Juárez Human Rights Center may perform their duties or business without
risking their lives or personal integrity.
3. […] investigate the events alleged in the petition that gave rise to the instant
measures in order to uncover those responsible and punish them.
9. On August 28, 2001, the Inter-American Court lifted the provisional measures at the
request of the Mexican State.4
Technical Verification Mission of the IACHR
10. At the hearing held during the 113th session, the proposal was made to the Commission for
an independent expert selected by the IACHR itself to examine the preliminary investigation
into the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa. After the State and the petitioners reached a consensus on
the independent expert to be appointed, the initial mission began on February 22, 2002 and
was completed on March 2, 2002. Additionally, the State requested the IACHR to “appoint a
team of experts to evaluate the investigations conducted by the Office of the Attorney General
of the Federal District (PGJDF).” With the consent of the petitioners, on June 7, 2002, the IAHR
informed the State that “it had accepted the suggestion to appoint independent specialists to
conduct technical studies as agreed upon within the investigation of the matter of reference.”
11. On October 3, 2002, the IACHR informed the petitioners and the State of the terms of
reference of the technical evidence verification mission:
“it shall be conducted in the areas of forensic sciences, ballistics and forensic
pathology. The result of the expert verification does not affect or bind in any
way the decision that the IACHR may take on the matter that has been
submitted for it to hear, which shall continue to be processed in keeping with the
rules prescribed in the American Convention on Human Rights and the Rules of
Procedure, and other applicable instruments.”
12. Furthermore, prior to the commencement of the work of the team of experts for technical
verification, the IACHR stated:
It is not up to the Inter-American Commission nor the International experts to
determine the circumstances in which attorney Digna Ochoa died, nor to identify
or try those who may be responsible, which are tasks exclusively of the
responsibility of the Mexican authorities.
13. The mission visited Mexico City from January 11 until January 24, 2003 to perform the
task entrusted to it.5 On June 16, 2003, the IACHR forwarded to the petitioners and the State
the “Report of verification of the technical evidence in the criminal investigation into the death
of Digna Ochoa y Plácido, conducted by the Office of the Special Prosecuting Attorney of the
Office of the Attorney General of the Federal District of Mexico” prepared and submitted by the
international verification mission.
III.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
A.
The petitioners
14. Petitioners claim that Mrs. Digna Ochoa y Plácido was an accomplished human rights
defender whose work had garnered her several national and international awards. They note
that she was linked to the PRODH Center where she took part in defending cases of national
consequence such as the massacre of “Aguas Blancas;” the “Massacre of Acteal” and the case
4
I/A Court H.R., In the Matter of Digna Ochoa y Plácido et al v. Mexico. Decision of the Court November 17, 1999, and
Decision of the Court August 28, 2001.
5
The IACHR appointed Dr. Pedro Díaz Romero, international consultant of the Inter-American Commission and
Coordinator of the Group of Experts; Mr. Alan John Voth, expert in ballistics of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and
Dr. Maria Dolores Morcillo Méndez, specialist in forensic medicine at the National Institute of Forensic Medicine of
Colombia.
3