- 47 -
authorities [must determine] whether any other members of the police forces, commanders or
rank and file, also committed serious violations of individual guarantees”; (v) it ordered that the
list of those possibly responsible be forwarded to the entities with competence to investigate and
sanction, and (vi) it ordered that all the municipalities in the Mexican State be advised of the
standards for the use of force established in the said judgment, granting it interpretive value and
establishing criteria applicable to the municipal authorities. 152 It also indicated that:
It has been determined, without identifying those who gave the orders and those who carried
them out, that the authorities are attributed with participation in the events; […] it is
established that the roles played by authorities and officials who assembled on May 3 and
authorized the use of law enforcement personnel cannot be determined [… nor the roles played
by] those that assembled on May 3 and drew up the strategy for the use of force; […] based on
data from the investigations, specific individual roles played in the acts that constituted serious
violations of individual guarantees can be established, and […] it has been decided to establish
criteria for the competent authorities to supplement the investigations in order to establish
responsibilities.153
125. Furthermore, the SCJN considered that “the inquiry had gathered no evidence whatsoever
establishing that the interventions and the use of force that occurred in those events had been
agreed or ordered directly by the superiors of the head of the state Security Agency and of the
Federal Preventive Police.”154 Nevertheless, according to the SCJN “it can be affirmed […] that
even though the violence was not ordered, it was permitted and encouraged and, to that extent,
authorized, encouraged and endorsed.”155
C.3 Investigations and criminal proceedings in the state of Mexico
126. On May 9, 2006, the CNDH advised the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Mexico
(PGJEM) of “the presumed acts consistent with abuse of a sexual nature perpetrated by police
agents,” in relation to the events that occurred on May 3 and 4, 2006, and, on this basis,
preliminary inquiry TOL/DR/I/470/2006 was opened.156 The next day, the PGJEM opened
preliminary inquiry TOL/DR/I/466/2006,157 in response to newspaper articles reporting injuries
and sexual abuse during the operations of May 3 and 4, 2006, in Atenco, state of Mexico.158 On
May 11, the two preliminary inquiries were combined;159 they included the complaints of, and
interviews with, among others: Angélica Patricia Torres Linares, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno,
Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30679 to 30690, 30691 to 30754, 31349, 31353,
31354 to 31423, 31425, 31483 and 31484)
152
153
Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 31485 and 31486).
154
SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 31055).
155
SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 31062).
156
CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folio 28551).
Cf. Order to constitute the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca of October 15, 2014 (evidence file, folio 1637); Order
on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 18, 2014 (evidence file, folios
2485 and 2486), and Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 21,
2014 (evidence file, folio 3485).
157
158
Cf. Various newspaper articles dated May 8, 2006 (evidence file, folios 23164 to 23167).
Order to constitute the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 15, 2014 (evidence file, folio 1637); Order on the
constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 2485 and
2486); Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 21, 2014 (evidence
file, folios 3485 and 3486), and Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of
October 27, 2014 (evidence file, folio 4386).
159