6

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico

Judgment of November 16, 2009

(Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs)

In the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”),

the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”, “the Court” or “the Tribunal”), composed of the following judges:[1]

Cecilia Medina Quiroga, President

Diego García-Sayán, Vice President

Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge

Margarette May Macaulay, Judge

Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge, and

Rosa María Álvarez González, Judge ad hoc;

also present,

Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary,

Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary,

pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 29, 31, 37(6), 56 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court[2] (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this judgment.

I

INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE

1.  On November 4, 2007, under Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented an application against the United Mexican States (hereinafter “the State” or “Mexico”), which gave rise to the instant case. The initial petition was presented to the Commission on March 6, 2002. On February 24, 2005, the Commission approved Reports Nos. 16/05, 17/05 and 18/05, declaring the respective petitions admissible. On January 30, 2007, the Commission notified the parties of its decision to joinder the three cases. Subsequently, on March 9, 2007, it approved the Report on merits No. 28/07, in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention, with specific recommendations for the State. This report was notified to the State on April 4, 2007. Upon considering that Mexico had not adopted its recommendations, the Commission decided to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission appointed Commissioner Florentín Meléndez and Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton, as delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Juan Pablo Albán, Marisol Blanchard, Rosa Celorio and Fiorella Melzi, Executive Secretariat specialists, as legal advisers.

2.  The application relates to the State’s alleged international responsibility for “the disappearance and subsequent death” of the Mss. Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez (hereinafter “Mss. González, Herrera and Ramos”), whose bodies were found in a cotton field in Ciudad Juárez on November 6, 2001. The State is considered responsible for “the lack of measures for the protection of the victims, two of whom were minor children, the lack of prevention of these crimes, in spite of full awareness of the existence of a pattern of gender-related violence that had resulted in hundreds of women and girls murdered, the lack of response of the authorities to the disappearance […]; the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the homicides […], as well as the denial of justice and the lack of an adequate reparation.”

3.  The Commission asked that the Court declare the State responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 19 (Rights of the Child) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, together with failure to comply with the obligations arising from Article 7 of the Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “the Convention of Belém do Pará”). The application was notified to the State on December 21, 2007, and to the representatives on January 2, 2008.

4.  On February 23, 2008, the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos A. C., the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights, the Red Ciudadana de No Violencia y por la Dignidad Humana and the Centro para el Desarrollo Integral of the Mujer A. C., representatives of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representatives”),[3] presented their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”). In addition to the allegations submitted by the Commission, the representatives asked that the number of victims be expanded to eleven women and that the Court rule on the alleged arbitrary detention, torture and violation of due process of three other people. In addition to the Articles invoked by the Commission, the representatives asked that the Court declare the State responsible for violating the rights embodied in Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) and 11 (Right to Privacy [Dignity and Honor]) of the Convention, all in relation to the general obligations arising from Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as well as Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, in connection with Articles 8 and 9 thereof. Furthermore, they asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the right embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the three alleged victims identified by the Commission.

5.  On May 26, 2008, the State presented its brief in answer to the application and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”). This brief questioned the Court’s jurisdiction to examine the alleged violation of the Convention of Belém do Pará. In addition, it contested the expansion of the number of victims proposed by the representatives, and partially acknowledged its international responsibility. The State appointed Juan Manuel Gómez-Robledo Verduzco as its agent, and Patricia González Rodríguez, Joel Antonio Hernández García, María Carmen Oñate Muñoz, Alejandro Negrín Muñoz and Armando Vivanco Castellanos as its Deputy Agents.

6.  On July 16, 2008, having examined the answer to the application, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) informed the State that the allegations concerning the Convention of Belém do Pará constituted a preliminary objection. Consequently, in accordance with Article 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, she granted the Commission and the representatives 30 days to submit written arguments. The arguments were presented on August 20, and September 6, 2008, respectively.

II

PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT

7.  On August 21, 2008, the representatives expressed their intention of commenting on “relevant information” contained in the attachments to the answer to the application and providing information on “supervening facts.” On August 26, 2008, the President refused the representatives’ request to submit their comments on the attachments to the answer to the application at this procedural stage, because they had failed to justify why Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure should be applied. Nevertheless, the President advised the representatives that they could submit any allegations they deemed pertinent during the oral proceedings or in their final written arguments.

8.  On September 6, 2008, the representatives submitted a brief in which, inter alia, they commented on “the observations made by the Mexican State in its answer to the application.” On September 9, 2008, the President considered that this part of the brief would not be taken into account, because the Rules of Procedure made no provision for its presentation and it had not been requested. Nevertheless, the President informed the representatives that they could present any allegations they deemed pertinent, during the oral proceedings or in their final written arguments.

9.  In an order of January 19, 2009, the Court denied the request to expand the number of alleged victims and determined that the alleged victims in the instant case would be Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and her next of kin: Irma Monreal Jaime (mother), Benigno Herrera Monreal (brother), Adrián Herrera Monreal (brother), Juan Antonio Herrera Monreal (brother), Cecilia Herrera Monreal (sister), Zulema Montijo Monreal (sister), Erick Montijo Monreal (brother), Juana Ballín Castro (sister-in-law); Claudia Ivette González and her next of kin: Irma Josefina González Rodríguez (mother), Mayela Banda González (sister), Gema Iris González (sister), Karla Arizbeth Hernández Banda (niece), Jacqueline Hernández (niece), Carlos Hernández Llamas (brother-in-law), and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez and her next of kin: Benita Monárrez Salgado (mother), Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez (sister), Daniel Ramos Monárrez (brother), Ramón Antonio Aragón Monárrez (brother), Claudia Dayana Bermúdez Ramos (niece), Itzel Arely Bermúdez Ramos (niece), Paola Alexandra Bermúdez Ramos (niece) and Atziri Geraldine Bermúdez Ramos (niece).[4] Furthermore, in this order, the Court examined the State’s refusal to forward specific evidence that it had requested and decided that it could consider proven any facts that could only be confirmed by the evidence that the State refused to forward.[5]

10.  In an order of March 18, 2009,[6] the President required the submission of some of the testimony and expert opinions offered, at the appropriate moment by the parties, by means of statements made before notary publics (affidavit). In addition, the parties were convened to attend a private hearing to hear the testimony, offered by the State, of Patricia González Rodríguez, provided she renounced her status as a Deputy Agent. In addition, a public hearing was convened to hear the testimonies proposed by the Commission, the State, and the representatives, as well as the final oral arguments on the preliminary objection and the possible merits, reparations and costs. Lastly, the President granted the parties until June 1, 2009, to present their respective briefs with final arguments.

11.  In an order of April 3, 2009, the Court decided to accept the confirmation of Patricia González Rodríguez as the State’s Deputy Agent and, consequently, the State’s waiver of its offer of her informative statement at a private hearing[7] (supra para. 10).

12.  The public hearing was held on April 28 and 29, 2009, during the XXXIX Extraordinary Period of Sessions of the Court held in Santiago, Republic of Chile.[8]

13.  On June 12, 2009 the Commission and the State forwarded their briefs with final arguments. On June 16, 2009 the representatives forwarded their respective brief.

14.  The Court received amicus curiae briefs from the following persons, institutions and organizations: International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program (IRSHL Program) of the Law School of the University of Toronto and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL);[9] TRIAL-Track Impunity Always and the World Organization against Torture;[10] a group of grant holders of the Legal Research Institute of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico (hereinafter the “UNAM”);[11] a human rights group of the UNAM Postgraduate Department;[12] Women’s Link Worldwide;[13] the Women’s Network of Ciudad Juárez A.C.;[14] the Global Justice and Human Rights Program of the Universidad de los Andes;[15] the Human Rights Program and the Master’s Program in Human Rights of the Universidad Iberoamericana of Mexico;[16] Human Rights Watch;[17] Horvitz & Levy LLP;[18] the International Commission of Jurists;[19] Amnesty International,[20] and the Human Rights Centre of the School of Law of Essex University, the International Center for Transitional Justice, and Redress.[21]

15.  On September 22, 2009, the representatives presented a brief in which they informed the Court of “supervening facts,” concerning the appointment of Arturo Chávez Chávez to head the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic.

16.  The Secretariat, following the President’s instructions, granted the Commission and the State a delay to submit their observations on the representatives’ brief mentioned in the preceding paragraph. On October 15, 2009, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make. On October 16, 2009, the State indicated that “the facts set out by the representatives […] bear absolutely no relationship to the proceedings in this matter; nor do they provide any element that [the] Court could take into consideration to help it decide the matter.” It added that the facts stated by the representatives did not have “a minimum phenomenological connection with the facts of the proceedings; to the contrary, they are attempting to introduce into the proceedings facts that differ from those that comprise its factual framework.” Lastly, it noted that the representatives had not indicated how the appointment of the current Attorney General of the Republic had an impact on or was related to any substantial fact of this matter.

17.  In this regard, the Tribunal reiterates that, even though supervening facts may be submitted by the parties at any stage of the proceedings prior to the judgment, “this does not mean that any situation or incident that occurs after those procedural acts may constitute a supervening fact within the proceedings. A fact of this nature must be phenomenologically linked [those] of the proceeding; and therefore it is not enough that certain situations or facts […] be related to facts and arguments presented in a case for this Tribunal to be able to hear them.”[22]

18.  Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that, in exercise of its contentious jurisdiction as an international human rights court, its function in the instant case is to determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violations, and not the personal responsibility of Mr. Chávez Chávez or other public officials. That task belongs exclusively to the State, although the Court can verify if the State has complied with the relevant obligations arising from the American Convention.

19.  Based on the above, the Court does not admit the representatives’ brief indicated in paragraph 15 supra and will limit itself to examining the arguments of the parties regarding the alleged international responsibility of the State.

III

PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

20.  The State made a partial acknowledgement of international responsibility as follows:

The State acknowledges that, during the first stage of the investigations, from 2001 to 2003, irregularities occurred. […]

[During] the second stage of the investigations into these three cases, starting in 2004, […] the irregularities were fully rectified, the case files were reconstituted, and the investigations were started up again on a scientific basis, and even with international support for some components.

[…]

The State acknowledges that, owing to said irregularities, the mental integrity and the dignity of the next of kin of Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez were affected. Nevertheless, the support provided to the next of kin of each of the three victims in the form of financial resources, medical and psychological assistance and legal advisory services is described in detail, and constitutes reparation of the damage caused.