Report No. 72 (2010) IACHR. Petition No. 161-01 (México)

• Report Number: 72
• Petition Number: 161-01
• Year: 2010
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Irineo Martínez Torres y Candelario Martínez Damián
• Respondent State: México
• Case Type: Admissibility

11

REPORT No. 72/10¹

PETITION 161-01

ADMISSIBILITY

IRINEO MARTÍNEZ TORRES AND CANDELARIO MARTÍNEZ DAMIÁN

MEXICO

July 12, 2010

I. SUMMARY

1. On March 13, 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Inter-American Commission,” the “Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Alfonso Otero and Mónica Schurtman (hereinafter, “the petitioners”) against the State of Mexico (hereinafter, “the State” or “the Mexican State”). The petitioners argues that the State is internationally responsible for the alleged assault and violation of the fair trial guarantees of Irineo Martínez Torres and Candelario Martínez Damián, both members of the Purépecha indigenous people (hereinafter “the alleged victims”), committed during their arrest and the criminal proceeding instituted against them.

2. The petitioners argue that the alleged victims’ rights recognized in Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) were violated. The petitioners say that the foregoing is based on the fact that they were reputedly physically assaulted by judicial police at the time of their arrest; they were not appointed an interpreter during the criminal proceeding against them; and the public defender failed to act in an efficient manner. As regards admissibility, they argue that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the petition was lodged within the time limit set out in the American Convention.

3. For its part, the State holds that the petition is inadmissible because the facts described in the petition do not tend to establish violations of rights protected in the American Convention. As regards the admissibility requirements to be met by the petition, the State holds that the remedies under domestic law have not been appropriately exhausted because: i) the supposed violations of rights protected in the American Convention have not been invoked before the domestic courts and, ii) there are judicial remedies that the alleged victims should have sought and exhausted. The State further asserts that the petition was not lodged with the IACHR within the time limit required under the American Convention.

4. Having examined the positions of the parties and compliance with the requirements provided in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and without prejudging the merits of the complaint, the Commission decided to declare the petition admissible for the purposes of examination of the alleged violations of Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1 of said treaty. Furthermore, taking into consideration iura novit curia principle,, the Commission decided to declare the petition admissible with respect to the alleged violation of the right recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention and in the merits stage will analyze the potential applicability of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter, “Convention against Torture”). The Commission decided, moreover, to notify the parties of this decision, publish it, and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR

5. The petition was received by the Commission on March 13, 2001 and assigned it number 161-01.² In response to a request from the IACHR the petitioners submitted additional information on April 25 of that year. On October 5, 2001, the Commission forwarded the relevant parts of the information received to the State and requested it to present its comments within two months. Mexico’s response was received on February 14, 2002.

6. The IACHR also received information from the petitioners on the following dates: October 17, 2001, December 30, 2002, and April 26, 2004. Those communications were duly forwarded to the State.

7. In addition, the IACHR received observations from the State on February 13, 2004 and June 21, 2007. Those communications were duly forwarded to the petitioners.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The petitioners

8. The petitioners claim that Messrs. Irineo Martínez Torres and Candelario Martínez Damián were victims of violations of rights protected in the American Convention in the course of their arrest and by reason of failures in observance of fair trial guarantees in the criminal proceeding brought against them. The petitioners argue in this regard that the alleged victims were physically assaulted by judicial police at the time of their arrest; they were not provided an interpreter during the criminal proceeding against them; and the public defender failed to act in an efficient manner.

9. The petitioners say that the alleged victims are members of the Purépecha indigenous people, hail from Ahuirán in Michoacán State, and their native language is Purépecha (Tarasco). They say that Irineo Martínez Torres, who was 64 when the petition was lodged with the IACHR, was virtually monolingual at the time of his arrest. They also say that Candelario Martínez Damián had learned basic Spanish at primary school, which he had attended for only a few years, but that he chiefly spoke Purépecha. They say that Irineo and Candelario (uncle and nephew), were well-known wood craftsmen, an activity in which they engaged up to the time of their arrest.

10. According to the petitioners, from December 6 to December 7, 1997, the alleged victims travelled by bus from Michoacán to Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas in order to complete the sale of a number of wooden columns decorated with carved designs. The columns were reputedly transported by the buyer to Nuevo Laredo by truck and were allegedly out of the alleged victims’ keeping for more than 24 hours. They say that upon their arrival at Nuevo Laredo, the alleged victims made their way to where the truck was located to unload the columns and take receipt of their money. They say that shortly after they arrived they were arrested by agents of the Federal Judicial Police who, they claim, acted without an arrest warrant.

11. They say that in the course of the arrest the officials physically assaulted the alleged victims with punches and kicks to various parts of their bodies as well as striking them with their firearms. The petitioners say that while this happened Irineo Martínez Torres struck his head against the truck after he was pushed by one of the policeman, and sustained a cut above his eye. They say that these acts of violence were not reported immediately for fear of reprisal. However, during a confrontation proceeding between Irineo Martínez Torres and a policeman, Mr. Martínez Torres identified the policeman as his assailant. The physical mistreatment was also charged in the constitutional remedies (hereinafter Amparo suit) filed with the Third Collegiate Court of the 19th Circuit in Ciudad Victoria on October 20, 1999.

12. They also say that the police had warned them that they should plead guilty to transporting cannabis in the above-mentioned columns. They argue that as a result of the alleged victims’ poor grasp of Spanish, Irineo Martínez Torres had not understood the charges made by the police, while Candelario Martínez Damián had succeeded in understanding enough to plead innocent. According to the petitioners the alleged victims remained in custody from then until the time the petition was lodged with the IACHR.

13. The petitioners say that as a result of the criminal process against them, in a judgment dated June 29, 1998, the Judge of the Third District Court of Nuevo Laredo convicted the alleged victims of the crime against health of transportation of cannabis and sentenced them to 12 years and eight months of imprisonment, imposing a fine of 4,232 pesos. According to the petitioners, this decision was confirmed by the Fifth Unitary Tribunal of the 19th Circuit of Nuevo Laredo on August 21, 1998. They say that they filed a direct Amparo suit against that decision with the Third Collegiate Court of the 19th Circuit in and for Ciudad Victoria which was rejected in a decision of September 13, 2000

14. They say that the trial was conducted entirely in Spanish and that neither the judicial authorities nor the Office of the Attorney General afforded the alleged victims the assistance of an interpreter, despite their obvious incomprehension. They...