Opinion; Subjects: MEXICO, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.18-11810 (E) 130818 130818
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its eighty-first session, 17–26 April 2018
Opinion No. 16/2018 concerning George Khoury Layón (Mexico)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s
mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and
Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 33/30.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 18 September 2017 the
Working Group transmitted to the Government of Mexico a communication concerning the
situation of George Khoury Layón. The Government replied to the communication on 17
November 2017. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following
cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or
her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,
25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating
to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in
the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity
as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or
remedy (category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
* In accordance with paragraph 5 of the methods of work, José Antonio Guevara Bermúdez did not
participate in the adoption of this opinion.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
General Assembly
Distr.: General
17 July 2018
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
2
GE.18-11810
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
George Khoury Layón, a Mexican businessman born in 1974, is reportedly being
held in Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 1, in the municipality of Almoloya de
Juárez, Mexico State.
5.
The source asserts that, in 2005, several individuals claiming to be police officers
approached Mr. Khoury and told him that he had to start paying them in order for his
business to run smoothly and safely. Mr. Khoury allegedly rejected the demand, which he
viewed as extortion. According to the source, this event marked the beginning of systematic
persecution against Mr. Khoury, which has involved various spells of deprivation of liberty.
6.
Mr. Khoury was first detained on 30 January 2006 for alleged engagement in
“organized crime”. On 11 April 2006, the Federal Prosecution Service initiated criminal
proceedings against him as the likely perpetrator of “crimes against health”. On 21 April
2006, a detention order was issued. The source states that it was not until 25 September
2007 that the trial judge ruled on the merits of the case, absolving Mr. Khoury of criminal
responsibility and ordering his immediate release, which took place the following day, on
26 September 2007, almost one year and eight months after his arrest.
7.
The source reports that, on 2 September 2009, the Federal Police detained Mr.
Khoury again. The source claims that Mr. Khoury was tortured by the police after his
arrest, on the same day, 2 September 2009, over a period of 14 hours. He is reported to
have been subjected to electric shocks to his private parts and head, punches, and
suffocation using water and bags. In this regard, the source states that, at the time of his
arrest, Mr. Khoury was able to press a button on his MP3 player and record the torture. The
recording was submitted as evidence in criminal case No. 05/2009, together with a
statement from Mr. Khoury, medical certificates and expert reports demonstrating that the
sounds, which the court deemed inaudible, were consistent with those generated by electric
shocks.
8.
On 10 November 2009, the Federal Prosecution Service charged Mr. Khoury with
the offences of “organized crime”, “crimes against health”, “possession of cartridges” and
“carrying of firearms intended solely for use by the State”. On 11 November 2009, a
detention order was issued against Mr. Khoury. The criminal proceedings took place while
Mr. Khoury was in pretrial detention, lasting two years and four-and-a-half months until, on
14 February 2012, the trial judge acquitted him. Despite the ruling, however, Mr. Khoury
was not released.
9.
Meanwhile, on 29 July 2011, the Federal Prosecution Service launched a
preliminary investigation against Mr. Khoury and two others for allegedly committing the
offences of “organized crime” and “kidnapping”. On 30 July 2011, an arrest warrant was
issued. On 19 August 2011, the presiding court issued a detention order. Mr. Khoury was
already in detention by virtue of the criminal proceedings described in the previous
paragraph. Mr. Khoury’s defence reportedly appealed the detention order, which was
revoked by the Second Single-judge Court of the Second Circuit. This reportedly prompted
the issuance of an order for the release of Mr. Khoury on 26 February 2012.
10.
Nevertheless, the source states that Mr. Khoury was detained once more, on 26
February 2012, by the Federal Police. According to the source, this deprivation of liberty is
ongoing.
11.
According to the information received, the custodial measure in question resulted
from criminal proceedings brought against Mr. Khoury and two others by the Federal
Prosecution Service for the alleged offence of “aggravated homicide”. On 30 March 2012,
the judge of the Twenty-fifth Federal District Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
GE.18-11810
3
On 5 April 2012, a preliminary statement was taken from Mr. Khoury, who was placed in
pretrial detention, thus triggering the ordinary procedure.
12.
From that moment on, according to the information supplied, a series of motions
were filed during the criminal proceedings, many of them stemming from complaints of
violations of due process that gave rise to amparo proceedings and appeals by the Federal
Prosecution Service:
12.1
Mr. Khoury’s defence appealed the detention order, which was upheld on 26
July 2012 by the Fifth Criminal Division of the Federal District High Court. In
response, the defence filed an action for amparo, which was granted on 31 October
2012. The Federal Prosecution Service submitted an application for review of the
decision before the Second Collegiate Criminal Court of the First Circuit, which
overturned the decision.
12.2
Meanwhile, on 7 December 2012, Mr. Khoury’s legal defence filed a motion
alleging a violation through an action for amparo, which was declared admissible
but unfounded on 16 January 2013.
12.3
In addition, through the setting aside of proceedings, the Ninth District
Criminal Amparo Court of the Federal District, in a judgment of 25 March 2013,
ruled that the judiciary should grant amparo to Mr. Khoury. In response, both the
accused and the Federal Prosecution Service filed applications for a review, which
were settled on 21 June 2013 by the Second Collegiate Criminal Court of the First
Circuit, which decided to modify the contested ruling, overturn the ruling of the
judge of the Twenty-fifth Federal District Criminal Court and grant amparo in
respect of Mr. Khoury’s rights.
12.4
Mr. Khoury also lodged a complaint concerning the repetition of a contested
act during the amparo proceedings, which was declared unfounded on 4 September
2013 by the Ninth District Criminal Amparo Court of the Federal District. In
response, his legal defence filed an appeal on the ground of nonconformity, which
was declared unfounded by the First Circuit Collegiate Criminal Court No. 2 on 10
December 2013.
12.5
Moreover, Mr. Khoury filed an application for amparo against the sentence
handed down by the Fifth Criminal Division of the Federal District High Court. The
application was granted on 5 December 2013 by the Ninth District Criminal Amparo
Court of the Federal District.
12.6
On 7 January 2012, in a single-judge ruling, and pursuant to a prior
enforceable judgment, the Fifth Criminal Division of the Federal District High Court
declared null and void a prior ruling and amended the decision handed down within
the constitutional limit of 72 hours for charging or releasing a suspect so as to issue
a detention order against Mr. Khoury.
12.7
On 28 April 2014, the defence filed a motion for release on the basis of
inadequacy of evidence, which was settled on 9 May 2014, with the request for
release declared inadmissible.
13.
On 19 September 2014, the judge of the Twenty-fifth Federal District Criminal
Court ruled against Mr. Khoury, finding him criminally responsible for the offence of
aggravated homicide and sentencing him to 20 years’ imprisonment:
13.1
Mr. Khoury’s defence and the Federal Prosecution Service appealed the
ruling. An oral hearing was held before the Fifth Criminal Division of the Federal
District High Court on 19 November 2014. On 12 February 2015, the Fifth Criminal
Division upheld the sentence of 19 September 2014.
13.2
On 22 May 2015, Mr. Khoury submitted an application for amparo and
judicial protection before the Fifth Criminal Division. On 3 March 2016, the
application was rejected. Consequently, Mr. Khoury filed a request for a review, but
to no avail.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
4
GE.18-11810
14.
The source states that the main evidence used to justify Mr. Khoury’s deprivation of
liberty is a statement obtained through torture from a third party. The torture in question has
reportedly been certified in an expert report produced by the National Human Rights
Commission. In this regard, the source also argues that the statement against Mr. Khoury
was illegally altered, with incriminating elements not present in the original having been
included in the final version. The statement was allegedly given outside the criminal trial
and incorporated illegally in the case file, and was never confirmed by the witness before a
judge. The source claims that this was in violation of the procedural rules and safeguards
that ought to have governed the criminal trial against Mr. Khoury. Furthermore, the source
asserts that the aforementioned witness later denied, before the municipal judge of Villa
Aldama, Veracruz, that Mr. Khoury was involved in the criminal act for which he was
jailed.
15.
The source maintains that Mr. Khoury’s detention is arbitrary under category III, as
it violated the international norms relating to the right to a fair and impartial trial. The
source’s complaint alleges violations of due process guarantees, the presumption of
innocence and the prohibition against using testimonies extracted under duress.
Response from the Government
16.
The Working Group transmitted the communication to the Government of Mexico
on 18 September 2017 and requested that it submit a response by 17 November 2017. The
Government responded to the communication on 17 November 2017.
17.
In its response, the Government did not dispute the source’s allegation that the
evidence that gave rise to Mr. Khoury’s deprivation of liberty was extracted under duress,
nor did it contradict the claim that the evidence was incorporated illegally in the case file.
The response essentially addressed three points, which are developed below.
Procedural background
18.
Between 2007 and 2016, Mr. Khoury was the subject of three criminal trials at the
federal level and one criminal trial at the local level. The three federal trials were, first, case
No. 47/2006, for the commission of crimes against health, which resulted in an acquittal
judgment of 25 September 2007. Secondly, case No. 05/2009, for the offences of organized
crime, crimes against health and possession of ammunition and firearms intended solely for
army use, which resulted in an acquittal on 17 April 2012. And lastly, case No. 83/2011, for
the offences of kidnapping and organized crime, which resulted in his release on 24
September 2012, following an appeal against a pretrial detention decision. The local court
case was No. 80/2012, for the offence of homicide.
19.
Regarding case No. 47/2006, the Government submits that Mr. Khoury was arrested
on 30 January 2006 and brought before the Federal Prosecution Service in connection with
an investigation of organized crime offences. On 11 April 2006, the Service initiated
criminal proceedings against Mr. Khoury for drug trafficking. On 21 April 2006, a judge
ordered deprivation of liberty. On 25 September 2007, a verdict of acquittal was returned
and Mr. Khoury’s immediate release was ordered.
20.
As to case No. 05/2009, the Government explains that Mr. Khoury handed himself
over to the Federal Prosecution Service on 2 September 2009. On 10 November 2009,
criminal proceedings were initiated for organized crime and drug offences and for
possession of firearms intended solely for army use. On 26 November 2009, deprivation of
liberty was ordered. Mr. Khoury was acquitted on 14 February 2012.
21.
Concerning case No. 83/2011, the Government asserts that the trial was ordered on
charges of organized crime and kidnapping. On 30 July 2011, an arrest warrant was issued,
and, on 13 August 2011, the detention took effect. On 26 February 2012, Mr. Khoury was
acquitted and released.
22.
Lastly, in relation to local homicide case No. 80/2012, the Government states that,
on 30 March 2012, a warrant was issued for Mr. Khoury’s arrest. According to the
Government, when the warrant was issued, Mr. Khoury was already being held in the
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
GE.18-11810
5
Eastern Pretrial Detention Centre for Men. The Government states that, on 19 September
2014, Mr. Khoury was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for homicide.
23.
According to the Government, on 10 February 2014, Mr. Khoury filed an
application for release on the basis of inadequacy of evidence. The application was deemed
admissible, but was declared unfounded on 9 May 2014.
24.
The Government states that, on 19 September 2014, Mr. Khoury appealed his
homicide conviction, which was upheld at second instance. At the same time, Mr. Khoury
submitted an unsuccessful application for amparo. In response to this decision, the defence
filed an appeal for review, which was declared inadmissible. Subsequently, an appeal was
filed on the ground of nonconformity, and that, too, was declared inadmissible.
State party’s observations on the allegations of torture
25.
The Government underlines that the Working Group’s mandate is limited to
arbitrary detention, but wishes to comment on the complaints of torture. According to the
Government, investigations into the allegations of torture began on 5 June 2010.
26.
The Government also maintains that investigations were launched on 28 March 2012
following a complaint from Mr. Khoury about irregularities committed against him by
various public officials. The Government states that those investigations are ongoing and
that criminal penalties will be imposed once the perpetrators have been identified.
27.
The Government asserts that the allegations of torture and the lack of evidence were
taken into account by the judge in case No. 83/2011, which was why Mr. Khoury was
acquitted.
28.
The Government emphasizes that, to date, no conclusive findings have been made in
connection with the investigations. As a result, the Government requests that the authorities
be allowed to continue the investigations before having to comment on them.
Mr. Khoury’s detention is not arbitrary
29.
In relation to category I, the Government states that the detention was in compliance
with applicable legislation, necessary and proportional to the end sought and subject to
immediate judicial review. According to the Government, the Federal Prosecution Service
and the Federal Police acted in accordance with article 21 of the Constitution, which
requires them to investigate all criminal complaints. Moreover, the arrest warrants were in
line with article 16 of the Constitution, which establishes that they must emanate from a
judicial authority and be well founded. In this regard, the Government considers that all the
proceedings against Mr. Khoury were based on preliminary investigations. In addition, Mr.
Khoury was kept informed at all times of the proceedings against him and always had
recourse to an adequate defence.
30.
The Government argues that the detention was necessary and proportional. In its
view, all the detentions were the result of a body of evidence amassed during investigations
conducted by the competent authorities.
31.
The Government considers that, in all the proceedings against Mr. Khoury, the
process of judicial review was adequate. In case No. 47/2006, as in case No. 05/2009, Mr.
Khoury was brought before the public prosecutor on the day of his arrest. In case No.
83/2011, it was the day after his arrest. The Government maintains that all the decisions
issued in relation to the case were submitted to the competent judicial authority at the
appropriate stage of the proceedings. Mr. Khoury even had the opportunity to file multiple
appeals, which shows that his rights were respected.
32.
In relation to category II, the Government asserts that the criminal proceedings
against Mr. Khoury were based on evidence of his involvement in criminal conduct, as
confirmed by the issuance of arrest warrants. Consequently, the detentions did not result
from the exercise of fundamental rights.
33.
In relation to category III, the Government considers that the proceedings against
Mr. Khoury were in compliance with the law. Mr. Khoury had access to a fair trial and the
opportunity to submit all relevant evidence. The Government asserts that, as soon as the
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
6
GE.18-11810
arrest warrants were issued, Mr. Khoury benefited from all available procedural
mechanisms and safeguards.
34.
In relation to category IV, the Government states that Mr. Khoury is not an asylum
seeker, refugee or immigrant.
35.
Lastly, in relation to category V, the Government considers that Mr. Khoury has not
been discriminated against or excluded, or faced restrictions or unequal treatment.
Discussion
36.
The Working Group acknowledges the cooperation of the parties, which took the
form of providing detailed information on the case.
37.
The Working Group has, in its jurisprudence, established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be
understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations (see
A/HRC/19/57, para. 68). In the present case, the Government has responded and
corroborated the essential facts of the case, but challenged the source’s description of them
and related allegations.
38.
The facts can be summarized as follows: Mr. Khoury was the subject of four
consecutive criminal trials, the first three at the federal level, on the basis of similar
charges, and the fourth at the local level. In each of the three federal trials, Mr. Khoury was
arrested and held in pretrial detention before being acquitted, and the Government has not
reported any compensation being awarded in relation to this pretrial detention. The fourth
and final case began while Mr. Khoury was in detention in connection with the third federal
case, for which reason his acquittal did not lead to his release, as his pretrial detention had
already been ordered. It was only in this last case that Mr. Khoury was found guilty, and
sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
39.
On the basis of facts not disputed by the Government, the Working Group is deeply
concerned that one person should be the subject of so many successive criminal trials
resulting in acquittals, with the accused remaining in detention for several years. Between
2006 and 2007, Mr. Khoury spent 20 months in detention. Subsequently, since September
2009, he has been detained continuously until the present day. One case has followed
another, without him being released despite the acquittal judgments, as another case
required his continued detention until, finally, he was convicted in the local case. Mr.
Khoury has reportedly not received any compensation for being detained in relation to the
three federal cases in which he was acquitted. The Government asserts that all these cases
were well founded, even though they resulted in acquittals.
40.
As to the three federal cases, Mr. Khoury was detained for almost four years without
any of the proceedings giving rise to a conviction. The requirement of pretrial detention for
certain offences allegedly prevented a case-by-case determination of the need for such
deprivation of liberty, in violation of international human rights standards. The Working
Group established, in its opinion No. 1/2018,1 that this legal provision is not in compliance
with international human rights law, since, for the offences in question, pretrial detention
becomes the absolute rule, without there even being any leeway for a judge to rule on the
legitimacy of such detention.
41.
The Working Group therefore concludes that Mr. Khoury’s detention in these three
cases was arbitrary under category I, since it was imposed in violation of article 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant.
42.
Furthermore, in case No. 05/2009, Mr. Khoury was held incommunicado for 14
hours and, according to the source, tortured. The Government states that, on 5 June 2010,
1 See opinion No. 1/2018, para. 59: “[T]he Working Group considers that the constitutional provision
on which Mr. Zaragoza Delgado’s detention was based, namely the provision requiring automatic
pretrial detention for certain offences, is contrary to article 9 (3) of the Covenant. This reaffirms the
conclusion that he was detained unlawfully.”
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
GE.18-11810
7
the Special Unit for Investigation of Offences Committed by Public Servants against the
Administration of Justice initiated investigations to identify those responsible for the arrest
of 2 September 2009 and clarify the events that occurred afterwards. The Working Group’s
jurisprudence on this matter has been constant: incommunicado detention violates the right
of an individual to challenge the lawfulness of his or her detention before a judge2 and to
prepare for a trial with legal assistance and family support. Consequently, this situation is a
violation of Mr. Khoury’s rights. The Working Group is shocked that, after all these years,
the Government has still not completed its investigations into torture. This situation
constitutes a twofold violation because of the denial of justice that it entails.
43.
In case No. 80/2012, the torture committed against the other co-accused was
certified by the National Human Rights Commission. In addition, it transpires from the case
file that the other co-accused’s testimony was altered and never confirmed by him before a
judge. This testimony has been the main piece of evidence against Mr. Khoury and, as such,
supports his conviction. This argument has not been contradicted by the Government. In the
circumstances of the present case, the Working Group is of the view that the allegation is
credible and points to an essential departure from equality in the proceedings.
44.
The prohibition of torture is a jus cogens norm and precludes the admission of
evidence obtained through torture in judicial proceedings. In this respect, the Working
Group recalls guideline 12 of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on
Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring
Proceedings Before a Court. This guideline reaffirms the obligation established in article 15
of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, which forms part of the international obligations of Mexico, along with the
provisions of articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant and the principle set forth in the Human
Rights Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007), on the right to equality before courts
and tribunals and to a fair trial.
45.
The only constructive response from the Government in this regard has been to state
that the allegation of torture was taken into account in reducing the punishment associated
with Mr. Khoury’s conviction. Nevertheless, this response is not sufficient, since
international standards require that evidence obtained through torture simply be rejected.
46.
All these violations have a particularly serious impact on the fairness of the trial, as
prescribed in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the
Covenant, and lead to the conclusion that the detention is arbitrary under category III.
47.
In accordance with its practice stemming from paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of
work, the Working Group will refer the complaints of torture to the Special Rapporteur on
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
48.
In addition, the Working Group recalls that, according to the source, all these
proceedings are the result of Mr. Khoury’s refusal to submit to attempted extortion by
individuals who appeared to be members of the police force. The Working Group lacks
sufficient evidence to analyse this allegation from the source. Nevertheless, the presence of
organized crime and corruption in Mexico, which is widely acknowledged,3 enhances the
plausibility of the accusation. The string of legal proceedings, which failed one after the
other, reinforces the impression that reprisals were taken for Mr. Khoury’s refusal to submit
to extortion. If this were established, it would indicate a practice of discrimination that
would lead to the conclusion that category V is applicable. The Government has not stated
whether it has launched an investigation into this important accusation, which undoubtedly
affects the entire proceedings and is regrettable. At its eighty-first session, the Working
Group discussed a similar situation and found that the instrumentalization of part of the
justice system is deeply worrying. It is essential that the Government take the necessary
2 See, for example, opinions Nos. 56/2016, 53/2016, 6/2017, 10/2017 and 66/2017.
3 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Transnational Organized Crime in Central
America and the Caribbean: A Threat Assessment, 2012, and World Drug Report 2017, pp. 15, 16
and 30.
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
8
GE.18-11810
measures to rectify this situation, which is damaging to the reputation of the justice system
and the faith that citizens are entitled to have in it.
49.
Given the number of cases concerning Mexico that it has been required to examine
in recent years (opinions Nos. 23/2014, 18/2015, 19/2015, 55/2015, 56/2015, 17/2016,
58/2016, 23/2017, 24/2017, 66/2017 and 1/2018), the Working Group renews its call for
the Government to invite it to visit the country. This would enable the Working Group and
the Government to engage in a constructive dialogue with the aim of helping Mexico to
improve its law and practice so as to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty. In this respect,
attention is drawn in particular to the standing invitation extended by Mexico to all special
procedures mechanisms in 2001 and the communications sent by the Working Group to the
Permanent Mission of Mexico in Geneva on 15 April 2015, 10 August 2016 and 9 February
2018.
Disposition
50.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of George Khoury Layón, being in contravention
of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and
14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls
within categories I and III.
51.
The Working Group requests the Government of Mexico to take the necessary
measures to remedy Mr. George Khoury Layón’s situation without delay and bring it into
conformity with applicable international norms, including those set out in the Covenant and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
52.
In the light of all the circumstances of the present case, the Working Group
considers that an appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Khoury immediately and
accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, including
guarantees of non-repetition, in accordance with international law, while providing him
with adequate medical care. The Working Group is also of the view that the Government
should investigate the situation and determine who is responsible more promptly than it has
until now with respect to the complaints of torture.
53.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure that an independent and
thorough investigation is conducted into the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary
deprivation of Mr. Khoury’s liberty and take appropriate measures against those
responsible for the violation of his human rights.
54.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group will
refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
Follow-up procedure
55.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group
requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Khoury has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been granted to Mr. Khoury;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr.
Khoury’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made
to harmonize the laws and practices of Mexico with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
56.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/16
GE.18-11810
9
whether further technical assistance is required, for example, through a visit by the
Working Group.
57.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above
information within six months of the date of the transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
58.
The Government should disseminate the present opinion through all available means
and among all stakeholders.
59.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all
States to cooperate with the Working Group and requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.4
[Adopted on 20 April 2018]
4 See Human Rights Council resolution 33/30, paras. 3 and 7.