SinEmbargo: Jorge Javier Romero Vadillo*
Translated by Leslie Castillo Navia
The Mexican Government does not feel comfortable with international scrutiny regarding respect of human rights in their country. After the horror of Iguala [disappeared Ayotzinapa students], it seemed as if Peña Nieto was willing to open the door to expose what had happened, and the arrival of the group of experts [Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts, IGIE] of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS) was promoted with the intention of recovering some of the legitimacy lost due to the tragedy.
Nevertheless, relations quickly became tense because Mexican authorities did not like the reports presented because they ruined the conclusions of the Attorney General's Office. The authorities also didn't like the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture [given in March 2015, which the government rejected. This past week, it announced it would not schedule his return this year because of scheduling conflicts.], and his invitation to observe the national situation was revoked.
The government's attitude is a response to its bad results in the fulfillment of its international and constitutional obligations in a crucial subject for the construction of civilized communal life in an open society. In the olden days of the PRI [Party of the Institutional Revolution] regime, which seem to revive themselves every moment in many states of the Republic, the exercise of government and justice did not trouble itself with minor details such as avoiding abuse by authority, torture, or the respect of procedural rights. During one particular period--that of the terrible years of the dirty war against radical guerrillas ["Dirty War" of the 1970s], the forced disappearance of people was part of official strategy.
With the arrival of democracy, it seemed as if injustice in the exercise of power would be a thing of the past. However, the ill-fated war against organized crime and drugs revived the old Army way of doing things. It also involved the Navy and was reproduced in the newly-created Federal Police, all the while never ceasing to work within incapable, untrained local police.
Although the State is always responsible for human rights violations, a large part of Mexican society does not value the importance of thoroughly ensuring their respect. It is seen in recent surveys, for example, that a frightful percentage of Mexicans considers torture a good method for obtaining confessions and resolving crimes. A large percentage of Mexicans still does not appreciate the civilizing value of due process and scrupulous compliance with laws in the way authorities combat crimes. The iron fist against insecurity still has many followers, despite the humanitarian disaster in which the country has been since Calderón unleashed his war. The former President himself just gave a sample of his conception of justice, when he criticized judges for being too formalistic in their criteria rather than punishing offenders.
The legal developments that Mexico has made in the field of human rights have not been translated into State operating practices, as often happens with all laws in this country. The police force is still used with stupidity, inefficiency and legal uncleanliness. Still more serious are the atrocities committed in the fight against organized crime, where there are important indications that State security forces do not act to stop criminal gangs, but to kill them. This has been proven in the case of Tlatlaya [in the State of Mexico, where, in June 2014, soldiers summarily executed a dozen or more supposed criminals and made it look like they had died in a fire fight] and most likely will be confirmed when the report of the CNDH on Tanhuato is released [in state of Michoacán, in May 2015, where federal police killed some 40 supposed criminals in what they said was a fire fight, but several of the dead may have been executed].
But, as far as everything goes, neither has it been all legal progress in this area. In the name of security, constitutional rights have been reduced, such as the presumption of innocence, annulled by the legal aberration of arraigo [holding a person in prison for 40 to 80 days without filing any formal charges with a judge]. Now, it seems that an initiative is being advanced which would allow the President to annul personal guarantees [Congress is writing a law on States of Exception which would allow citizen rights to be suspended during various types of "national emergencies"].
The first right that the State should guarantee is, of course, that of a safe life for the entire population; but, if security is a pillar of communal life, the other is freedom, as presented by Fernando Savater in an article in El País a few days ago. The entire edifice of civilized communal living is constructed on these two pillars, and the mortar that connects the parts should be a scrupulously-applied legal system. However, it ought not use the Law to justify abuse and excess of authority. An effective rule of law is not one which has draconian laws that legalize the arbitrary, but one that is founded on ethical principles of limitation of force to that which is strictly necessary.
Both the violation of the law in the name of security as well as the legalization of abuse undermine State legitimacy and prevent the consolidation of society's respect for legal order, and they have effects on communal life which we all know and to which we are all accustomed. Spanish original
*Jorge Javier Romero Vadillo is a political scientist, professor and researcher in the Department of Politics and Culture at the Autonomous Metropolitan University, Xochimilco Campus. He holds a masters in Political Science from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and a doctorate from the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology at the University Complutense of Madrid. He is a regular contributing columnist for Sinembargo. @Giorgioromero