that their conviction was based on newspaper articles, anonymous calls, the belongings of the persons they were transporting in their car on the day of their arrest, and other unverified elements of evidence. The decision was appealed, and on October 16, 2008, the Judge of the Second Criminal Court of the Seventh Circuit ruled on the appeal motion, absolving the alleged victims of the organized crime offense and confirming the penalty for bribery. Given that they had been incarcerated for more than three months, they had already served the sentence for bribery, and the judge ordered their immediate release. 12. The petitioner says that during their detention the alleged victims filed at least four amparo (protection) motions with the First District Criminal Amparo Court in the Federal District: amparo 240/2006, filed on March 6, 2006, protesting the deprivation of liberty by arbitrary detention (arraigo); amparo 279/2006, filed on March 15, 2006, protesting obstacles to access of their lawyer to the actions of the preliminary investigation; amparo 350/2006, against the detention order issued by the PGR extrajudicially; and amparo 413/2006 against the order and authorization for transfer to a Federal Maximum Security Prison. The petitioner says that the first two appeals were dismissed because at the time of the ruling the alleged victims had already been presented to the judge in the case, while 350/2006 was rejected with the argument that the detainees were deprived of liberty because of the arraigo order issued by the Judge of the Fourteenth Federal and Criminal Proceedings District Court in the Federal District. This decision was appealed and the First Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters in the Federal District upheld it. The fourth appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner adds that they filed an amparo motion R.P. 2131/2006, which at the time the petition was submitted to the IACHR was being reviewed by the First Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters in the Federal District. However, it did not indicate which act of the authority was being challenged, and did not give the date the motion was filed. 13. In addition, the petitioner reports that on February 2, 2006, it presented a note to the Secretariat of the Interior indicating “fears for the physical and psychological security” of the alleged victims, when they had been in arraigo for nine days. It also says that on January 27 and February 2, 2006, they filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission, in which they “identified human rights violations” affecting the alleged victims, a case identified as 2006/444/1/Q. It added that the Commission found that there had been “violations of rights to legality and legal certainty” by the Federal Preventive Police during the detention of the alleged victims. 14. Finally, although she is not identified as an alleged victim in the petition, the petitioner reports—by way of context—that Elena López Hernández, a member of the petitioning organization, received repeated telephone death threats, especially in January and March of 2007, which were allegedly related to her work in defending the alleged victims in this case. The petitioner says that in February of the same year it made complaints about those threats to the National Human Rights Commission and the Central Investigations Prosecutor’s Office for Security of Persons and Institutions, which opened a preliminary investigation. 15. The petitioner argues that the detention conditions of the alleged victims were arbitrary, and that their arrest and subsequent arraigo violated their right to personal liberty, established in Article 7.1 of the American Convention. It says that the lack of initial information and the delay in informing them of the reason for their detention violates Article 7.4 of the Convention, and that the State also violated Article 7.5 of the Convention because they were not brought promptly before a judge and tried within a reasonable time. It also alleges that Mexico violated their right to a fair trial, especially their right to be presumed innocent, established in Article 8.2 of the American Convention. It also says the State violated their right to judicial protection, contained in Article 25, by not offering a simple recourse against their acts that violate their fundamental rights in their arrest, arraigo, and criminal proceeding. Finally, it alleges that the State violated their right of assembly, established in Article 15 of the American Convention, due to the vagueness in the definition of “organized crime” contained in Article 2 of the Federal Law against Organized Crime. This law establishes the presence of three or more people as one of the elements that make up the crime of “terrorism”, definition which provided the ground for charging the alleged victims with engaging in organized crime.

Select target paragraph3