PRESS RELEASE

July 18, 2001
Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez Center for Human Rights, Mexico City
Edgar Cortez Moralez, Esq., Director
Translated by B.J. Kowalski

On July 17, 2001, the First Circuit Appeals Court in Chilpancingo, Guerrero State, announced its decision on the appeal of campesino-ecologists Rodolfo Montiel Flores and Teodoro Cabrera Garcma. It was up to the court to evaluate the evidence regarding the finding by medical specialists Morris Tidball and Christian Tramsen of Doctors for Human Rights/Denmark that Montiel and Cabrera had been tortured. Yet the court affirmed the sentence of 6 years, 8 months in prison for Montiel and 10 years for Cabrera that had been imposed by the judge of the Fifth District, in Iguala.

It appears that the First Circuit Court sanctions the coverup regarding the illegal character of the confessions obtained under torture, overlooking the evidence on this clear violation of human rights, which was the sole basis of the case against the ecologists. Far from taking action to halt the authorities' arbitrary acts and to protect the human rights of the victims, the federal judiciary has become a mechanism to legitimize the abuses committed against the people. The independence of the judicial powers, the chief responsibility of Supreme Court President Genaro Gsngora Pimental, has been compromised by the errors of its branches.

By affirming the lower court's decision, the federal judiciary has once again shown its inability to correct its own mistakes. It leaves in place an injustice and denies its duty: to dispense justice.

1. Beginning on page 7 of the decision, the court establishes the ecologists' guilt without examining the defense's proofs of innocence.
2. The confessions extracted by torture remain the main argument used by the appeals court to support the finding against the ecologists. The court denies the evidential value of the medical certification of torture, claiming that it is not credible because it contradicts Rodolfo and Teodoro's statements. Nevertheless, if the court gives credence to the medical statements made by military doctors, which were filled out in less than five minutes -- if these are accepted as evidence without considering the other medical certifications, then that is only a partial analysis of the facts.
3. The court denies the value of the certification of torture, arguing that Rodolfo and Teodoro's alleged crimes were not a result of torture and that charges of torture were not included in Rodolfo and Teodoro's first statements. But those statements themselves were extracted through torture. The court acknowledges the scars on the ecologists' wrists and ankles but justifies the injuries by saying that "without them, the defendants could have escaped."
4. The judge fails to connect the medical examinations and other proofs presented by the defense. At the same time, the court does not analyze the examination of the military officials, which clearly indicates a lack of communication and a fabrication of criminal charges. Nor does the court accept the recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), saying only that the CNDH seeks to blame public officials.
5. The judge contradicts himself in that he gives credence to the testimony of the military authorities, at the same time that he acknowledges that certain facts of the case were a result of their behavior. But he does not find that to be sufficient cause to release the ecologists. Similarly, he concedes that military officials exceeded the 48 hours of detention permitted by the Constitution. But, he says, this was not sufficient reason to believe that any abuses or violation of human rights occurred. It's worth remembering that the result of these irregularities was the fabrication of the charges brought against the ecologists.
6. Another irregularity is that the judge accepts that the operation performed on Teodoro was necessitated by a tumor mass on his shoulder but that, according to the judge, the tumor was not a consequence of torture, despite medical evidence to the contrary.
7. Finally, the judge concludes that it is unlikely that any confessions were coerced by torture, despite the medical evidence to the contrary.

In all of the above, the most striking fact is that the medical certification that torture occurred was ignored by the tribunal. This proof was presented by two specialists whose experience in documenting violations of human rights has led them to testify in conflicts where they have denounced serious human rights violations, as was the case in war in the Balkans (of the 1990s). The foreign relations office, through its Special Ambassador for Human Rights and Democracy, and the International Council for the Rehabilitation of Torture Victims have guaranteed the professional and moral character of these experts. The Mexican government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have expressed confidence in the work of these experts as "a model for the medical examination of torture and other physical abuses."

The attorney general's office has also overlooked the importance of the medical proof. Its head, General Rafael Macedo de la Concha, who served as military prosecutor when the ecologists were arrested and tortured by members of the army's 40th Battalion, has demanded that the sentence be upheld, showing little regard for the law and human rights.

During the appeal, the attorney general's office had the opportunity to drop the charges against Montiel and Cabrera. But it failed to do so. Although the Constitution defines the attorney general's office as a civil institution, in this case it is clearly protecting the interests of the military.

President Fox has not honored the promises of justice for the ecologists that he made in the presence of Ethel Kennedy and, later, Pierre Sani, General Secretary of Amnesty International. Rodolfo and Teodoro have not been freed. The president could have insisted that the attorney general comply with the law on human rights and drop the charges. However, he did not do that, and the charges based on illegally obtained confessions have been allowed to stand.

We can only conclude that the institutions that make up the Mexican government are responsible for condoning this injustice.

Faced with this reality, which shows no indication that the Mexican government will promote justice for the ecologists, this Center for Human Rights, acting on behalf of Rodolfo and Teodoro, will present their case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Because of the total failure of our institutions to provide justice, we must seek international jurisdiction.