- 22 - exceptions based on their internal organization. The legal system and practices of the entities that form part of a federal state that is a party to the Convention must abide by the American Convention.59 A.2 Background to the operation conducted on May 3 and 4, 2006, in the municipalities of Texcoco and San Salvador Atenco, state of Mexico 56. According to the SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009, in 2001, the Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra [Peoples’ Front in Defense of Land] was created (hereinafter “FPDT”) with the “initial purpose of opposing the expropriation of their land on which there was a proposal to construct the Mexico City airport.” The judgment stressed that “they were successful in blocking the construction of the airport on their land and obtaining the reversal of the expropriations that had been decreed by the Federal Executive. Once this goal had been achieved, they continued as a social organization, pursuing their own claims and supporting the causes of other social movements. Shortly afterwards, they joined 17 social organizations.”60 57. In the said judgment, the SCJN indicated that one of the objectives of the 2003-2006 Texcoco municipal development plan was “the relocation of informal commerce located in the municipal capital in order to recover the areas for general use and to improve the urban image.”61 Accordingly, on October 21, 2005, an agreement was signed between the local government and four leaders who said they were the “factual and legal representatives” of the flower-sellers who traded in front of the Belisario Domínguez market. In this agreement, it was decided that the flower-sellers would be relocated to the Texcoco Agricultural Products and Flowers Market, where the municipality gave them a space where each florist would be allocated a stall. On April 3, 2006, the Director for Trade Regulation of the Texcoco municipality opened an administrative inquiry claiming that eight flower-sellers had not relocated and continued trading in front of the Belisario Domínguez market; the following day, he requested the support of the Head of the Public Roads and Inspectors Department in this regard. 62 58. The SCJN also emphasized that, on April 11, 2006, personnel of the Trade Regulation Directorate and agents of the municipal police force tried to prevent the flower-sellers from setting up their stalls. However, the authorities underscored that, shortly afterwards, between 30 and 40 individuals armed with machetes – including Texcoco flower-sellers, but also members of the FPDT – arrived and this gave rise to a confrontation in which some Directorate vehicles were damaged. The deputy Municipal President informed the Commissioner of the state Security Agency that “groups organized by informal traders were trying to threaten the stability of the municipal government,” because “they were threatening to take over the offices of the City Hall […with] the support of the [FPDT] from the municipality of Atenco” and requested that members of the Support and Reaction Force be sent. 63 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 219, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 146. 59 60 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 261). SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30678 and 30679). See, also, Preliminary report on the events of Atenco, Mexico, of the International Civil Commission for Human Rights, May 15, 2006, p. 19 (evidence file, folio 503). 61 62 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30679 to 30680). 63 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30681 and 30682).