Social Organizations denounce cases of repression in Oaxaca to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights
Oaxaca, February 23: On March 1st a delegation of lawyers from three Oaxacan
social organizations will present to the Inter-American Commission of Human
Rights (CIDH) the problematic facing the indigenous communities in regards
to "the machine of law and the administration of justice used to repress
them" informed members of the Centre on Human Rights and Consultants
Office for Indian Peoples (Cedhapi), of the Popular Judicial Council Lawyers
Office (BAJP) and the CIPO-RFM.
Separately, the president of the Supreme Court of Oaxaca (TSJO) Héctor Anuar Mafud Mafud was briefly interviewed in his office, and denied that judges "act under orders" as some social organizations had claimed.
The judge said that it is "understandable but unacceptable" that designation and commented that in every case one can resort to the TSJO to present a complaint against the acting of a judge.
Even though the government and organizations decided on February 19, that today the 11 members of the Cabildo Popular de San Jaun Lalana would leave Ixcotel prison as well as the teacher Jacqueline López Almazán, one of the leaders of the Oaxacan Anti-Neoliberal Popular Magonista Coordination (COMPA), but not one will be placed in liberty because it is being considered that in the first case there should be an appeal against formal imprisonment and an incident of disappearance of data in the second.
During the press conference, the lawyers Israel Ochoa Lara, of the BAJP, Maurilio Santiago and Beatriz Hernández of the Cedhapi, as Yolanda Gopar, lawyer of the CIPO-RFM, informed that the hearing of the CIDH will take place in the offices of the organization of American States in Washington. The government of Oaxaca has also been summoned at this meeting. Each one will have 30 minutes to express their side.
Santiago recalled that the CIDH had solicited since September 27 cautionary measures for Raúl Gatica, representative of the CIPO-RFM and that the Mexican government should adopt the necessary measures to guarantee his life and personal integrity, which has not been done because of "lack of federal and state will power".
The lawyers explained some of the problems that the indigenous peoples, subjected to trials in Oaxaca, are confronted with: corruption (the fact that they are poor means they are affected more by this) lack of translators and the accumulation of charges for different crimes to keep them in prison.
At the same time, the dispersion in prisons of the country, far away from where the presumed crimes were committed, a common practice of the Procurator General of Justice in Oaxaca in which the judges give in and has the purpose of obstructing the defence since it is difficult to locate the witnesses that they accuse and confront. "With that practice condemnatory sentences are guaranteed, there is a premeditation to limit the defence", they affirm.
There is also the systematic denial of the judges to grant liberty with bail ordered by the Public Ministry, without grounds and prejudging the guilt of the accused. The Public Ministry alleges that the accused is "a danger to society" and the judge assumes this by making a "pitiful analysis". This also constitutes to a denial of justice to the indigenous peoples.
They hope that after this hearing the CIDH will send out a recommendation to the Mexican government so that it respect the rights of indigenous peoples in Oaxaca and in the rest of the country in the subject of justice. Moreover, they explained that these problems are not included in the reforms proposed by Vicente Fox, like the creation of an institute for the defence of indigenous peoples.
Mafud Mafud, who was Secretary General of the Government, informed that on Tuesday he had attended the commissions of the CIPO, FRP, and COMPA that they had asked that the trial of their comrades be revised and be speeded up.
They will give him a punctual account on the subject, a syntheses so that they can analyse and revise in the framework of the law how to speed up the process and he canalized them to the Secretary General of Agreements.
-If there is evidence that a judge used irregularities when dictating a sentence or formal imprisonment, who is responsible to investigate?
-In any case we would be responsible for the investigation, we have the faculty and obligation to revise, and if that would be the case, we would have to see the magnitude of the misdemeanour and what the corrective should be imposed.
-Some organizations have complained that the judges dictate sentences under orders .
- It is understandable that they should say this, since the complaints are not being made by a sector of the government but are individuals, like in the case of Xanica, there is a dead police and a police who is paralysed, he can only move his eyes. So first there is a criminal and then we have the offended side. These are not matters that do not have counterparts. I do not want to go further, I cannot give an opinion because I am not judging this case.
-But for example, Margarita García García was out of the country; she was able to demonstrate with her passport and records that she was in El Salvador on the day that there was the supposed robbery, and even then they pass the sentence of formal imprisonment. Supposing, that there was an irregularity by the judge, who would be in charge to explain these things?
- The court.
- In every case if they have complaints, they should appeal the trial?
-Of course.
-Present a complaint against the acting judge?
-One can do this and in the case for the application of a sanction it is the court that has the power for that.
-One should think that there is a way to investigate these irregularities.
-Of course, I will do everything so that there is seriousness and transparency.
-Excuse me, but the designation that the judges are acting under orders....
-Is their designation.
-Yes, it is their designation.
-We answer that it is not so, that it could be under orders; I’ll return to the case, where there is a dead police and a paralysed police, the supreme right, that is life was lost.
-Yes, but I’ll tell you what they said: that their comrades were already injured and they were injured by the police, and then they were ambushed it could not have been them.
- Without going into great details, because I respect you , and who you represent, but I have to explain that it is part of the procedure, I cannot say in advance or anyone if they are guilty or not because now they are as presumed, there is no sentence that declares them guilty, in that case to give an example.