Human Rights Developments

Defending Human Rights

The Role of the International Community

Internationally, Mexican human rights groups gained greater presence than ever. Twice during the year Mexican activists traveled to Washington, D.C., to present information to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Representatives of Mexican human rights organizations also traveled to Brussels and Geneva to press their human rights concerns before the European Union and United Nations. The coordinated presentation of detailed information to these international entities played an important role in countering the Mexican government’s official view on human rights, which tended to paint the picture of a strong and effective response to human rights problems.

Perhaps in response to the growing influence of human rights groups, Mexican officials strongly criticized local human rights organizations and tried to divide Mexican groups from their international counterparts. In July, for instance, President Zedillo lashed out at Mexican human rights groups in Chiapas, criticizing those who urged international human rights defenders to visit the state. He suggested that encouraging such visits was at odds with promoting respect for the constitution and the rule of law.

Just one month before his comments, the Ministry of Government had imposed new restrictions on human rights monitors wishing to travel to Mexico. The new visa requirements included a thirty-day waiting period, a ten-day maximum stay, and a maximum of ten people for any human rights delegation; the new rules provided for facilitated visa receipt in cases of emergency and for extending the trip beyond ten days in exceptional circumstances. To receive a visa, the applicant would have to submit a Spanish-language copy of the organization’s articles of incorporation and prove that the organization he or she represented had consultative status with the United Nations or had been in existence for at least five years. People soliciting visas would have to provide a “work plan,” which, in practice, authorities sometimes interpreted to mean that they needed to provide details of all people to be interviewed and all communities to be visited.

Although the Ministry of Government announced that the new rules would eliminate the arbitrary decision-making on visas that had been strongly criticized by human rights groups, the new process was no less arbitrary. Members of human rights organizations who applied for visas after the new requirements came into effect reported confusing and contradictory responses from Mexican consular officials in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Mexican human rights defenders remained under threat during the year. According to a report produced by the All Rights forAll Network of Civil Human Rights Organizations (Red de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para Todos,” or the Human Rights Network), in Chihuahua state, members of the nongovernmental Commission for Solidarity and Defense of Human Rights (Comisión de Solidaridad y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, COSYDDHAC) received death threats, and the Catholic parish in Chihuahua city, which supports the commission, suffered two arson attacks. In Chiapas, police arrested Luis Menéndez Medina, a member of the Fray Pedro Lorenzo de la Nada Human Rights Center (Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Pedro Lorenzo de la Nada”), during the April 11 raid on Taniperla. Four human rights promoters were also detained. Some human rights defenders working in Guerrero and Oaxaca came under implicit threat by authorities who linked them to the EPR, a dangerous equation likely to lead to physical attack.