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

Select target paragraph3