37.
The Court recalls that, in the Judgment, it ordered the implementation of
“[p]ermanent programs or courses relating to the analysis of the case law of the interAmerican system for the protection of human rights in relation to the limits of the military
criminal justice system, as well as the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial
protection, […] for the members of all the Armed Forces, including the agents of the Public
Prosecution Service and judges, as well as for agents of the Public Prosecution Service of
the Prosecutor General’s Office and judges of the Federation’s Judiciary […].” Furthermore,
it ordered the implementation of “[a] training program on the proper investigation and
prosecution of acts that constitute forced disappearance of persons, for the agents of the
Public Prosecution Service of the Prosecutor General’s Office and judges of the Federation’s
Judiciary, with jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of acts such as those that
occurred in this case […].”27
38.
In this regard, the Court appreciates the numerous activities undertaken by the
Mexican State designed to implement the permanent training programs and courses ordered
in the Judgment. In this way, from the information provided by the State, the Court notes
that different courses have been implemented on the case law of the inter-American system
and the limits of the military criminal justice system, as well as on judicial guarantees and
judicial protection, for members of the Armed Forces, through the Defense Secretariat and
the Navy Secretariat.28 In addition, the Court observes that training has been provided on
the proper investigation and prosecution of acts that constitute forced disappearance of
persons to agents of the Public Prosecution Service of the Prosecutor General’s Office,29 and
on the inter-American system and the limits to the military criminal justice system, judicial
guarantees and judicial protection, and the due investigation and prosecution of acts that
constitute forced disappearance of persons to the judges of the Federation’s Judiciary.30
39.
Taking into account all the actions described by the State, which reflects its
commitment to continue developing and implementing these training courses within the
different echelons of the State, the Court considers that Mexico has complied with this
measure of reparation.
27
Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of
November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 347.
28
The Secretariat of Defense provided information on training session on “Analysis of case law of the interAmerican system for the protection of human rights in relation to the limits to the military criminal justice system,
and the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection.” Cf. Note of the Secretariat of Defense to the Unit
for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights dated February 28, 2013. Annex 7 to the State’s brief of April 5,
2013 (file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 3359). The Navy Secretariat advised that training sessions had
been provided on the inter-American human rights system, among other topics. Cf. Note of the Navy Secretariat to
the Unit for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights dated February 27, 2013. Annex 8 to the State’s brief of
April 5, 2013 (file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 3363).
29
Cf. “Course of specialization in human rights and forced disappearance of persons.” Annex 7 to the brief
of October 3, 2012 (file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 2911).
30
Cf. “Legal framework and precedents concerning the forced disappearance of persons and the military
jurisdiction,” subject matter of the “Itinerant workshops: the impact of the constitutional reforms of amparo and
human rights on jurisdictional tasks.” Annex 16 to the brief of May 30, 2012 (file on monitoring compliance, tome
IV, folio 2410). The State also forwarded the basic documents, timetable, and speakers responsible for the
itinerant workshops. Cf. Annexes 13, 14 and 15 to the State’s brief of May 30, 2012 (file on monitoring
compliance, tome IV, folios 2393, 2403 and 2406). In addition, it sent the Court the content of the “Diploma
course on human rights imparted to the Federation’s Judiciary.” Cf. Annex 6 to the State’s brief of April 5, 2013
(file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 3353).
14