CNDH AND PGR SQUARE OFF OVER BRAD WILL CASE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 MEXICO 003343 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: CONS PREL PGOV PHUM KJUS KCRM MX SUBJECT: CNDH AND PGR SQUARE OFF OVER BRAD WILL CASE ¶1. Summary. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) and its Attorney General's Office have released two separate reports on the shooting of Amcit journalist Brad Will in October 2006 that places the two institutions at odds. CNDH insists its investigation of forensic evidence demonstrates that Amcit Brad Will was shot from a distance of some 35-50 meters, in the course of civil unrest in the Mexican state of Oaxaca, implying local enforcement officials were responsible. Prosecutors from the Mexican Attorney General's Office (PGR) are equally insistent that the evidence and testimony they have collected suggests Will was shot from a distance of two to eight meters, enabling them to identify Juan Manuel Martinez Moreno, a supporter of the Oaxacan Popular Assembly (APPO) that was engaged in a skirmish with law enforcement officials and amongst whom Will was filming, as the shooter. PGR officials maintain they took into consideration CNDH's report before presenting their case to the local judge presiding over the case in Oaxaca. They described the prospect of an outside investigation of the evidence as "problematic." The lawyer representing the Will family has endorsed the investigation conducted by CNDH and announced his intention to challenge PGR's case against Martinez before federal authorities. End Summary. On the One Hand ¶2. On October 23, Mauricio Farah, the Director of CNDH's unit that investigates crimes related to human trafficking and against journalists and human rights defenders, met with Deputy PolCouns to discuss CNDH's investigation of the October 27, 2006 shooting of Amcit journalist Brad Will. He said that CNDH had decided to investigate Will's shooting becase it considered him a journalist and lacked confidence in local investigators. He presented a variety of forensic evidence supporting CNDH's working theory regarding the location of the person who shot Will. -- First, CNDH measured the time between when the shots were fired and when they hit Will. Cross referencing this "constant" against information from Smith & Wesson, a manufacturer of 38 revolvers, about the speed a bullet travels under the conditions that prevailed in Oaxaca at the time -- temperature, altitude, and wind -- CNDH had concluded the shooter was located between 35-50 meters from Will. Note. Both government and independent forensic examinations had previously determined that Will was shot by two 38 caliber bullets fired from the same weapon. End Note. -- Second, CNDH assessed the angle from which the two bullets entered Will's body. Its experts maintained the evidence suggested the first entered straight-on implying the shooter was facing Will. The second entered Will from the side, occurring as he bent over and turned after being hit by the first shot. -- Third, they showed a clip of the tape Will was filming. At the point when he is shot, the camera pans rapidly and haphazardly to his right -- the direction from which PGR asserts the shooter fired -- but the footage CNDH displayed offered no image of any individual from that direction. ¶4. Beyond presenting CNDH's evidence that supports its theory that Will's killer fired upon him from a distance of 35-50 meters in front of him -- which CNDH says implicates Oaxacan law enforcement officials who allegedly fired on the protesters amongst whom Will was located -- Farah called into question PGR's case against Martinez for lack of any apparent motive. Farah noted that not only was Will regarded as sympathetic to the APPO protesters, observers agree that Martinez came immediately to Will's aid after he was shot and helped carry him to a truck so he could be transported to a hospital for medical assistance. ¶5. In releasing its report on September 26, CNDH made three recommendations which become binding only when the institution identified accepts the recommendation. It is extremely rare for an institution to reject a recommendation. -- First, CNDH critized PGR for irregularities in its investigation and called on it to consider the evidence both CNDH and the NGO Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) had gathered in separate investigations. (Note: PHR produced its own report on the forensics of the case that dovetails with CNDH's report. End Note) PGR rejected this recommendation (see para. 8.). -- Second, CNDH called on the Governor of Oaxaca Ulises Ruiz to authorize the state's Internal Affairs Office to investigate state ministerial and police staff, including forensic experts, for negligence in their investigation of MEXICO 00003343 002 OF 003 Will's death. Ruiz accepted this recommendation. -- Third, CNDH called on the state Human Rights Commission to work with local authorities to ensure the municipal president of Santa Lucia del Camino, Oaxaca faced administrative disciplinary actions for failing to obstructing CNDH's investigation. The State Human Rights Commission has not yet announced whether it plans to accept this recommendation. The Other Side of the Story ¶5. On October 30, Adrian Franco Zevada, PGR's Coordinator for International Affairs, accompanied Jessica de Lamadrid Tellez, PGR's Director General for International Cooperation, and two prosecutors who participated in the investigation of Will's death provided Deputy PolCouns with the conclusions of PGR's investigation. According to Franco, PGR sent officials to Oaxaca within the same week that Will was killed but acknowledged that Oaxacan prosecutors enjoyed the lead on the case until April 2007 when PGR decided to initiate its own investigation starting entirely from scratch. In view of its assuming the lead on a case several months removed from the time the crime took place, he lamented that PGR consequently lacked access to key evidence at the scene of the crime. ¶6. PGR concluded its investigation in late September basing its findings primarily on witness accounts and expert testimony, but also forensic evidence. -- PGR's expert determined that the shots that killed Will were fired from a distance of two to eight meters. Franco did not elaborate on how the expert made that determination. Disputing CNDH's claim Will was shot by an individual located behind a truck some 35-50 meters in front of Will, PGR maintained a copy of Will's video (PGR was never given access to the original video) shows apparent members of APPO walking directly in front of the truck behind which CNDH believes law enforcement officials shot and killed Will. PGR insists this proves that the law enforcement officials were not firing from behind the truck as otherwise the APPO members would have manifested greater caution and/or the law enforcement officials would have shot at them or taken them into custody. Instead, they claim witnesses report that police were firing from the other side of the street behind a corner located some 60-80 meters from where Will was standing. They maintain this location would not have offered a clear shot at Will. -- PGR rests much of its case on testimony from someone in the vicinity of Will at the time he was shot who maintains the shots were fired from close-by. This person did not/not see Martinez shoot Will but did recall that someone in black clothing was close to Will when he was shot. Film footage reveals Martinez in black clothing and close to him when he was shot. Explaining why it took this witness almost two years to come forward, PGR officials remarked that the highly charge climate in Oaxaca that remained even as the violence subided may have intimidated the witness. They noted that CNDH's report did not take into consideration this witness's testimony. -- PGR asserts that Oaxacan law enforcement officials do not use 38 revolvers, the kind of gun used to shoot Will. They also maintain a 38 revolver can not fire in quick enough succession to hit a target twice from a distance and in a fashion as alleged by CNDH. Finally that point out that Will fell on this back after he was shot the first time calling into question CNDH's assertion he was shot in the side as he fell forward. ¶7. As to motive, PGR notes that Will's video captures the voice of someone close to Will saying in Spanish, "I told you not to film" immediately before Will was shot. PGR suggests that it is possible APPO did not want those involved in the skirmish with police to be caught on film, particularly in view of claims one of those captured on Will's film is apparently a member of the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR). When asked why Martinez would have come to Will's aid immediately after allegedly shooting him, PGR officials asserted that the APPO members involved in violent confrontations with the police have "interests, not friends." As such, they maintained that these individuals were more than capable of killing someone like Will, presumably sympathetic to their cause, if they could use it to pin responsibility on the police and garner greater public and international support. ¶8. Franco defended PGR's decision to reject CNDH's recommendation. He maintained it had complied with CNDH's recommendation by taking into consideration all available evidence, including both the reports by CNDH and PHR. MEXICO 00003343 003 OF 003 However, inasmuch as CNDH accused PGR of omissions and essentially called on PGR to agree to conclusions completely at odds with those drawn by PGR's investigation, it found it had not choice but to reject CNDH's recommendation. Where Do We Go From Here? ¶9. Mexican law allows PGR to assume the lead on the investigation of a local crime, but it also dictates a crime such as homicide be tried in local courts. As a result, PGR has turned over all of its evidence to local Oaxacan prosecutors in order for them to present their case before a local Oaxacan judge. The Oaxacan prosecutors could well call on PGR prosecutors to assist them in presenting the case but they will retain the lead on the case. ¶10. On October 22, the Oaxacan judge assigned to the case ruled that evidence was sufficient to detain Martinez pending trial. Martinez's lawyers have indicated they plan to lodge legal challenges to the judge's ruling. Local courts would review any initial appeals but successive appeals could eventually come before Mexican federal courts including the Supreme Court. Mexican law dictates a defendant has a right to a trial within a year of his arrest but this is not always honored. Further, should Martinez' lawyers request more time to prepare their case, that could also become a legal basis for it taking over a year to bring his case to trial. PGR Not Looking for Help ¶11. Franco was aware that Secretary Rice and Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations had discussed the possibility of an outside international legal authority reviewing all evidence and offering an independent assessment. Given the fact that a judge had already ruled that evidence to detain Martinez and go forward with a case him, Franco saw a problem with involving outside authorities at this stage. Further, given the political sensitivities involved in the case, he conveyed concern that inviting foreign entities to review the government's own investigation would only complicate matters. ¶12. Comment. CNDH's investigation is based largely on forensic evidence that it interprets to suggest the shooter fired from 35-50 meters away. It further rejects PGR's case against Martinez on grounds he came to Will's assistance immediately after he had been shot and had no apparent motive to shoot Will. PGR's case is largely based on expert testimony and an eyewitness who has appeared almost two years after the shooting. PGR calls into question CNDH's conclusions, challenging the notion someone could have shot Will twice with a 38 revolver from the kind of distance CNDH proposes. ¶13. In some ways, both sides more effectively refute the credibility of the other's conclusions than build the case for its own. Ultimately, any judge presiding over this case will have to review all of the evidence presented by not only PGR but also the reports prepared by CNDH and NGO PHR. In the interim, however, we can expect Martinez's lawyers will energetically challenge the ability of Oaxacan legal officials to render a fair and objective ruling. The tension between CNDH and PGR will also likely serve to create more controversy around this case. In theory a review by outside legal observers might contribute to a more objective assessment of all the evidence. Thus far, however, PGR officials have signaled reluctance to go down that road out of concern it will only complicate an already messy case. Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / GARZA Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / GARZA