Report No. 106 (2019) IACHR. Case No. 12.986 (México)

• Case Number: 12.986
• Report Number: 106
• Respondent State: México
• Case Type: Friendly Settlements
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: José Antonio Bolaños Juárez

REPORT No. 106/19

CASE 12.986

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT REPORT

JOSÉ ANTONIO BOLAÑOS JUÁREZ

MÉXICO

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.150

Doc. 115

28 J. 2019

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on J. 28, 2019

Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 106/19, C. 12.986. Friendly Settlement. J.A.B.J., México, J. 28, 2019.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 106/19

CASE 12.986

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

JOSÉ ANTONIO BOLAÑOS JUÁREZ

MÉXICO

JULY 28, 2019¹

1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. On May 4, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission", "the Commission" or "the IACHR") received a petition submitted by J.A.B.J. (hereinafter "the petitioner" or "alleged victim”). In this petition, it was alleged the international responsibility of the R. of Mexico (hereinafter "México” “S.” "or “M. S.") for presumed violations of rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “American Convention” or “Convention”), derived from the illegal detention, torture and violation of the judicial guarantees of J.A.B.J., by agents of the M.S.. S., on November 1, 2018, B. indicated that the Unit of Legal Guidance and C. Unit before the Universal and Inter-American Human Rights System of the Executive Commission for Victim Services would assume its representation in this case.

2. The petitioner alleged that he had been unduly deprived of his liberty and tortured by a group of policemen, with the purpose of declaring his participation in the commission of crimes of which he alleged to have been innocent. In addition, he refers to several irregularities related to the process that would have been initiated against him. T., the petitioner alleges the international responsibility of the M.S. for presumed violations of articles 1 (obligation to respect rights), 7 (right to personal liberty) and 8 (judicial guarantees) of the American Convention.

3. On January 29, 2015, the IACHR issued the Admissibility R. No. 7/15. In its report, the IACHR concluded that it was competent to examine the alleged violation of the articles: a) 5 (right to personal integrity), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (judicial guarantees) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and b) 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

4. On September 6, 2016, the parties began the process of negotiating a friendly settlement, and the Commission facilitated working meetings for the negotiation of a friendly settlement agreement (hereinafter "FSA" or "agreement") on April 25 and August 31, 2017. On J. 27, 2018, the parties signed a friendly settlement agreement and on J. 14 and 19, 2019, both the S. and the petitioner, respectively, requested the Commission to issue the homologation report.

5. P. to the provisions of Article 49 of the Convention and Article 40(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, this friendly settlement report will include an overview of the facts alleged by the petitioner and the text of the friendly settlement agreement, as signed on J. 27, 2018 by the petitioner and representatives of the M.S.. L., the agreement signed by the parties is approved, along with the publication of this report in the Annual R. of the IACHR to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. ALLEGED FACTS

6. According to the petitioner, on J. 17, 2001, more than 40 heavily armed policemen of the A. General's Office [Procuraduría General de la República “PGR”], wearing balaclavas and dressed in black, would have entered the medical office of the victim -José Antonio B. J. – who is a doctor by profession- and they would have broken doors and windows. As reported in the initial petition, Mr. B. was not in the office at the time of the operation, but he would have been informed by his neighbors that the officers were looking for him and had violated his workplace.

7. The petitioner indicated that, approximately ten days later, he would have been intercepted by the police when he was leaving his office. The police officers would have asked him to accompany them to the Office of the Specialized Unit of Organized Crime [Unidad Especializada de Delincuencia Organizada “UEDO”] -that is part of the A. General's Office of the M. S.- in order to ask him some questions. Once in the offices of the UEDO of the D.F., the agents would have beaten and tortured him by putting a plastic bag in his face, causing him to suffocate and even convulsing. The petitioner alleged that throughout this sequence of events, through shouting and insults, he would have been instigated and threatened to shoot him in the fingers if he did not accept that he was a kidnapper who amputated his victims' fingers. The petitioner indicated that he would have subsequently been transferred to other offices where he would have been asked several questions and would have been beaten again. He said that because of the fact that he had received a blow to the kidney - from which he had been recently operated - he would have fallen to the ground, where one of the assailants would have kicked his rectum, and then inserted a stick inside it. The petitioner stated that he felt "something was broken inside" and that he started to bleed through the rectum.

8. As a result of the suffered injuries, the petitioner indicated that he was transferred to the G.G. de Tlalpan Hospital in M.C., where he would have been told that due to the attacks received, the rectum was completely destroyed. He indicated that he had an emergency operation and that he remained in the hospital for a month, until the blood he lost was equalized. D. this, due to the complexity of the operation, he had to be surgically intervened again.

9. S., B. would have been taken to a house of detention (no date specified), in which he would have remained for two months, and in which his state of health would have worsened due to the injury to his internal organs. He indicated that during all this time, the reason for his detention had not been informed. S., according to the petitioner, he was transferred to the Southern District Prison of the Federal District, where the judge in charge of his case (No. 166/2001) informed him that he was going to be accused, along with two other persons, because of the commission of the crimes of illegal deprivation of liberty in the form of kidnapping, qualified injuries and carrying a firearm without a license.

10. The victim indicated that based on the statements of two witnesses designated as co-defendants, as well as on "weak" and prefabricated evidence by the PGR, by judgment of M. 20, 2003 of the 13th District Court for Federal Criminal Proceedings in the Federal District ("Tenth District Court"), he was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine. F. with this decision, the petitioner points out that he would have filed an appeal, which was resolved on August 13, 2004 by the Third Unitary Court in Criminal Matters of the F. Circuit of the Federal District ("Third Unitary Court in Criminal Matters"), which confirmed the penalty and modified only the equivalence of the fine. S., he filed a Writ of Amparo, which was granted by the F. Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters of the F. Circuit of the Federal District ("F. Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters") on J. 17, 2013. With this, he was acquitted of the charges of those who "unjustly accused him" and was released on J. 18 of the same year.

11. In respect of to the judicial process against him, the petitioner alleges that there would have been various irregularities, among which he highlighted: absence of proceedings to verify that the weapon found in his car belonged to him; lack of signatures from the Public Ministry or the Secretary of Agreements to arrest him; falsehood in judicial statements and reports; use of false documents; delay in the resolution of the controversy; intimidation through cruelty and negligence in the processing of the case, and lack of consideration of various evidence that would prove his innocence.

12. With regard to the alleged torture that the victim would have suffered by the PGR and the Federal Judicial Police, it’s in record in the information presented to the IACHR by the parties that, in the preparatory declaration of September 25, 2001 at the PGR as well as in different procedural exchanges [careos], rhat he petitioner denounced said torture. In addition, the petitioner points out that the alleged torture would have been brought to the attention of various authorities, such as the President of Mexico, the Ministry of the Interior, the Supreme...