Report No. 51 (2016) IACHR. Case No. 11.564 (México)

• Case Number: 11.564
• Report Number: 51
• Respondent State: México
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Gilberto Jiménez Hernández y otros

REPORT No. 51/16

CASE 11.564

ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS REPORT (PUBLICATION)

GILBERTO JIMÉNEZ HERNANDEZ ET AL (LA GRANDEZA)

MEXICO

Approved by the Commission at its at its session No. 2069 held on November 30, 2016.

159th R.ar Period of Sessions.

IACHR, Report No. 51/16, C. 11.564. M.. G.rto J...H. et al (La Grandeza).

México. November 30, 2016.

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.160

Doc. XX

XX xxx 2016

Original: español

www.cidh.org

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.159

Doc. 60

30 November 2016

Original: Spanish

1

REPORT No. 51/16

CASE 11.564

ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS (PUBLICATION)

G.J.H..A. ET AL (LA GRANDEZA)

MEXI CO

NOVEMBER 30, 2016

CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR .............................................................................................................................. 1

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ............................................................................................................................................ 2

A. Petitioners’ Position ............................................................................................................................................ 2

B. State’s Position ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPET ENCE AND ADMISSIBILIT Y .................................................................................................. 6

A. Commission’s Competence ratione personae, ra tione loci,

ratione materi ae and ratione temporis ........................................................................................................ 6

B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies ................................................................................................................. 7

C. Timeliness of the Pet ition ................................................................................................................................. 7

D. Duplication of Proced ures and International res judica ta ..................................................................... 8

E. Colorable Claim ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

V. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS ............................................................................................................................................... 8

A..P. facts ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

1. Context .................................................................................................................................................... 8

2. Events occurring on Februa ry 19 and 20, 1995 .................................................................... 11

3. Investiga tion of events in the domestic a rena ........................................................................ 18

B. Legal Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

1. R. to life and the pri nciple of equal treatment and non-discrimination

(Article 4 of the Ameri can Convention in connection wi th Articles 1.1 and

2 of the same instrument) ............................................................................................................. 25

2. The right to a fair trial and judicial protection wi th regards to

the investigat ions opened by the prosecutor’s of fices into the

death of G. to J.H......................................................................................... 32

3. The right to a humane treatment with regard to the investig ations

by the prosecutors i nto the death of G.J.m.H. to

the detriment of h is next of kin. .................................................................................................. 40

VI. DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOWIN G THE ADOPTION OF REPORT No. 73/15 ....................................................... 41

VII. DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOWING THE AD OPTION OF REPORT NO. 34/16 ....................................................... 43

VIII. ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 44

IX. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 44

X. PUBLICATION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45

1

REPORT No. 51/16

CASE 11.564

ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS

G.J.H..A. ET AL (LA GRANDEZA)

MEXI CO1

NOVEMBER 30, 2016

I. SUMMARY

1. On January 9, 1996, the Inter-Americ an Commission on Human Ri ghts (hereinafter “the Inter-

American Commission,” “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by the F.B.

de las Casas Human Rights Center and the Center for Justice a nd International Law (CEJIL) (hereinafter “the

petitioners”) alleging international responsibility of the United Mexican States (hereinafter “Mexico, ” “the

State” or “the Mexica n State”) for the alleged extrajudicial execution of G.J..i.H., a T.tal

indigenous man a nd member of the La Grandeza Community.

2. According to the account in the petition, on February 20, 1995, officers of the M.A.y

extrajudicially executed the alleged victim as he was fleeing from milita ry troops along with his family and

other members of the La Grandeza ejid o community in the M.pality of A., S. of Chiapas,

M.. The petitioners claimed that the crimes charged in this petition were investiga ted in the civilian

federal and state jurisdiction, as well as in the military jurisdiction. T. argued that, despite the

investigations, the perpetrators of the crimes ha ve gone unpunished. As f or the requirement of prior

exhaustion of domestic remedies, they claim the State’s argument is that the petitioners’ are required t o

accept the military jurisdiction as the suitable means to investigate the death of a civilian at the hands of a

member of the armed forces.

3. In response, the M exican State contended that the d eath of G.J.H. ndez came

about as a result of a confrontation between members of the Zapatista National Liberation Army, an armed

group to which the alleged victim belonged, and members of the Mexican Army. As for admissibility of the

case, the State argued failure to exhaust available domestic remedies in the military jurisdiction, as well as

remedies in the ordina ry federal jurisdiction to question the proceedings before the mi litary criminal courts,

specifically with reference to amparo proceedings for enforcement of constitutionally guaranteed ri ghts.

Regarding the merits of the matter, the State clai med that it has fully met its obligations to respect and ensure

the allegedly viola ted rights.

4. After examining the available information, the Commission ascertained that the admissibility

requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the America n Convention have been fulfilled and concluded

that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to life, humane treatment, a fair tria l, equal

treatment and non-discrimination and judicial protection, as provided for in Articles 4.1, 5.1, 8.1, 24 and 25.1

of the American Convention, in connection with the obligati ons established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same

instrument, to the detriment of the individuals listed in eac h section of the instant report.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR

5. The initial peti tion was lodged on January 9, 1996 and was a ssigned the number 11.564. In a

note of January 11, 1996, the IACHR forwarded the relevant portions of the petition to the State, requesting it

to provide a response within a 90-day period, in keeping with the Rules of Procedure in forc e at the time.

Following the IACHR gra nting of two extensions, the Mexican State filed its reply on May 16, 1996, which was

duly forwarded to the petitioners. On October 17, 1996, the petitioners request ed that Human Rights Watch

Americas be inc luded as co-petitioner in the c ase.

1 As provided in A. le 17.2 of the C ommission’s Rules o f Procedure, M. an national Com mission member J. de J...

.

O.H. did not take part in th e discussion or the d ecision on the instant ca se.