REPORT N°81/03 PETITION 12.288 ADMISSIBILITY JUAN GARCÍA CRUZ AND SANTIAGO SÁNCHEZ SILVESTRE MEXICO October 22, 2003 I. SUMMARY 1. On May 10, 2000 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a complaint lodged by Legal Services and Research and Juridical Studies and the Center for Justice and International Law(SLIEJ and CEJIL, hereinafter, jointly, “the petitioners”), alleging the international liability of the United Mexican States (“the State”) for the illegal detention and torture of Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre, as well as their subsequent sentencing to three years’ imprisonment in a trial that failed to meet the standards of due process, including the use of a confession obtained under torture. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, both persons were sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for homicide in another trial, using the same confession the petitioners allege was obtained under torture.The petitioners also claim that the Mexican State is internationally liable for failing to investigate and punish the reported facts. 2. The petitioners allege that the reported facts constitute a violation of a number of provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”): the right to personal integrity (Article 5); personal freedom (Article 7); judicial guarantees (Article8); and judicial protection (Article 25).They also allege that all the requirements for admissibility under the American Convention have been met. For its part, the Mexican State maintains that there have been no violations of the American Convention because Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre had access to a number of courts and proceedings in which the standards of due process were observed, their right to a defense was respected, it was not established that they were tortured, and their judicial sentence has the force of res judicata, which cannot be revised by the IACHR.The Mexican State argues that no violation of the American Convention exists because the facts of the report have not been demonstrated. It also alleges that domestic remedies have not been exhausted with respect to the reported claims of torture, since a preliminary inquiry was initiated to investigate said claims. Consequently, the State requests that the Inter-American Commission declare the petition inadmissible. 3. Without pre-judging the merits of the case, the IACHR finds in this report that the case is admissible because it meets the requirements of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, hence the decision by the Inter-American Commission to notify the parties of its decision and continue to review the merits of the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention; and Articles 1, 6, 8, and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR 4. The Inter-American Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the petition to the Mexican State on June 2, 2000 and requested information by the deadline established in that proceeding. 1 The parties continued to submit their comments and additional information until the Inter-American Commission considered that the position of each party was sufficiently clear. 2 1The Rules of Procedure of the IACHR in effect from April 8, 1980 to May 1, 2001 provided in Article 34(5) that “the Commission shall ask the Government in question to provide the requested information within 90 days of the date on which the request is made.” 2The Mexican State replied by note of September 1, 2000, the pertinent parts of which were transmitted to the petitioners on September 18 of that year. On October 18, 2000, the petitioners requested an extension, which was granted by the Inter-American Commission on October 26, 2000 for 15 days. On November 13, 2000, the petitioners submitted a communication with their comments, which was received on December 7, 2000 and transmitted to the State on November 13 of that year. On January 12, 2001, the State requested a postponement, granted on the 19th of that month for 30 days. On February 20, 2001 the Mexican State requested a second postponement, which was granted on March 26, 2001 for 30 days. On April 24, the Mexican State requested another extension, granted on May 30, 2001 for one month. The information from the State was received on July 3, 2001 and was make known to the petitioners on the 24th of that month. On August 10, 2001, the petitioners requested a hearing, which could not be scheduled at that time, as they were informed by the IACHR on August 27, 2001.On August 24, 2001 the petitioners presented additional information, which was brought to the attention of the Mexican State on September 28 of that 1