 |
| The IGIE, composed of Alejandro Valencia Villa, of Colombia; Claudia Paz y Paz, of Guatemala; Carlos Martín Beristaín, from Spain; Angela Buitrago, of Colombia; Francisco Cox Vial, of Chile |
(Hours earlier, Ricardo Damián Torres, spokesperson for the Collegial Group of Experts on Fire Matters, affirmed that there is definitely evidence that there was fire in the Dump at Cocula, Guerrero, on September 26, 2014, and that at least 17 human beings were burned there.)
The IGIE explained that after the experts delivered the interim report on the fire, it had been agreed with the authorities that no one of them
"could come out publicly to speak on behalf of the collegial group without presenting clearly the members thereof and without explaining why they had been chosen."The communiqué goes on to state that:
"It was also established that the experts must maintain the confidentiality of the work done and that all phases of the study would be conducted by consensus."The communiqué notes that it is important to explain that the IGIE had an agreement with the Attorney General's Office (PGR), in order to manage jointly and by consensus any step in relation to the study.
The communiqué claims that what was presented on Friday is part of a provisional report that has not even been discussed by the group. Even worse, things were publicly articulated that were not explained to the IGIE during the meeting, nor are they the consensus of the fire experts.
Communiqué:
"We were unexpectedly told that the decision had been taken that Mr. Torres would make a public statement. We warned the PGR that this meant breaking two agreements: [1] confidentiality of the process until getting the results and how to transmit them, and [2] making decisions through dialogue and consensus between the PGR and the IGIE."The communiqué concludes:
"The IGIE deeply regrets this way of changing the dynamics of dialogue and consensus that we have maintained with the PGR in these months; namely, by making unilateral decisions that violate the agreements reached. So the IGIE further points out that these statements do not reflect consensus regarding either the content or the work process of a report that is provisional.
"The IGIE will reconsider its work based on these responses, and it will carry out the actions it considers necessary to make progress in getting to the bottom of the case."Complete text of IGIE communiqué follows:
Mexico City
April 1, 2016
PGR Broke Its Agreement with IGIE on New Expert Report for Cocula.
On September 6, 2015, the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts, IGIE, presented the report titled Ayotzinapa: Investigation and Initial Conclusions. The report concluded that there was no evidence that the 43 students were cremated in the Cocula Municipal Dump in the indicated timeframe, circumstances and conditions.
Faced with this conclusion, the PGR expressed its desire to undertake a new study, for which it requested the IGIE's support. In the agreement signed with the Mexican government in October 2015 at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it was agreed that the IGIE would support the new study under the following conditions:
"In connection with the PGR's proposal to perform a new study on the dynamics of the fire at Cocula Dump, it is agreed that:
a) Objectives and conditions for carrying it out are to be mutually agreed;
b) Decision on the profiles and the final choice of experts is to be taken jointly;
c) How the study will be conducted is to be mutually agreed."
In February an agreement was signed between the PGR and the IGIE in which the bases were established for this new study. The agreement also established that the experts should maintain the confidentiality of the work performed and that all phases of the study would be conducted by consensus.
Today the team of fire experts delivered a preliminary study of its conclusions. After the delivery, it entered a process of dialogue about next steps. It is important to point out that the IGIE had an agreement with the PGR in order to manage jointly and by consensus any step in relation to this study.
The IGIE pointed out [the process to follow] if it was wanted to send a [public] message it proposed a methodology to follow:
Today the team of fire experts delivered a preliminary study of its conclusions. After the delivery, it entered a process of dialogue about next steps. It is important to point out that the IGIE had an agreement with the PGR in order to manage jointly and by consensus any step in relation to this study.
The IGIE pointed out [the process to follow] if it was wanted to send a [public] message it proposed a methodology to follow:
1) Fire experts would write their message by consensus and consult among themselves in order to ensure that there were no problems or confusion regarding content;
2) This mutually agreed message would be sent to the PGR and the IGIE tomorrow without fail;
3) It would be jointly decided what response to make to their [fire experts'] requests to make public this agreement and the response in the following two or three days.
At the meeting, the IGIE also emphasized that no one expert could come out publicly to speak on behalf of the collegial group without presenting clearly to its members or without explaining why they had been chosen [MV emphasis], information that the IGIE had proposed to [make public] from the beginning, given the importance of the work they would do.
When it seemed that a consensus had been reached on the above points, we were unexpectedly told that the decision had been taken that Mr. Torres would speak out publicly. We warned the PGR that this meant breaking two agreements: [1] confidentiality of the process until getting the results and how to transmit them, and [2] making decisions through dialogue and consensus between the PGR and the IGIE."
Mr. Torres pointed out to the IGIE that in any event, his message was to say that it hadn't been able to determine whether or not the event had taken place, and that the team needed new studies and experimental tests to determine it. However, his message alluded to parts of the content of a provisional report that had not even been analyzed by the IGIE. even worse, publicly pointing out things that were not explained to the IGIE during the meeting, nor do they represent the consensus of the fire experts.
It is clear that someone made the decision to break the agreement of consensus and not to listen to proposals made by the IGIE, making a unilateral decision on behalf of the PGR. Given all this, the IGIE considers the work agreement regarding the garbage dump to have been breached, given the lack of compliance with the agreement made in Washington and the agreements reached in this case along the way. It also marks a breach with the criteria established as the foundation for the study.
The IGIE deeply regrets this way of changing the dynamics of dialogue and consensus that we have maintained with the PGR in these months; namely, by making unilateral decisions that violate the agreements reached. So the IGIE further points out that these statements do not reflect the consensus regarding either the content or the work process of a report that is provisional.
The IGIE will reconsider its work based on these responses, and it will carry out the actions it considers necessary to make progress in getting to the bottom of the case. Spanish original