17.
This complaint led to pretrial investigation Nº AL41/SJI/030/99. On
February 6, 2001, the Ministerio Público concluded that it did not have grounds “for
continuing its investigation of Juan Regino López Leoporto; as a result, it decided to
send all the records of this investigation to the reserve files.” 13 This, in the view of
the petitioners, “means that the Ministerio Público is suspending any action related
to the sole witness who could provide information on the whereabouts or the fate [of
the alleged victim.” 14 The petitioners further argued that “the criminal investigation
involved various irregularities, since the officials in charge of conducting it did not act
with due diligence. As proof of this, […] on November 11, 2001, Mrs. Sonia López
was summoned to provide a photograph of her disappeared spouse.” 15
18.
Furthermore, petitioners reported that the authorities” never
channeled their action toward investigation of the “Paz y Justicia” paramilitary group
and the membership […] of Juan Regino López Leoporto in that group, despite the
insistence of the petitioners and family members in that regard. Nor did they provide
reasonable arguments to justify why they rejected that line of investigation.” 16
19.
In addition, the petitioners reported that at the time of the events,
Chiapas law “did not include provisions for the crime of forced disappearance or an
equivalent offense as established in Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention on
Forced Disappearance of Persons […].” 17 Thus at the time the pretrial investigation
was opened, it was meant to address “illegal deprivation of freedom.” On this point,
the petitioners claimed that “as long as the criminal offense of forced disappearance
of persons with its own characteristics to define such an act does not exist, justice,
as dictated in Article 14 of the Political Constitution of Mexico, can be neither sought
nor imparted.” 18
20.
The petitioners asserted that the facts of the present case do not
represent isolated incidents in Chiapas, but instead are part of “a deliberate policy on
the part of the Mexican State to deal with the indigenous insurrection of 1994 headed
by the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN).” 19
21.
The petitioners point out that the IACHR recognized the problem in
its 1998 report on Mexico:
In recent years, two situations have had an impact on the exercise of human
rights: the EZLN insurgency in the South, which has led to an important
presence of the Mexican Armed Forces in that area, conducting low-intensity
operations; and, subsequently, especially beginning in 1995, the militarization
of the North and the emergence in that area of paramilitary groups whose
activities have been reported as contributing to human rights violations.
[…]
However, in the [northern] zone of [Chiapas], there have been numerous
criminal acts of aggression, consisting of threats and attacks involving civilian
communities and leaders, that have been imputed to groups identified as
paramilitaries which operate in a coordinated manner, with the support of the
authorities and ranchers in neighboring areas, and with the implicit protection
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Observations submitted
Observations submitted
Observations submitted
Observations submitted
Initial petition, p. 11.
Initial petition, p. 11.
Observations submitted
by
by
by
by
the
the
the
the
petitioners
petitioners
petitioners
petitioners
on
on
on
on
October 12, 2001, p. 2.
October 12, 2001, p. 2.
March 28, 2002, p. 3.
March 28, 2002, p. 4.
by the petitioners on February 8, 2005, p. 6.
5