IV. An Ongoing Practice

To this day the military justice system continues to assert jurisdiction over the most egregious abuses against civilians—including killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, and rapes—committed by the military during counternarcotics and law enforcement operations. SEDENA limits excessively and without reasonable justification basic information on the status of its investigations, so it is extremely difficult to know with certainty to what extent members of the armed forces are being held accountable. However, a review of available information about the military’s handling of well known cases from 2007 and 2008 suggests that the likelihood of obtaining justice is slim.

First, none of the military investigations analyzed in this chapter, which involve 11 cases and dozens of victims, have led to a criminal conviction. The military has closed its investigation in four cases, saying it had found no evidence to charge soldiers with any crime or that the statute of limitations had expired. The other seven cases are still pending (most of them are still officially under investigation), in some instances almost two years after the abuses took place.

Second, the limited information available about the investigations shows that they have suffered from serious problems. Military prosecutors have, for example, relied on evidence planted by soldiers to support SEDENA’s allegations that the military had detained individuals “in fraganti,” which would justify the detention. They have also failed to subject soldiers who were allegedly drunk to a timely alcohol test. Often, military prosecutors appear to have completely ignored evidence documenting the abuses, instead giving undue weight to the accounts of the military. In at least one case, the military has investigated soldiers for only minor crimes (e.g. “abuse of power”), failing to pursue an investigation for the more serious crimes that were allegedly committed. In another, victims have not participated in the investigations, mostly because the military failed to work with them.

While the military has at times provided monetary compensation to victims, such compensation does not make up for the lack of accountability in these cases.

Recent Abuses during Counternarcotics and Public Security Operations

This section analyzes how the military justice system has addressed dozens of military abuses—including killings, arbitrary detentions, torture, and rapes—committed during law enforcement and counternarcotics operations in 2007 and 2008. The principal sources for all of these cases are CNDH reports documenting the abuses, as well as evidence included in such reports. All of these cases received widespread attention in the media when the reports were made public. SEDENA “accepted” all of the CNDH’s reports, thereby committing itself to, among other things, investigate the abuses and sanction those responsible.[118]

Illegal Detention and Abuse of 36 Civilians and Rape of Four Minors

After unknown individuals attacked members of the military, killing five soldiers on May 1, 2007, hundreds of soldiers went to the municipalities of Nocupétaro, Carácuaro, and Huetamo in Michoacán state seeking the aggressors. They committed dozens of abuses, including arbitrary detentions, illegal detentions at a military base, torture, beatings, rapes, and illegal entries into homes.[119]

During the two days that followed the ambush, soldiers arbitrarily detained 36 people, including five minors, holding most of them at the military base in the 21st Military Zone for up to 84 hours.[120] They repeatedly beat the detainees, tied their hands with tape or rope, and in some cases covered their heads with a plastic bag or cloth. One of the detainees had burns on his skin, and another reported that the soldiers had pushed his head into a container with water to force him to provide information. The soldiers kept the majority of the detainees incommunicado, and held four of them with their faces and eyes covered the whole time.

Four of the people detained for over 20 hours were girls under 18 years old at the time, who testified before federal prosecutors that soldiers repeatedly beat, sexually abused, and raped them with the purpose of obtaining information about their supposed links with armed groups and drug traffickers. The girls revealed how soldiers forced them onto a helicopter, where they then threatened and sexually abused the girls. One girl said that the soldiers told them, “fucking human rights don’t exist, we will throw you in the sea and you will be food for the sharks.” Another stated that they forced her to keep her skirt up and her underwear down, while soldiers said, “fucking bitch, (…) this is what you like.” A soldier took a prayer card of the Virgin Mary that a third girl had with her, made a small ball out of it, and introduced it into her anus. According to the fourth girl, soldiers told her, “Not even the Virgin will get you out of this.” When they arrived at the military installations, they were forced to inhale a substance that made them sleepy, and awoke feeling terrible aches in their bodies, particularly in their lower abdomen. Some of the girls noticed they were spitting foam from their nose and mouth, and that a liquid was flowing out of their vagina, producing an itchy sensation.[121]

The soldiers also illegally entered over 30 homes, threatening the people inside with their guns, and stealing cash, cell phones, and jewelry.

The Military Investigation

Almost two years after the events, the PGJM is still investigating soldiers’ responsibility for the abuses. The federal prosecutor, who began investigating the case, determined on May 30, 2007, that he lacked jurisdiction and sent it to military prosecutors.[122]

Initially, the PGJM only initiated a criminal investigation into the possible rape of the four girls. Despite the evidentiary value that a victim’s testimony has in any criminal investigation into a rape, SEDENA told the CNDH that it had completed “90 percent” of the investigation, before having even obtained the testimony of two of the girls.[123] In spite of their initial testimony describing the rapes and medical evidence analyzed by the CNDH supporting their claims, the PGJM said that two of the girls had told military prosecutors that they were not willing to press charges since they had not been raped, beaten, or mistreated by members of the military.[124] As of January 2009, the PGJM is still investigating the case.[125]

It is unclear whether the PGJM is investigating the rest of the abuses, and no substantive information on the status of such investigations is available. SEDENA told Human Rights Watch in January 2009 that it had not initiated any other criminal investigation as a consequence of the abuses documented by the CNDH.[126] However, it had previously informed the CNDH that it was investigating the “beatings and alleged acts of torture.”[127] Regarding the status of that investigation, SEDENA only stated that the PGJM had conducted “40 percent” of the investigation.[128]

Illegal Detention of Eight Civilians and Torture of Four, including a Child

On May 7, 2007, soldiers from the 51st Infantry Battalion belonging to the Mixed Operations Base “Tierra Caliente” detained six men, a woman, and a child after a shootout between the military and alleged drug traffickers—which lasted over an hour and left several members of the military injured and four civilians dead—in the municipality of Apatzingán in Michoacán state. None of the detainees were involved in the shootout.[129]

When the shooting broke out, some of the detained individuals were in the area purchasing agricultural products, while others were inside their homes. The soldiers detained the eight people soon after the violence ended, and took them to military installations in the 43rd Military Zone, where the soldiers tortured four of them, including the child. The torture included beatings, kicks, placing their heads in black bags, which made it difficult for them to breathe, and forcing them to lie on the floor blindfolded, while soldiers asked “who they worked for.”

Although Mexican law states that individuals must be immediately presented before a judge, soldiers held the detainees for 15 hours in military installations, before taking them in front of a federal prosecutor. The soldiers argued that the detainees had been caught “in fraganti” and should be investigated for their responsibility in the shootout. But three days later, federal prosecutors determined there was no evidence to charge the eight people with any crime and set them free.

Other soldiers illegally entered nine homes in the area, allegedly damaging property and stealing cell phones, cameras, jewelry, and cash.

The Military Investigation

SEDENA has closed one criminal and one administrative investigation, and sent them both to its archives. On May 15, 2007, the federal prosecutor who investigated the detainees’ alleged responsibility in the shootout informed the PGJM that it should investigate the soldiers who had exceeded their functions.[130] In less than a month, the PGJM closed the only criminal investigation it had begun into a possible breach of military discipline in this case, arguing that there was no evidence that “the acts investigated by the military prosecutors’ office … constitute a criminal act.”[131] From available evidence, it is unclear whether the military investigated the detention, the torture, or both. SEDENA also sent the administrative investigation it had begun to the archives, stating that the administrative bodies had no jurisdiction to investigate probable human rights abuses.[132]

Killing of Two Women and Three Children and Wounding of Three Others

On June 1, 2007, soldiers who were stationed on the side of a road in the municipality of Sinaloa de Leyva in Sinaloa state, and were reportedly drunk and using drugs, opened fire on a truck transporting three adults and five children, killing a woman and a 3-year-old girl.[133]

SEDENA argues that the vehicle failed to stop at the soldiers’ request, and the soldiers fired their guns to defend themselves, only after they heard shots (fogonazos). According to their account, once the shooting stopped, they found two individuals dead and six injured, and they provided first aid to the injured passengers. SEDENA says they found a sack of marijuana next to the truck.

However, evidence indicates that the soldiers opened fire without justification. For example, state prosecutors found that there were no signs warning drivers that the military had a checkpoint in the area and were thus required to slow down. There is no evidence to support SEDENA’s claim that the civilian passengers had fired guns at the soldiers, but there is extensive forensic evidence demonstrating that the deaths and injuries were caused by guns fired by members of the military. Also, a soldier reported to military prosecutors that the soldiers had received orders to plant evidence (marijuana) next to the truck, which would enable them to argue they had caught the passengers “in fraganti” during the commission of a crime, and that their actions were therefore justified.

Soldiers allegedly delayed the injured passengers’ access to urgent medical care, which led to three more deaths.[134] When family members of the passengers arrived at the scene, soldiers told them that a helicopter was on its way to transport the injured people to a hospital. After waiting three hours for the helicopter, the family members decided to drive the injured passengers to the nearest hospital. During the trip they were detained by soldiers at three different check points, for a total time of nearly two hours, though they had informed the soldiers each time that they were transporting individuals in need of urgent medical care. At one location, a military vehicle escorted them at a very slow speed, further delaying their arrival at the hospital. Three passengers finally died in the cars. Red Cross ambulances then transported the three surviving, injured passengers to the nearest hospital.

In their testimonies before federal prosecutors and the CNDH, the family members who were transporting the injured passengers stated that soldiers detained them and forced them to stay all night—reportedly inside their cars with the dead bodies—on the premises of a military base. The following morning the soldiers told them that the bodies would be taken to a nearby hospital.

The Military Investigation

The PGJM is still investigating the abuses, but available information indicates that the military has conducted flawed criminal investigations. The military has paid monetary compensation to the victims.

On June 1, 2007, federal prosecutors initiated a criminal investigation, and two days later, responding to a request from military prosecutors, sent the case to the PGJM.[135] The military prosecutors pressed charges against some of the soldiers who fired at the truck, and on June 10, 2007, a military judge issued arrest warrants for 19 soldiers.[136] As of January 2009, the case was still pending before military courts.[137] An investigation into all the other abuses is also still pending.[138]

There are indications that the military’s investigation has serious flaws. Despite evidence that seven soldiers had tested positive for marijuana use, and one had tested positive for methamphetamines and cocaine, military prosecutors failed to request that all the soldiers involved be subjected to appropriate and timely testing.[139] Military prosecutors failed to thoroughly investigate the allegations that the soldiers had planted evidence. Finally, PGJM had initially only investigated the soldiers who fired at the truck (and one captain for other crimes related to the CNDH findings), and apparently only included the other abuses in the investigation after the CNDH made its report public.[140]

Soon after military judges issued the arrest warrants, SEDENA agreed to pay monetary compensation to the victims and their families.[141] SEDENA refused to provide Human Rights Watch with a copy of the agreement, arguing that since it had not yet entirely complied with the CNDH’s recommendations, the document containing the agreement was confidential.[142] However, it did give the CNDH the names of the victims receiving compensation, as well as the amount of Mexican pesos given to each person, and the CNDH published this information in its 2008 annual report.[143]

Illegal Detention and Torture of José Fausto Galvez Munguía

On June 7, 2007, José Fausto Galvez Munguía and two others were close to the U.S. border in the state of Sonora, waiting for a man who had promised to help them cross the border and travel to Phoenix, Arizona, when two Mexican Army vehicles, with personnel from the 40th Military Zone, arrived.[144]

The soldiers pointed their guns at the men, asking them who their boss was and “where the drugs” were. They tortured Galvez for four hours. When Galvez explained why they were there, a soldier kicked him in the ribs and another pulled his hair and ordered him to get into a military vehicle. The soldiers beat Galvez, threw him out of the car, and dragged him to a location where they forced him to drink an alcoholic beverage, which caused him to vomit. The soldiers inserted pieces of wood under his nails and moved them around to inflict pain, and then pulled out one of his nails.

The soldiers left Galvez lying unconscious in the countryside. When he awoke, Galvez managed to walk to a road, where a passerby picked him up and drove him to the nearest hospital.

The Military Investigation

Galvez asked a federal prosecutor in Sonora to investigate his allegations of military abuse on June 15, 2007. The federal prosecutor sent the case to the state attorney general’s office, which had already started an investigation. But on February 5, 2008, the state prosecutor determined the case should be investigated by military prosecutors. As of January 2009, the PGJM was still investigating the case.[145] SEDENA paid monetary compensation to the victim before concluding the military criminal investigation.[146]

Illegal Detention and Torture of Oscar Cornejo Tello

On June 13, 2007, Oscar Cornejo Tello was watching TV with two other people in a home in the municipality of Morelia in Michoacán state, when 15 members of the military illegally entered the house shouting, “Open the door, son of a bitch!”[147]

When Cornejo opened the door to let the soldiers in, they threw him on the floor and tortured him. The soldiers asked him if his nickname was “Chino Güenses,” and when he said it was not, they covered his head with a piece of cloth and then used it to choke him. The soldiers gave electric shocks to his testicles and kicked and beat him for approximately 30 minutes.

The soldiers took Cornejo in handcuffs to the 21st Military Zone, where he was detained for seven hours, until he was finally presented before a federal prosecutor. (SEDENA reported at the time that soldiers had detained Cornejo “in fraganti,” when he was driving a car, in which soldiers found weapons and drugs, contradicting the evidence gathered by the CNDH.)

The Military Investigation

A federal prosecutor pressed charges against Cornejo for possessing drugs and illegal firearms, but he also determined that military prosecutors should investigate the possible responsibility of members of the military in the abuse of Cornejo.[148] The PGJM started investigating the possible “abuse of power” by members of the military on July 9, 2007, and as of January 2009, the case remains at the investigation stage.[149] SEDENA has already paid monetary compensation to the victim.[150]

Torture and Death of Fausto Ernesto Murillo Flores

On August 3, 2007, soldiers detained three men in the municipality of Naco in Sonora state, but only presented two of them before the state prosecutor, accusing them of possessing illegal firearms. The body of the third man, Fausto Ernesto Murillo Flores, was found the following day on the side of a road in Sonora, showing signs of torture.[151]

According to a witness’s account, after detaining Murillo the soldiers beat him repeatedly, while asking him where they could find weapons and drugs. The witness heard that Murillo appeared to be drowning and heard the soldiers threatening to put alcohol in his nose. The witness also saw soldiers place a plastic bag over Murillo’s head. Soldiers continued to beat Murillo until, stated the witness, “suddenly he was still; he no longer complained or said anything.”

SEDENA blamed Murillo’s health conditions for his “natural” death after being detained, contradicting the witness’s account, the autopsy, the CNDH’s findings, and SEDENA’s own initial account, according to which it had only detained the two other men (and not Murillo).[152] In its second report on the case, SEDENA said that Murillo had died when he was detained, and that the cause of death was a heart attack, which was the consequence of “addiction to cocaine and tobacco, obesity, and being sedentary.” However, according to documentation—including a medical forensic evaluation—analyzed by the CNDH, Murillo’s death was likely the consequence of asphyxia.

SEDENA’s second version, that Murillo had in fact been detained and died as a consequence of his health troubles, does not explain why his body was found on the side of a road.

The Military Investigation

The day Murillo’s body was found, a state prosecutor in Sonora began investigating the homicide, but a few months later sent the case to military prosecutors, who were already investigating the case.[153] The PGJM pressed charges against six soldiers, accusing them of torturing Murillo.[154] But the military judge determined the statute of limitations on investigating the soldier’s probable responsibility for the crime of “desertion” had expired, and closed the case.[155] SEDENA informed the CNDH that it initiated another criminal investigation, but there is no information available on which crimes are being investigated or what the current status of the investigation is.[156] SEDENA paid the victim’s family monetary compensation.[157]

Illegal Detention and Torture of Jesús Picazo Gómez

On the night of August 21, 2007, five members of the 37th Infantry Battalion of Zamora in Michoacán state—who belonged to the “Mixed Operations Base Uruapan”—detained Jesús Picazo Gómez when he was leaving his aunt’s house to buy food.[158]

For over 24 hours the soldiers illegally held Picazo incommunicado in military installations. Soldiers beat and kicked him, blindfolded him, and took him to a military base in Uruapan. There the soldiers placed a cloth bag on his head, threw him onto the floor, tied his arms and feet, and poured water on his face while they hit his abdomen and asked him for names of people in his community who produced and sold drugs. Picazo spent the night naked at the base.

The following morning, Picazo was taken to another military base where soldiers continued beating and throwing him against a wall, while they showed him pictures and asked if he recognized anyone. When he said he did not, the soldiers repeatedly forced his head into a container full of water, reportedly for periods of up to three minutes, and applied electric shocks to his stomach.

It was not until 11 p.m. on the day after his detention that soldiers took Picazo before a federal prosecutor, arguing they had detained him “in fraganti” for possessing drugs and illegal firearms.[159] The prosecutor filed charges against Picazo, but the judge who heard the case ordered his immediate release, stating his detention had been illegal.

The Military Investigation

After Picazo’s release, a federal prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation into the possible responsibility of two members of the military for the abuses.[160] Three days later he sent the case to a military prosecutor, who began investigating the case on September 20, 2007.[161] Despite the existence of medical exams by civilian authorities documenting the torture, eleven months later the PGJM closed the investigation, arguing that military prosecutors did not find evidence that soldiers had committed a crime.[162] However, the military paid Picazo Gómez monetary compensation.[163]

Illegal Detention and Torture of Antonio Paniagua

At 5 a.m. on October 7, 2007, soldiers from the 37th Infantry Battalion of the Mexican Army—belonging to the Mixed Operations Base in Zamora, Michoacan—illegally entered Antonio Paniagua Esquivel’s home while he and his family were sleeping.[164]

After entering Paniagua’s home, soldiers took him out of bed, threw him on the floor and started kicking and beating him. The soldiers took Paniagua to the second floor of the house, where they forced him to lie down facing upwards, blindfolded him, stepped on his hands, placed a towel with water on top of his face making it difficult for him to breath, and applied electric shocks to his genitals.

The soldiers then kept Paniagua at a military base for two hours. Finally, they presented Paniagua before a federal prosecutor, arguing that he had been detained “in fraganti” in possession of illegal firearms.[165] By then, eight hours had passed since the illegal entry into his home.

The Military Investigation

A federal prosecutor pressed charges against Paniagua on October 12, 2007, accusing him of possessing weapons that may only be used by the armed forces. The same prosecutor determined that it was likely that members of the military had committed irregularities when they detained Paniagua, so he forwarded a copy of the investigation to the PGJM.[166] Military prosecutors closed the investigation on July 23, 2008, finding that there was no evidence that soldiers had committed any crime.[167] The military did, however, pay Paniagua monetary compensation.[168]

Death of Victor Alfonso de la Paz Ortega and Wounding of Juan Carlos Peñaloza García

On the evening of January 11, 2008, a soldier from the 12th Infantry Battalion of the Mexican Army opened fire on a car in the municipality of Huetamo in the state of Michoacán, killing 17-year-old Víctor Alfonso de la Paz Ortega.[169] When the driver, Juan Carlos Peñaloza García, 19, stopped the car after his friend had been killed, the soldiers forced him out of the vehicle, hit him with a gun, and kept him on the floor, facing downwards.

In its official response to the CNDH, SEDENA argued that a soldier shouted at the driver, asking him to stop, after the driver had failed to obey signs on the street warning drivers to reduce their speed.[170] According to SEDENA, when the driver did not stop, the soldiers were forced to react, since the man in the passenger’s seat had a gun and they feared for their lives. A soldier fired a first shot in the air and when he saw that the car did not stop, fired two shots at the vehicle’s wheels.

According to the information that the CNDH gathered when documenting the case, however, the soldier’s reaction constituted an unjustified, excessive use of force. There were no clear “warning signs” on the street that demonstrated the military was present in that area of town or that would have indicated to the driver that he needed to slow down. Authorities found a plastic gun inside the car, but since the incident occurred at night and the car had tinted windows, it would have been nearly impossible for soldiers to see if the passenger had a gun. There was no forensic evidence of shots fired from inside the vehicle. There was evidence showing that the soldier had fired only three shots and there had been no first warning shot in the air.

The Military Investigation

SEDENA is only investigating some of the documented abuses, but has already decided to provide victims and their families monetary compensation.[171] The Michoacán State Prosecutor’s Office immediately initiated a criminal investigation into de la Paz’s death and sent it to the PGR, which, in turn, sent it to military prosecutors at the PGJM’s request.[172] The PGJM initiated a criminal investigation into the probable responsibility of one soldier in the homicide of de la Paz, but failed to investigate those responsible for beating Peñaloza García.[173] As of January 2009, the PGJM was still investigating the homicide.[174]

Killing of Sergio Meza Varela and Wounding of José Antonio Barbosa Ramírez

On February 16, 2008, at least three soldiers, who wanted to stop a car in Reynosa in the state of Tamaulipas, opened fire on the vehicle without justification, killing Sergio Meza Varela and injuring José Antonio Barbosa Ramírez.[175]

Although SEDENA argued that the soldiers had opened fire to “repeal an aggression,” there does not appear to be any evidence that the men in the car had attacked the soldiers. When the state prosecutor and his staff arrived at the scene they searched the car in which Meza and Barbosa were traveling and did not find any firearms. Also, a general submitted a written document to the state prosecutor stating he had not “detected any firearm [held by] the civilians.” Finally, a test for gun residue found no evidence that either man had fired a gun immediately before the events, and there was no proof that anyone had shot from inside the car.

The Military Investigation

The Tamaulipas Attorney General’s Office initiated an investigation into the probable responsibility of the soldiers, but four days later it determined it did not have jurisdiction to analyze the case and sent it to military prosecutors. As of January 2009, the PGJM was still investigating the case.[176] SEDENA has already paid victims and their families monetary compensation.[177]

Killing of Four Civilians and Abuse and Arbitrary Detention of Four Others

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on March 26, 2008, six people were returning from a party near the community of Santiago de Caballeros, in the Badiraguato municipality of the state of Sinaloa, when a military truck began to pursue their car. Suddenly, the military truck pulled alongside the vehicle and nearly crashed into it.[178] More than a dozen soldiers opened fire from close range without any apparent justification, killing four civilians. Two soldiers were also killed, reportedly by friendly fire.[179]

The driver was shot first and lost control of the car, while the passengers began to yell that they were unarmed and pleaded with the soldiers to stop shooting.[180] But the shooting continued andfour of the passengers—including one man who was intellectually disabled —were killed.[181] Two passengers survived, but one was wounded. The soldiers also accidentally killed two of their own men who had been traveling inside the military truck.

The military found no weapons in the car, but they detained and beat the surviving passengers. Wilfredo Medina, who suffered a gunshot wound and several other injuries in the attack, said soldiers forced him and the other survivor to lie face down in the dirt with their hands on the back of their necks. When Medina moved his hand slightly to stop blood from running from a gash on his head, a soldier kicked him repeatedly in the face.[182] The soldiers also detained two other civilians who were traveling in a separate vehicle. The military forced them to lie face down in the dirt for seven hours, without any explanation as to why they were being held, and then released them without charge.[183]

At first, the military characterized the incident as a clash, rather than a one-sided attack. The day after the incident, three ranking military officers who were involved claimed that the civilian vehicle had fled, despite the military’s order to stop.  They also stated that the soldiers had opened fire only after they heard guns being fired by the victims, saying the military then “proceeded to repel the aggression.”[184] Early press reports cited official sources who described the incident as “an ambush that targeted the military as they carried out a sweep to search for drug plantations in the area” and described the victims as “four suspected assassins of the drug trade.”[185]

However, evidence that emerged from official investigations and witness accounts contradicts the military’s initial account. The two passengers who survived testified that no one in the vehicle had been carrying weapons or fired on the military vehicle.[186] This finding was confirmed by several government experts, including federal and state investigators, who found that all the bullets had been fired by the military and the civilians had been unarmed.[187] This evidence led the state prosecutor, who was reviewing the charges against the civilians for homicide and injuring soldiers, to conclude that their account of the events was more credible than the military’s, and the survivors were released.[188]

The Military Investigation    

As described in detail below, after persuading the federal prosecutor to turn over jurisdiction, the PGJM neglected to gather key pieces of evidence, raising doubts about its thoroughness and objectivity during the investigation. It also repeatedly failed to act in the interest of victims’ families, excluding them from the inquiry, denying them information about the case, and rushing them through a flawed compensation process.

Within hours of the incident, both the PGR and the PGJM had launched preliminary investigations into the events. Three days later, responding to a request from military authorities, the federal prosecutor refused to assert jurisdiction to continue investigating the case.[189] He effectively handed control over to the military courts, in spite of the fact that, by that time, preliminary investigations had proved the military officers’ initial accounts of the incident to have been fabricated.[190]

The military prosecutor charged five officers with “violence against persons causing homicide and injuries,” but conducted the investigation in a manner that raises questions about the military justice system’s neutrality and thoroughness.[191] The military did not administer drug or alcohol tests to the soldiers, despite reports from residents in the village near the incident that the soldiers involved had been drinking since early in the afternoon and that they smelled of marijuana.[192] Such tests were, however, administered to the civilian passengers.[193] No military officers were charged with abusing or arbitrarily detaining civilians. Finally, military prosecutors charged only five of the 13 soldiers who had fired their weapons during the incident.[194]

In the course of the investigation, military prosecutors made little or no effort to contact the victims’ families or collect their testimony. Initially, the family members were given no information about the incident or the preliminary investigations carried out by military or civil authorities.[195] Without information from the authorities, victims’ families were left to piece together what had happened from press accounts, which in the first several days wrongly portrayed their relatives as “hired assassins” or drug runners. “I felt totally powerless,” said one widow, “because on top of the injustice they had committed, they were dirtying [the victims’] names.”[196] At no time before charging the five officers did the military prosecutor collect testimony from the two survivors or from the families of the victims.[197] This suggests that the military relied solely on the investigation of the crime scene and testimony from the soldiers—some of whom had fabricated earlier accounts—as its sources.

One of the victims’ relatives said she believed the soldiers would receive more lenient judgments in military courts. “When one judges oneself, one always tries to find a justification,” she said.[198] She also explained her doubts about the impartiality of the military justice system by stating that, “[military officers] simply try to cover for one another.”

Family members of the victims sought, on two separate occasions, to obtain an injunction (amparo) in civilian courts challenging the use of military courts to try the killings.[199] In both cases a military judge submitted arguments defending military jurisdiction, arguing that any time a soldier commits a violation in the act of service, it “invariably” affects military discipline, which is “the spinal cord of the armed forces.”[200] The two injunctions were rejected by lower courts, which ruled that the victims did not have legal standing to present such a request.[201] The victims’ relatives have since appealed the decisions to higher courts, and have requested that Mexico’s Supreme Court hear the cases, due to the “interest” and “transcendence” of their cases.[202] The Supreme Court decided in March 2009 to look into one of the cases, but have yet to rule on the merits at this writing.[203]

As civilian courts were reviewing the requests for injunctions, the military offered the families of the victims killed a one-time opportunity to obtain compensation. But the process left the civilians little time or leeway to review the content of the proposal, challenge its conditions, or consult with their lawyers. When the families arrived at a meeting scheduled the same day by state officials, members of the military’s human rights office presented them with a pre-written compensation agreement and told them that they had until the end of the afternoon to accept or reject it. The victims’ families’ lawyer is based in Mexico City and could not attend the meeting because there was no advance notice.[204] The military representatives made clear that the offer would be their only chance to receive payment. “We felt pressured into deciding that day,” one of the family members who attended the meeting told Human Rights Watch.[205] One of the terms of the agreement was that, by signing, family members would relinquish the right to pursue any legal action seeking further compensation for their losses. In the end, due in large part to financial burdens left by the loss of a wage earner and bearing funeral costs, the families decided to sign the agreements.[206]

Not only did the agreement fail to reflect the families’ concerns, but it was not even executed as the victims had understood it would be. SEDENA informed Human Rights Watch that it had negotiated with the state government of Sinaloa for “the granting of scholarships for the minors who were left in a state of orphanhood.”[207] However, according to the victims’ families and their lawyer, only one scholarship has been awarded per family—forcing survivors to choose from among several children, which one will be able to go to school.[208]