We are living painful paradoxes. The human rights movement and indigenous peoples' organizations have struggled tirelessly to achieve rights that bring the horizon of justice closer, and they have achieved significant victories. They have made use of politics, and they have joined legal battle to support their proposals; however, once formalized, politics also operates in the judicial environment to use the law depending on the context of the case in question.
That to which justice is blind is denied again and again. Those who seek justice observe daily inconsistencies in the decisions of those who are authorized to implement fundamental laws. Why in a case plagued with 'high-level' political actions, as was that of the French citizen Florence Cassez, the violation of due process was definitely accepted and protection was granted outright in order that she might regain her immediate freedom?
Yet in the same chamber of the Supreme Court, last March [the Justices] ruled that the case of the Tzotzil teacher Alberto Patishtán Tzotzil, whose release is demanded within and outside the country, is "without importance and significance"? Certainly, it isn't for a president of the republic. Does that make the difference?
Of course, I risk being accused of heresy and even legal ignorance, because there are always "technical" arguments to support, or pretend to support, decisions--denying their underlying political backdrops .... Apparently, in this case the Court has a concern, but not in other cases that we have mentioned, of opening what they call "Pandora's box" if they indiscriminately apply criteria such as the presumption of innocence. (La Jornada, 03/15/13) Isn't it worse that such a "box" may even exist?
They applied against the teacher Patishtán evidence to which they have closed all the doors in other instances, as his attorney Leonel Rivero said that
"in the concrete case it is noted that the applicant had exhausted all avenues of appeal against the final judgment that deprived him of his liberty, and he even also initiated recognition of innocence before the Twenty-first Collegiate Circuit Court, which it declared unfounded by resolution on January 21, 2010" (La Jornada, 7/3/13).
Nevertheless, can they tell us that they also released indigenous peoples for violations of due process without political interests? As they have done in the Acteal case, whose massacre cannot be put in doubt, only that the masterminds and now those physically responsible [for carrying it out] are conspicuous by their absence. Legal irrelevance?
Is the Patishtán case political? No doubt, and it is closely linked to his identity that he claimed at all times:
"Political Prisoner of the Voz del Amate and adherent of the sexta of the EZLN [Zapatistas]."
Aware of this, the Tzotzil teacher unjustly imprisoned and sentenced more than twelve years ago on charges of homicide, assault, robbery, possession of a firearm for the exclusive use of the Army, upon learning of the Court's refusal to address the appeal for recognition of innocence and the determination that the case should be turned over to the First Appellate Court in Chiapas, commented:
"We are governed by injustice."
However, it has been recognized by Supreme Court Justices Olga Sánchez Cordero and Arthur Saldívar Lelo de Larrea, who argued in favor of taking his case, and he sent them a letter (nothing technical), telling the three Justices who voted against it:
"I am taking this opportunity to send my respects and admiration for the positive decision that you took for assuming your jurisdiction of my case, a matter that might bring an opportunity for justice for all Mexico. Admirable ministers, thank you, because you certainly heard, not just listened, to the voice of the claim of justice. Thank you, because you saw the anomalies that existed in my proceeding and did not just look to be looking. Thank you because you thought before speaking and did not, like everyone else, speak before thinking. Thank you for the transparency of justice and not for its mere appearance. God bless you (Proceso magazine, 04/21/13).
When the Appellate Court in Chiapas receives the new documents that challenge the evidence that made up part of the supposed grounds for the sentence, the defense will seek that it be treated as indicated in the Supreme Court by the Justices who were in the minority. For the rest, an extensive campaign is in progress that supports the petition for release of the teacher Patishtán. The campaign is multi-pronged: not just at the level of [indigenous] communities, but includes national and international groups.
Political pressure? Certainly, with the ethical distinction that it publicly lays claim to, because it is not possible to wait with folded arms and give up the utopia of justice to achieve the freedom of Alberto Patishtán Gómez. Spanish original
*Magdalena Gómez is an Attorney; she also earned the Master's Degree in Political Science and a Certificate in Educational Technology. Her areas of specialization are: agrarian law, indigenous rights and law, political education and society.
*Magdalena Gómez is an Attorney; she also earned the Master's Degree in Political Science and a Certificate in Educational Technology. Her areas of specialization are: agrarian law, indigenous rights and law, political education and society.