MEXICO

CAT Article 20 Examinations Re: Systematic Torture

CAT CAT/C/75 (2003)

REPORT ON MEXICO PRODUCED BY THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONVENTION, AND REPLY FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO

PART ONE. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In accordance with article 20 of the Convention, if the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State party, the Committee shall invite that State party to cooperate in the examination of the information and, to this end, to submit observations with regard to the information concerned. The Committee may subsequently decide to designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry which may include a visit to the territory of the State party concerned, with its agreement. All these proceedings of the Committee are confidential and at all stages of the proceedings the cooperation of the State party is sought. After the proceedings have been completed, the Committee may decide to include a summary account of their results in its annual reports to the States parties to the Convention and the General Assembly.

2. Mexico ratified the Convention on 23 January 1986. At the time of ratification it did not declare that it did not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20 of the Convention, as it could have done under article 28 of the Convention. The procedure under article 20 is, therefore, applicable to Mexico.

II. APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURE

3. In October 1998, the Committee received from the Human Rights Centre Miguel Agustín Pro-Juárez (PRODH), a non-governmental organization based in Mexico City, a report entitled “Torture: Institutionalized Violence in Mexico, April 1997-September 1998”. The report contained an appeal to the Committee to undertake an investigation pursuant to article 20 of the Convention.

4. At its twenty-first session (November 1998, the Committee requested one of its members, Mr. Alejandro González Poblete, to consider that report in detail. He did so in the light of other information available to the Committee, in particular the information provided by the Government in connection with the consideration of its third periodic report and the report of the Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur on torture concerning his visit to Mexico in August 1997 (E/CN.4/1998/38/Add.2).

5. In the light of his consideration, the Committee determined that the information submitted by PRODH was sound and gave justifiable grounds for believing that torture was systematically practised in Mexico. In accordance with article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention and rule 76 of its Rules of Procedure, the Committee, in a letter dated 30 November 1998, requested the Government of Mexico to cooperate in the examination of, and comment on, the information in question.

6. On 1 and 19 March 1999, the Government sent the Committee documents enumerating the legislation in force and the measures taken by the authorities at various levels in previous years to combat torture. It described the information from PRODH as “biased and tendentious”.

7. At its twenty-second session (May 1999) the Committee assigned two of its members, Mr. Alejandro González Poblete and Mr. Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, to examine the Government’s response. They noted that the Mexican Government reproached the Committee with acting rashly in concluding that torture was being practised systematically in Mexico, since the information brought to the Government’s attention referred only to 60 cases involving a total of 177 victims in 12 of the country’s 32 Federal States. According to the Government, that sample was not representative of the real situation in Mexico. The Government also pointed out that the cases in question had not been brought to the attention of the competent authorities, in particular, the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Committee’s representatives dismissed that argument since the information from PRODH showed that almost all the cases had been the subject of complaints either to the National Human Rights Commission or to its counterparts in Federal States. The information received by the Committee suggested that, despite the legislative and administrative measures taken by the Government, torture continued to be practised systematically, in particular by members of the judicial police and the armed forces, in the fight against subversive groups. The Special Rapporteur on torture,¹ the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights² and the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch³ had all reached the same conclusion in their reports on the matter. In its reply the Government had provided statistics on all the recommendations concerning legal system employees made since 1990 by human rights commissions, but had given no indication of how many of them referred to cases of torture, nor of how the recommendations had been followed up. The representatives considered that the Committee should continue its procedure under article 20.

8. During the same session, the Committee endorsed that conclusion and decided to undertake a confidential inquiry in accordance with article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention and rule 78 of its Rules of Procedure, designating Mr. González Poblete and Mr. Silva Henriques Gaspar for the purpose. It also decided to invite the Mexican Government, in accordance with article 20, paragraph 3, of the Convention and rule 79 of its Rules of Procedure, to cooperate with it in the conduct of the inquiry. Lastly, it decided to request the Government of Mexico, pursuant to article 20, paragraph 3, of the Convention and rule 80 of its Rules of Procedure, to allow a visit to take place in September 1999.

9. In a note verbale dated 29 June 1999, the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva expressed the Government’s surprise at the Committee’s decision, since the Government had provided the Committee with a wealth of conclusive evidence showing beyond doubt that the information supplied by PRODH was baseless, unreliable, distorted facts and arguments, was at variance with reality in the country and did not support the conclusion that torture was systematically practised in Mexico. That notwithstanding, the note stated the Government’s willingness to cooperate with the Committee in the inquiry and to provide such information at its disposal as the members of the Committee might consider of help in examining the events that were the subject of the inquiry. It also said that the Government would assess the justification for, and appropriateness of a visit to the country once its accredited representative, Ambassador Miguel Angel González Félix, had met the Committee’s designated representatives.

10. The meeting between Ambassador González Félix and the two Committee members assigned to conduct the inquiry took place on 19 and 20 October 1999 in Geneva. Besides Ambassador González Félix, the Government of Mexico was represented by Ms. Perla Carvalho, the deputy permanent representative at the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Ms. Alicia Pérez Duarte, counsellor at the Permanent Mission, Mr. Florencio Madariaga, the Assistant Attorney-General of the State of Chiapas, and Mr. Joaquín González Casanova, the Director for Human Rights at the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic.

11. The Committee members gave the delegation a list of 394 suspected cases of torture. Of these, 316 had been selected from reports by the Special Rapporteur, and 78 from the information supplied by PRODH. The breakdown of the cases by State was: Campeche, 15; Chiapas, 78; Chihuahua, 9; Guanajuato, 5; Guerrero, 89; Hidalgo, 11; Jalisco, 1; Mexico, 10; Morelos, 18; Oaxaca, 83; Puebla, 2; Sonora, 3; Tabasco, 8; Tamaulipas, 11; Veracruz, 16; Federal District, 31. In four cases, the State was unknown. Government replies had been received concerning many of the cases mentioned in the Special Rapporteur’s reports and the Committee members had taken them into account.

12. The members of the delegation reiterated their Government’s willingness to continue cooperating with the Committee. They reviewed the human rights measures taken since 1990, when the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) had been established. Those measures included: the holding of expert workshops to identify factors conducive to recourse to torture; the establishment of human rights commissions in every Mexican State; the entry into force of the Federal law on torture and of corresponding laws in virtually all the States; the establishment of human rights departments in attorney-generals’ offices; and the conduct by the human rights commissions and the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic of a campaign encouraging the population to report any human rights abuses. They had resulted in a significant decline in the numbers of cases reported. Torture had ranked second among the types of violation covered in the first CNDH report (1990), whereas it ranked 32nd in the most recent one (December 1998), with 28 complaints lodged and six recommendations against public servants. In addition, the judicial system had started a clear trend towards the rejection of torture and the punishment of those responsible for it, and progress was being made towards ensuring that victims of human rights violations were compensated in cases where a State was jointly liable for loss or damage caused by its officials. The delegation explained the procedures followed by the judicial authorities in the light of recommendations of the human rights commissions and said that the authority vested in the commissions’ inspectors was such that the evidence they collected could be used in court.

13. The Committee members told the delegation of their concern at the lack of information on the outcome of cases in which there had been a torture investigation, especially the prosecution and punishment of those responsible. In cases where there had been a recommendation from CNDH or a State commission it was not known to what action the recommendation had given rise. There was a considerable difference between the number of complaints and the number of cases in which criminal proceedings had been instituted and the perpetrators had been punished. The delegation emphasized how hard it was to gather this information, largely owing to Mexico’s Federal structure. Even so, the Government would do all it could to provide the Committee with up-to-date replies on the 394 cases.⁴

14. The delegation said that, if the Committee members wished to insist on visiting Mexico, it would be advisable for them not to make their trip before the presidential elections to be held on 2 July 2000, since such a visit could be used for political ends by groups with an interest in the electoral contest. Furthermore, the new administration would not be in place before November 2000. While agreeing that it might not be appropriate to visit the country during the electoral period, the Committee members said that they did not think it would be appropriate either to postpone their visit until after the installation of the new administration. They suggested, therefore, that the visit should take place in August 2000. They emphasized that the authorities should not view the visit as anything negative: it formed part of the process and was a means of gaining the most objective and well-founded opinion possible concerning the actual state of affairs in the country.

15. On 30 January 2001, the Government invited the Committee members to visit the country. The members suggested a visit between 23 August and 12 September 2001; the Government accepted those dates. In the mean time, the Committee had designated another of its members, Mr. Ole Vedel Rasmussen, to take part in the visit along with the two designated previously. In the end, Mr. Silva Henriques Gaspar was prevented by personal reasons from taking part in the visit. The Committee members were accompanied by two members of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Carmen Rosa Rueda Castañón, the Committee Secretary, and Ms. Mercedes Morales Fernández.

III. VISIT TO MEXICO FROM 23 AUGUST TO 12 SEPTEMBER 2001

A. Activities of the Committee members during the visit

16. During their stay in Mexico the Committee members visited the Federal District, where they held discussions with the following officials: the President and judges of the Supreme Court; the Federal Director of Public Security; the Attorney-General of the Republic; the Director of Public Security of the Government of the Federal District; the Federal District Attorney-General; the Military Prosecutor-General; the President and board of inspectors of the National Human Rights Commission; the President and inspectors of the Federal District Human Rights Commission; and the Interdepartmental Commission to Monitor Mexico’s International Human Rights Commitments. They also had discussions with representatives of non-governmental organizations and visited Mexico City’s Reclusorio Norte prison. They also met the Human Rights and Civic Protection Attorney of the State of Baja California, who was in Mexico City at the time. Lastly, they visited the La Palma Federal Centre for Social Rehabilitation (Almoloya de Juárez, Mexico State).

17. They also visited the States of Tamaulipas, Oaxaca and Guerrero. In Ciudad Victoria, the capital of Tamaulipas, they met a number of State officials: the Director of Judicial Police, the Attorney-General, the Deputy Director of Expert Services, the President and three members of the Supreme Court and the President of the State human rights commission. In the towns of Reynosa and Miguel Alemán they had discussions with representatives of non-governmental organizations and visited the social rehabilitation centres;⁵ in Reynosa they also visited the premises of the judicial and preventive police and met the Commander of the Eighth Military Zone.

18. In Oaxaca, they met the President and a number of members of the High Court, the Director of Public Security and Civic Protection, the Director of Prevention and Social Rehabilitation, the Attorney-General, the Director of Judicial Police and officials of the Forensic Medicine Service, the Commander of the Twenty-eighth Military Zone and the President and inspectors of the State human rights commission. They also had discussions with non-governmental organizations and visited the social rehabilitation centres at Ixcotel and Etla.

19. In Guerrero, they had discussions in the capital, Chilpancingo, with the President of the High Court, the Director of Public Security and Civic Protection, the Director of Prevention and Social Rehabilitation, the Attorney-General, the Commander of the Thirty-fifth Military Zone and the President and inspectors of the State human rights commission. They also had discussions with non-governmental organizations and visited the social rehabilitation centres at Chilpancingo, Acapulco and Iguala.

B. General conditions in which the visit took place

20. Before starting their visit, the Committee members agreed with the authorities that it would take place according to the following principles: access to any place where there might be persons deprived of liberty; guaranteed access in all such places to all premises, not just cells; access to any written document that the members might feel it useful to consult, including registers of detainees; possibility of private conversations with anybody, including detainees and officials of detention centres, whom the members might wish to interview; possibility of returning to places of detention that had already been visited.

21. The Mexican Government supported the visit to the full and was very cooperative throughout. It respected the above principles and, both in the Federal District and in the States, took the measures necessary to enable the members to carry out their programme of work and, when necessary, to guarantee their security. As a result, the Committee members were able to visit places of detention at little (one or two hours’) or no notice. They were able to talk in private with all the detainees they asked to see. They were also able to hold unimpeded discussions with relatives, former detainees and representatives of non-governmental organizations. They informed all the people they spoke with of the purpose of their visit and of its confidential nature.

IV. CHARACTERISTICS AND FREQUENCY OF CASES OF TORTURE

22. In order to determine the characteristics and frequency of cases of torture in Mexico, the Committee members took as their basis the following sources of information:

•          The testimony of alleged victims or their direct relatives;

•          Information from public agencies for the protection and defence of human rights;

•          Information from non-governmental human rights organizations;

•          Information from State and Federal governmental authorities.

A. Testimony of alleged victims or their direct relatives

23. In the course of their visit to Mexico, the Committee members interviewed 91 detainees. These interviewees were selected according to two criteria: (1) information had already been received to the effect that they had been tortured; (2) it was apparent from medical and legal records at places of detention covering the months preceding the visit that the individuals in question had arrived with injuries. Of the interviewees, 59 stated that they had been treated in a way that the Committee members considered to fall within the definition of article 1 of the Convention. In many of these cases, there were medical reports that tallied with the interviewees’ accounts. Two other individuals stated that, while they had not been tortured, they had been subjected to strong psychological pressure. In two cases, it is questionable whether the treatment meted out falls within the definitions given in articles 1 and 16 of the Convention.

24. The Committee members also heard testimony concerning 17 other victims of torture. Some of them were at liberty, but others were in detention, in which event the testimony came from direct relatives.

1. Testimony of persons deprived of liberty

(a) Tamaulipas

25. During their visit to the Reynosa CERESO, the Committee members interviewed 13 inmates, 11 of whom reported that they had, at the time of their detention at various points in the State, undergone treatment that the Committee members considered to be torture. Three had been taken into detention in 1999 and the others between January and June 2001. All said that they had been struck repeatedly at the time of their arrest or for several hours or days thereafter. The only exception was the sole woman, who said that she had been threatened with being thrown into a canal and had been forced to watch as her husband was tortured. Two of the detainees said that their hearing had been damaged by the beatings and two others that they had been bedridden for several weeks. Three said that plastic bags had been placed over their heads and one that water containing chilli powder had been poured into his nose and mouth. One said he had twice been taken to a riverbank and threatened with being thrown in. Five said that those responsible belonged to the judicial police, one, the Federal judicial police, five, police patrols and one, the Army.

26. The Committee members also interviewed three people who had been taken into detention a few hours earlier and were being held in judicial police cells in Reynosa. These said that they had not been tortured or mistreated.

27. At the Miguel Alemán CERESO, the Committee members interviewed seven inmates. Two of them, who had been in custody since August 2001, said that they had been beaten by members of the judicial police during their arrests; medical certificates issued on imprisonment mentioned the presence of injuries. One, who had been in custody since November 2000, said he had been repeatedly beaten by municipal police officers. The other four said they had not been tortured or ill-treated.

(b) Oaxaca

28. During their visit to the Santa María Ixcotel CERESO, the Committee members interviewed 14 inmates. Three of them, who had been in custody since August 2001, said that they had been beaten by police patrols when they were detained, although two of them said they had not resisted arrest. Five said that they had been arrested by the judicial police in the Loxicha region on various dates, namely one in 1996, two in 1998, one in 1999 and one in June 2001; all of them - except one, who said he had been forced, under threat of death, to sign blank sheets of paper but had not been beaten - said that they had repeatedly been beaten and threatened; one said that he had received electric shocks. Another inmate, who had been arrested in September 1999 in Oaxaca by a police patrol, said that he had been beaten when detained and during his arrest and during his time in the judicial police cells, where he had also been threatened in order to force him to confess to participation in a case of bodily injury and rape. The other five interviewees said that they had not been tortured or ill-treated.

29. During their visit to the Etla CERESO, the Committee members met nine inmates. Of these inmates, two indigenous men from the Loxicha region said that they had been severely beaten on being arrested by the judicial police in 1997, one of them in Oaxaca and the other in Putlade Guerrero, on charges of belonging to subversive groups and committing various offences in connection with the groups’ activities; one of them said that he had been subjected to electric shocks, that carbonated water had been poured into his nose and that a plastic bag had been placed over his head. A third man said that he had been kicked by the police when detained and had been obliged to sign blank sheets of paper. The other inmates said that they had not been tortured or ill-treated.

(c) Guerrero

30. During their visit to the Chilpancingo CERESO, the Committee members interviewed 11 inmates who had been arrested in various parts of the State. Of the arrests, two had taken place in 1998, two in 1999, one in 2000 and the rest between May and June 2001. One of the men arrested in 1998 said that he had been subjected to psychological, but not to physical pressure; three said that they had been hit repeatedly; the others said that they had been hit, threatened and subjected to other forms of torture, such as the pouring of water into their noses or mouths, the placing of plastic bags (which in one case contained lime) over their heads, or mock executions. One woman said that she had been raped repeatedly, an assertion borne out by the medical examinations carried out when she entered the prison. The perpetrators of those acts had been: in seven cases, members of the judicial police, in two cases, members of the judicial police and police patrols, in one case, members of the municipal police, and in one case, members of a police patrol.

31. During their visit to the Acapulco CERESO, the Committee members interviewed nine inmates who said they had been hit or had suffered other forms of torture. All of them said that they had been arrested in Acapulco; the exception was the only woman to have been interviewed, who said that she had been arrested in Apango. Two of the arrests took place in July 2000 and the remainder in 2001. One of the male detainees said that he had been burnt with a cigarette lighter; another had suffered a cut ear, and several, including the woman, had had a bag placed over their head and/or carbonated water or water containing chilli powder poured into their nose; one man had been given electric shocks. The perpetrators of those acts had been: in six cases members of the judicial police, in two cases, police patrols, and in one case, members of the municipal police. The worst forms of torture had been inflicted by members of the judicial police. In addition to those nine inmates, the Committee members interviewed three detainees who said they had not been tortured or ill-treated.

32. During their visit to the Iguala CERESO, the Committee members interviewed seven inmates, five of whom said that they had been tortured. Two of them, who had been arrested by police patrols at Atoyac in May 2001, said that they had been beaten, particularly on the ears, subjected to mock executions and electric shocks, had plastic bags placed over their heads, water poured into their noses and bandages tied very tightly around their heads and wrists. One said that he had been arrested by the judicial police in August 2001 and had been beaten, had water poured into his nose and been subjected to electric shocks, the marks of which were still visible.

33. The other two inmates who said that they had been tortured were Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera, both members of the Organización de Campesinos Ecologistas de la Sierra de Petatlán y Coyuca de Catalán (Organization of Peasant Environmentalists of Sierra de Petatlán and Coyuca de Catalán), a body formed in 1998 with a view to halting the excessive logging in the area. They reported that, on 2 May 1999, they had been detained without a warrant in the village of Pizotla in the Ajuchitlán del Progreso area of Guerrero State, by members of the Army’s Fortieth Infantry Battalion. On being detained they had been thrown to the ground, beaten, threatened with execution and dragged along by the hair. After being taken to an army post on the banks of the Pizotla River, they had been tied hand and foot and forced to lie face down for several hours, after which Mr. Montiel had been taken to a place close by to be interrogated. He had been kept, blindfolded, on his back while being tortured as follows: his head was forced back by someone pulling on his jaw; someone stood on his shoulders; he was hit in the abdomen and the lumbar region; someone tugged repeatedly at his testicles, causing him to lose consciousness several times; electric shocks were administered to his right thigh, which had previously been sprayed with water; he and his family were threatened with death. During this treatment, which lasted between one and two hours, he had been interrogated about his activities and told he must confess to belonging to an armed opposition group. He had been then returned to where Mr. Cabrera was, and Mr. Cabrera had been taken in turn to a place where, after being blindfolded and made to lie on the floor, he had been tortured in a similar way to Mr. Montiel. Both men had subsequently been taken to the Fortieth Infantry Battalion’s headquarters at Altamirano, where they had again been threatened with death, struck, and forced to confess to possessing and growing drugs and illegally possessing weapons. On 4 May 1999, they had been brought before the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Coyuca de Catalán and then before a judge. They had been held in the Coyuca CERESO for a month before being transferred to the Iguala CERESO. In November 2001, a presidential decree had ordered their release on humanitarian grounds.

34. On 14 July 2000, the National Human Rights Commission issued recommendation 8/2000 to the Secretary for National Defence, acknowledging human rights violations against the community of Pizotla and Mr. Montiel and Mr. Cabrera. It concluded that the detention of the two men had been illegal and that the weapons found in their possession had been “planted” by Army personnel. The Commission also said that, as the Army had persistently remained silent in order to avoid providing it with the information it had requested, it could be considered certain that the men had been tortured. Although the only evidence against them was their confessions extracted under torture, the fifth district court found them guilty on 28 August 2000. Teodoro Cabrera was sentenced to 10 years in prison for carrying a weapon intended solely for Army use, and Rodolfo Montiel was given 6 years and 8 months in prison for planting marijuana, carrying a weapon without a licence and carrying a weapon intended solely for Army use. The verdict was confirmed on appeal in October 2000 and, after amparo proceedings, reconfirmed in July 2001 by the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court took no account of the medical certificate issued in July 2000 by two foreign forensic experts belonging to Physicians for Human Rights Denmark at the request of Cabrera and Montiel’s lawyers, which stated that the findings of their physical examination tallied with the stated times and methods of torture employed. The report of torture submitted by the two men’s lawyers to the Public Prosecutor’s Office was referred to the Office of the Military Prosecutor.

(d) Federal District

35. During their visit to Reclusorio Norte prison in the Federal District, the Committee members interviewed nine inmates who had been arrested between July and August 2001 and for whom the medical certificates issued on entry to the establishment referred to the presence of injuries. Three said they had not been tortured or ill-treated. Five said they had been beaten, sometimes hard, at the time of their arrest by police patrols or the municipal police.

36. One inmate said that he had been arrested by the judicial police who beat him even though he offered no resistance. The forensic physician had ordered him to be taken to hospital for chest X-rays. At the hospital he was given stitches but, the police officers prevented the X-rays from being made and tore up a prescription issued to him. On return to the police premises, a policeman had kicked him and forced him to do squat jumps. The medical certificate issued by the doctor assigned to the Department of Expert Services of the Office of the Federal District Attorney-General mentioned numerous bruises on various parts of the body and abrasions on both legs.

(e) La Palma CEFERESO (Mexico State)

37. During their visit to the La Palma CEFERESO the Committee members interviewed six inmates. Of these, one man said that he had been arrested in October 1999 in the Federal District by men who had not identified themselves and whom he had been unable to see because he had been blindfolded throughout. He thought, however, that the men were judicial police and the place they took him to was a military camp. For several days he had been beaten, subjected to mock suffocation and given electric shocks while wrapped in a wet sheet, during which time he had been interrogated about his and other persons’ alleged membership of the Popular Revolutionary Army.

38. One of the interviewees said that he had been arrested by men from the Federal Preventive Police and the Army who, as a punitive measure, had shot him in the hand, as a result of which he had lost the use of a finger. Another man said that he had been arrested by staff of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic in August 2001, had been struck on the ears and had had a plastic bag placed over his head. The sixth inmate, who had been arrested in the Federal District in 2001 by staff of the Federal judicial police Organized Crime Unit, said that he had been beaten and threatened and that his nose and mouth had been blocked up with a rag to which water had been added until he nearly lost consciousness.

39. Two of the interviewees had been arrested in the Federal District on 9 and 10 May 2000 respectively by men from the Federal judicial police assigned to the Organized Crime Unit who had accused them of involvement in a kidnapping. In the vehicle taking them to the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic, they had been hit and threatened, their hands had been tied behind their backs and they had been blindfolded. On arrival, they were beaten repeatedly on different parts of their bodies and had plastic bags placed over their heads and their heads held underwater while they were being threatened. They reported that other detainees in the same place had suffered similar treatment. They had also been deprived of sleep and food and of contact (including telephone contact) with their families, who were told they were not being held there. They were brought before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office several times, but as they refused to confess to the offences with which they were charged, the police had brought them back to where they had been held since their arrest (a sort of garage) and gone on beating them. They eventually signed statements whose contents they were not allowed to read. Only after signing the statements were they taken to cells and their families allowed to see them. The Committee members found that the medical reports by the expert of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic, like those issued on the interviewees’ arrival at the prison, referred to injuries. One of the detainees told the Committee members that the judge in his case had said that the certificates were not enough to prove that there had been torture and that it was for him, the accused, to supply other evidence to prove that the injuries were the result of torture.

2. Testimony of persons at liberty

40. The Committee members heard testimony from people who had been tortured in detention but subsequently released, and from relatives of people who had been tortured and were still in detention. In two instances, the testimony was given in the Federal District. In one, the person testifying was a male juvenile who had been arrested in Quiroga, Michoacán, in November 2000 and tortured by the judicial police by being beaten and having a plastic bag placed over his head. Because of the torture, he had implicated a friend in the robbery of which he had been accused.

41. In the second instance the testimony concerned three young people, two males and a female, who had been arrested in Puebla in April 2001 and tortured in various ways by the judicial police, who had accused them of killing a woman in January of the same year. The testimony was given by the father of one of the detainees and the mother of another. The complaint filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office describes the arrest of one of the men as follows:

“As he was waiting for the minibus to go to class (...), two men came up and immediately, without saying a word, began to hit him on the head and threw him on the ground. When he tried to get up, they hit him on various parts of the body. Almost immediately, a van drew up (...), several people got out and forced him into it, while continuing to hit him. They threw him face down on the floor of the van and two of them put their feet on his head and back, immobilizing him completely. When asked what they wanted of him, one replied ‘shut up, berk, this is a kidnapping’ and promptly put a balaclava over his face. Having reached a place that he could not identify, they removed the balaclava, blindfolded him, and took off his clothes, leaving him in his underpants. Then they began to wet him and threw him on the floor, and one of them said ‘You’re going to talk, or it’ll cost you’. They asked him how many times he’d stolen something. When he said never, they started hitting him again, put a plastic bag on his face and poured water on him. When they saw that he was having difficulty breathing they let him rest, then resumed hitting him. They did this over and over again (...). Later, one of them ordered that, as he was going to cooperate, he should be taken to the public attorney’s office (Procuradoría) (...) and once he was in an office he started to retract and so they started to hit him again (...). Between blows and threats, they said ‘You’d better pray that we can pick up your friends, or we’ll have to put you down’ (...) and they forced him to sign a confession that he had never made. The torture left him with a number of visible injuries, as the social defence judge of the Puebla judicial district certified after submitting her preliminary report and both the medical experts for the defence and the forensic experts present at the examination also recognized.”

42. In Reynosa, the Committee members heard testimony from a person who had been arrested there in April 2001, one of whose ears had been damaged through kickings and beatings by the preventive police.

43. In Miguel Alemán, the Committee members heard testimony concerning the torture of four people who had been arrested in 2000 and 2001 and repeatedly beaten by military personnel (one case), a police patrol (one case) and the judicial police (one case). The fourth case was that of a person taken into custody by military personnel, whose corpse had subsequently been found bearing marks of torture.

44. In Oaxaca, the Committee members heard testimony from three people who had been arrested in 1996, 1997 and 1998 respectively on charges of belonging to armed groups and had been tortured in several ways by the judicial police.

45. In Chilpancingo, they heard testimony from two men who said that they had been arrested in 2000 and 2001 respectively and tortured in various ways by the judicial police and the municipal police respectively. The first said he had been detained in a murder investigation. During the two days he was held at the Tlapa State judicial police headquarters, he was kept blindfolded with his hands tied, and was hit on the ears and in the stomach. On three occasions, plastic bags had been put over his head until he lost consciousness. Throughout the period, he had been pressured to confess to the murder. He was also put into a tank of water where electrodes were used to administer electric shocks; he was told he would be set on fire, and was denied drink and food. He was never permitted to use the telephone and when his relatives went to enquire about him, they were told that he was not in detention. The same police officers had drawn up a statement that they made him sign, but he did so with a false signature. He had also been portrayed to the press as the culprit. For fear of being tortured again, he had not informed the doctor or the Public Prosecutor’s Office about the treatment he had received. He had only told the doctors who had come to see him in the CERESO and the judge, whom he saw when he was already there. The Guerrero State Commission for the Defence of Human Rights had issued a recommendation concluding that torture had occurred and recommending that the State Attorney-General should launch administrative disciplinary proceedings. As there had been no evidence against the detainee other than the statement obtained under torture, he had been acquitted after spending 10 months in prison.⁶

46. The Committee members also heard testimony from relatives of a person who had been arrested by members of the judicial police in Tierra Colorada in June 2001. The relatives said that the person had been beaten at the time of his arrest and had not been seen since. Other relatives described the case of two brothers who had been arrested in Tlapa in December 2000 and tortured in various ways (beatings, plastic bags on their heads, electric shocks, attempted suffocation) by members of the judicial police. Both brothers were still in custody and the relatives therefore had no means of subsistence.

B. Public human rights bodies

47. As mentioned above, the Committee members interviewed representatives of the National Human Rights Commission and the human rights commissions of each of the States visited, as well as the Human Rights Procurator for Baja California, whom they met in Mexico City. All of them provided the Committee members with relevant documentation, notably their institutions’ latest annual reports and recommendations. The Committee members also had access to the annual reports of the Jalisco State Human Rights Commission, to which reference will be made in this chapter.

1. National Human Rights Commission

48. The representatives of the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) said that their annual statistics and reports included only those cases of torture in which the facts had been proved, not cases in which complaints had been lodged but torture had not been established. They also said the Federal authorities - the authorities that fall within CNDH’s jurisdiction - had made great efforts to eradicate torture, but that cases continued to occur. This was due not to State policy but rather to a lack of training for police officers, a problem that was particularly acute in those public attorneys’ offices where resources were scarce. Many such offices did not even have any expert services, a situation that only encouraged the use of torture. The police force responsible was not the Federal Preventive Police, since it had no detainees in its charge, but the judicial police, with the connivance of the Attorney-General’s Office. They also said there was a “hidden total” of cases of torture that were never reported to any human rights commission, and that non-reporting was a problem CNDH wished to investigate.

49. According to the report covering the period between November 1999 and November 2000, the Commission registered nine new dossiers concerning allegations of torture.⁷ It also recorded 211 complaints of cruel and/or degrading treatment, 133 of threats, and 85 of intimidation.⁸ The report mentions eight recommendations in which there is a finding of excessive force used during detention or abuse of authority resulting in injury or inhuman or degrading treatment that might amount to torture (recommendation 19/2000). One of the recommendations, 11/2000, refers to Martín Zavala Limón, who was detained on 11 August 1997 by members of the Public Security Directorate of the municipality of Zapopan, Jalisco, and brutally beaten to death. Among other things, the Commission noted irregularities in the initial investigation into the incident on the part of the Office of the Jalisco State Attorney-General. In recommendation 19/2000, the Commission also considered the injuries - possibly the result of torture - to Mr. Carlos Montes Villaseñor, who was detained by Army personnel on 13 November 1998 in El Achotal, a township in Atoyac de Alvarez, Guerrero.⁹

50. The CNDH representatives also said that they had recorded six complaints of torture between January and August 2001. In response to one, the Commission had issued recommendation 8/2001 on the torture inflicted on Norberto Jesús Suárez Gómez, a former public attorney in Chihuahua, by members of the Federal judicial police Organized Crime Unit who had been detailed to keep watch on him in a safe house while he was under a curfew order. The torture consisted basically in burns to the back, inflicted to make him sign certain statements; 18 second-degree burns were found. During the same period, CNDH had received 144 complaints that it classified as cruel or degrading treatment. These cases were still open.

2. Jalisco State Human Rights Commission

51. The reports for 2000 and 2001 contain recommendations on the following cases in which the Human Rights Commission established violations of the right to physical integrity or the right not to be subjected to torture.

52. Jorge Alberto Gallegos Lupián was detained on 7 June 1998 in Guadalajara by judicial police under the authority of the Office of the State Attorney-General, who beat him and put a plastic bag over his head. The Commission’s medical expert confirmed the presence of injuries. The State Attorney-General was recommended to launch a preliminary investigation on grounds of abuse of authority (recommendation 4/2000 of 6 July 2000).

53. Ignacia de Jesús Cervera Horta was detained on 21 April 1999 by members of the Tonalá Department of Public Security, who beat her, breaking one arm and causing bruising in various places (recommendation 6/2000).

54. On 4 November 1993, 13 demonstrators belonging to a group known as El Barzón were beaten by members of the State Department of Public Security, which resulted in injuries of various kinds, some of them serious, according to a medical report by the Jalisco Institute of Forensic Science (recommendation 9/2000).

55. José Ventura Ríos García was detained on 22 August 1999 in Cocula by four members of the municipal police, who beat him. The relevant medical reports confirmed multiple bruising on various parts of the body caused by a blunt implement (recommendation 12/2000).

56. Jesús Cruz Briseño and Roberto Carlos Domínguez Robles, aged 14, were detained on 18 May 1997 in Jaluco, in the municipality of Cihuatlán, by members of the State judicial police. The police beat them, put their heads in buckets of water and made them do squats, to make them confess to complicity in the murder of a young man. The youths signed a statement in front of an official from the public attorney’s office, without reading it. The injuries were confirmed by the reports of the municipal and Human Rights Commission medical officers. Even though one of the minors informed the official from the public attorney’s office that his head had been put in a bucket of water, the official did not investigate (recommendation 15/2000).

57. Alejandro de Jesús Ramírez Yáñez and Guillermo Dávalos Roldán were detained on 30 November 1999 in Guadalajara by members of the State judicial police, whom they had approached to report the theft of an item belonging to them. Taking them to a deserted spot, the police bound them hand and foot, covered their faces with cloths and doused their faces with water from a hose. The police told them they must inform the public attorney that they had organized the theft, and should each blame the other. The following day they were beaten. The medical officer at the public attorney’s office certified that they were uninjured, contrary to the findings of the Commission’s medical officer (recommendation 18/2000).

58. Samuel Ramos Roblada, Rosario Elías Padilla, José Roblada Michel and Sebastián de la Cruz Roblada were detained in Cuautitlán de García Barragán on 18 February 1999 by members of the State judicial police who, at the building shared by the public attorney’s office and the judicial police, beat them and put them in a trough of water through which they repeatedly passed electricity. The police put pressure on the municipal medical officer not to report the electrical burns or the beatings (recommendation 3/2001).

3. Federal District Human Rights Commission

59. The President of the Federal District Human Rights Commission told the Committee members that, while the number of cases in the Federal District had declined in the last 10 years, torture had not been eliminated. Although the web of complicity and withholding of evidence within the Office of the Attorney-General made it very difficult to obtain convictions, convictions had nevertheless been secured in four cases covered by Commission recommendations.

60. According to its seventh annual report (October 1999 to September 2000), in the seven years it had been in operation, the Human Rights Commission had recorded 92 cases of torture and issued 15 recommendations. The report also mentions the following cases of torture on which recommendations were issued during the period under consideration.

61. Luis David Villavicencio Mares was detained on 1 August 1998 in the Federal District and taken to judicial police investigations office No. 50 in Arcos de Belén. There he was beaten, dislocating his shoulder, a plastic bag was placed over his head and he was forced to drink water, after which he was hit in the stomach. The medical officers of the Attorney-General’s Office itself and of the Human Rights Commission confirmed the injuries (recommendation 3/99).

62. A person detained on 14 September 1988 in Colonia Cuauhtémoc, in the Federal District, by members of the Department of Public Security’s financial and industrial police, resisted arrest and was subjected to a beating that resulted in internal abdominal injuries (recommendation 7/99).

63. José Luis Méndez Briano and Fernando Martínez Beltrán were detained on 24 June 2000 and taken to the Gustavo A. Madero district offices of the judicial police. They were beaten repeatedly, particularly about the ears, and as a result had to be hospitalized. The recommendation that the Federal District Attorney-General should launch a preliminary investigation into torture offences was not accepted (recommendation 7/2000).

4. Oaxaca State Human Rights Commission

64. The fourth report of the Oaxaca State Human Rights Commission, which covers the period from May 2000 to April 2001, lists the five recommendations issued by the Commission in torture cases since 1994. However, like the third annual report, covering the period from May 1999 to April 2000, it also contains a summary of all the recommendations issued during that period. One of the recommendations describes the incident in question as torture: “It was established that the complainants were detained by State judicial police officers on 10 June 2000, allegedly while carrying out a robbery; they were later beaten by their captors, as they themselves stated and as stated in the medical certificates issued to them by the (...) medical officer of the Office of the State Attorney-General, which showed that they had suffered injuries chiefly to the front and back of the abdomen and chest; Mr. Melitón Ruiz Ruiz also suffered second-degree burns.”¹⁰

65. Twenty-three recommendations described the incidents concerned as involving injuries. The summaries suggest that, the State Human Rights Commission’s descriptions notwithstanding, many of the incidents could be categorized as torture under article 1 of the Convention, as in the following examples:

“The complainant’s human rights had been violated insofar as it was established that on 29 July he presented changes in health that had left physical marks on his body; the senior nurse (…) at the prison infirmary, and the (...) medical expert at the La Costa Regional Deputy Public Attorney’s Office, confirmed that the prisoner presented unhealed injuries, which had probably been inflicted by the Director of the Regional Penitentiary in Santa Catalina Juquila, Oaxaca, in order to obtain information on a robbery committed at the prison shop; the complainant’s version of events was corroborated by medical certificates and by statements from other prisoners. In the course of the investigation into the complaint, it emerged that the Prison Director very likely also encouraged confrontations between prisoners in order to provoke attacks on the people who had spoken against him to the public attorney’s office or to this Commission and identified him as the person who had beaten and injured the complainant.”¹¹

“The human rights of Carlos Fernando Romero Luna were found to have been violated when the complainant was detained by members of the municipal police in a street in the centre of Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, for throwing stones at the rooks in the trees. Following his detention, he was taken to the municipal police headquarters, where he sustained injuries; according to the medical certificate he had a fracture in the middle third of the left humerus.”¹²

“The complainant’s human rights were found to have been violated, insofar as injuries were inflicted by members of the State judicial police stationed in Tuxtepec, Oaxaca; according to the complainant’s statement to the medical officer at the Regional Penitentiary in Tuxtepec, he was beaten and dragged along the ground by the police at the time of his arrest and sustained bruising to his front left side, injuries to the right eye, livid bruising and secondary muscular pains; in addition, in his initial statement to the Second Criminal Court, Tuxtepec, Oaxaca, he stated, among other things, that he had been detained by members of the judicial police, who took him to the Papaloapan River, placed a black plastic bag over his head down to the neck, then put him in the water, beat him all over, kicked him and dragged him along the ground; reddish grazes were confirmed on the front left side, as well as grazes on the right side of the face, around the cheekbone (between the right cheekbone and ear), inflammation of the right eye and bruising beneath the right eye, reddish horizontal grazing on the abdomen, grazing on the left forearm, grazing on the right side of the neck, grazing on the left lumbar region and on the right forearm, and grazing and inflammation on both wrists.”¹³

“The judicial police (…) violated the complainants’ human rights since, while it is true that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Jose Manuel Saavedra Lázaro, and that the intention of the police was to serve that warrant, it is also true that the warrant did not authorize them to enter anyone’s home, to abuse their authority or to make excessive use of the force they are authorized to use, which is what they did by entering the property of Ms. Virginia Díaz Díaz without permission or consent; by using unwarranted brute force against the complainant in the course of arresting him; and by gloating as they beat him and caused him a number of injuries; the police officers also fired a gun, wounding Ms.Consuelo Lázaro Díaz.”¹⁴

66. The municipal police of San Antonio de la Cal “violated the complainants’ human rights, not only by detaining them without legal grounds, but also by beating them and causing the injuries they presented, which were certified by the deputy inspector dealing with the case and by the State forensic medical expert. This Commission finds that the members of the police force of this municipality repeatedly and daily abuse the authority to use force vested in them by assaulting and meting out unwarranted punishment to individuals they are required to detain for any reason”.¹⁵

67. In the course of his interview with the members of the Committee, the President of the State Human Rights Commission said that, although the practice of torture had declined considerably in Mexico, incidents still occurred, involving mainly the judicial police, and that training programmes were inadequate. He also said that it was necessary to make judiciary staff aware of the problem of torture, so that they would classify incidents correctly, which was not always the case at present. He said that between January and August 2001, he had received 17 complaints of abuse of authority by police patrols and 20 of abuse of authority by the judicial police. He had also received five in which the Army was allegedly responsible.

5. Guerrero State Commission for the Defence of Human Rights

68. The ninth annual report of the Guerrero State Commission, covering the period from November 1998 to October 1999, indicates that the Commission issued nine recommendations relating to torture, four to injuries, one to threats and one to intimidation.¹⁶ The tenth report (November 1999-October 2000) refers to 12 recommendations relating to injuries, 6 to threats and 7 to torture. The torture cases were attributed to the State judicial police. In addition, views and proposals were issued in 48 cases of bodily injury, 9 of torture, 5 of beating, 17 of intimidation and 16 of threats.¹⁷

69. In the course of his interview with the members of the Committee, the President of the State Commission said that, although it had declined, torture had not been eradicated either in Mexico as a whole or in Guerrero State; those responsible were generally members of the judicial police and the Office of the Attorney-General was doing nothing to punish the perpetrators.

6. Tamaulipas State Human Rights Commission

70. The President of the Tamaulipas State Human Rights Commission also informed the Committee members that torture had declined during the 1990s, but that incidents continued to occur. If such treatment was inflicted for the purpose of obtaining information, the Commission classified it as torture under State law. If that was not the purpose, it was categorized differently, for example as abuse of authority or bodily injury.¹⁸

71. The Commission’s annual report for 2000 contains the following summary of some of the complaints it received of violations of the right to personal integrity and security:

72. The report also contains a summary of the 157 recommendations issued by the Commission during the year. Some 45 of them categorize the incidents as, among other things, bodily injury or, to a lesser extent, torture, excessive use of force or violation of the right to personal integrity.

73. The 1999 report gives the following figures for complaints received:

74. According to the report, recommendations were issued on the following violations: beatings (28), torture (7), harassment (6), bodily injury (6), ill-treatment (4), threats (2), abuse of authority (1).¹⁹

75. The members of the Committee consider that, the Commission’s classification notwithstanding, many of these cases may constitute torture under article 1 of the Convention.

76. According to information provided to the Committee members by the Office of the Tamaulipas State Attorney-General, 21 of the Commission’s 135 recommendations to the Office in 1999, 2000 and the first few months of 2001 concerned beatings, bodily injury and torture.

7. Office of the Baja California State Procurator for Human Rights and Civic Protection

77. The Procurator informed the Committee members that his Office had received four complaints of torture during 2000, in one of which it was established that the authorities were not responsible. Between 1 January and 30 June 2001, however, his Office had received 12 complaints, most of which were still being investigated. The incidents had taken place in Tijuana in seven of the cases and in Mexicali in five. Members of the State judicial police were alleged to be responsible in all cases but one, which was attributed to the Federal judicial police.

78. One of the complaints concerned Isidro Carrillo Vega, who died in Tijuana on 24 May 2001, apparently as a result of torture by members of the judicial police who had detained him on suspicion of committing a bank robbery. An autopsy by the Forensic Medicine Service showed the cause of death to be a rupturing of the bowel and fractures resulting from severe blows to the abdominal region and rib cage. Four other people detained in connection with the same incident stated that they had been tortured and bore physical injuries.²⁰

79. On 9 June 2001 the Office issued a statement addressed to the State Congress, the High Court, the Governor and the Attorney-General, expressing its concern at the practice of torture in the State:

“Despite the State authorities’ official declarations that violence has been banished from the conduct of government affairs, detainees in the cells and isolation wings of the State judicial police, which is a department of the Office of the Baja California State Attorney-General, are being tortured to confess to the offences they have been charged with or to incriminate third parties in offences of various kinds.”

C. Information from non-governmental organizations

80. The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) interviewed by Committee members provided written information on cases of torture, among other things. One national organization provided details of incidents in 26 States between September 1998 and June 2001, 73 of which had been taken from press reports and concerned a total of 177 presumed victims. A further 26 had been reported directly to NGOs; there were a total of 40 alleged victims. State-level NGOs also provided the Committee with information on individual cases they had dealt with. The following are some of the most recent and representative cases; they differ from those reported in the preceding sections. The names of alleged victims and other details concerning their detention can be found in the documentation received by the Committee members.

Coahuila

81. Two people detained on 10 February 2001 in Torreón by judicial police: beatings, plastic bags over the head, electric shocks and threats used to force them to sign a document they were not allowed to read. The case was submitted to the State Human Rights Commission.

Colima

82. A man detained on 24 April 2001 in Tecomán by members of the judicial police of the Office of the State Attorney-General, who beat him severely in front of his 10-year-old son until he required hospitalization. While he was in hospital, police officers ripped out his drip and took him to the social rehabilitation centre (CERESO). The case was submitted to the State Human Rights Commission.

Chiapas

83. Three people detained on 18 May 2001 in Venustiano Carranza by the State judicial police and subjected to beatings, plastic bags over the head and threats. One was burnt on the wrist, another was beaten about the ears. The case was submitted to the State Human Rights Commission.

84. A person detained on 7 June 2001 in Comitán de Domínguez by the State judicial police: beaten, especially about the ears, plastic bag over the head and threatened with drowning in a river. The individual had to be hospitalized as a result.

85. A person detained on 8 June 2001 in Comitán de Domínguez by the State judicial police: beatings, plastic bags over the head - six at a time - threats of electric shocks and beatings about the ears.

86. Two indigenous Chole people detained on 8 May 2001 in Palenque by members of the municipal police: brutally beaten and threatened with death.

Chihuahua

87. A minor aged 17 detained on 17 August 2001 in the city of Chihuahua by municipal police and subjected to a beating leading, among other things, to broken ribs.

88. A person detained on 20 May 2000 in the city of Chihuahua by municipal police and subjected to a beating that caused multiple head injuries. Died some days later. The State Human Rights Commission recommended that charges should be brought against the perpetrators.

Guerrero

89. Three people detained on 24 October 2000 in the village of El Camarón, Petatlán, by the State judicial police: beatings, plastic bags over the head and mineral water up the nose. They were brought before the court seven days after arrest.

90. Two women raped by members of the Army on 21 April 1999 while searching for their minor children, who had disappeared the previous day in the village of Barrio Nuevo, Tlacoachistlahuaca.

91. A person detained on 21 February 1999 in the village of Los Achotes, Zihuatanejo, by Federal judicial police. His body was found on the Los Achotes waste tip; he had been castrated and showed signs of torture, and had been shot in the neck.

92. A person detained on 22 August 1999 in Tlapa by State traffic police and beaten on various parts of the body, losing consciousness as a result.

93. A person detained on 13 July 2001 in Chilapa de Alvarez by a police patrol and beaten on various parts of the body. The case was reported to the State Human Rights Commission.

94. Five people detained on 30 April 2000 in El Lucerito, municipality of Atlixtac, by State judicial police from the Tlapa regional headquarters: blindfolded and hands tied; beaten on various parts of the body; water up the nose and in the mouth. The case was reported to the State Human Rights Commission.

95. Two people detained on 22 November 2000 in Tlapa de Comonfort by judicial police: treatment included plastic bags over the head, blows to the abdomen, being hung up, vinegar in the mouth, being ducked under water and being threatened with a gun to the head.

96. Three people detained on 9 January 2001 in Zoquitlan, municipality of Atlixtac, by members of the Army, and beaten on various parts of the body. The case was reported to the National Human Rights Commission.

97. Three women detained on 2 March 2001 in Zoyatlan de Juárez, municipality of Alcozauca, by the State judicial police. They were dragged along the ground by the hair and beaten with rifle butts. One suffered an attempted rape.

98. A person detained in Chilpancingo on 30 October 2000 by State judicial police: blindfolded and subjected to insults, threats of being disappeared, and blows to the face and body. Also water up the nose (to the point of asphyxiation) with someone treading on the stomach at the same time, and simulated rape. The aim was to obtain a confession to abduction and rape.

99. A person detained on 16 January 2000 in Huamuxtitlán by State judicial police: blindfolded, hit in the abdomen; plastic bag over the head.

Mexico State

100. An indigenous Mazatec detained by State police on 10 February 2001 in Tlalnepantla. Threatened, hit in the face, legs and stomach, and forced to sign a document he could not read. He had no interpreter or lawyer at the public attorney’s office.