Report No. 50 (2013) IACHR. Petition No. 1491-06 (México)

• Year: 2013
• Report Number: 50
• Petition Number: 1491-06
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Alleged Victim: Familia Cruz Guzmán
• Respondent State: México
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

13

REPORT No. 50/13¹

PETITION 1491-06

ADMISSIBILITY

GUZMÁN CRUZ FAMILY

MEXICO

July 12, 2013

1. SUMMARY

1. On October 25, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission", “the Commission," or “the IACHR") received a petition lodged by Abdallán Guzmán Cruz, Fundación Diego Lucero, and Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez A.C. (PRODH), all representing the Guzmán Cruz family (hereinafter “the petitioners”) against the United Mexican States (hereinafter “Mexico,” “the State,” or “the Mexican State”) for the alleged forced disappearance of José de Jesús Guzmán Jiménez and his four sons, Amafer, Armando, Adenauer Solón² and Venustiano Guzmán Cruz (hereinafter the “alleged victims”) at the hands of agents of the state in 1974 and 1976, and for the failure to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for such acts.

2. The petitioners claim that the Mexican State bears international responsibility for violation of Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 17 (rights of the family), 19 (rights of the child), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or “American Convention”) in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof; Articles I, II, IX, XI , and XIX of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter the "Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance” or “IACFDP”); and Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter the "Inter-American Convention against Torture” or “IACPPT”) to the detriment of the alleged victims. As regards the rule of prior exhaustion of remedies under domestic law, they claim denial of justice and invoke the exception envisaged at Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention.

3. The Mexican State, for its part, did not contest the facts but challenged the petition, arguing for the subsidiary nature of the inter-American human rights system. Regarding the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State claims that said remedies were not exhausted inasmuch as the relatives of the alleged victims failed to make use of a specific assistance program for reparation of the harm and because, in relation to the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible, a prosecutorial inquiry remains pending in which every reasonable effort possible has been made to conduct appropriate procedures. Based on the foregoing, the State requests that the petition be declared inadmissible.

4. Having examined the positions of the parties and compliance with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission, without prejudging the merits of the petition, has decided to declare the petition admissible for the purposes of examining the alleged violations of rights enshrined in Articles I, IX, XVII, XVIII, and XXV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter the “American Declaration”); Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 22, 19, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof; Articles I and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance; and Articles 1, 6, and of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. The Commission has decided to notify the parties of this decision, make it public, and include it in its annual report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

2. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

5. The Commission received the petition on October 25, 2006 and numbered it 1491-06. On April 28, 2011, the Commission forwarded the pertinent portions to the State and requested it to present its comments within two months. On September 7, 2011, the State asked for an extension, which was granted, for one month, on July 15, 2011. On February 8, 2012, the IACHR reiterated its request to the State for its comments, which were received on June 4, 2012, and duly relayed to the petitioners.

6. The IACHR also received information from the petitioners on the following dates: July 31, 2007; July 15, 2010; December 16, 2011; September 26, 2012; and April 23, 2013. Those communications were duly forwarded to the State. The State also presented information on December 9, 2012, which was forwarded to the petitioners.

3. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A. The petitioners

7. The petitioners allege the forced disappearance of Amafer Guzmán Cruz, Armando Guzmán Cruz, José de Jesús Guzmán Jiménez, Adenauer Solón Guzmán Cruz, and Venustiano Guzmán Cruz, all of them members of the Guzmán Cruz family and the Purhépecha indigenous community of Tarejero, located in the Municipality of Zacapu, Michoacán State, Mexico. They claim denial of justice and hold that, despite having reported the acts, the investigations opened exceeded a reasonable time without any punishment of the masterminds and actual perpetrators, or reparation for the family members of the alleged victims.

8. They argue that the alleged acts were committed within a context of repression against opposition social and political movements that occurred in Mexico between 1960 and 1980, known as the "Dirty War." They say that specifically in the State of Michoacán student-led movements arose between 1963 and 1966, which period saw the formation of the Student and Rural Laborers Popular Front (Frente Popular Obrero Campesino Estudiantil). They say that on August 2, 1968 and June 10, 1971, two massacres were carried out against young people struggling for spaces for political participation. According to the petitioners, following the repression of October 2, 1968, a number of activists from that movement formed a politico-military organization known as the Revolutionary Action Movement [Movimiento de Acción Revolucionaria] (hereinafter the “MAR”), in which, they say, the young Amafer Guzmán Cruz played a significant role. They say that to exterminate such opposition movements, the Mexican Government of the day perpetrated large numbers of forced disappearances (between 500 and 1200 according to estimates), extrajudicial executions, and acts of torture.

9. According to them, such acts were mainly carried out by the Army and the Federal Security Directorate [Dirección Federal de Seguridad] (hereinafter the “DFS”), which was attached to the Ministry of the Interior; as well as irregular groups created ex profeso, such as the so-called “White Brigade” [Brigada Blanca]. They say that the modus operandi of those entities and groups are widely documented and recognized by the National Human Rights Commission [Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos] (hereinafter the “CNDH”) in its Recommendation 26/2001.

10. With regard to the acts that affected the Guzman Cruz family, they note, in particular, that Amafer Guzmán Cruz had been a student leader since adolescence, participated actively in social protest activities, and joined the MAR in the early 1970s. They say that, as official documents produced by the State itself record, he had been under surveillance by the DFS since July 9, 1972, and that at approximately 10:00 p.m. on July 16, 1974, he and two other individuals were detained by members of the DFS in the city of Morelia, Michoacán. They say that he was taken first to the 21st Military Area of Michoacán and then to the DFS in Mexico City where he was interrogated, and that his whereabouts have remained unknown ever since. They say that following the detention of Amafer Guzmán Cruz, his family was subjected to ferocious persecution.

11. In that regard, they say that on July 19, 1974 his brother, Armando Guzmán Cruz, was arrested by the DFS in the city of Netzahualcóyotl, México State, and that his whereabouts have been unknown since then. Five days...