REPORT No. 158/11 1 PETITION 512-08 ADMISSIBILITY MARIANA SELVAS GÓMEZ AND OTHERS MEXICO November 2, 2011 I. SUMMARY 1. On April 29, 2008, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “ the Commission,” “ the Inter-American Commission,” or “ the IACHR” ) received a petition lodged by the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center A.C. (PRODH) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (hereinafter “ the petitioners” ) on behalf of Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, Claudia Hernández Martínez, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Patricia Torres Linares, and Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo (hereinafter “ the alleged victims” ). The petition w as made against the United Mexican States (hereinafter “ the State,” “ the Mexican State,” or “ Mexico” ) for the alleged rape and torture by state agents of the alleged victims during the violent repression of a social conflict in the municipalities of Texcoco and San Salvador Atenco, as w ell as for the subsequent failure to investigate and punish those actions. 2. The petitioners claim that the Mexican State is responsible for violating the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (humane treatment), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (fair trial), 11 (privacy), 24 (equality before the law ), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “ the Convention” or “ the American Convention” ), in conjunction w ith the general obligation established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that same international instrument, and for violating Articles 6 and 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “ the Convention of Belém do Pará” ), w ith respect to the alleged victims. The petitioners also allege the violation of the obligations set out in Articles 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture w ith respect to the alleged victims. 3. In turn, the State maintains that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in that the alleged facts are still under investigation. It contends that the authorities in charge of the investigation have pursued various formalit ies to identify the persons responsible for the facts, and that the delays in the proceedings are due to the complexity of the case and not to a failure to act on the part of the investigating or judicial authorities. Consequently, it holds that the petiti on should be ruled inadmissible. 4. Without prejudging the merits of the case, after analyzing the positions of the parties and in compliance w ith the requirements set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decides to rule the case admissible in order to examine the alleged violation of the victims’ rights as enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8, 11, 24, and 25, in conjunction w ith Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and in Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. It also decides to find the petition admissible w ith respect to the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In addition, the Commission decides to notify the parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. In compliance w ith the terms of Article 17(2)(a) of the Commission’ s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, a Mexican national, did not participate in discussing or deciding this case. 1