Translated by Melanie Orr
The Head of the Secretariat of the Navy (known as SEMAR), Admiral Vidal Francisco Soberán, said yesterday that marines “who have been singled out by human rights organizations and by society for alleged violations of human rights” should benefit from the legal principle of presumed innocence. He lamented that “on some occasions our personnel are thought to be guilty ahead of time” and he highlighted that the marines, recently remanded in custody in connection with the forced disappearance of a person in Nuevo León, are at the disposal of a civilian judge, “who will determine if what they stand accused of is true.”
At the end of 2013, Humberto del Bosque Villarreal was found dead, with a bullet in the back of his neck, near the Naval base in the city of Anáhuac, two months after he was presumed to have been arrested by Mexican Navy personnel. According to the victim’s father’s testimony, the military personnel came up to Mr. Del Bosque Villareal in his car and took him away in an official vehicle, claiming that it was for “an investigation”. Amnesty International sent a document to President Enrique Peña Nieto, which makes reference to the case, as well as the rise in forced disappearances in the country. Other humanitarian organizations, both national and foreign, have also spoken about the case. Two years later a judge ordered that five marines be held for trial for their alleged involvement in the incident.
There is no doubt that reason is on the side of the head of SEMAR when he demanded that his subordinates benefit from presumed innocence, a universal legal principle which can be applied to both the military and civilians.
It is important to note, however, that when a serviceman or servicewoman is signalled out as being possibly involved in a crime- particularly when it involves human rights violations- the automatic suspicions that arise in society are based on three factors:
On one hand, in recent history [during the “Dirty War” of the 1970’s] civil powers have misused armed institutions for repressive strategies which resulted in serious abuses and violations.
Secondly, the persistence in national legislation of an over-reaching military jurisdiction [for investigation and trial of members of the military] creates a lack of transparency and, in the eyes of a large part of the population, creates a fertile breeding ground for concealment and impunity.
Thirdly, the federal government has insisted on using the armed forces in the fight against organized crime and public security, tasks which are far removed from their constitutional mission. This has provided an inevitably favourable situation for human rights violations. Neither the Army nor the Navy are designed or organized to prevent and persue criminality or obtain justice.
None of the three circumstances mentioned are, strictly speaking, the responsibility of armed institutions, which have always observed being subordinant to the civil authorities. Instead, they are the responsibility of the executive and legislative powers. The former, for having abused the military forces of the State, in the face of the evident inability of police departments in the fight against crime. The latter, for having ignored the unavoidable need to update and readjust the current legal framework in terms of the methods of legal prosecution and provision of justice for members of the armed forces. Spanish original
None of the three circumstances mentioned are, strictly speaking, the responsibility of armed institutions, which have always observed being subordinant to the civil authorities. Instead, they are the responsibility of the executive and legislative powers. The former, for having abused the military forces of the State, in the face of the evident inability of police departments in the fight against crime. The latter, for having ignored the unavoidable need to update and readjust the current legal framework in terms of the methods of legal prosecution and provision of justice for members of the armed forces. Spanish original