REPORT Nº 93/06 PETITION 972-03 ADMISSIBILITY VALENTINA ROSENDO CANTÚ1 ET AL. MEXICO October 21, 2006 I. SUMMARY 1. On November 10, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the InterAmerican Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a complaint alleging the international responsibility of the United Mexican States (“the State,” “the Mexican State”) for the illegal detention, rape, and torture of Valentina Rosendo Cantú, an indigenous person from the Tlapanec Me`paa people (“alleged victim”), and the subsequent lack of investigation of these events. The petition was lodged by the alleged victim, the Organización Indígena de Pueblos Mextecos y Tlapanecos AC. (OIPMT) [Indigenous Organization of Mexteco and Tlapaneco Peoples], the Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan” AC [“Tlachinollan” Human Rights Center of the Mountain], and the Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel AgustínPro Juárez A.C. [Human Rights Center Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez] (hereinafter, jointly, “the petitioners”). 2. The petitioners alleged that the facts reported constitute a violation of several rights provided for by the American Convention on Human Rights (“the American Convention”): the right to personal integrity (Article 5), the right to personal freedom (Article 7), the right to due process (Article 8), the right to judicial protection (Article 25), as well as the obligation of the State to respect and guarantee the rights of the people under its jurisdiction (Article 1.1). They also allege the violation of Articles 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará,” Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Articles 1, 16, 34, and 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They assert, in addition, that they have met all the admissibility requirements provided for by the American Convention. 3. The Mexican State, in turn, contends that the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice had started ex officio a prior investigation of the case, and that decided it was competent to continue with said investigation once the local public prosecutor disqualified himself, deferring to the military venue. The State asserts that domestic remedies have not been exhausted; it therefore requests that the Inter-American Commission declare the petition inadmissible. 4. Without prejudging on the merits of the case, the IACHR has concluded in this report that the petition is admissible, in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission has decided to notify the parties of this decision and to continue with the examination of the merits regarding the alleged violation of Articles 5(1), 7, 8(1), 11, 19, and 25 of the American Convention, all in connection with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights, provided for by Article 1(1) of said international instrument, as well as regarding the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The Commission also has decided to publish this report and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. II. PROCEEDINGS WITH THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION 5. The petition was filed processing, based on Article parts of the petition to the submit its observations. On 1 on November 10, 2003. After the initial study related to its 30 (2) of its Rules of Procedure, the IACHR forwarded the relevant State on December 10, 2003, and granted two months for it to February 17, 2004, the State requested an extension of the time By express request from the victim, her complete name has been included in the petition. 1