2
INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE
1.
On November 4, 2007, under Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the InterAmerican Commission”) presented an application against the United Mexican States
(hereinafter “the State” or “Mexico”), which gave rise to the instant case. The initial
petition was presented to the Commission on March 6, 2002. On February 24, 2005,
the Commission approved Reports Nos. 16/05, 17/05 and 18/05, declaring the
respective petitions admissible. On January 30, 2007, the Commission notified the
parties of its decision to joinder the three cases. Subsequently, on March 9, 2007, it
approved the Report on merits No. 28/07, in accordance with Article 50 of the
Convention, with specific recommendations for the State. This report was notified to
the State on April 4, 2007. Upon considering that Mexico had not adopted its
recommendations, the Commission decided to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the
Court. The Commission appointed Commissioner Florentín Meléndez and Executive
Secretary Santiago A. Canton, as delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy
Executive Secretary, and Juan Pablo Albán, Marisol Blanchard, Rosa Celorio and
Fiorella Melzi, Executive Secretariat specialists, as legal advisers.
2.
The application relates to the State’s alleged international responsibility for “the
disappearance and subsequent death” of the Mss. Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda
Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez (hereinafter “Mss. González,
Herrera and Ramos”), whose bodies were found in a cotton field in Ciudad Juárez on
November 6, 2001. The State is considered responsible for “the lack of measures for
the protection of the victims, two of whom were minor children, the lack of prevention
of these crimes, in spite of full awareness of the existence of a pattern of genderrelated violence that had resulted in hundreds of women and girls murdered, the lack
of response of the authorities to the disappearance […]; the lack of due diligence in the
investigation of the homicides […], as well as the denial of justice and the lack of an
adequate reparation.”
3.
The Commission asked that the Court declare the State responsible for the
violation of the rights embodied in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane
Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 19 (Rights of the Child) and 25 (Right to Judicial
Protection) of the Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1)
(Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, together with
failure to comply with the obligations arising from Article 7 of the Convention on the
Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “the
Convention of Belém do Pará”). The application was notified to the State on December
21, 2007, and to the representatives on January 2, 2008.
4.
On February 23, 2008, the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos A.
C., the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights,
the Red Ciudadana de No Violencia y por la Dignidad Humana and the Centro para el
Desarrollo Integral of the Mujer A. C., representatives of the alleged victims
(hereinafter “the representatives”),3 presented their brief with pleadings, motions and
evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”). In addition to the allegations
submitted by the Commission, the representatives asked that the number of victims be
expanded to eleven women and that the Court rule on the alleged arbitrary detention,
torture and violation of due process of three other people. In addition to the Articles
3

On December 14, 2007, said organizations advised the Court that they had appointed Sonia Torres
Hernández as their common intervener in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure
(merits case file, volume V, folio 1936).

Select target paragraph3