REPORT Nº 65/05
October 12, 2005



1. On November 15, 2001, Tita Radilla Martínez, Vice-President of the Association of Relatives of
Disappeared Detainees and Victims of Human Rights Violations in Mexico (“AFADEM”), and the
Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights, A.C. (“CMDPDH”)
(hereinafter, jointly, “the petitioners”) presented the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) with a petition claiming the international
responsibility of the United Mexican States (hereinafter, “Mexico” or “the State”) for violating
against Rosendo Radilla Pacheco the following rights protected by the American Convention on
Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”): Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to
humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 25 (right to judicial
protection); along with the violation of the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) (obligation to
respect rights) of the American Convention. Also, petitioners denounced1 the violation of Articles
I, II, IX, XI and XIX of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 2
2. According to the allegations of the petitioners, on August 25, 1974 Mr. Rosendo Radilla
Pacheco, who was 60 years old at the time, was detained at the entrance to the Cuauhtémoc
neighborhood in Atoyac de Álvarez municipality, state of Guerrero, and that he has been
disappeared since that date. The petitioners claim that continuous violations are involved since
the situation persists to date in that the whereabouts of the alleged victim has not been
determined and because the perpetrators have been neither identified nor punished. Further, the
petitioners hold that the Mexican State is internationally responsible for the denial of justice
suffered by the relatives of the alleged victim, on the basis of the events that happened after the
alleged disappearance. Accordingly, the petitioners allege that the facts denounced constitute
violations of the American Convention, as well as of the Inter-American Convention on Forced
Disappearance of Persons. The State, for its part, alleges that domestic remedies were not
exhausted with respect to this petition.
3. Without prejudging the merits of the case, in this report the IACHR concludes that the petition
is admissible in that it meets the requirements set by Articles 46 and 47 of the American
Convention, and that the Commission is competent to hear and decide on the merits.
Consequently, the Inter-American Commission decides to notify the parties of this decision and to
continue with its analysis of the merits as regards the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25 in
connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention and of Articles II and III of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; it also resolves to make this report
public and to publish it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.


4. Processing of this petition began on January 14, 2002, with a request for the State to submit its
comments within a period of two months, in accordance with Article 30 of the IACHR’s Rules of
Procedure. The parties continued to send comments and additional information until the Inter-

1 Communication dated June 18, 2002
2 The Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons entered into effect on March 28, 1996. Mexico deposited the
instrument of ratification on April 9, 2002-


Select target paragraph3