A.2. The right to the presumption of innocence (Article 8(1) of the American Convention) 234. The Commission and the representatives pointed out that, according to dozens of press releases issued by the PGJEM, hundreds of news reports published in the national press (citing the PGJEM as the information source) and a government report, during the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against them and without having been convicted in a final judgment, Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar were presented by the Public Prosecutor’s Office as among those “responsible” for the murder of the mayor. Similarly, Daniel García and his family members were portrayed as being part of a network of criminals and political spies. This created an impression of guilt in the public opinion, even though their responsibility had not been proven or determined in the criminal proceedings. Consequently, they considered that the State violated the right to the presumption of innocence established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention. 235. The representatives argued that, in addition to having violated the defendants’ right to the presumption of innocence, the authorities of the state of Mexico were building the idea of guilt in the collective imagination, directly impacting the right to dignity and honor recognized in Article 11 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims and their close family members. 236. The State argued that “the alleged media campaign is based on highly questionable evidence” since the publications referred to are electronic documents that not only lack official identification or the institutional logo of the justice institutions of the state of Mexico, but also contain inaccurate information. It also pointed out that the news articles published by different media in the course of the investigation do not concern the State but only the media outlet that publishes them. 238 It added that a government report is mentioned in a generic manner, without providing details that would allow the identification of the document, or the specifying the content of the supposed comments that would have affected the alleged victims. 239 Therefore, the State concluded that there were no grounds for declaring the State’s responsibility for the violation of the presumption of innocence of the alleged victims Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar. A.4. The principle of reasonable time (Article 8(1) of the American Convention) 237. The Commission and the representatives considered that the State has not complied with its obligation to try Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz within a reasonable time, in violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. They referred to the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar and, in particular, to the unjustified duration of the pretrial detention to which they were both subjected. They recalled that the criminal proceedings against both of them are still ongoing, with a first instance conviction having been handed down on May 12, 2022, two decades after the process was initiated. 238. As for the elements used to determine the issue of reasonable time of the proceedings, they argued that although the investigation concerns the murder of a political figure, it does not appear from the case file that it was of particular complexity in terms of the charges against the alleged victims. They added that the latter have actively contributed to the proceedings, providing 238 It added that these press articles cover a multitude of events related to the homicide of the mayor, and the proceedings and actions carried out as follow-up to this event, in other words, the articles were intended to report on the case, and were not aimed at creating a certain image of Daniel García Rodríguez or Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. It added that this is a case of public interest as it involves the murder of a public official, so it should not be surprising that the national press has sought to give extensive coverage to the facts. The coverage given to the case cannot be considered the responsibility of the Mexican State, for the simple reason that it was carried out by entities separate from it, which were not acting under its direction, control, with its support, or on its behalf. 239 Regarding the government report of the then governor the state of Mexico, it insisted that it does not presume the guilt of the detainees nor does it characterize them in any way beyond their status as defendants. In this sense, the citation cannot be used to confirm the existence of a media campaign with a purpose other than that of reporting on a case of obvious interest to the community. -61-