[…].” 4 As for the “Paz y Justicia” organization, the petitioners made the following
allegations:
"Paz y Justicia" is a paramilitary organization, according to complaints
received, and it is the principal party accused of perpetrating attacks on
leaders and organizations that advocate autonomy for indigenous peoples and
defend their ownership of the land they occupy […]. 5
14.
The petitioners reported that on January 20, 1999, the wife of the
alleged victim, Sonia López Juárez, appeared before the Municipal Judge of Sabanilla
to report the alleged disappearance of her husband, and accused Juan Regino López
Leoporto as being responsible for it. On January 22, 1999, Mrs. López Juárez
reiterated her complaint to the Ministerio Público in Yajalón. On January 24 of that
year, Juan Regino López Leoporto gave his statement to the authorities in which he
denied any involvement in the matter denounced. Pretrial investigation Nº
AL41/SJI/030/99 was opened. According to the petitioners, on March 26, 1999, Juan
Regino López Leoporto was released to his family on bond, as a result of the ruling
by the Council for the Protection of Minors of the State of Chiapas that the crime,
illegal deprivation of freedom, was not a serious offense. 6 The petitioners allege that
although as part of the aforesaid pretrial investigation, “various communications had
been circulated to determine the whereabouts of the alleged victim, only one
operation was carried out on February 1 and 2, 2001.” 7
15.
The petitioners asserted that on March 17, 1999, they lodged a
petition for amparo or judicial protection, which was registered as No. 238/99. 8
However, the petitioners alleged that on March 22, 1999, “[The] State Public Security
Commander in Sabanilla, Chiapas, did not make a prior report, and so [the judge]
[...] presumed that the alleged act was true.” 9 The petitioners reported that on
March 31, 1999, the constitutional hearing in the amparo proceeding was held, and
that the judge “denied the request for amparo by virtue of the fact that there was no
indication of the place where Antonio González Méndez was being held.” 10 According
to the petitioners, the First District Judge who presided over the amparo proceeding,
argued as follows:
[H]aving seen the records, and in view of the fact that they show that, in an
interlocutory order dated March 23, 1999, Sarah Patricia Torres Lares [legal
representative of the petitioners for the amparo proceeding] was requested to
indicate the place where the directly injured party, Antonio González Méndez,
was being held, with the notice that failure to do so would cause the present
petition to be considered as null and void; consequently, on the grounds of
Article 146, in relation to 119, of the Amparo Law, this amparo petition is
11
considered as null and void.
16.
On this point, the petitioners argued that the jurisprudence of the
Inter-American system has consistently held that “the appropriate recourse for cases
such as the present one [forced disappearance] is the writ of amparo […].” 12 In spite
of the foregoing, the petitioners initiated a criminal proceeding for the purpose of
learning the whereabouts of the alleged victim.
4 Initial petition, p. 4.
5 Observations submitted by the petitioners on January 2, 2002, p. 5. Likewise, refer to the report on the
human rights situation in Mexico, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.100, Doc. 7 rev. 1, September 24, 1998, para. 556.
6 Initial petition, p. 5.
7 Observations submitted by the petitioners on March 28, 2002, p. 3.
8 Observations submitted by the petitioners on March 28, 2002, p. 2.
9 Observations submitted by the petitioners on March 28, 2002, p. 2.
10 Observations submitted by the petitioners on March 28, 2002, p. 2.
11 Writ of amparo 238/99. Resolution of march 31, 1999.
12 Observations submitted by the petitioners on February 8, 2005, p. 5.
4