Report no. 58/15 petition 348-09



Download 193.79 Kb.
Page3/9
Date23.02.2021
Size193.79 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
Position of the State




  1. The State alleged that the investigations have been conducted in accordance with the inter-American standards, since they have been undertaken without delay, with due diligence, and with the objective of ascertaining the truth and locating journalist Jiménez Mota. It explained that the investigation into Jiménez Mota’s disappearance began as soon as it was reported, in preliminary investigation No. 90/2005, which was taken over by federal authorities on April 21, 2005, under investigation PGR/SIEDO/UEITA/031/2005 and preliminary investigation PGR/SIEDO/UEIS/177/2005. It maintained that the investigation was conducted with due diligence and that the case file contains the records of 41 official interrogations, 25 certificates from the prosecution’s investigation, two on-site inspections, seven informational reports, seven expert opinion reports, five anonymous complaints, and six official attestations. It also stated that 89 telephone numbers had been linked to the investigation.




  1. In addition, the State maintained that the authorities had pursued a considerable number of “lines of investigation of different kinds” into the disappearance of journalist Jiménez Mota. It explained that some lines of investigation pursued with the aim of establishing the facts surrounding Mr. Jiménez Mota’s disappearance include: a) the possible disappearance of Mr. Jimenez Mota at the hands of the group “Los Seris”; b) the theory that the journalist was alive and hiding out in a village near San Blas, in the State of Nayarit; c) the theory that the journalist had romantic relationship troubles; d) the possible disappearance of the journalist at the hands of the criminal organization “Los Güeritos” or “Los Números”; e) the theory that the journalist was disappeared by the criminal drug trafficking organization “Los Salazar,” because of his journalistic work; f) the possible disappearance of Mr. Jimenez Mota by the criminal organization known as the “Sinaloa Cartel,” and g) the potential involvement of alias “Mi Niño.” The State explained that these lines were explored with specific investigative actions, but that none yielded any evidence that implicated state agents directly or indirectly in Jiménez Mota’s disappearance.




  1. Mexico reported on future perspectives for the investigation and the actions that would be taken to establish potential new lines of investigation, and affirmed that “Ever since the Mexican State learned of the disappearance of Mr. Jimenez Mota it has taken, and continues to take, multiple actions to investigate the facts and determine his whereabouts.”




  1. The State added that, “Parallel to the investigations to determine who is responsible for his disappearance, the Mexican State has continuously taken actions and steps designed to ascertain Mr. Jiménez Mota’s whereabouts.” The State reported various actions undertaken with that purpose. Regarding the most recent, it stated that, “On April 3 and July 3, 2013, and March 25, 2014, requests were made for the PGR’s Division of Expert Services to compare the genetic profiles of Mr. Jiménez Mota’s relatives to the PGR’s data bank, but no positive results have been obtained.”




  1. The State maintained that, “The fact that the criminal responsibility of whomever disappeared Mr. Jimenez Mota has not been determined thus far, in spite of the exhaustiveness of the investigations conducted by the State, is not grounds for the Commission to conclude that the State failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, as these are obligations of means rather than ends.”




  1. It further asserted that, “The records of the investigations into disappearance of Mr. Jimenez Mota do not provide sufficient evidence to meet the three requirements to establish a case of forced disappearance. This is because: (a) It has been impossible to establish in the investigations that any state agent was involved either directly (through acts) or indirectly (by acquiescence or tolerance of the acts) in the disappearance of Mr. Jiménez Mota; and (b) Given the lack of evidence to conclude that a state agent is responsible for Mr. Jiménez Mota’s disappearance, it is impossible for the State to acknowledge his detention and disclose his fate or whereabouts.” Therefore, the State was of the opinion that it cannot be considered responsible for the violation of the rights guaranteed in Articles 4, 5, 7, and 13 of the American Convention.




  1. It concluded that “In this regard, the facts alleged by the petitioner do not describe a human rights violation and therefore, according to Article 47 of the American Convention, the Commission must declare the petition inadmissible.” Without prejudice to the foregoing, it affirmed “its commitment to continue with the investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Jimenez Mota with the aim of locating [him], as well as those responsible for the criminal acts committed against him.”







  1. Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page