- 14 -
2006,” in light of which it made a series of clarifications on the context in which the facts of the
case occurred.31 Subsequently, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that it
acknowledged “the facts included in paragraphs 112 to 307 of the Merits Report prepared by the
Commission” and that, “with regard to the lack of investigation, […] reiterates that its
acknowledgment only covers the local investigations.” It added that “regarding the investigation
of the […] facts, […] it acknowledged paragraphs 372 to 386, and also paragraphs 405, 406 and
411 of the said Merits Report,” insofar as, following the “initial shortcomings” at the local level
and, particularly, starting in September 2010 when the “Atenco Group” was created to investigate
the facts of this case, the State had conducted its investigations diligently, seeking to eliminate
the obstacles that were generated initially.
31. Regarding the requests for reparation, as indicated in the chapter on the preliminary
objection, the State alleged that it had taken various actions aimed at making full reparation to
the victims. It therefore asked the Court that: “(a) in light of the principle of complementarity,
[…] it consider the reparations already implemented by the State; (b) [that it consider] the
measures taken by the Mexican State to comply with the Commission’s Merits Report […]; and (c)
[that it assess the fact that], given the measures of reparation already implemented in this case,
the measures requested by the [victims’] representatives are not viable.”
32. The Commission assessed the acknowledgment made by the State positively, but
considered that it was only partial. It stressed that, the State had provided more information to
the Court than it had during the procedure before the Commission. Nevertheless, it considered
that the State had been ambiguous as regards the facts that it was actually acknowledging and
that most of the violations arising from the domestic investigations and proceedings remained in
dispute.
33. The representatives alleged that, although the State had acknowledged the violation of all
the articles and instruments cited, “it did so based on a different and much more limited factual
framework than the facts determined by the Commission in the Merits Report and referred to [in
their motions and pleadings brief].” They argued that there was no dispute regarding the fact that
the State had violated all the rights that had been alleged; however, the dispute subsisted with
regard to most of the facts, because the factual framework of the case was not limited to the
findings of the SCJN. Despite this, they emphasized that, by indicating that the facts documented
by the SCJN were true, the State was also acknowledging the facts included in that decision that
constituted human rights violations. They also stressed that since the dispute subsisted with
regard to most of the facts described, the dispute also subsisted with regard to the nature and
content of the human rights violations committed because, although the State had acknowledged
all the articles violated, it had not acknowledged many of the facts that gave rise to the
violations, or all the claims for reparation.
B. Considerations of the Court