REPORT No. 57/131
PETITION 12.229
ADMISSIBILITY
DIGNA OCHOA ET AL
MEXICO
July 16, 2013
I.
SUMMARY
1. On November 2, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
“Commission,” “Inter-American Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by the
Center for International Justice and Law (CEJIL) and the National Network of Civil Human
Rights Organizations “All Rights for All” [“Todos los Derechos para Todos y Todas”], alleging
the violation of several rights provided for in the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “American Convention” or “Convention”), to the detriment of Digna Ochoa y
Plácido, by the United Mexican States (hereinafter “State” or “Mexican State” or “Mexico”).
Initially, the petition was filed in connection with a string of alleged threats and harassment
perpetrated against the “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” Center for Human Rights (hereinafter “the
PRODH Center”), in particular, for the alleged kidnapping and assaults sustained by Mrs. Digna
Ochoa y Plácido on August 9 and October 28, 1999 respectively, and the failure of the State to
effectively investigate. Following the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa on October 19, 2001, Mr.
Jesús Ochoa y Plácido, CEJIL and the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (hereinafter
“the petitioners”) continued in the proceedings as petitioners and made their case as to the
death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa y Plácido and the failure to effectively investigate and elucidate the
truth as to this incident.
2. During the processing of admissibility, the petitioners contended that the Mexican State is
responsible for the violation of the right to life, to humane treatment, privacy and judicial
protection, as recognized, respectively, in Articles 4, 5, 7, 11, 8 and 25 of the American
Convention, all in connection with Article 1 and 2 of this instrument. Additionally, as a
consequence of the alleged abduction of and assaults on Mr. Digna Ochoa in 1999, they
alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The petitioners assert that they have
pursued and exhausted all available domestic remedies as provided in Article 46 of the
Convention, however, these remedies were not adequate and effective
3. In response, the State contends that the petition should not be admitted because the
petitioners did not exhaust domestic remedies. Specifically, because they did not challenge the
decision to “not bring criminal action” (no ejercicio de la acción penal), which concluded that
the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa was a suicide. It further argues that the petitioners are seeking
to make the IACHR a “fourth instance” to hand down a de novo review of the decision taken by
the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which does not state facts that tend to establish violations
of the American Convention.
4. Without prejudice to the merits of the matter, after reviewing the positions of the parties
and in keeping with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American
Convention, the Commission finds the case admissible for the purpose of examining the
alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Article 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in
connection with Article 1.1 of said international instrument. The IACHR further deems that the
instant petition is inadmissible as to the alleged violations of Articles 2, 4, 7 and 11 of the
American Convention and with respect to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Inter-American Convention
to Prevent and Punish Torture. The Commission also decides to notify the parties of this
decision, publish it and include it in the Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
1
Pursuant to Article 17.2.a of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, a
Mexican national, did not take part in the discussion or the decision-making process of the instant case.
1