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.21-10452 (E) 201021 211021
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninetieth session, 3–12 May 2021
Opinion No. 14/2021 concerning Verónica Razo Casales and Erik Razo
Casales (Mexico)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. 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 42/22.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 24 June 2020 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Mexico a communication concerning Verónica Razo
Casales and Erik Razo Casales. The Government replied to the communication on 24
September 2020. 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,
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).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
General Assembly
Distr.: General
29 July 2021
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
2
GE.21-10452
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Verónica Razo Casales is a 32-year old Mexican national who lives in Mexico City.
Her brother, Erik Razo Casales, is a 28-year old Mexican national who also lives in Mexico
City.
5.
According to the information received, the Razo Casales siblings were deprived of
their liberty on 8 June 2011. The detention stemmed from an anonymous call informing the
authorities that offences related to organized crime and kidnapping were being planned. It
was based on article 19 of the Constitution.
6.
According to the source, Mr. Razo Casales was arrested between noon and 1 p.m. as
he was driving away from a petrol station on Avenida Canal de Apatlaco, Mexico City, after
refuelling his car. He was intercepted by several cars, from which various persons emerged
and pointed guns at him, forcing him to get out of his car. He was then handcuffed and put
into another vehicle.
7.
The source states that Ms. Razo Casales was arrested between 1.30 p.m. and 1.40 p.m.
as she was walking near her home in Mexico City. She was intercepted by several men in
civilian clothes, who pointed guns at her head, forced her to the ground, handcuffed her and
forced her into a car. Both arrests were carried out by members of the Field Investigation
Coordination Unit of the Federal Police. The officials allegedly failed to produce an
investigation or arrest warrant in either case; furthermore, the arrested persons were allegedly
not told, either at the time or later, why they were being arrested or what charges were being
brought against them.
8.
Following their arrests, the Razo Casales siblings were taken in separate vehicles to
the facilities of the Federal Police on Calzada Legaria, in Miguel Hidalgo, Mexico City. The
source alleges that, before reaching the station, the police officers stopped somewhere in the
city and inflicted severe ill-treatment on Ms. Razo Casales, removing her clothes against her
will, administering electric shocks to sensitive parts of her body, sexually abusing her and
trying to suffocate her by placing a bag over her face. They also beat her on the stomach and
buttocks and constantly insulted her in order to break her will, humiliate her and prevent her
from resisting the torture, rape and other acts of violence to which she was being subjected.
9.
The source also alleges that, on arriving at the Federal Police facilities, Mr. Razo
Casales was ill-treated by the security officers, who beat him, gave him electric shocks and
provoked him by covering his face with his T-shirt and throwing water over him.
10.
According to the information received, Ms. Razo Casales’s brother was already at the
police station when she arrived there. They were both forced to incriminate themselves for
having allegedly planned a kidnapping, of which they had no knowledge. To achieve this,
the officers allegedly beat and insulted Ms. Razo Casales and forced her to watch as they
pointed a firearm at her brother. Mr. Razo Casales was continually told that he and his sister
would be killed and that his mother and daughter would be raped. The source alleges that this
amounted to psychological torture.
11.
They were reportedly kept in a state of anxiety for a long time because they did not
know what was happening. At the police station, Ms. Razo Casales was kept blindfolded for
some time while she heard her brother being beaten and other people complaining and
shouting. Similarly, Mr. Razo Casales was forced to listen to his sister’s screams when she
was being beaten or ill-treated at the police station. They also heard the police officers talking
to each other as they had apparently apprehended the wrong persons. The officers asked them
for 500,000 Mexican pesos (Mex$) (approximately US$ 36,000 at the time) to let them go
but they replied that they had no money. In response, the police officers told them that they
would spend many years in prison without knowing why they were there.
12.
According to the information received, 20 hours after their arrest, they and several
other persons were taken to the headquarters of the Attorney General’s Office in Camarones,
Mexico City, for a physical examination. Beforehand, however, they were warned that they
would suffer the same treatment again if they did not do what they were told.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
GE.21-10452
3
13.
The source notes that Ms. Razo Casales’s physical examination was not conducted in
private and that the same person who had pointed a gun at her brother while she was recorded
incriminating herself entered the room during the examination and stayed there until the end.
After Mr. Razo Casales had been examined, he was transferred to a cell where he was beaten
severely again and electric shocks were administered to his genitals and other parts of his
body. He managed to see his sister being taken out of another cell although he was not sure
where she was being taken.
14.
They were later transferred to the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the
Investigation of Organized Crime. At around 3 p.m., a prosecutor reportedly warned them
that they should obey and do everything that they were told or they would be put back in the
hands of the police officers.
15.
According to the source, the Razo Casales siblings were forced into a Gesell chamber
and made to sign a large number of documents whose contents were not revealed to them.
They were also forced to take photographs of themselves and undergo urine, saliva and blood
tests. Throughout this time, they were not assisted by a lawyer and were not told why they
were being held.
16.
On 9 June 2011, the family of the Razo Casales siblings, not knowing their
whereabouts, filed a complaint for kidnapping. Consequently, the Ministry of Social
Development, through official communications No. SDS/OIP/552/2011 and No.
DG/134/2011, reported them as disappeared persons and not as prisoners, despite the fact
that they had been in the police station for more than 24 hours.
17.
On 10 June 2011, as a result of the ill-treatment that she had allegedly suffered, Ms.
Razo Casales began to feel unwell and lost consciousness on several occasions. As a result,
she was taken to a hospital in Mexico City, where she remained for three days. While she
was in hospital, a court clerk came to check on her physical condition as, on 12 June 2011,
her family had filed an application for amparo for unlawful deprivation of liberty,
incommunicado detention, and torture, which had been granted. The court clerk confirmed
Ms. Razo Casales’s condition: her medical examination showed multiple contusions caused
by the blows she had received, shortness of breath after a medium degree of exertion,
precordial pain radiating to the neck and left arm, a fainting sensation, nervousness, blurred
vision, distal tremor in the hands, and chest pain in the fourth, fifth and sixth left intercostal
spaces.
18.
During this period, Mr. Razo Casales was transferred to the Federal Preventive
Custody Centre in Mexico City, where he was again placed in a Gesell chamber without
access to lawyers. He was also denied the opportunity to call a court-appointed lawyer to
explain what was happening.
19.
Ms. Razo Casales was discharged on 13 June 2011 and transferred to the Federal
Preventive Custody Centre. She was again taken to a Gesell chamber, this time in the
presence of a lawyer.
20.
The source states that, after the family had filed a complaint of torture, on 22 July
2011, a prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service opened investigation No.
279/UEIDAPLE/19/2011 and requested that medical examinations be carried out in
accordance with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol).
However, the prosecutor representing the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the
Investigation of Organized Crime prevented the examinations from being carried out
immediately, despite the insistence of the Public Prosecution Service.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
4
GE.21-10452
21.
On 28 June 2013, two years after the events, Ms. Razo Casales underwent a
psychological examination in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol. She was diagnosed with
chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, the symptoms of which appear after extremely
traumatic experiences that cause intense fear and feelings of helplessness, such as bombings,
or acts of torture and rape, and which last for more than six months. She was also diagnosed
with severe depression, which explains her increasingly high scores on tests for suicidal
ideation. The source provides details of the conclusions established by this examination. The
psychological results are consistent with the accounts of torture provided.
22.
On 6 November 2017, six years after the events, Mr. Razo Casales underwent a
medical examination, based on the Istanbul Protocol, which revealed signs and symptoms of
torture as well as severe physical and psychological disabilities caused by torture. According
to the examination, he appeared to be experiencing constant flashbacks, which prevented him
from carrying out normal activities and made it difficult for him to socialize. He also suffered
from insomnia, loss of appetite, loss of concentration and sexual problems. More than eight
years after the events, Mr. Razo Casales is still suffering from the consequences of the torture
in that he has severe pain in his knees and has lost the sight of his left eye and the hearing in
one ear.
23.
The source states that, after six years of investigations, the complaint of torture, rape
and sexual violence led to a warrant being issued for the arrest of one of the perpetrators. One
year after it was issued, the warrant had still not been executed because the perpetrator had
submitted an application for amparo, which was granted. Once the necessary corrections had
been made, an arrest warrant was reissued and executed.
24.
It is reported that no one has been held responsible and no charges have been brought
in connection with the investigation into the torture of Mr. Razo Casales.
25.
The source states that Ms. Razo Casales was initially assigned a defence lawyer whom
she never spoke to or met. However, that lawyer is also listed as the defence counsel for
another defendant, who testified on the same day that Ms. Razo Casales was forced to
incriminate herself.
26.
The source points to a number of irregularities in the criminal proceedings brought
against the Razo Casales siblings. For example, the case has been before a court of first
instance for nine years without any decision being taken. The proceedings are also taking
place within the jurisdiction of the state of Mexico, even though the persons were arrested in
what was then the Federal District (now Mexico City). In other words, the criminal
proceedings are being conducted in a jurisdiction other than that where the arrests took place.
27.
To make matters worse, Ms. Razo Casales was reportedly sent to a federal detention
centre outside the jurisdiction of the state of Mexico, specifically in the city of Mexicali,
around 2,500 km away, where she had to testify before a judge based in that city who had no
connection with the case.
28.
On 26 August 2011, when Ms. Razo Casales was in Mexicali, the courts in the state
of Mexico issued a detention order against her. An appeal against this order was submitted
to a judge in Mexicali but it was not until one year later that the appeal reached the state of
Mexico. The courts in the state of Mexico responded by ordering a review of the proceedings
and by asking her, once again, to produce witnesses. However, she was unable to do so
because the events had occurred at the other end of the country from the jurisdiction where
the case was being heard. She was also not allowed to speak to the court-appointed lawyers,
who were unable to visit her because they were outside the state where the trial was taking
place and therefore lacked jurisdiction.
29.
The source states that neither Ms. Razo Casales nor Mr. Razo Casales was able to
meet the judge hearing their case; although they repeatedly requested a meeting with him, he
was not present at any hearing. The proceedings have been excessively slow and the legally
established time limits have regularly been exceeded. The detainees have reportedly filed a
number of complaints, including in connection with the delays in the proceedings.
30.
In December 2017, the National Human Rights Commission issued a recommendation
stating that a number of violations have been committed in the proceedings that have
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
GE.21-10452
5
undermined the rights of the detainees. Also, expert reports issued by the Public Prosecution
Service indicate that acts of torture were carried out.
31.
The Razo Casales siblings have been held in detention for 10 years on the basis of a
false accusation and are the subjects of an unresolved investigation in a case where there is
no evidence against them. Furthermore, the persons who tortured them have not been
convicted of these acts and are still at liberty. According to the source, all this has caused the
Razo Casales siblings and their family serious psychological harm.
Legal arguments
32.
The source argues that mandatory pretrial detention is incompatible with the principle
of the presumption of innocence and serves as a basis for arbitrary detention.
33.
Article 19 of the Constitution provides that judges must order mandatory pretrial
detention in cases of organized crime, intentional homicide, rape, kidnapping, trafficking in
persons, violent crimes involving the use of weapons or explosives, and serious offences
against national security, the free development of the person and public health, as determined
by law. In the source’s view, there can be no doubt that this provision is incompatible with
the international legal order, and particularly those provisions that relate to fair trial.
34.
Mandatory pretrial detention turns the presumption of innocence into a presumption
of guilt by preventing discussion of the probative value of the evidence or the possibility of
applying an alternative measure to detention. It prevents the judge from carrying out any
analysis or consideration of the circumstances of the case and from ruling on whether or not
to release the defendant. Judges are prevented from applying alternative measures to pretrial
detention and are therefore forced to violate article 9 (3) of the Covenant, making pretrial
detention the general rule.
35.
Far from improving respect for human rights, mandatory pretrial detention has
become a tool for justifying arbitrary detentions that are generally accompanied by other
human rights violations, such as torture. Although the aforementioned provision has been
criticized by various national and international organizations, the Mexican legislature
decided to expand the list of offences to which mandatory pretrial detention is applied.
36.
The source also alleges that there was no evidence to support the need for the most
severe measure, deprivation of liberty, and no other possibilities were considered in
determining the need for it, such as conducting the trial with the defendants at liberty and
requiring them to report to the court. The Razo Casales siblings have been deprived of their
right to liberty of person for 10 years, as a precautionary measure, without any judicial review
of the need for such a measure having been conducted. This undermines the very essence of
pretrial detention, namely, that it should be temporary and that it should be subject to periodic
review by a judge.
37.
The source argues that the detention of the Razo Casales siblings is arbitrary because
torture was used to force them to incriminate themselves. International law and Mexican law
establish a general prohibition on the use of torture to obtain a confession. In Mexico, acts of
torture are primarily carried out between the time of a person’s arrest and his or her
appearance before a judicial authority. They are used to inflict punishment or to extract a
confession or incriminating information.
38.
In the source’s view, the police officers clearly intended to obtain a forced confession
from the detainees as, right from the start, they insulted and mistreated them and threatened
to kill them and their families, irrespective of whether they had actually committed an
offence.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
6
GE.21-10452
39.
The aforementioned acts have caused the detainees severe physical and psychological
suffering that has lasted for years. Mr. Razo Casales has lost the sight of his left eye and the
hearing in his left ear. Psychological tests show that the Razo Casales siblings are suffering
from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression and are experiencing
flashbacks, which prevent them from carrying out some everyday activities. In the source’s
view, these acts were committed in order to force them to sign papers, the contents of which
were unknown to them, and to force them to be filmed for 20 hours and to incriminate
themselves. By humiliating them with successive beatings and constant attacks, and forcing
them to undergo the agony of listening to a family member suffer, the police officers sought
to break the will of the detainees so that they would agree to do what they were told.
40.
To the source, the detention of the Razo Casales siblings is also arbitrary because they
were held incommunicado. Fair trial standards prohibit incommunicado detention. Every
detained person has the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized
by law to exercise judicial power. Incommunicado detention causes mental suffering and
psychological disturbance, places the person in a particularly vulnerable situation and
increases his or her risk of being exposed to assault and arbitrariness, violating the right to
due process.
41.
The Razo Casales siblings were allegedly held incommunicado for more than 20
hours, during which time they were neither brought before a judge nor allowed to
communicate with a lawyer or family member in order to exercise their defence. They felt
unsettled for a long time because they did not know what was happening. This experience,
together with the acts of torture inflicted on them, caused them mental suffering and physical
harm that have lasted for a long time, as shown by the psychological tests carried out.
42.
The source further argues that the detention is arbitrary under category III as the Razo
Casales siblings were neither shown a court order nor told why they were being held.
Furthermore, neither during nor after their arrest were they shown a court order or told why
they were being deprived of their liberty. On the contrary, they were held incommunicado
for 20 hours without being told why they were being detained, leaving them perplexed as to
what was happening and why they were there.
43.
The Razo Casales siblings were not granted legal assistance at the time of their arrest,
nor during the key moments of their interrogation (when they were subjected to acts of
torture), nor during the essential procedural stages, when evidence was being gathered,
making the detention arbitrary under category III. They were both locked up and questioned
by different authorities (neither of which were judicial) without a lawyer being present. There
is some evidence to indicate that Ms. Razo Casales was assigned a lawyer for one of her first
rounds of questioning. However, she neither saw nor met this lawyer, who, in any case, was
assigned to another defendant at the same time and on the same day, which is materially
impossible.
44.
The source alleges that the right to trial within a reasonable time period has been
violated, that the proceedings have been slow and that pretrial detention has continued for
too long. The trial has been excessively slow, which violates the requirement that a person
should be entitled to trial within a reasonable time, as provided for in article 9 of the
Covenant, and has created a situation of great uncertainty, giving rise to serious psychological
harm. The proceedings have been before a court of first instance for 10 years, without a
decision being taken, while the defendants are being held in pretrial detention as a
precautionary measure not intended for this purpose. The excessive length of the proceedings
and the pretrial detention constitutes a violation of procedural guarantees of a fair trial.
45.
It is also alleged that, in the present case, Ms. Razo Casales was subjected to
discrimination because of the sexual violence that she suffered during her detention. The
source states that sexual violence is defined as sexual acts committed against a person without
his or her consent. It includes acts in which the human body is physically penetrated and may
also include those in which there is no penetration or even any physical contact. Rape is any
act of vaginal or anal penetration, without the victim’s consent, by other parts of the
aggressor’s body or objects. For an act to be considered rape, it is sufficient for penetration,
however superficial, to take place in the manner described.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
GE.21-10452
7
46.
In the source’s view, the rape of a woman who is in detention or in a State official’s
custody is a particularly serious and reprehensible act because of the victim’s vulnerability
and the official’s abuse of power. Victims of rape also experience severe psychological and
social harm and sequelae. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that
gender-based violence, that is, violence directed against a woman because she is a woman,
or violence that affects women disproportionately, is a form of discrimination. In the source’s
view, there is no doubt that Ms. Razo Casales was subjected to acts of violence and rape.
47.
The source takes this view because the police officers, abusing the power conferred
on them as public authorities, carried out acts of a sexual nature that included forcibly
removing Ms. Razo Casales’s clothes, giving her electric shocks and directing pressurized
jets of water into her vagina. Furthermore, rape can be considered to have been committed
from the moment that the three officers penetrated her body without her consent. These acts
constituted interference with her sexual autonomy that nullified her right to freely make
decisions regarding her physical integrity and privacy, completely depriving her of control
over her most personal decisions and basic bodily functions.
48.
In the present case, the physical violence committed against Ms. Razo Casales
arguably constituted a form of gender-based discrimination since she was subjected to sexual
assault because she was a woman. She was subjected to differentiated forms of violence, of
a clearly sexual nature, fuelled by stereotypical views of her sexual role in society with the
distinct purpose of humiliating her.
Background information on arbitrary detentions in Mexico
49.
The source provides background information on arbitrary detentions in Mexico and
the methods used to carry them out. Far from being isolated events, they are deliberate acts,
carried out routinely, that go unpunished. The protection and safeguarding of human rights
are in a state of crisis in Mexico as violations such as arbitrary detentions, acts of torture,
enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions are routine occurrences. These
violations, which mainly affect women and members of vulnerable groups, mostly go
unpunished.
50.
The report containing the recommendations of the National Human Rights
Commission states that arbitrary detention has long been a common, widespread practice that
is tolerated by police officers.2 The Commission has stated that arbitrary detentions entail
physical and mental violence as well as other human rights violations and the falsification of
legal statements.
51.
An investigation conducted in 2017 found that “arbitrary detention is an everyday
occurrence in Mexico and is very often the starting point for persistent serious human rights
violations such as torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial
executions”.3 This situation had already been highlighted by the Committee against Torture
in 2007, when it expressed its concern about reports pointing to “indiscriminate use of
arbitrary detention and incommunicado detention, and also ill-treatment and all kinds of
abuse”.4
52.
Torture is reportedly one of the human rights violations that most commonly
accompanies arbitrary detention, often occurring between the time when a person is arrested
and his or her appearance before a judge, as noted by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights in 2015.5
53.
In 2014, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment noted that torture and ill-treatment were generalized in Mexico.6
However, officials often torture detainees to obtain information or falsely incriminating
2 General recommendation No. 2 (2018) on the practice of arbitrary detention. See
www.cndh.org.mx/sites/default/files/documentos/2019-04/Recomendacion-General-02.pdf.
3 Amnesty International, “False suspicions: Arbitrary detentions by police in Mexico” (London, 2017).
4 CAT/C/MEX/CO/4, para. 18.
5 Organization of American States, “Preliminary Observations on the IACHR Visit to Mexico”, 2
October 2015.
6 A/HRC/28/68/Add.3.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
8
GE.21-10452
statements. According to a 2016 survey of more than 64,000 persons incarcerated in 338
Mexican prisons, 64 per cent of the prison population said that they were subjected to some
type of physical violence at the time of their arrest. Of those, 19 per cent reported that they
were given electrical shocks; 36 per cent were choked, held underwater, or smothered, and
59 per cent were hit or kicked. In addition, 28 per cent reported receiving threats that their
family would be harmed.7
54.
The source notes that women face a particularly high risk of arbitrary detention and
torture. They experience more and worse atrocities, generally related to their status and
gender stereotypes.
55.
According to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,
widespread and systematic violence against women in Mexico was already a persistent
problem in 2006.8 In 2012, this Committee stated that “women and girls have been subjected
to increasing levels and different types of gender-based violence, such as domestic violence,
forced disappearances, torture and murders, especially feminicide, by State actors, including
law enforcement officials”.9
56.
In the same vein, the Special Rapporteur on torture noted in 2014 that the ill-treatment
suffered by women prisoners in Mexico ranges from threats and insults that seek to humiliate
the victims because of their status as women, to various forms of sexual violence, such as
rape, which is used as a means of torture.10
57.
The source concludes by stating that another of the main causes of arbitrary detention
in Mexico is article 19 of the Constitution, which provides for mandatory pretrial detention
in cases where a single condition has been met, that is, that a complaint concerning one of
the offences listed in the article has been received.
58.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has expressed its own concerns about this
problem, stating that article 19 was contrary to the Covenant.11 However, Mexico not only
failed to comply with the Working Group’s recommendation in this regard but also expanded
the list of offences in 2018 and is currently discussing the possibility of expanding it again
to include more offences subject to mandatory pretrial detention.
Response from the Government
59.
On 24 June 2020, the Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the
Government, requesting detailed information on the case of the Razo Casales siblings,
including information on the legal and factual grounds for their detention and an explanation
of how this detention is compatible with the international obligations of Mexico. The
Working Group called on the Government to ensure the detainees’ physical integrity.
60.
The Government requested a one-month extension of the deadline for replying, which
was granted by the Working Group. The Government replied to the communication on 24
September 2020. This response was forwarded to the source on 25 September 2020.
Detention and criminal proceedings
61.
According to the Government, the Razo Casales siblings were deprived of their liberty
following a report submitted by a woman on 9 June 2011 concerning a gang of kidnappers
who were planning to commit offences related to organized crime and kidnapping. The
anonymous caller gave clear descriptions of when and how the kidnappers would arrive at
their arranged meeting point. She even gave the number plate of the motorcycle that the gang
leader would be driving. She also gave the names of the Razo Casales siblings, who were
said to be members of the gang.
7 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018: “Mexico: Events of 2017”. Available at
www.hrw.org/es/world-report/2018/country-chapters/313045.
8 CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/6, para. 14.
9 CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/7-8, para. 11.
10 A/HRC/28/68/Add.3.
11 Opinion No. 1/2018, para. 65.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
GE.21-10452
9
62.
The Government states that the events occurred just as the anonymous informant had
described. The alleged leader of the gang arrived at the place indicated, at the predicted time,
on a motorbike matching the description provided. As expected, the persons concerned began
gathering at a petrol station. The arresting officers, who were already on the scene, proceeded
to intercept the alleged gang members, arresting eight people, including Mr. Razo Casales,
who was found to be carrying a firearm.
63.
The Government states that, on 16 August 2012, District Court No. 8 of Naucalpan,
in the state of Mexico, issued an arrest warrant for organized crime in connection with
unlawful deprivation of liberty in the form of kidnapping, punishable under article 2 (V) of
the Federal Act on the Prevention of Crime. An arrest warrant for kidnapping was also issued
under article 9 (I) (a) of the Act for the Prevention and Punishment of Kidnapping Offences.
64.
The Government points out that formal identification procedures enabled the victims
to identify Ms. Razo Casales as the person who was watching over them in the safe house. A
victim also identified Mr. Razo Casales as one of the persons who was in the safe house when
he or she was being held there. Mr. Razo Casales was also found in possession of a telephone
that was confirmed to have been used to negotiate the kidnapping.
65.
On 15 August 2011, the Special Unit for the Investigation of Offences Related to
Kidnapping of the then Attorney General’s Office issued its report on the investigation,
following which criminal proceedings were initiated against the Razo Casales siblings for
the offences of organized crime and unlawful deprivation of liberty in the form of kidnapping.
66.
A warrant for the arrest of the Razo Casales siblings was issued the following day and
was executed on 19 August 2011.
67.
On 26 August 2011, District Court for Federal Criminal Proceedings No. 1 of Villa
Aldama, in the state of Veracruz, issued a detention order against Mr. Razo Casales for the
offences of organized crime and kidnapping. This order was appealed by Mr. Razo Casales.
However, on 22 March 2012, District Court for Federal Criminal Proceedings No. 1 in the
state of Veracruz issued another detention order against Mr. Razo Casales for the offences of
organized crime and kidnapping. The decision was appealed again but the judge refused leave
to appeal and, by a decision of 7 March 2013, amended and issued the detention order for the
offences of organized crime and kidnapping. On 27 November 2017, the judge presiding over
the case declared that the investigation concerning Mr. Razo Casales had concluded and that
evidence must be submitted within a period of 10 days. Mr. Razo Casales is currently being
held in the “Altiplano” Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 1 in Almoloya de Juárez,
state of Mexico.
68.
On 26 August 2011, District Court No. 1 of Mexicali, in the state of Baja California,
acting pursuant to letter rogatory No. 110/2011-3, issued a detention order against Ms. Razo
Casales for the offences of organized crime and kidnapping. However, this decision was
overturned by the Single-Judge Court No. 2 of the Second Circuit in appeal case No. 12/2012,
ordering a review of the proceedings. On 4 July 2012, in compliance with an order issued by
the Court of Appeal, District Court No. 1 in the state of Baja California issued a detention
order against Ms. Razo Casales for her probable involvement in the offences of organized
crime and kidnapping. This decision was upheld on 10 April 2013 by Single-Judge Court No.
2 of the Second Circuit.
69.
On 10 February 2015, Ms. Razo Casales, acting through her legal counsel, filed an
application for release on grounds of insufficient evidence, which was declared to be
admissible but unfounded on 19 April 2015. Ms. Razo Casales appealed that decision but her
appeal was denied and the decision was upheld. Ms. Razo Casales then submitted a petition
for amparo but a decision to deny her constitutional protection was issued on 28 February
2017 because, according to the judge, she had failed to fully demonstrate that the evidence
considered was null and void, which would have enabled a constitutional time limit to be
established. The decision also established that there was no proper legal basis for concluding
that acts of torture had taken place.
70.
The Government states that, during the investigation, Ms. Razo Casales’s alleged
participation in the events was proved by an additional statement made by a victim and that
this victim mentioned three witnesses, who testified before the court.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
10
GE.21-10452
71.
On 28 February 2020, Ms. Razo Casales’s lawyer initiated amparo proceedings before
District Court No. 8 of Naucalpan de Juárez, in the state of Mexico, because a mandatory
periodic review of the precautionary measure of mandatory pretrial detention had not been
carried out, in accordance with intentional norms and standards on human rights. A decision
has not yet been issued in these amparo proceedings.
72.
The Government states that Ms. Razo Casales is currently being held in Federal Social
Rehabilitation Centre No. 16 (Morelos Federal Prison).
73.
The Government claims that the Working Group cannot issue opinions on alleged acts
of torture. On 7 November 2011, the Specialized Unit for the Investigation of Environmental
Offences and Offences under Special Laws initiated a preliminary investigation, which, on
29 September 2016, initially resulted in criminal proceedings being brought against a
member of the Federal Police for suspected involvement in the offence of torture committed
against Ms. Razo Casales. Although the judge refused to issue a warrant for the police
officer’s arrest, this decision at first instance was overturned by the higher court judge, who
ruled that the warrant should have been issued.
74.
The Government produces reports on the legal, medical and psychological procedures
undertaken in the event that prisoners claim to have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment.
Although medical experts were appointed to carry out the required procedures, they ruled
that the Razo Casales siblings had not been victims of torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment because the theoretical, methodological and technical
evidence that one would expect to find in specialized medical-psychological reports in such
cases, in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, was lacking.
75.
The Government reiterates that the arrests of the Razo Casales siblings were not
unlawful but were carried out in accordance with the law, in response to information from a
citizen, and were subject to the legal procedures applicable in cases where a person is
discovered in flagrante delicto. These procedures are set out in law and were conducted in a
manner that respected the rights of the detainees at all times.
76.
The Mexican authorities have respected the rights of the detainees during the criminal
proceedings. When the detainees have considered that their rights have been violated, they
have had the opportunity to seek the remedies that they considered appropriate, which were
adjudicated in accordance with the law.
77.
The Government emphasizes that the detentions were reviewed by an independent
and impartial court of first instance and that, when they were subsequently examined at
second instance, Single-Judge Court No. 2 of the Second Circuit ordered a review of the
proceedings in compliance with all due process guarantees.
78.
The Government states that the Razo Casales siblings had an adequate defence during
their criminal proceedings, as shown by the fact that their legal representatives were able to
put forward the evidence and seek the remedies that they deemed appropriate.
79.
Given the seriousness of the offences with which the detainees have been charged,
they must be detained throughout the proceedings, in accordance with article 19 of the
Constitution.
80.
In the light of the above, the Government requests the Working Group to find that the
detentions of the Razo Casales siblings are not arbitrary since they do not fall into any of the
Working Group’s five categories.
Additional comments from the source
81.
The source draws attention to the Government’s acknowledgement of the fact that two
months and one week elapsed between Mr. Razo Casales’s arrest and the issuance of the
arrest warrant by a judge. Although the reason given for the arrest is that he was allegedly
caught in the act of carrying a weapon, the arrest warrant that was subsequently issued makes
no reference to the alleged carrying of weapons. The arrest warrant was issued for planning
a kidnapping and, under article 19 of the Constitution, the defendants must remain in
detention during the proceedings. However, planning a kidnapping is not one of the offences
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
GE.21-10452
11
listed in article 19 of the Constitution and the arrest warrant was not issued under that article
but under a different law.
82.
The source affirms that the in flagrante arrest of Mr. Razo Casales, which is defended
by the Government, was necessary to hold him so that he could subsequently be charged with
kidnapping and organized crime. However, as more time was required to link him to the
evidence, the authorities had to place him in pretrial detention and hold him there for several
days.
83.
The source also insists that, in order to obtain further evidence linking all the persons
concerned to the charges against them, the police tortured and extracted confessions from the
detainees to make them accuse each other of having perpetrated the offences. The accusation
that Mr. Razo Casales was caught in the act of carrying a weapon was a pretext, which later
became irrelevant, since the accusation was not sufficiently solid to persuade the judge to
issue an arrest warrant or a detention order for this offence.
84.
The offence of being in illegal possession of a weapon, which was used to justify Mr.
Razo Casales’s arrest and pretrial detention for more than 10 years, is not currently listed
among the official charges.
85.
More serious still is the situation of Ms. Razo Casales, who, on 9 June 2011, was
arrested while walking in a different part of the city to the place where her brother was
arrested. Her arrest cannot be justified on the grounds that she was caught in the act of
committing an offence. However, the Government acknowledges that, two months and seven
days after she was arrested, the authorities issued a warrant for her arrest, in which she was
allegedly charged with kidnapping.
86.
Although she was arrested on the basis of a report concerning the planning of a
kidnapping, two months and two weeks later, as the Government itself states, the grounds for
arrest were kidnapping. The Government is attempting to justify the deprivation of her liberty
by describing as legal the mandatory pretrial detention provided for in article 19 of the
Constitution, which may now be seen as a form of punishment before the fact, which violates
the right to the presumption of innocence.
87.
The source notes that the Government has acknowledged that the detainees have been
deprived of their liberty for 10 years without their guilt having been established in a final
judgment. The source states that unjustified delays have prevented the case from being
resolved.
88.
The source concludes that the Razo Casales siblings were arrested on the basis of an
anonymous report about the planning of an offence despite the lack of evidence against them
and now have physical and psychological sequelae as a result of the torture and sexual abuse
that they suffered during their arrest, which demonstrates that the authorities lack impartiality
and are uninterested in resolving the case.
Discussion
89.
The Working Group thanks the source and the State party for their cooperation and
submissions.
90.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of the Razo Casales siblings was
arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to
deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a credible prima facie case for breach
of the international standards in place to protect personal liberty against arbitrary detention,
the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute
the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have been
followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.12
91.
The source maintains that the Razo Casales siblings have not committed any offence
that would justify their detention. The authorities abused the legal provisions on in flagrante
delicto arrests in order to conduct an investigation and fabricate evidence. The source argues
that the police regularly arrest suspects, supposedly in flagrante delicto, for offences that are,
12 See A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
12
GE.21-10452
in reality, a pretext for the investigation of other complaints. This allows the authorities to
investigate other cases without any form of judicial oversight, since the courts can supervise
only the actions taken in relation to the offence allegedly committed in flagrante delicto.
Category I
92.
The Government asserts that Mr. Razo Casales was arrested in flagrante delicto since
he was allegedly in possession of a weapon at the time. However, the initial charge of
carrying a weapon has not been brought up during the trial and the judge has dismissed this
allegation. Furthermore, Mr. Razo Casales was arrested without being informed of his rights
or the reasons for his arrest and without being shown a warrant. Mr. Razo Casales had to wait
two months and one week before he was shown an arrest warrant, which nullified the
presumption of innocence.
93.
Under article 9 of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of his or her liberty except
on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. This
obligation requires States to notify the person of the legal basis for his or her arrest when it
takes place. Furthermore, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge is to be brought
before a judge without delay. While the time that elapses may vary, a “delay” is considered
to be any period of time longer than 48 hours, as this is understood as being sufficient to
transport the individual and prepare for the judicial hearing; any delay longer than 48 hours
must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified by the particular circumstances.13
94.
The international norms protecting the right to liberty and security of person require
the detainee’s physical presence before a judicial authority. Holding persons incommunicado
is not permitted under international law because it violates the right to challenge the
lawfulness of detention before a judge.14
95.
The Government asserts that Mr. Razo Casales was arrested in accordance with article
2 of the Federal Act on the Prevention of Organized Crime, which refers to the planning of
kidnapping, and adds that, under article 19 of the Constitution, it is not possible for the
defendant to remain at liberty during the proceedings. However, the source argues that article
19 of the Constitution does not permit the authorities to detain a person on the charge of
planning a kidnapping.
96.
The Working Group has analysed and expressed its concern about article 19 of the
Mexican Constitution, noting that it is contrary to the Covenant and creates problems of
defencelessness for citizens, who can be arbitrarily detained.15 The Working Group considers
Mr. Razo Casales’s arrest to have been arbitrary because no legal basis was established for
it; he was arrested, without a warrant, and charged with being caught in the act of carrying a
weapon. More than two months later, however, the charge and offence were changed to
organized crime and planning a kidnapping.16
97.
Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is
essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.17 Mr. Razo Casales was prevented from
challenging his detention because he was not immediately informed of the reasons for it and
was also prevented from meeting and receiving assistance from his lawyers. Consequently,
his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 2 of the Covenant has also been violated, placing him outside the protection of the
law in violation of articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 16 of the Covenant. The Working Group reiterates that the right to challenge the
lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right.18
13 Opinions No. 59/2018, paras. 80–83, and No. 48/2018, para. 63.
14 See 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 (A/HRC/30/37), principle 11,
para. 18, guideline 10, para. 75, and guideline 17, para. 93 (c).
15 Opinion No. 1/2018.
16 Opinions No. 9/2018 and No. 75/2018.
17 Opinion No. 75/2018, para. 62.
18 See A/HRC/30/37, para. 2.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
GE.21-10452
13
98.
The Working Group finds that there were serious irregularities surrounding the
execution of the arrest, the application of pretrial detention, the measures taken to ensure
respect for the human dignity owed to any detained person, and the capricious way in which
the charge was changed, without any evidence that had been obtained legally and without
duress. The above situation is aggravated by the fact that Mr. Razo Casales was tortured to
force him to incriminate himself or agree to incriminate third parties. Mr. Razo Casales’s
statement reveals a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in that it describes
how he was arrested and tortured while listening to officials torturing his sister, who was the
victim of continuous ill-treatment, torture and humiliation and who, at one point, seemed on
the point of death because she was unable to endure the rape, beatings and torture to which
she was subjected during her arrest, which, for the same reasons, was also arbitrary.
99.
Furthermore, Mr. Razo Casales was subjected to humiliating, cruel and inhuman
treatment, as proven by the medical and psychological expert reports that the Court initially
accepted and then decided to dismiss. According to the Government’s information – which
is consistent with that provided by the source – a succession of petitions and counter-petitions
have been submitted in this case. The Government makes no reference to the allegations
concerning the beatings and ill-treatment, torture and humiliation that Mr. Razo Casales
received when he was forced to incriminate himself, in violation of the Covenant and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
100.
The Working Group has carefully and objectively examined the complaints filed by
Mr. Razo Casales’s family members, who at one time thought that he had disappeared. These
are consistent with the previous appeals that international mechanisms and human rights
experts have made to Mexico concerning the use of force, the adoption of a constitutional
measure that violates the Covenant, and the methods used by the police to obtain information.
101.
In the light of the information provided by the source, the Government’s response and
the information received, including the reports on the examinations carried out by forensic
doctors, the Working Group is persuaded that Mr. Razo Casales was subjected to arbitrary
detention. This conclusion is bolstered by the appeals, concerns and recommendations of
international and independent human rights bodies and experts.
102.
Considering all the facts described, such as the failure to issue an arrest warrant for
more than two months, the use of incommunicado detention, the lack of judicial oversight,
legal assistance, medical assistance or family contact, the change in the charge and the
offence, and the acts of violence and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to which Mr.
Razo Casales was subjected, the Working Group must conclude that there was no legal basis
for his arrest and that his detention is therefore arbitrary under category I, being contrary to
articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant.
103.
The Working Group considers that particular attention must be paid to the legal
situation of Ms. Razo Casales, and the complaint made in relation to her, on which the
Government has not commented. Ms. Razo Casales was arrested on 9 June 2011, in a
different place to where her brother was arrested. Her arrest cannot be justified on the grounds
that she was caught in the act of committing an offence. The Working Group cannot find any
convincing justification or explanation for Ms. Razo Casales’s arrest in the Government’s
reply, beyond its acknowledgement that an arrest warrant, charging her with kidnapping, was
issued two months and seven days after the arrest.
104.
Ms. Razo Casales’s arrest is tainted by the same irregularities as her brother’s, by
which it may be concluded that she was also arbitrarily deprived of her liberty, despite the
fact that she was not at the scene of the alleged events but a considerable distance away. In
fact, she was arrested even though she was not named in the anonymous source’s report and
she had to wait more than two months to learn why the authorities had decided to arrest her.
After two months, she discovered that she was accused of planning an alleged kidnapping.
105.
The source states that, while both Razo Casales siblings were subjected to torture and
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the situation was even more serious for Ms. Razo
Casales since, at the time of her arrest, she was raped and beaten by a police officer, who was
later acquitted of all charges. Ms. Razo Casales has been subjected to continuous ill-treatment
throughout her detention, which has seriously affected her physical and emotional wellbeing.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
14
GE.21-10452
The Razo Casales siblings were also held incommunicado. However, the Government has
not commented on these irregularities.
106.
Ms. Razo Casales and her brother were subjected to similar treatment and therefore to
violations of the same human rights. This persuades the Working Group that the detention of
the Razo Casales siblings was arbitrary and falls under category I.
Category III
107.
International human rights law establishes that everyone has the right not to be
arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. To this
end, everyone has the right to be heard in a public trial at which they have all the guarantees
necessary for their defence and their right to be tried by an independent criminal court is
respected.19 Moreover, the right to due process and to a fair and impartial hearing is protected
by article 14 of the Covenant.20
108.
The Working Group has received credible information concerning the degrading
treatment to which the Razo Casales siblings were subjected by the authorities, which
included threats, blows, insults, rape, beatings, torture, supervised medical treatment
accompanied by threats, and incommunicado detention. Moreover, this degrading treatment
was not inflicted on them only once but has been repeated throughout the 10 years of their
arbitrary detention. An anonymous report has given rise to multiple violations of their human
rights, from the initial arrest, when they were subjected to acts of torture, including rape, to
the ongoing terror of being told that they and their family members will be killed if they
report what is happening to them inside the prison.
109.
The Working Group emphasizes that both detainees were questioned by several
officers without judicial supervision and without the assistance of a lawyer. Although Ms.
Razo Casales was assigned a lawyer for one of her first rounds of questioning, this lawyer
did not speak to, see or meet her and happened to have been assigned to another defendant at
the same time and on the same day. These conditions were aggravated by the cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment to which they were subjected during their detention and trial, which
denied them access to the means and tools needed to prepare a legal defence.21 In the opinion
of the Working Group, the Razo Casales siblings have been prevented from having a fair
hearing with due process guarantees because the proceedings have been unjustifiably delayed
and because they were held in incommunicado detention, denied access to a lawyer, subjected
to ill-treatment and inhuman conditions of detention and denied access to medical care
(which has particularly affected Ms. Razo Casales as she suffers from a heart condition).
110.
The Working Group is persuaded that the Mexican authorities have committed serious
breaches of international norms relating to the right to a fair, independent and impartial trial,
in violation of articles 9 to 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The information
provided by the source, which is not contested by the Government, has revealed that the
ability of both detainees to enjoy the right to a fair hearing, in accordance with international
human rights rules, including article 14 of the Covenant, has been seriously undermined. All
these elements render the detention of the Razo Casales siblings arbitrary under category III.
111.
In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group will refer the present matter
to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women,
its causes and consequences.
Final considerations
112.
The Working Group considers that the Razo Casales siblings have been subjected to
discriminatory treatment in violation of the principles and standards of international law,
19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arts. 9–11.
20 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007).
21 Opinions No. 47/2017, para. 28, and No. 29/2017, para. 63. See also E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
GE.21-10452
15
particularly articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 2
and 26 of the Covenant.
113.
The application of international human rights law is guided by the principles of
universality and non-discrimination, enshrined in article 1 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. All persons, men and women, are entitled to enjoy the protections provided
for by international human rights law, including the right to life, security of person and
privacy, the right to be free from torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to be
free from discrimination.
114.
The Human Rights Council has stressed that States parties are required to protect all
persons, particularly women and girls in vulnerable situations. This obligation extends to
prohibiting, preventing, investigating and providing redress for torture and ill-treatment in all
contexts of State control, including by ensuring that such acts are offences under domestic
criminal law.22
115.
In this context, the Working Group considers that the Rezo Casales siblings have been
discriminated against, attacked, humiliated, ill-treated, continually revictimized and kept in
a state of defencelessness, all of which has adversely affected their personalities, emotional
identities and mental health. These occurrences have even put their lives at risk. Moreover,
they have not received psychological treatment to help them overcome the shock of being
kept in a state of defencelessness, all of which is inadmissible under international human
rights law.
Disposition
116.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Erick Razo Casales and Verónica Razo Casales,
being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and of articles 2, 9, 14 and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.
117.
The Working Group requests the Government of Mexico to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. Razo Casales and Ms. Razo Casales without delay and bring
it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
118.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Razo Casales and Ms. Razo Casales
immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in
accordance with international law.
119.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the Razo
Casales siblings and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation
of their rights.
120.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment
of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Special Rapporteur on
violence against women, its causes and consequences and the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
121.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
22 See A/HRC/29/23, para. 13.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14
16
GE.21-10452
Follow-up procedure
122.
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 the Razo Casales siblings have been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the Razo
Casales siblings;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
the Razo Casales siblings 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.
123.
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
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
124.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-
mentioned information within six months of the date of 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.
125.
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.23
[Adopted on 7 May 2021]
23 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.