5.
First, the Court observes that, on July 14, 2011, the Supreme Court of Justice of the
Nation (hereinafter ��the Supreme Court” or “the SCJN”) issued a “Ruling of the Court in
Plenary” in the case file “Various matters 912/2010,”7 in which it described the specific
obligations of the Mexican State and, in particular, of the Judiciary of the Federation, as a
result of the Judgment handed down in the case of Radilla Pacheco (supra having seen
paragraph 1). In this ruling, the SCJN stated that the Judiciary was obliged to exercise, ex
officio, control of conformity between domestic laws and the American Convention and that,
to this end, it must take into account article 1 of the Mexican Constitution, which, following
the reform of July 10, 2011, establishes that “[l]aws relating to human rights shall be
interpreted in accordance with [the] Constitution and with the international treaties on this
matter, at all times giving preference to the greatest protection for the individual.” In
addition, this ruling indicated that the decisions of the Inter-American Court with regard to
Mexico and, in particular, the Judgment handed down in the case of Radilla Pacheco (supra
having seen paragraph 1), “are obligatory for all the organs [of the State …] within their
respective terms of reference […]. Therefore, not only the specific operative paragraphs of
the Judgment, but also all the criteria contained in the Judgment deciding this litigation are
binding for the Judiciary. Furthermore, it shall be considered that the rest of the case law of
the Inter-American Court, arising from the judgments in which the Mexican State is not a
party, provides guiding criteria for all the decisions of the Mexican judges, provided that
these are the most favorable for the individual […].”8 In addition, in this Ruling, the SCJN
also established that “the military justice system may not, under any circumstance, be used
in situations that violate human rights of civilians,” because the latter have the right to “be
subject to the jurisdiction of an ordinary judge or court.”9
6.
The Inter-American Court underlines that this Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice
of the Nation constitutes an important step forward as regards the protection of human
rights, not only in the context of this case, but in all the domestic spheres of the Mexican
State. Consequently, this Court assesses positively the considerations made by the highest
court of the State, which are extremely significant for the enhancement of human rights in
the region.
A.
Obligation to conduct effectively with due diligence and within a reasonable
time, the investigation and, if applicable, the criminal proceedings that are
underway in relation to the detention and subsequent disappearance of Rosendo
Radilla Pacheco, in order to determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities
and apply the punishments and consequences that the law establishes (eighth
operative paragraph of the Judgment)
7.
The State indicated that “the investigation into the facts related to the forced
disappearance of Mr. […] Radilla Pacheco is being conducted under preliminary inquiry
SIEDF/CGI/454/2007, for which the [Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic (PGR)]
is responsible.” It also indicated that, despite the death of one of the accused in the criminal
7
At the private session of the Prosecution Service held on September 20, 2011, the title of the case file
“Various
matters
912/2010
was
approved
by
a
unanimous
11
votes.”
Available
at:
http://fueromilitar.scjn.gob.mx/Resoluciones/Varios_912_2010.pdf.
8
Cf. Decision of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of July 14, 2011, case file Various
matters 912/2010. Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on October 4, 2011. Annex to the State’s
brief of November 30, 2011 (file on monitoring compliance, tome III, folio 1497).
9
Cf. Decision of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of July 14, 2011, case file Various
matters 912/2010. Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on October 4, 2011. Annex to the State’s
brief of November 30, 2011 (file on monitoring compliance, tome III, folio 1512).
4