May 4 to August 20, 1998

Introduction

The following is a detailed account of the visa application process that I undertook in response to new visa regulations announced for international human rights observers by the Mexican government in February 1998, and implemented in late May 1998.

I began my inquiries in early May in anticipation of spending the months of July and August in Chiapas at the invitation of the Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre of the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas. The two months spent in Chiapas -- part of a six-month sabbatical leave granted by ICCHRLA -- were intended to strengthen my own and ICCHRLA's understanding of indigenous rights issues and relatationships with Chiapas-based NGOs. The visa application was made through the Canadian Council of Churches, with which ICCHRLA works through the CCC's Human Rights Committee. The Canadian Council of Churches is both incorporated and has consultative status with the United Nations, two of the requirements listed in the new visa regulations.

I noted each telephone and in-person contact made with the staff at the Mexican Consulate in Toronto, and staff of the Canadian government's Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as other actions taken in an effort to advance what became a three-month process. As this summary is both lengthy and detailed, I have tried to summarize the key issues that have emerged out of this process regarding human rights and foreign policy issues. I have also highlighted key messages and instructions I received throughout the process. Finally, I offer some suggested recommendations based on discussions with partners in Chiapas and Mexico City who themselves are still discussing how best to respond to the new regulations.

I hope the following will serve as a useful case study and point of departure for ICCHRLA, and its partner organizations in Canada, Latin America, the international community, and especially in Mexico. Copies of all the documentation noted below are on file at the ICCHRLA office.

Suzanne Rumsey
Program Coordinator
Central America and Mexico
ICCHRLA

August 30, 1998

The Process:

May 4, 1998: I visited the Mexican Consulate in Toronto and explained that I wished to apply for a visa to work voluntarily with the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas. I also explained that I would be going representing the Canadian Council of Churches. Manuel Morodo of the cunsular section said the application had to be made in Mexico by the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas.

May 6, 1998: I spoke with Brian Stevenson (advisor to Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy) who referred me to Michael Brock, Director of DFAIT's (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) Mexico Division. He stated that he thought I should apply for an FM3 (work visa) "as long as I wasn't engaging in political activity".

May 7, 1998: I telephoned the Mexican Embassy in Ottawa and spoke with staff in the consular section (unidentified) who explained that I needed: 1. a letter of invitation from the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas; 2. an interview at the consulate in Toronto.

May 8, 1998: I telephoned the Mexican Consulate and spoke again with Manuel Morodo. He again insisted that the process had to be started in Mexico but said he would call the Mexican Embassy to verify the information I had received. I was to call him the following Monday.

I left a message for Michael Brock. The call was returned by Harold Hickman, the Mexico Division Deputy Director, who read over the regulations DFAIT had received regarding FM3 visas. He asked to be kept posted, and said he would go to bat for ICCHRLA if I promised not to get "politically involved" in Mexico. I responded that I had no intention of doing other than what I always do -- human rights observing -- but that I couldn't determine whether the Mexican government would choose to label that as political involvement.

May 11, 1998: I spoke once again with Manuel Morodo who explained what the necessary documentation was that I would need to bring in: 1. a letter from my organization specifying the kind of work I would be doing, with which Mexican organizations and communities, and the dates I would be going; 2. proof of my organization's consultative status with the United Nations; 3. a letter of invitation from the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas.

May 27, 1998: The Mexican Government published its new immigration regulations for "Non-governmental organizations wishing to learn about the state of human rights in Mexico".

June 5, 1998: It took me some time to gather all the necessary documents from the Canadian Council of Churches and the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas. Upon receiving them, I went immediately to the Consulate and submitted them to Manual Morodo. I was also interviewed by Vice-Consul Enrique Palos. Both he and Morodo stated they believed that I had the documentation required and that they would notify me as soon as they received word from Mexico City where my application would be processed. When I explained that I had a flight booked for July 1, they stated that they believed this to be sufficient time for the application process.

June 19, 1998: I telephoned the Mexican Consulate and was told by Manuel Morodo that a response had come from Mexico City the day before, but that he needed to discuss it with the Vice-Consul. He asked that I call back in an hour. An hour later he told me that there were several pieces of information/documentation "missing": 1. a "cerified" copy of the Act of Incorporation of the Canadian Council of Churhces, translated into Spanish; 2. an agenda detailing the work plan and institutions to be interviewed, and the municipalities to be visited (I had earlier submitted a list of all 111 municipalities in Chiapas); 3. a written commitment on the part of the CCC that my activities would be "impartial, responsible and serious", and that I would observe the legislation of Mexico. He also claimed that the CCC had to have had consultative status with the UN for five years. When I explained that the new visa regulations called for consultative status OR proof of having been in existence for five years, he said he would have to consult with the Vice-Consul. I asked that the list of requirements he had read to me be sent by fax.

I also spoke with Harold Hickman, and expressed strong concern for the "unworkable and unacceptable" nature of these regulations. I stated -- as I had the first time I spoke with him -- that in ICCHRLA's 25 years of work, we had never encountered such requirements or restrictions. He committed to calling the Mexican Embassy and inquiring about my case. He called back later in the day to say that the Mexican Embassy was aware of my application, but that the rules were the rules. He also said that he had communicated with the Embassy that ICCHRLA would be raising this case with Minister Axworthy on June 23 when the Mexico Working Group (a coalition of Canadian NGOs, trade unions and human rights organizations working on issues related to Mexico) met with him.

June 20 - 30, 1998: During this 10-day period, I sought out a copy of the Act of Incorporation of the Canadian Council of Churches from 1956, and had it sent to ICCHRLA's translator in Ecuador. At the same time, I contacted the Mexican Vice-Consul, Enrique Palos, to clarify what "certification" meant. I learned that this involved having the translation notarized, and the notarization legalized by the Province of Ontario. Upon receipt of the translated document, I had these two legal steps done.

June 30, 1998: I returned to the Consulate on June 30 with the documents noted above, as well as a second letter from the Canadian Council of Churches endorsing my "impartiality", and an agenda of work from the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas. I clarified and confirmed with Manuel Morodo that I had submitted all of the documentation requested of me. When I asked how long the process would now take, he was non-commital but said that they might hear from Mexico City the following week. The same day I called Harold Hickman, Deputy Director, Mexico Division, and reported the status of the process. He asked that the Division be kept informed and gave me the names of two colleauges, Paul Gibbard and Douglas Challborn, who would be covering for him while he was away on holiday for the month of July. I also phoned and left a message for Eric Hoskins, an advisor on human rights in Lloyd Axworthy's office.

It should be noted that the CCC Act of Incorporation had with it a notarization, also from 1956. However, I was advised by the notary public that the Mexican government might be sticky about wanting a current notarization of the original which CCC staff believe is housed in the National Archives in Ottawa. Secondly, the Vice-Consul initially argued that we had to use one of the translators/notarizers registered with the Consulate, of which there is one in Toronto. By having the translation notarized and then legalized, I believe we were able to avoid this, though again, the next time they may come back and demand another translation by their own translator/notarizer.

July 2, 1998: Eric Hoskins called and I again explained where the process was at. He said that he would speak with the Mexico Division, and suggested that I keep a record of the process, which I explained I was doing. He also asked to be kept informed.

July 3, 1998: I phoned Manuel Morodo to check if anything had come from Mexico. He said that it hadn't but that they would call me as soon as they received anything.

July 6, 1998: I called Manuel Morodo again to give him a new home phone number and to enquire as to the status of my visa. He again said they had received no information and that they would contact me when they did. I also called and left a message for Paul Gibbard in the Mexico Division, asking that he call the Mexican Embassy in Ottawa to inquire about my application.

July 7, 1998: I spoke with Paul Gibbard who explained that the Mexican Embassy had told him that because they had only received the rest of the documentation on June 30, it could take up to 30 days before I received a response. I explained to Paul that through no fault of my own, I had submitted all of the documentation requested of me on June 5, only to be told two weeks later -- at my phone call, not theirs -- that I had to submit more. So the 30 days from the time I began this process had expired. He encouraged me to keep phoning the Consulate every day.

July 10, 1998: I called the Mexican Consulate again and was again told by Manuel Morodo that nothing had come from Mexico. I reported this to Paul Gibbard at Foreign Affairs.

July 13, 1998: I met by telephone with ICCHRLA staff and board members to discuss options. Out of our discussion we agreed that the best way forward was to undertake "active waiting": 1. to write a letter to Minister Axworthy calling for Canadian intervention with the Mexicans on the visa issue generally and on my case specifically; 2. to contact a number of key colleagues and partners to ask for their support through calls and letters; 3. to explore other means to keep the pressure up.

July 14, 1998: I returned a phone call to Manuel Morodo which had come the afternoon previous. He explained that the FM3 form I had filled out and submitted with my documents on June 5, was no longer the correct form and that I had to fill out a new form, as well as submit 3 passport photos. I asked why I had not been informed of this on June 5 or June 30 when I submitted the first and second sets of documentation respectively. He replied that it was because there was a new form for human rights observers. He agreed to date it from the time I began my application process, which I understood to be June 5. I then spoke with Paul Gibbard, explaining this latest requirement, and recounting what had occurred to date. He said he had been speaking with someone at the Embassy who was "filling in" for the person responsible for visas. I also told him that a letter would be sent to Minister Axworthy.

The same day, I had passport photos taken and endorsed by my parish priest and submitted those together with the new form I filled out at the Consulate. While I was there, Manuel Morodo explained that since I began the process on June 5, they had been receiving new instructions about the visa requirements for human rights observers. (In other words, the rules changed over the course of my application process.)

I also drafted -- and ICCHRLA's Chair, Joe Gunn, edited and signed -- a letter to Minister Axworthy calling for his intervention in the matter.

July 15, 1998: The letter was sent to Minister Axworthy calling on Canada to take a stronger position regarding the visa application process for Canadian NGOs and specifically calling for action in my case.

July 16, 1998: I spoke with with my parish priest who agreed to phone the Vice Consul Enrique Palos, on my behalf. She also offered to call Eric Hoskins in Minister Axworthy's office.

July 17, 1998: I phoned Manuel Morodo once again to check on the status of my visa application. He was quite apologetic and said that the day before he had spoken with the Consul General about phoning (to Ottawa? Mexico City?) in order to speed up the process. I responded that I appreciated that action and would speak with him again soon.

I called Brian Stevenson in Minister Axworthy's office, but there was no answer and no system to leave a message. I then called and left a message for Eric Hoskins. I also spoke with the CCC requesting they call the Consulate on my behalf.

July 21, 1998: I phoned Manuel Morodo who explained that they had inquired as to the delay in my visa application, but that it was in process and they were simply waiting to hear from Mexico City. He invited me, on behalf of Mr. Gabriel Guerra Castellanos, the Consul General to come to the Consulate "for coffee". He claimed that this had nothing to do with my visa and that I would be welcome to come at a time convenient to me. His stated reason was that Consul Guerra had just arrived in Toronto and wanted to get to know people in NGOs. I said I would check with my office about a good time to do so.

I also called Eric Hoskins again, twice in the morning and once in the afternoon, but there was no answer.

July 22, 1998: I tried calling Eric Hoskins again in the morning and left a message for him. I then called Paul Gibbard and discovered that he was away on holiday, so I called Douglas Challborn, who said that they (he, Eric, and Michael Brock, Director of the Mexico Division) had received the letter to Minister Axworthy and were about to go into a meeting with Hector Romero, the Minister Counsellor from the Mexican Embassy. He said that among other issues they would be raising my case. I said that I would call back in the afternoon.

When I did, Douglas explained that the response to their query about my case was that I had only completed the application process in early July and therefore could expect it to take a further 30 days to complete. (I took this to mean the last time I was called in, which was July 14). I very strongly stated that that was a lie, and that when I applied on June 5, I was led to understand that I had submitted all the necessary documents. I was subsequently called back twice, most recently on July 14, to submit more documentation and each time I complied with the requirements fully. I also stated that it appeared to ICCHRLA that the Mexican government simply did not want me to go to Chiapas and that Canada needed to take a stronger position in helping myself and other human rights workers do our job. Douglas claimed that my information was news to him (it was in the letter to Minister Axworthy) and was different from that which Romero had given them. He stated that as I had explained the situation, it would put the Minister (Axworthy) in a difficult position of having to push the Mexicans further. He asked if in fact we had had to have documentation translated to Spanish, and I confirmed that we had, and used the opportunity to talk about the time and expense that such requirements entailed. Douglas explained that Michael Brock would be speaking with ICCHRLA's chairperson, Joe Gunn the same day; basically sharing the same information. I said we would then follow up from that discussion.

I phoned and left a message for Joe Gunn, explaining what had occurred in my discussion with Douglas, and urging him to call on Foreign Affairs take a stronger position when he spoke with Michael Brock.

July 23, 1998: I responded to a telephone message that had been left the day previously by the new Consul General, Gabriel Guerra. He invited me to come and visit him at the Consulate, as "he is new to Toronto and wanting to have an open door policy with those concerned about Mexico." He then proceeded to inform me that a communication had come the previous day from Mexico City (the result it seems of the meeting between Foreign Affairs staff and Mexican Embassy staff) listing seven pieces of information that were "missing" from my application. These included: 1. a revised work plan, as the one I submitted at the end of June was now out of date, 2. a certificate testifying that I am a qualified human rights observer, and other details, most of which I had given previously. I told Mr. Guerra that I would be happy to meet with him when I had gathered and brought in this latest round of information. I also asked why each time I was contacted new information was requested of me. He claimed that the process was so new they were still working out the problems and that unfortunately I was having to deal with that. I asked if this visa was just for those wishing to visit Chiapas, or all of Mexico. He stated that it was for the latter. And when asked if NGOs delivering humanitarian aid - but not involved in human rights monitoring - also had to apply for visas, he stated that yes they did, though the process and the visa were slightly different.

He promised to send a fax detailing the information that was now being requested of me. Upon its receipt, I wrote to the Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre and faxed the letter together with a copy of this latest communication from Mexican immigration, asking for assistance. I also left a message for Michael Brock, the head of the Mexico Division at Foreign Affairs, whom Joe Gunn had spoken with earlier in the day about ICCHRLA's position with respect to the visa situation. What seemed to interest Brock most was the possibility that we might go to the press with this story, and critique not only the Mexican government, but Canada, and specifically Minister Axworthy. At the end of the day, Joe Gunn called Michael Brock again to denounce the latest communication from the Mexicans.

July 24, 1998: Upon hearing that Joe Gunn had spoken with Michael Brock, I decided to send a letter detailing why the latest requests from Mexico were simply stalling tactics. This letter was copied to Eric Hoskins in Minister Axworthy's office. Joe Gunn also spoke with Eric Hoskins about the matter, but got little definite commitment for further action. I also spoke with staff at the Canadian Council of Churches, asking for further assistance and sent a draft of what needed to go in a letter to the Consulate. Further, I spoke with Gary Evans, NDP-MP Svend Robinson's assistant who agreed to ask Svend to raise the issue with Minister Axworthy's office, as he is the NDP's foreign affairs critic.

July 27, 1998: I sent materials to Gary Evans, and spoke with Stan Chan, an assistant of Tony Ianno, my own MP (Liberal) for Trinity-Spadina in Toronto. Stan also agreed to contact Foreign Affairs, so I sent materials to him. I also spoke with staff at the Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre, explaining the situation and apologizing for not having been able to fulfill the commitment I made to spend two months with them. They were very understanding and respectful of the decision to continue to fight for the visa here in Canada; asking that I resend the fax sent on Thursday as it had not come through clearly. They also commented that others were receiving their FM3 visas, and wondered whether the delays I was experiencing were the result of the very public critique Canadian NGOs made of President Zedillo's human rights record when he was here in June 1996, to which my name was attached both in Canada and Mexico.

July 30, 1998: I received a call from Paul Gibbard at the Mexico Division. Hehad just returned from holidays and was asking to be updated. I explained what had occurred since his colleagues met with staff from the Mexican Embassy. He noted that my case had now been raised with both the Mexican Foreign Ministry and the Interior Ministry (where Immigration is housed). He noted that the DFAIT interventions had gone from "inquiries" to "expressions of concern". I stated that the latest round of requests from Mexico were, in ICCHRLA's opinion, yet more stonewalling. I added the comments made to me by Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre staff regarding President Zedillo's visit, something that Paul seemed to be unaware of. (The historic memory in Foreign Affairs appears to be rather short). I also stated that I was running out of time, but that we were prepared to pursue this process to its conclusion. Paul then asked if I was unable to go at this time, whether I would consider going at the time of the Chiapas elections. (When the parliamentary delegation was in Chiapas, it was invited to send observers to the October state elections. So I am not sure if Paul was asking if I might participate in an official delegation.) I explained that I would be studying French at the Université Laval in the fall, but if an invitation was received, ICCHRLA would consider it. I asked though if this would mean applying for a visa all over again. Paul was unsure. He asked that I keep him posted.

July 31, 1998: I submitted the requested documents to the Consulate. Manuel Morodo gave me a handwritten "receipt" this time confirming that the documents had been submitted, and asked that I meet with the Consul General on Tuesday, August 4.

August 4, 1998: I met with the Consul General, Gabriel Guerra-Castellanos, who began his posting in Toronto three weeks earlier. We discussed a variety of issues, from indigenous rights concerns in Canada, to the current situation in Chiapas, to my visa application. In each case, I let him do most of the talking, and offered limited, careful opinions, especially about the Chiapas situation. It seemed that while officially he simply "wanted to get to know an NGO representative", he was checking out whether I was a "serious" human rights advocate who deserved to be given a visa.

On the specific subject of the visa, he both officially and "off the record", reduced the process to one of bureaucratic difficulties: that the process was new, that I was the first to be applying from Canada, that Consulate staff didn't have all the information needed to efficiently process my application, and even that Consulate staff had been reprimanded by him for their bungling (the latter was "off the record"). He also pointed to the fact that the letter from Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre had not been signed ( something that could have been brought to my attention and rectified in June). On the larger issue of the visa regulations, he said that due to a series of abuses of the tourist visa, and of the FM3 visa (ie: the Italian delegation that visited an autonomous community in April that was not in their visa), the regulations had had to be tightened up and presently were being adhered to closely. He thought they would be relaxed in the future. He gave me a copy of the full set of documents now required, and stated that it would be up to 30 days from the time I submitted the documents on Friday before I would receive a response. I offered him some "feedback" re: the need for clear instructions, the length of time needed that did not allow for emergencies to be responded to, etc. He responded only indirectly and concluded by committing to obtaining a response a soon as possible.

August 6, 1998: I returned a call from Mr. Guerra who informed me that my visa application had been approved for a ten-day period, August 10 to 20, 1998. I discussed with board, staff and partners in San Cristóbal de las Casas how best to proceed, and we agreed that it would be politically important to use the visa and travel to Mexico. However, it was recommended by Mexican partners that a letter go to both the Mexican and Canadian governments upon my return raising our outstanding concerns about the visa process which has proven itself to be obstructionist and unworkable.

August 7, 1998: I went to the Consulate to pick up the visa and meet with Mr. Guerra. Again, he emphasized that the problems were bureaucratic and process-oriented in nature ("It was a big screw-up.") rather than political. He presented my case as being unique and particular, requiring his personal intervention, which he asked not be publicized. He also noted that the interventions made by Foreign Affairs normally would have been frowned upon by Mexico (reading between the lines, I took this to mean that we shouldn't look to Canada for help, re: Mexican sovereignty), though in this instance they might have helped to speed things up. I checked again with him about whether NGO representatives not carrying out human rights observance also had to apply for a visa. He said yes, but again reading between the lines it seems that the need for a visa depends upon where you are (ie: Chiapas) and what you say and do publicly (ie: say nothing and you'll be okay). Interestingly, I had to ask about the process for leaving Mexico, as under a tourist visa there is no need to pass through Mexican immigration. He stated that I thought I would need to have my passport stamped by immigration at the airport. (I was only aware of this due to the case of Fr. Al Mahoney when Mexico used his lack of an exit stamp in his passport to deny him re-entry.)

August 10 - 20, 1998: Upon my entry into Mexico, my passport was stamped. I did not at that time have to show proof of my departure (an airline ticket). Likewise, I did not have to produce my visa (a separate document) for examination at any time during my stay in Chiapas. While the visa limited my movements to four municipalities (San Cristóbal de las Casas, Ocosingo, Palenque and Marques de Comillas), the program organized for me involved visits to a number of other municipalities. Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre staff were careful to ensure that I avoided military and immigration checkpoints. My departure from Mexico was somewhat complicated by the fact that immigration officials wanted to relieve me of my FM3 visa and refused to stamp my passport. At the immigration office I had to sign the FM3, which was then "cancelled", and an exit form stamped. I was able to retain a copy of both the visa and the exit form.

August 21, 1998: Upon my return I drafted a letter to Ministers Axworthy and Green (Mexico) regarding ICCHRLA's continued concerns about the visa process.

The Issues:

Issues Related to Suzanne's Visa Application

• Staff at the Mexican Consulate in Toronto consistently gave me partial or incorrect information about what I was required to submit, thus prolonging the process;

• There seemed to be some truth to the claim of the Consul General that his staff made bureaucratic mistakes. The regulations were so new that no one at the Consulate - including the Vice Consul - seemed to have known exactly what it was they wanted from applicants such as myself. At the same time the message from the Mexican Embassy to DFAIT seemed to be that I was to blame for not submitting the correct documentation sooner. It is important however, that this issue not be reduced to a problem of process, as the regulations and the bureacratic stonewalling are clearly designed to keep human rights observers out of Chiapas;

• When I questioned the Consul General as to whether I had submitted all of the correct information, he was unable/unwilling to confirm that I had. Thus, at the end of this process I am none the wiser as to what constitutes a completed process with full documentation;

• DFAIT staff, in their statements to me revealed that a. Canada was willing to accept at face value the problems I faced as being ones of process and not politics; that b. Canada was accepting at face value the Mexican position that human rights observance is a political activity and that c. organizations such as ICCHRLA with whom DFAIT has engaged for many years, and who it publicly recognizes and supports, are carrying out activities that are to be questioned;

• For over a month DFAIT staff at the Mexico Division level were instructed to make only "inquiries" about the status of my visa application. It was only with considerable pushing on our part (and the indication that we intended to go to the press) that the inquiries became an "expression of concern". Furthermore, the staff in Minister Axworthy's office were largely unavailable until the last days of the process;

• I have calculated that this process required over 60 hours of my time, and approximately 20 hours of CCC, Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre and ICCHRLA staff and board time; that is, two full weeks, or ten working days to obtain a 10-day visa. For NGOs such as ICCHRLA and our partner organizations, this is an enormous expenditure of human resources that we can ill afford to make on a regular basis.

Issues Related to the Visa Regulations Generally

• The documentation required of visa applicants can be both difficult to obtain and costly to translate, notarize and legalize;

• Many NGOs whom the Canadian government recognizes and consults with regularly -- ICCHRLA among them -- are not incorporated and do not have consultative status at the United Nations, thus denying them any possibility of carrying out human rights observance in Mexico;

• As noted above, the amount of time and human resources required to obtain a visa are out of all proportion to that which is granted to the visa applicant;

• The requirement that one must apply 30 days before going, makes it impossible to respond to emergency situations, as does the 10-day limit for visits and the requirement that one may not deviate from one's stated schedule, ie: if a crisis arose in a municipality not stated in the visa, one could not visit it for fear of being in violation of one's visa, thus risking expulsion;

• Providing detailed information about institutions and communities one intends to visit, in the context of the highly conflictive situation in Chiapas, could well place individuals in those places in jeopardy. The example of the indigenous campesino who was assassinated by the paramilitary organization "Paz y Justicia" after giving testimony to an international delegation in February gives real grounds for this concern;

• Furthermore, the deteriorating human rights situation in Chiapas is such that international vigilance is required more than ever. Thus it is deeply disturbing that the "space" both our partners and ourselves have to work in is diminishing;

• Without a state of war having been declared by the Mexican Government, it is placing restrictions on freedom of movement for both Mexican citizens and international visitors, thus violating its own constitution;

• At the 1998 session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), Mexico and Canada both approved the "Draft declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of society to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms":

  • Article 9,3: To the same end, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, inter alia: ... c. To offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms;

  • Article 9,4: To the same end, and in accordance with applicable international instruments and procedures, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and communication with international bodies with general or special competence to receive and consider communications on matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

  • Article 16: Individuals, non-governmental organizations and relevant institutions have an important role in contributing to making the public more aware of questions relating to all human rights and fundamental freedoms through activities such as education, training and research in these areas to further strengthen, inter alia, understanding, tolerance, peace and friendly relations among nations..."

While Mexico might argue that it is not violating the letter of this draft declaration, I would argue that it is violating its spirit and that Canada in this most recent display of "quiet diplomacy" is complicit.

Recommendations:

As noted in the introduction, the following recommendations are "suggested", as Mexican partners are themselves still considering how best to respond to the new visa regulations.

1. Those individuals participating in "Peace Camps" (accompaniment of communities) and solidarity visits continue to be needed and should continue to come with "tourist" visas. It is important however that they communicate with the organization -- the Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre, Enlace Civil, etc. -- BEFORE GOING, to be updated on any changes to this position;

2. Staff who make regular visits and delegations of international human rights organizations should apply for the new FM3 visa for human rights observers. Again, this should be done in close consulation with Mexican partners to ensure that any information provided does not endanger the security of individuals, organizations and communities to be visited.

To this end, staff at the Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre and the National Human Rights Network "All Rights for All", asked ICCHRLA to consider participating in a delegation of international human rights NGOs with consultative status at the United Nations in early 1999. The delegation would have two basic objectives: 1. to test in a concerted and coordinated way, the visa regulations; 2. to report the findings of the delegation (it was suggested the delegation visit Guerrero, Oaxaca and Chiapas) to the 1999 session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights;

3. In the event of an emergency, where timely access is essential, it was recommended that international human rights organizations send representatives -- preferably individuals with a high profile -- who would enter as tourists and be willing to run the risk of being expelled. A concern here is that those of us who normally staff such delegations and who visit Mexico regularly, would not be able to do so, thus placing an added -- and signicant -- burden on Mexican partners hosting such delegations.

4. Partners asked that this issue be discussed further and in detail at the Mexico Roundtable (Mexico-Canada meeting) being planned for October in Mexico City at which ICCHRLA and members of the Mexico Working Group will be in attendance. Among the issues to be discussed should be the question of the status of NGOs who carry out humanitarian assistance work, as it seems they too must now apply for an FM3.