante Mesoamericano, Press Release, June 2013, available at: www.movimientomigrantemesoamericano.org/archives/2117 228 Organization of American States, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2014/054.asp 38

Likewise, defenders who work on women’s rights and the eradication of gender-based violence are facing serious threats, confronting social stereotypes strongly rooted in the culture of a country where the authorities, despite the legal advances on the issue, systematically fail to fulfil in practice their obligation to protect and to investigate abuses committed against this group. As an example, the IACrtHR granted, on 13 February 2013, provisional measures in favor of Luz Estela Castro Rodriguez, defender of human rights in the State of Chihuahua, founder and director of the Center for Women's Human Rights (CEDEHM).229

Finally, defenders (including journalists and lawyers)230 who denounce violations of human rights and abuses committed by public officials, and in particular by the security forces in the context of the fight against organized crime, have also been victims of serious violations of their human rights as described in sections 3 and 4 of this document.

Despite the entry into force of the new Law for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists, impunity in legal processes remains the norm. The real scope of the protection measures which the law establishes have still not been experienced in practice. According to OHCHR, 91% of attacks monitored in 2009 and 2010 remain unpunished.231 Similarly, the CNDH has been increasing year by year the number of precautionary measures in favor of defenders in the country.232 The CNDH recorded a total of 523 cases in which human rights violations against defenders were alleged, among them those relating to life, personal security and integrity, freedom of association and expression, and legal guarantees. In particular, the CNDH denounced the systematic use of intimidation, threats, arbitrary detentions, difficulties in the access to justice, and police abuses which affect the right to privacy of those affected as a means of trying to silence the work of defenders.233

The NGO Comité Cerezo reported that between 2009 and 2010 at least 15 defenders were killed and 26 were victims of involuntary disappearance. Among the latter, 13 were leaders of social organizations.234 These leaders are often detained and accused of committing common crimes, only to be exonerated (in most cases) of all charges against them after lengthy judicial proceedings. This indicates, according to one source, an intent to criminalize social protest:

“The criminalization of human rights defenders (…) is a State strategy which consists of stigmatizing the person using the mass media with the aim of accusing him/her of being violent, of acting outside the law, of breaking the law, of being involved in organized crime or with terrorism, aiming thus to eliminate the legitimacy of social protest. Under this scheme, defenders who act to denounce the violation of the human rights of members of social movements are accused of being defenders of criminals or lawbreakers.”235

The Mexican Commission for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights (CMDPDH) presented the position of 72 Mexican non-governmental organizations in a letter to the IACHR, complaining equally of the difficult security situation and the constant threats faced both from criminal organizations and individuals as well as the Government itself at its different levels.236

229 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Order of the, Request for provisional measures regarding Mexico, Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 3 February 2013, Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/castrorodriguez_se_01_ing.pdf 230 The UN Human Rights Committee, in the framework of the examination of the Fifth Periodic Report on Mexico, recognized the work of journalists and lawyers under the heading of defenders of human rights. See: UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, 7 April 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, recommendation 4, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.MEX.CO.5_E.PDF 231 OHCHR, Defender los derechos humanos: entre el compromiso y el riesgo, 2009, page 13, available at: www.hchr.org.mx/documentos/libros/informepdf.pdf 232 Mexican National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH), available at: www.cndh.org.mx/node/61 233 Mexican National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH), Report on the situation of human rights defenders, July 2011, available at: www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/fuentes/documentos/Index/20110706.pdf 234 Comité Cerezo México, Report: Saldos de la represión en México 2009-2010: una guerra contra el pueblo, 24 August 2011, available at: www.derechos.org/nizkor/mexico/doc/cerezo1.html 235 Ibid. 236 Commission for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights, available at: www.cmdpdh.org/docs/Carta_RE_Defensores_(IACHR).pdf 39

In June 2013, OHCHR in Mexico updated its report on the situation of human rights defenders in the country, providing evidence of their high vulnerability. Of 89 attacks on human rights defenders registered by OHCHR between November 2010 and December 2012, 38% were threats, 13% arbitrary interference, 12% harassment, 11% arbitrary deprivation of life, 11% arbitrary arrests, 6% attacks, 7% arbitrary use of system and 2% penalty enforced disappearance. Regarding the alleged perpetrators of the attacks, 39% of cases have not been identified, 38% are State actors, 12% agents of the Federal Public Administration, 5% operators, and 6% justice and municipal authorities. The most common subjects, which the victims were working on were: rights of migrants, civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights of women, and rights of indigenous peoples. The States with the highest occurrence of attacks were Oaxaca, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Guerrero and Mexico City.237

In summary, in their work for the defence, promotion and protection of human rights, defenders daily face the risk of being perceived by criminal groups and individuals, with the connivance or tolerance of State actors at various levels.

5.3 Women with specific profiles or in specific circumstances The following is not an exhaustive analysis of the general situation of violence against women, children or adolescents in the country. That would exceed the scope and objectives of the present document.238

In December 2006, Mexico passed the “General Law on Access by Women to a Life without Violence”, which came into force the following year. By December 2008, 24 of the 31 States had adopted similar legislation. As in other areas of human rights, the concern of the authorities to consolidate a legal framework adequate for the protection of women’s rights has also strengthened in the last decade. However, as analysed in section 3, the existence of an adequate legal framework or of formal institutions for protection does not imply per se that that protection is adequate, effective or accessible for many women who suffer situations of violence.

In its Concluding Observations of 2010 on Mexico’s Fifth Periodic Report to the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee elaborated on this point:

“8. The Committee welcomes the creation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for violent crimes against women and human trafficking, the establishment of a pilot project to improve women’s access to justice (casas de justicia), as well as the State party’s commitment to tailor its measures to protect women from violence to the cultural and social characteristics of the respective regions. Nevertheless, the Committee notes with concern the continued prevalence of violence against women, including torture and ill-treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence, and domestic violence, and the low number of sentences handed down in this regard. It is also concerned that the legislation of some states has not been completely harmonized with the General Law on Access by Women to a Life without Violence, since at state level no provision has been made for the establishment of a gender violence alert mechanism or the prohibition of sexual harassment (articles 3, 7 and 24 of the Covenant).”239

Amnesty International’s reports on Mexico, the most recent for 2013, consistently underline that violence against women and children continues to be a “widespread phenomenon” and that the legislative measures adopted in recent years to improve the protection of women “were often not applied in practice, or ineffective in protecting women or making the perpetrators pay for their

237 OHCHR, Press Release, ONU-DH presenta informe sobre la situación de las y los defensores de derechos humanos en México: actualización y balance, June 2013, available at: http://hchr.org.mx/files/comunicados/2013/06/130626_COM_ONUDHMX.pdf 238 The IACHR dedicates a whole page to the protection of women’s rights and has produced numerous reports and studies on this problem which could serve for general contextualization. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/IACHR/mujeres/informes/tematicos.asp 239 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, 7 April 2010, CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, paragraph 14, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/CCPR.C.MEX.CO.5_E.PDF 40 actions”.240 The same source reports that at least 300 violent deaths of women were recorded in 2010 and at least 320 in 2011, the majority of which occurred in Ciudad Juárez. It is also reported that a significant number of these cases showed evidence of sexual violence.

These figures, however, pale into insignificance compared to those presented by some NGOs who have worked in recent years on the phenomenon of feminicide.241 In its 2010 report, “Una Mirada al Feminicidio en México”, the National Citizens’ Observatory on Femicide (OCNF) reviewed the magnitude of the phenomenon at national level and in some States in particular. The most interesting point for the purposes of this analysis is the link this report establishes with the growth in violence produced by the fight against criminal drug-trafficking organizations: the number of killings of women continues to rise at an alarming rate in the country (between 2007 and 2008 1,221 cases were recorded and between 2009 and 2010 the figure rose to 1,728 in 18 States of the country, and in January 2010 to June 2011 alone 1,235 were killed in eight States242). OCNF, along with the rest of the sources consulted, agrees that the legal advances in the area of protection have encountered serious obstacles, highlighting among them the lack of official statistical information on the subject.243

But feminicide is not the only worrying practice in this violent context; the number of disappearances of women has also increased according to figures produced by CNDH.244 Equally, journalistic sources report that in recent years the number of women disappeared could be in the region of 9,000, in many cases in circumstances related to the fight against criminal organizations.245 Civil society organizations, in their report to the Universal Periodic Examination, reported that from January 2011 to June 2012, 3,978 women and girls disappeared in 15 States.246

For a specific reference to the situation of disappearances and deaths of women in Ciudad Juárez, the report of the IACHR entitled “The situation of the rights of women in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico: the right to be free from violence and discrimination”247 is recommended.

But this situation of violence against women clearly preceded the start of the fight against criminal organizations and has been the subject of international assessments both by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women.

240 Amnesty International, México: Annual Report, 2013, available at: www.amnesty.org/en/region/mexico/report-2013 241 On this phenomenon in particular UN Women has published a complete report on the situation in Mexico entitled “Feminicidios en México. Aproximación, Tendencias y cambios: 1985-2009” available at: www.unifemweb.org.mx/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=2&func=fileinfo&id=301. For its part, the OHCHR Mexico has published another complete report in 2009, called “Feminicidio” which can be consulted at: www.hchr.org.mx/files/doctos/Libros/feminicidio.pdf 242 National Citizens’ Observatory on Femicide (OCNF), 2010-2011 OCNF report, page 4 onwards, available at: http://observatoriofeminicidio.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/informe_feminicidio_2011.pdf ; and Católicas por el Derecho a Decir; Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos A.C.: Femicide and Impunity in Mexico: A context of structural and generalized violence, 17 July 2012, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandCMDPDH_forthesession_Mexico_CEDAW52.pdf 243 National Citizens’ Observatory on Femicide (OCNF), 2010-2011 OCNF report, page 6 onwards, available at http://observatoriofeminicidio.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/informe_feminicidio_2011.pdf 244 Gómez Quintero, “CNDH: Crece desaparición de mujeres”, El Universal, available at: www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/191324.html 245 Martinez, “Mexico: Tierra de Feminicidios y Desaparecidas”, Sin Embargo, available at: www.sinembargo.mx/07-03- 2012/173193 246 Informe conjunto presentado por organizaciones de la sociedad civil mexicana para la segunda ronda del Examen Periódico Universal a México, 4 March 2013, available at: http://epumexico.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/informe-conjunto-presentado-por-organizaciones-de-la-sociedad-civil- mexicana-para-la-segunda-ronda-del-epu-a-mc3a9xico.pdf 247 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Situación de los derechos humanos de la mujer en Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, El Derecho a no ser objeto de violencia y discriminación, March 2003, available at: www.IACHR.org/annualrep/2002sp/cap.vi.juarez.htm 41

CEDAW, in its Concluding Comments to Mexico in 2006, highlighted the existence of deeply rooted social and cultural factors in the country which inhibit the free development and protection and women’s rights:

“14. The Committee remains concerned about the pervasiveness of patriarchal attitudes which impede the enjoyment by women of their human rights and constitute a root cause of violence against women. The Committee expresses concern about the general environment of discrimination and insecurity that prevails in communities; workplaces, including maquila factories; and territories with a military presence, such as the northern and southern border areas, which might put women at constant risk of becoming victims of violence, abuse and sexual harassment. While welcoming the efforts undertaken by the State party, the Committee is concerned about the persistence of the widespread and systematic violence against women, including homicides and disappearances, and in particular about the acts of violence committed by public authorities against women in San Salvador Atenco, State of Mexico.” In addition, “34. While welcoming the establishment of the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, the Committee is concerned about the higher levels of poverty and illiteracy and multiple forms of discrimination experienced by indigenous and rural women. The Committee is concerned about the large disparities between them and women in urban areas and from non-indigenous groups in access to basic social services, including education and health, and participation in decision-making processes.”248

For her part, the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, in her 2006 report, describe the phenomenon of violence against as “the tip of an iceberg” which hides systemic problems in the society and as a “widespread phenomenon”:

“7. Violence against women in Mexico typically resembles only the tip of an iceberg with more systemic and complex problems lurking below the surface, which can only be understood in the context of socially entrenched gender inequality on the one hand and a multilayered governance and legal system that does not effectively respond to violent crime, including gender-based violence, on the other hand.” In addition, “19. While violence against women, fuelled by gender discrimination and impunity is a widespread phenomenon, women who lack access to State authorities and equal protection of the law, namely undocumented migrant women, indigenous and other marginalized women, suffer from particularly high levels of violence.”249

The report of the Special Rapporteur also deals with particular questions of discrimination against certain groups of women (migrant women, indigenous women and victims of human trafficking) and the different forms of violence of which they can be victim.

Finally, the landmark judgment of the IACrtHR “González and others (Cotton Field) vs Mexico”,250 of September 2009, deals with many of the questions which mark the persistent situation of violence against women and condemns the Mexican State for (i) the lack of protection measures for victims; (ii) the lack of prevention of these crimes, despite the knowledge of the existence of a pattern of gender violence in the area; (iii) the authorities’ lack of response to disappearance; (iv) the lack of due

248 UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Thirty-sixth session 7-25 August 2006, Concluding comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Mexico, 25 August 2006, CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/6, available at: http://daccess-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/482/57/PDF/N0648257.pdf?OpenElement 249 UN Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-second session, Integration of the human rights of women and a gender perspective: violence against women, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences, Ms. Yakin Ertürk, Mission to Mexico, 13 January 2006, E/CN.4/2006/61/Add.4, available at: http://daccess- dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/101/95/PDF/G0610195.pdf?OpenElement 250 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Judgement of 16 November 2009. The judgment refers to the disappearance and subsequent death of three young people whose remains were found in a cotton field in Ciudad Juárez in 2001. Available at: www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_205_ing.pdf. 42 diligence in the investigation of killings; and (v) the denial of justice and lack of adequate compensation. The judgment is in itself an evaluation of the situation of violence against women in Mexico, disentangling some of the factors that have helped to “perpetuate” this violence:

“164. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, since 1993, there has been an increase in the murders of women, with at least 264 victims up until 2001, and 379 up to 2005. However, besides these figures, which the Tribunal notes are unreliable, it is a matter of concern that some of these crimes appear to have involved extreme levels of violence, including sexual violence and that, in general, they have been influenced, as the State has accepted, by a culture of gender- based discrimination which, according to various probative sources, has had an impact on both the motives and the method of the crimes, as well as on the response of the authorities. In this regard, the ineffective responses and the indifferent attitudes that have been documented in relation to the investigation of these crimes should be noted, since they appear to have permitted the perpetuation of the violence against women in Ciudad Juárez. The Court finds that, up until 2005, most of the crimes had not been resolved, and murders with characteristics of sexual violence present higher levels of impunity.”251

In the Concluding Observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee Against Torture at its forty-ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), the Committee stated the following:

“The Committee is concerned by reports that women continue to be the victims of gender-based murders and disappearances, especially in the States of Chihuahua, Jalisco, México and Nuevo León. While noting that major strides have been made in terms of the establishment of legal and institutional means of combating this phenomenon and other forms of violence against women, including feminicide, the Committee is concerned by indications that the new legal framework is not being fully applied by many states. The Committee also takes note with regret of the persistence of impunity for serious acts of violence against women, including those committed in 2006 in San Salvador Atenco, as recently pointed out by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/7-8, paras. 18 and 19) (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16).252

5.4 Children and adolescents with specific profiles or in specific circumstances With respect to the situation of boys, girls and adolescents, as some factors increase the risks to which they are exposed owing to the violence generated by the fight against criminal organizations. These factors largely have to do with the diversification of ’s criminal activities, to which we have already referred in section 2, in particular: i) human trafficking (specifically that linked to sexual exploitation and pornography);253 ii) the traffic in migrants (in which minors are often separated or unaccompanied and can be victims of exploitation or abuse); and iii) the recruitment of minors into the ranks of armed groups, particularly in the form of hired killers or as “mules” to transport drugs to the US.

251 Ibid, para. 164. 252 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), 11 December 2012, CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/ 253 For a comprehensive view of the impact of the trafficking and sexual exploitation of minors in Mexico, see: UN Human Rights Council, Seventh session, Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development, Report Submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Juan Miguel Petit, Mission to Mexico, 28 January 2008, A/HRC/7/8/Add.2, available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/104/89/PDF/G0810489.pdf?OpenElement 43

The Child Rights Network in Mexico examined in 2011254 the impact of violence on the country’s population of minors. The report notes that between 2006 and 2010, in the framework of the fight against organized crime, 994 deaths of minors occurred as a consequence of the violence between criminal actors and security forces.255 At the same time it criticized the absence of prevention measures to stop the recruitment of minors by the armed groups.256

The Committee on the Rights of the Child presented its Concluding Observations in 2011 on the report presented by Mexico with respect to the implementation of the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child relating on the involvement of children in armed conflict.257 This report emphasizes that the authorities have not taken effective measures to protect the rights of minors in a series of fundamental areas which seriously affect their human rights:  The report highlights that, since the authorities lack information on the use of children by non- State armed groups, it has not undertaken measures to prevent the recruitment of children by non-State groups;258 and  The Committee expressed its great concern at the high number of child victims (citing about 1,000 deaths in the previous four years) as a result of the fight of the army against organized crime, child rights violations and the lack of investigation of crimes perpetrated by military personnel.259 For its part, the Committee on the Rights of the Child also presented its Observations on the implementation of the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child relating to the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,260 highlighting structural concerns with respect to the State’s capacities to offer protection from abuses and the existing mechanism to prevent them: “23. While welcoming that the State party has introduced several initiatives to prevent sexual exploitation and trafficking of children, including the programme with children “difusores de derechos”, the Committee regrets: a) That measures to prevent the offences referred to in the Optional Protocol are still inadequate, as evidenced by the massive quantity of child pornography produced in the State party, the large number of child sex tourists, as well as the high number of children involved in prostitution; b) The large number of unaccompanied children entering the State party from neighbouring countries, at risk of trafficking for purposes of sexual or labour exploitation; and c) The high number of kidnapping of migrants, including children.”261

For greater reference on the general human rights situation of boys, girls and adolescents in the country, refer to the report “Stolen Childhood: girl and boy victims of sexual exploitation in Mexico”, sponsored by UNICEF and produced in coordination with the National System for Integrated

254 Childhood and Armed Conflict in Mexico, January 2011, available at: www.derechosinfancia.org.mx/iaespanol.pdf 255 Ibid, page 25. 256 Ibid, page 42. 257 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Fifty-sixth session 17 January - 4 February 2011, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, Concluding observations: Mexico, 7 April 2011, CRC/C/OPAC/MEX/CO/1, available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC/C/OPAC/MEX/CO/1&Lang=En 258 Ibid. 259 Ibid. 260 Ibid. 261 Ibid. 44

Development of the Family and the Centre for Research and Higher Studies on Social Anthropology.262

News sources and civil society have also echoed the vulnerable situation of children and adolescents in Mexico. As examples, in May 2013, REDIM (Red por los Derechos de la Infancia en México) reported that more than 1,800 children had been violently killed between January 2007 and March 2013. Only in the first three months of 2013, 767 cases of child assassinations were registered.263 REDIM also reports that, since 2010, a child or an adolescent is killed every 36 hours and his or her death is related to the fight against organized crime.

The report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review for the Seventeenth session included several recommendations for the protection of indigenous peoples, among them:

148.81. Set up a comprehensive system to protect children’s rights and develop a national strategy to prevent and address all forms of violence (Iran (Islamic Republic of)); 148.82. Ensure better protection for children and adolescents against violence related to organized crime (Algeria); 148.83. Enhance the dissemination of information and figures regarding children and young persons who fall victims to the struggle against drug-trafficking ().264

5.5 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) individuals265 Social discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation continues to be a persistent problem in the country.266 While in the last few years some legal advances have been made, such as the adoption of a law on equal marriage in Mexico City, these advances do not reach the rest of the country where tensions over gender equality persist, as seen in section 5.7.

The CNDH has documented incidents against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite, transgender and transsexual population for more than a decade and in 2010 published a “Special report on homophobia-related human rights violations and crimes”267 in which it sought to describe the main causes of violence against these groups of the Mexican population:

“(…) the LGBTTI community in Mexico has increased its visibility, and it faces serious violations to its economic, social, cultural, civic, and political rights; intolerance is presented as a stigma. There exists local legislation that indirectly punishes homosexuality through constructs such as immoral behaviour, public indecency, or obscene exposure. These laws allow for abusive behaviour on the part of certain law-enforcement officers, a “custom” deeply rooted in local society and culture.”268

262 DIF/UNICEF/CIESAS, “Stolen Childhood: girl and boy victims of sexual exploitation in Mexico”, available at: www.unicef.org/mexico/spanish/mx_resources_infancia_robada.pdf 263 El Diario, Guerra de Calderón en México dejó 1,800 ninos muertos, 3 May 2013, available at: www.eldiariony.com/guerra-Calderon-Mexico-dejo-mil-ochocientos-ninos-muertos 264 UN Human Rights Council, Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Mexico, 25 October 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/17/L.5 available at: http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/mexico/session_17_- _october_2013/a_hrc_wg.6_17_l.5_mexico.pdf 265 The use of this terminology should be understood as covering any form of sexual orientation or gender diversity, including but not limited to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersexual population. See UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 9: Claims to Refugee Status based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 23 October 2012, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/50348afc2.html. 266 The Violations of the Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Persons in MEXICO, A shadow Report, March 2010, available at: www.globalrights.org/site/DocServer/LGBT_ICCPR_Shadow_Report_Mexico.pdf 267 Mexican National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH), Special Report on Homophobia-related Human Rights Violations and Crimes, 2010, available at: www.cndh.org.mx/Informes_Especiales. 268 Ibid, page 4. 45

“LGBTI population has been described as ‘sexual minorities’, not necessarily an adequate term, since as of today there exists no census that can attest to their numbers and minority condition. In Mexico this population has often been marginalized by various sectors of society. But the most delicate issue is that wrongdoing against this population is often seen, in a way, as socially accepted conduct: it is ok to attack someone just because she or he has a non-heterosexual orientation or identity. What makes this a very delicate issue is that such ‘socially accepted conduct’ goes beyond mere ‘human rights violations’ and constitute crimes such as discrimination, assault and murder.”269

Beyond discrimination by individuals, discrimination by the administration in some of the country’s public entities and institutions, such as the security forces and the public prosecutor’s office is also well documented. As an example, in 2010, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favour of a professor who was threatened and fired from his position as director of an education institution.270 In its report, the CNDH records 696 complaints received of human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression throughout the country over a period of 10 years. Other sources cited in the report note that acts of violence against this population are common and are normally not investigated properly. The Mexican NGO Letra S reports that 420 homicides were committed in 2006 against LGBTI persons in what it calls “homophobic hate crimes”.271

The CNDH closes its report by specifying various types of violence to which LGBTI persons can be subjected and concluding that: i) crimes and human rights violations related to sexual orientation or identity and gender expression are not isolated occurrences; they follow behavioural patterns of certain members of society and of certain public servants; and ii) the issue of homophobia-related discrimination is fostering a new scenario of insecurity in Mexico, fed by the absence of a human- rights respecting culture.

It is common for the press media and human rights organizations to report incidents committed against LGBTI persons and in particular against rights activists. For example, Amnesty International and the IACHR condemned in 2011 the killing of one of the main activists and the organizer of the gay pride march, which took place in Guerrero and remains unsolved.272 In June and July 2012, the IACHR also condemned the assassination of two transsexuals, one of whom was 16 years of age, in the State of Nayarit.273

In December 2012, IACHR reported that during October and November 2012, the Commission received information on 54 murders of LGBTI persons in the region. Out of that total, the Commission was informed that 35 were committed against trans persons and transgender women or those perceived as such, 8 of which occurred in Mexico. The Commission also received information on 15 murders of gay men or men perceived to be gay, 2 of them occurring in Mexico.274

269 Ibid, page 8. 270 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Precautionary Measures, PM 222-09, 2010, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/defenders/protection/precautionary.asp 271 Letras S, Informe de Crímenes de Odio por Homophobia, Mexico 1995-2008, available at: www.letraese.org.mx/wp- content/uploads/2010/05/Informe.pdf 272 Amnesty International, Press release, available at: www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19451; and Organization of American States, Press release May 2011, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2011/042.asp 273 Organization of American States, Press release June 2012, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2012/073.asp; and EFE, La CIDH condena asesinato de transexual en México, Excelsior, July 2012, available at: www.excelsior.com.mx/2012/07/06/nacional/846215 274 Organization of American States, Press release December 2012, available at: www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2012/146.asp 46

5.6 Journalists A similar situation to that described in section 5.2 is faced by those groups of people who fulfil a very important role of social communication.

The most emblematic profile in this category is that of journalists, whose situation has already been analysed in detail in section 4.3 of this document. The work of journalists in the defence of human rights is often similar to that of defenders and it is therefore notable that they are one of the groups most affected by violence in the country. The stigmatization of their role as communicators and the risk that this work entails has led a growing phenomenon of self-censorship as a defence mechanism to avoid threats and attacks. In her 2011 report on the situation of Human Rights Defenders in the region, the UN Special Rapporteur expressly mentioned journalists and placed Mexico as the country of the region with the most denunciations of violence against this group:

“56. In the Americas region, journalists and media workers were mainly targeted due to their work on environmental issues, human rights violations committed by the State, corruption, monitoring demonstrations, exercising their right to freedom of expression, investigations of drug dealing and mafia groups, and denouncing impunity. In this region, Mexico received the highest number of communications (10), followed by Honduras (8) and Colombia (6).”275

International press organizations have also issued warnings about the situation in Mexico. The Inter- American Press Association produced a very critical report in 2011, recording 172 attacks in that year alone against communicators in the country, and recalling that between 2000 and 2012 at least 76 homicides of journalists had occurred and only a few had been solved.276 The Committee for the Protection of Journalists, in its 2011 report on Mexico, highlighted that the country remains the riskiest in the region for journalistic work and that it has become the number one country in the world for the homicide of communicators for their dissemination work on social networks.277 The Latin America Press Federation (FELAP) also refers to the situation of violence in Mexico, indicating that 60% of the killings committed against journalists are attributed to the federal, state or municipal authorities, and about 6% to criminal organizations.278

While taking note of the recent promulgation of the Human Rights Defenders and Journalists Protection Act, the Committee remains seriously concerned over the large number of murders, disappearances and acts of intimidation and harassment committed against such persons. It is also concerned over reports of widespread impunity for these crimes and notes that, while most of them are attributed to criminal organizations, in some cases there have been indications that members of security forces may be implicated. In light of this situation, the Committee regrets that the State party has not provided it with specific information on the outcomes of investigations and criminal proceedings that are now under way (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16).

275 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, 21 December 2011, A/HRC/19/55, available at: www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-55_en.pdf. 276 Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa, available at: www.sipiapa.org/v4/det_informe.php?asamblea=48&infoid=854&idioma=sp 277 Committee to Protect Journalists, Americas Global analysis, Mexico, available at: http://cpj.org/es/2012/02/ataques-a-la- prensa-en-2011-mexico.php 278 Telesur, Denuncian que crímenes contra periodistas en México intentan socavar la libertad de expresión, 2 September 2011, available at: http://exwebserv.telesurtv.net/index.php/noticias/97286-NN/denuncian-que-crimenes-contra-periodistas- en-mexico-intentan-socavar-la-libertad-de-expresion/ 47

In the Concluding Observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), the Committee stated the following:

“While taking note of the recent promulgation of the Human Rights Defenders and Journalists Protection Act, the Committee remains seriously concerned at the large number of murders, disappearances and acts of intimidation and harassment committed against such persons. It is also concerned by reports of widespread impunity for these crimes and notes that, while most of them are attributed to criminal organizations, in some cases there have been indications that members of security forces may be implicated. In light of this situation, the Committee regrets that the State party has not provided it with specific information on the outcomes of investigations and criminal proceedings that are now under way (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16)”.279

Finally, local non-government organizations such as CENCOS and FUNDAR, as well as the international organization Artículo 19,280 have in the last few years published extensive reports on the situation of communicators in which credible statistical information is pulled together on the levels of violence to which they are exposed.

The recent report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review for the Seventeenth session of the UPR included several recommendations related to the protection of journalists:

148.117. Strengthen the federal mechanism for the protection of defenders and journalists and provide it with preventive capacity, taking into account the threat posed by organized crime networks against freedom of speech and press (Colombia); 148.116. Establish effective protections for civil society and journalists, including the prompt and efficient investigation and prosecution of all threats and attacks made against these individuals (Canada)/ Guarantee a safe, free and independent environment for journalists and ensure that all cases of threats, violence, attacks and killings against journalists are investigated by independent and impartial bodies (Austria); 148.118. Strengthen both the Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists as well as the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes Against Freedom of Expression (Netherlands); 148.119. Strengthen and expand the Mechanism to Protect Human Rights Defenders and Journalists including by providing it with adequate resources and powers to carry out its work and creating a mechanism for consultation with indigenous and other communities affected by land transactions ( of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); 148.120. Continue to improve implementation of the Human Rights Defenders and Journalists Protection Act and the national protection mechanism at the federal and state level (United States of America); 148.121. Ensure that adequate attention is dedicated to the effective protection of journalists and human rights defenders (); 148.122. Ensure an effective implementation of the protection mechanism for journalists and human rights defenders with properly managed funds and trained human resources and that Mexico investigates and prosecutes reported threats, attacks and disappearances ();”281

279 UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Mexico as adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (29 October–23 November 2012), 11 December 2012, CAT/C/MEX/CO/5-6, available at: www.tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT%2fC%2fMEX%2fCO%2f5- 6&Lang=en 280 Artículo 19, Posicionamiento ante aprobación de Ley de Protección, 30 April 2012, available at: www.articulo19.org/posicionamiento-ante-aprobacion-de-ley-de-proteccion 281 UN Human Rights Council, Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Mexico, 25 October 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/17/L.5 available at: http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/mexico/session_17_- 48

5.7 Certain categories of professionals (trade unionists, educators and members of religious communities) Educators, religious leaders and trades unionists, among other social actors, can be victims of violence, since they represent clearly identifiable sectors within Mexican society. Their opinions may not be shared by the various actors responsible for violence in the country. As examples, in May 2012, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favour of members of the Worker Support Center (CAT) in Mexico who had been victims of harassment, stalking and threats because of their involvement in actions to promote labour rights in Mexico.282 In April 2013, the Mexican Episcopal Conference (CEM) reported that several of its priests continued to receive threats.283 In addition to reports of forced disappearances of catholic priests, on November 29 2013, State authorities confirmed the murder of two catholic priests in Veracruz.284

5.8 Businessmen and independent workers Businessmen/women and other independent workers are subject to extortion, are offered “protection” and threatened when they refuse to collaborate with criminal organizations. There is still little objective information available about the impact on the business sector as a consequence of the actions of organized criminal groups. However, some media have carried reports on homicides of businessmen/women who refused to pay extortion to continue their work285. As mentioned in section 3, the diversification of the criminal activities of the drug-trafficking cartels has had a negative impact on sectors which until then had not been specifically affected by the wave of violence. A recent report of the Employers’ Confederation of the Mexican Republic (COPARMEX), estimated that in the States of Mexico, Nuevo León, Coahuila, Guerrero, Michoacán and Morelos (each of them the territory of one of the cartels described in section 3.1.1), 160,000 businesses have closed as a direct consequence of insecurity.286

The case of Michoacán received particular coverage from both national and international media in mid-2013, when particular gas, telephone and water companies were threatened by the group “Los Caballeros Templarios” not to provide their usual services in the municipality of Tepalcatepec.287 According to ASECEM (Asociación de Empresarios y Ciudadanos del Estado de Mexico), seven companies had to close in 2012 in the Mexico Valley due to violence and insecurity.

_october_2013/a_hrc_wg.6_17_l.5_mexico.pdf 282 Organization of American States, Precautionary measures, available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/precautionary.asp 283 Vera, “Denuncia la CEM amenazas contra sacerdotes; pide afrontar inseguridad”, Proceso, April 2013, available at: www.proceso.com.mx/?p=338759 284 Ejecutan a dos sacerdotes en Veracruz; detienen a cuatro sospechosos, Proceso, November 2013, available at: http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=359213 285 In the notable case of the fire at the Casino Royal in August 2011 in Monterrey 52 people lost their lives. Telesur, Arrestan a policía sospechoso de participar en atentado a casino de México, 2 September 2011, available at: www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/97255NN/arrestan%20a%20polic%C3%ADa%20sospechoso%20de%20participar%20 en%20atentado%20a%20casino%20de%20méxico/ 286 Available at: www.animalpolitico.com/2012/04/160-mil-empresas-dejan-de-operar-por-inseguridad-coparmex/ 287 El Pais, Las amenazas del crimen organizado acorralan a las empresas de Michoacán, April 2013, available at: www.internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/04/17/actualidad/1366221677_823874.html; and TeleSur, Empresas mexicanas piden protección al Gobierno ante amenazas de carteles, April 2013, available at: www.telesurtv.net/articulos/2013/04/18/empresas-mexicanas-piden-proteccion-del-gobierno-ante-amenazas-de-carteles- 7659.html 49

5.9 Former members of criminal groups This category can include people who, having been linked in the past to criminal drug-trafficking organizations, fear reprisals from them as a consequence of having left them and being perceived as potential risks to these organizations. This risk can stem from the presumption that they have allied themselves with other gangs, or that they have informed the authorities about their activities or those of the group in question, or simply that they may do so in future.288

It is possible to draw a parallel between this situation and that experienced by ex-members of the so- called juvenile gangs or Maras in various Central American countries whose basic human rights may be threatened on leaving the groups to which they belonged.289

This situation can particularly affect family members of ex-criminals who have never had any relationship with criminal gangs nor been involved in criminal acts, but are victims of violence as a means or reaching or persecuting their relatives who have been.

5.10 Families of individuals associated with (or perceived to be supporting) criminal groups As in the previous case, little information exists to fully characterize this profile. However, it could include persons who have been victims of abuses on the part of the authorities and in particular on the part of the security forces within the framework of the fight against organized crime and delinquency, as has been described in sections 3 and 4 of this document. These abuses could include acts of torture (for example, to extract confessions), arbitrary detentions, threats and intimidation, and even forced disappearances and/or extrajudicial executions.

This category can be linked to the perception that the national authorities and some criminal groups have of other groups described here, as for example the case of human rights defenders, as analyzed in section 5.2. But it is not necessarily limited to them; the essence of the analysis in these cases is that the person becomes a victim through an erroneous belief or perception on the part of the instigator or perpetrator of the violence against them. Examples of this type of cases can be found in the situations suffered by Eligio Ibarra Amador,290 killed on 12 April 2011, and by Mrs. Norma Andrade291 of Ciudad Juárez.

5.11 Victims of human trafficking Mexico is a large source, transit, and destination country for human trafficking. According to the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and Children in Latin America (CATWLAC), Mexico ranked third in trafficking in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2012. Both IOM292 and UNODC293 noted the most recurrent types of human trafficking in Mexico are those with the purpose of sexual exploitation and forced labour. Other modalities, however, have also been occurring, such as trafficking in organs.

288 Copious journalistic information exists about the finding of bodies, in some cases with signs of torture, in other cases mutilated, which seem to correspond to internal wars between criminal organizations or clashes within them. It is possible that from this total of cases, some correspond to the profile suggested by this analysis. 289 UNHCR, Guidance Note on refugee claims relating to victims of organized gangs, March 2010, for guidance on the analysis of this type of case, available at: www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4bb21fa02.html. The analysis of the protection needs of individuals with these profiles who claim refugee status, depending on the cases, may be accompanied by an analysis of the application of exclusion clauses. 290 Milenio, available at: http://www.milenio.com/policia/Sentencian-anos-policias-extorsionadores- Chihuahua_0_110389147.html 291 El País, Segundo atentado en dos meses contra una activista en México, 4 February 2012, available at: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/02/04/actualidad/1328322833_141136.html 292 Le Goff and Lothar, La trata de personas en México, June 2011, available at: www.reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full_Report_1945.pdf 293 UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, 2012,available at: www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/Trafficking_in_Persons_2012_web.pdf 50

The government released no comprehensive law enforcement statistics on human trafficking during the year 2012. However, according to different government entities, Mexican authorities at the federal and state levels convicted at least 25 trafficking offenders in 2012; at least six of these convictions were for forced labour. In comparison, in 2011, Mexican authorities convicted at least 14 sex trafficking offenders, but reported no forced labour convictions.

In January 2013, the President of the Human Rights Commission of the Federal District (CDHDF) reported that human trafficking was the second most profitable business for organized and that it must be considered the most serious, in terms of the effects and damage caused to the victims.294 Groups considered most vulnerable to human trafficking in Mexico include women, children, indigenous persons, persons with mental and physical disabilities, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and undocumented migrants.295 It was estimated that 50,000 children are victims of sexual exploitation in Mexico Distrito Federal only and that the average age of victims of sexual exploitation is 13 years. According to December 2012 UNFPA data, Puebla, Zacatecas, Chiapas, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Oaxaca and Michoacán are the Mexican States most vulnerable to human trafficking schemes.

The Mexican Congress issued a General Law on Trafficking, which was adopted in June 2012.296 The new law standardized the definition of human trafficking, increased convictions of trafficking offenders, included the best interest of the child, provided for the right to seek asylum and codified the principle of non-refoulement, among others. This law also obliges States to adjust their anti-trafficking legislation to be in line with national legislation.

As noted by civil society, despite advances in the legal framework criminalizing human trafficking, efforts still have to be made in the policies relating to prevention, investigation and prosecution of the crime, as well as in the proper care and protection of victims.297

According to the second footnote "Respect for Human Rights on trafficking for sexual exploitation in Mexico", the High Court of Justice of the Federal District (TSJDF) reported that for the period December 2010 to November 2011, the number of appropriations in criminal matters for the crime of trafficking were: 49 appropriations in total, 32 of these a detainee arrested and 17 with no detainee arrested. The High Court of Justice also ruled on 24 convictions and 25 acquittals. The mentioned report details that the Attorney General of the Federal District (PGJDF) reported 27 appropriations due to human trafficking during the same period. In 2011 the Office conducted 90 operations linked to human trafficking298. According to the PGJDF, there is no information available on the fate of rescued women, revealing the absence of policy monitoring, support and restitution of damage to trafficked women.

The report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review for the Seventeenth session of the Universal Periodic review included several recommendations related to human trafficking, among them:

294 CDHDF, Trata de personas, el delito más grave, en términos de los daños que deja en las víctimas, Boletín 25/2013, available at: www.cdhdf.org.mx/index.php/boletines/2960-boletin-252013 295 US Department of State, Trafficking in Persons report 2013, available at: www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2013/index.htm 296 Ley general para prevenir, sancionar y erradicar los delitos en material de trata de personas y para la protección y asistencia a las víctimas de estos delitos (Law to prevent, punish and eradicate crimes on human trafficking and to protect and assist the victims of these crimes), available at: www.sre.gob.mx/images/stories/docsdh/boletines/2012/agosto/b6.pdf 297 Azaola, “Una ley que los proteja”, Mexico Social, 1 April 2013, available at: www.mexicosocial.org/index.php/secciones/especial/item/221-una-ley-que-los-proteja.html 298 Alerta el Ombudsman que es el segundo delito más importante, en términos de ganancias, available at: www.cdhdf.org.mx/index.php/boletines/2672-boletin-3502012 51

“148.89. Further strengthen measures to combat migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons (Sri Lanka)/Strengthen measures to combat human trafficking, including violence against migrants (Algeria); 148.86. Redouble efforts against trafficking in persons (Bolivia)/Continue its policies and efforts to combat human trafficking especially those of women and children (Singapore)/ Continue efforts to combat human trafficking both through the introduction of relevant legislation as through national and state programs and plans for its implementation (Costa Rica); 148.83. Enhance the dissemination of information and figures regarding children and young persons who fall victims to the struggle against drug-trafficking (Italy); 148.84. Consider establishing mechanisms aimed at early identification, referral, assistance and support for victims of trafficking (Egypt);”299

5.12 Indigenous people with specific profiles or in specific circumstances 300 Mexico is a country with a varied indigenous population301 dispersed through various regions of the country.302 This population largely works in farming, animal husbandry and trading through the production of local specialities. The country has made progress towards a more inclusive legislation of the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular with regard to the collective exercise of these rights.303 However, as in other areas mentioned earlier, the gap between the law and the practice is wide for these populations whose rights to property, land ownership, use of natural resources, employment, education, language and cultural expression are affected.304

Among the main risks faced by this population, taking into account the particularities of each ethnic group and area of the country where they live, are the disputes with landowners over areas of crops or agricultural production. These landowners frequently have influence over local authorities (including administrative, security and justice authorities) and take advantage to establish legal disputes over the ownership and use of land and its resources with the indigenous population. In some cases, these landowners regularly count on the services of armed groups to frighten, harass or threaten local people.305 In certain cases homicides, disappearances and acts of torture against the indigenous population by these groups have been reported. In particular, community leaders, women and defender of the indigenous population’s rights have been victims of these attacks.306

299 UN Human Rights Council, Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Mexico, 25 October 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/17/L.5 available at: http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/mexico/session_17_- _october_2013/a_hrc_wg.6_17_l.5_mexico.pdf 300 The term indigenous peoples is equivalent to the term “pueblos originarios” (original peoples) used in some of the sources cited in this section of the document. 301 For a more comprehensive report on the situation of indigenous peoples see UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Sr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Mission to Mexico, 23 December 2003, E/CN.4/2004/80/Add.2, available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=9180 302 It is estimated that about 30% of the population is indigenous, belonging to various ethnic groups, while 60% are considered mestizo. 303 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Eightieth session 13 February–9 March 2012, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention, Concluding observations, 4 April 2012, CERD/C/MEX/CO/16-17, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50619e132.html 304 Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous People, Mexico, Indigenous Peoples, available at: http://www.minorityrights.org/4456/mexico/indigenous-peoples.html 305 Servicio Internacional para la paz, available at: www.sipaz.org/data/gro_es_02.htm; Gil Olmos, “Hallan muerto a activista plagiado; ‘levantan’ a dos ecologistas en Guerrero”, Proceso, December 2011, available at www.proceso.com.mx/?p=290449; Enciso L, “Muerte y persecución enfrentan activistas ambientales en el país”, Centro ProDH, available at: www.centroprodh.org.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=267%3Amuerte-y- persecucion-enfrentan-activistas-ambientales-en-el-pais&catid=175%3Acampesinos-en-los-medios&Itemid=74&lang=es; and Castro, “Condenan ONG las amenazas contra la presidenta de la Rogaz”, La jornada Guerrero, April 2012, available at: www.lajornadaguerrero.com.mx/2012/04/17/index.php?section=sociedad&article=006n1soc 306 See OHCHR press release, July 2012, available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/IndigenousPeoplesRightsInMexico.aspx 52

During its Eightieth session in March 2012, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted that:

“The Committee takes note with deep concern of the reports on the violence associated with the fight against organized crime in the State party and its possible negative repercussions on the protection of the human rights of the population, including indigenous people and people of African descent, who are often in a particularly vulnerable situation (art. 5 (b)).” “The Committee expresses deep concern about the recent tragic events in which defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples were physically attacked and, in some cases, killed (art. 5 (b))”307

For the summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Seventeenth session of the Universal Periodic Review, the CNDH indicated that complaints continued to be filed regarding violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples and communities; these violations concerned such matters as access to justice, impunity and security.308 The report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review for the Seventeenth session of the Universal Periodic review included several recommendations for the protection of indigenous peoples, among them:

“148.73. Develop a model of care for violence against women and girls especially focused on indigenous population, in accordance with the acknowledgment made in paragraph 139 of the Report (Chile); 148.47. Take effective measures to prevent racial discrimination and violation of the rights of indigenous peoples (Uzbekistan); 148.46. Work more strongly against incitement to racial hatred and racist violence against indigenous persons and persons of African descent (Tunisia); 148.45. Take steps to counteract forms of discrimination against indigenous women in rural areas (Paraguay);”309

307 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Eightieth session 13 February–9 March 2012, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention, Concluding observations, 4 April 2012, CERD/C/MEX/CO/16-17, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50619e132.html 308 UN Human Rights Council, Summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21: Mexico, 31 July 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/17/MEX/3, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/526799e84.html 309 UN Human Rights Council, Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Mexico, 25 October 2013, A/HRC/WG.6/17/L.5 available at: http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/mexico/session_17_- _october_2013/a_hrc_wg.6_17_l.5_mexico.pdf 53