Will evidence of crimes against humanity change anything in Mexico?
by Alejandro
Anaya Muñoz, June 24, 2016.
 |
| Press Association Images |
A new report argues that widespread human rights violations in Mexico
constitute crimes against humanity. But who will stand accountable?
Torture argued that torture is a widespread practice in Mexico—an
accusation that the Mexican government vehemently rejected. For many
observers, the angry reaction by the Mexican government was specifically
due to the link between the term “widespread” and International
Criminal Law—more specifically, to the classification of crimes against
humanity. For over two decades now, subsequent Mexican governments have
dealt with the pressures generated by the nonbinding recommendations of
the UN treaty bodies, the Human Rights Council´s mandate holders and the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the binding rulings of
the Inter-American Court on Human Rights.
individual criminal accountability is an entirely different matter. The
new groundbreaking report by the Open Society Justice Initiative
has put domestic and international spotlights on this controversial but
inevitable discussion about the possible perpetration of crimes against
humanity in Mexico.
government forces and organized criminal groups are perpetrating crimes
against humanity in the context of the country’s brutal “drug war” is
not new. It has been on the table—and on the desk of the Prosecutor of
the International Criminal Court (ICC)—for a few years now. But the Open
Society report is, to date, the most detailed, rigorous and forceful
elaboration of this position. Largely based on the careful and
systematic review of official data, the report makes a convincing claim
that “there is a reasonable basis to believe that both state and
non-state actors have committed crimes against humanity in Mexico”.
report’s main recommendation, however, is not that the Prosecutor of the
ICC should formally open a “preliminary investigation” on the
situation. Rather, the report suggests the establishment of an
“internationalized investigative body, based inside Mexico, which is
empowered to independently investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes as
well as cases of grand corruption”. In general terms, this might look
similar to the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG),
the United Nations independent international body established, at the
request of the Guatemalan government, to investigate criminal groups
that have infiltrated state institutions.
The blatant incompetence of Mexico’s institutions for the investigation
and prosecution of crime has been well documented and is beyond dispute.
The utter failure of investigative and prosecutorial authorities in the
paradigmatic cases of the 43 disappeared students in Ayotzinapa and the 22 civilians killed in Tlatlaya
are dramatic confirmations of this fact. The fallout from these
incidents has significantly contributed to the already monumental lack
of trust in our institutions by both the domestic public and the
international community.
Given the severity of the crisis, the dimension
of the (collective) grievances and the desolate institutional
landscape, there is a clear sense of urgency. We cannot wait until we
finally decide and manage to try and mend our broken institutions.
Indeed, some sort of mixed, internationalized model seems to be the only
way out—the only alternative to break the vicious circle of impunity.
Unfortunately, the political context will make the adoption
of such an institution extremely difficult. Another key argument by
the Open Society report is that the key obstacle to accountability for
the observed “atrocity crimes” is due to a lack of political will more
than a lack of capacity. “Successive Mexican governments have almost
completely failed to ensure accountability for atrocities (…)
Political obstruction—beginning with the government denial of the extent
and nature of the problem—is the overwhelming reason for this failure”,
the report concludes.
political will come from? The incentives for current (or potentially
future) authorities are hard to observe and the disincentives are clear.
It is true that the Peña Nieto administration is now as weak as it has
ever been—particularly in the midst of growing international and
domestic pressures over Ayotzinapa and other cases, persistent
insecurity and criminality, the failure of its “structural reforms” to
deliver economic growth, the increasing budgetary strains and the
related considerable losses in the recent state-level elections.
sense, now is arguably the time to exert more pressure, and thus get
significant concessions from a cornered government. But accepting an
internationalized investigative and prosecutorial entity is miles out of
the government’s self-imposed limits. Beyond the threat of facing
individual criminal sanctions, an archaic notion of nationalism and
national sovereignty is a predominant and non-negotiable value of the
Partido Revolucionario Institutional (PRI).
the interests of leftist political parties for promoting and defending
human rights have traditionally also stopped at a similar notion of
sovereignty. In addition, the disposition towards Open Society’s
recommendation by the apparent winners of the recent elections—the formerly ruling Partido Acción Nacional, PAN—will not be very different from that of the PRI. After all, one of their own, Felipe Calderón,
originally implemented the strategy that took the military “to the
streets”. And, of course, there are the Armed Forces, who still have the
informal power to veto decisions and policies that might directly
affect their interests. With all of this to consider, the formation of
aligned domestic interests, in favor of establishing a mixed or
internationalized independent body for the investigation of the
“atrocity crimes”, seems unlikely.
The Open Society report is
truly a heavy blow to Mexican authorities—perhaps the heaviest so far
received in the context of the current human rights crisis. It offers a
clear and loud warning to Mexican society, and it will surely have an
important influence in the domestic and international debate regarding
the human rights crisis in Mexico. But the Mexican government itself
will fiercely oppose the report’s main recommendation.
And even if
weakened and severely battered, it will likely be able to
resist—particularly because so many other powerful actors such as key
members of the PAN, the Military and, paradoxically, criminal
organizations have just as much to lose. Nevertheless, domestic and
international advocates of human rights should continue to push forward
and do what they have been doing with courage and perseverance. They
have slowly but surely made important progress in the advancement of
much needed reforms. Hopefully, this time, they will be able to push
farther than they ever have before.
SOURCE: Open democracy
