THE GOM'S SIDE OF THE STORY, HUMAN RIGHTS IN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MEXICO 002409 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/05/2036 TAGS: MX PGOV PHUM PINR PREL SUBJECT: THE GOM'S SIDE OF THE STORY, HUMAN RIGHTS IN GUERRERO REF: MEXICO 2025 Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Charles Barclay. Reason: 1.4 (b),(d). ¶1. (C) Summary. Following the Embassy's visit to the southwestern Mexican state of Guerrero last month to meet with human rights defenders (Reftel),Poloffs arranged meetings with the Secretary of Government (SEGOB) and the Secretariat of Public Security (SSP)'s Human Rights Directors to discuss the federal government's views of the deteriorating human rights situation in Guerrero. Government officials emphasized the complex social, economic, and linguistic dynamics at play in the mountainous Sierra Madre of Guerrero. They acknowledged the extreme poverty and social deprivation noted in reftel contributes to an unsettled security environment. Officials portrayed Guerrero as a violent state where widespread criminality complicates the human rights picture. Although government entities do not always demonstrate the same degree of sympathy for the rural indigenous residents who report the majority of rights abuses, they agree on the difficulties involved in promoting rights in the state. End Summary. ¶2. (C) The GOM human rights interlocutors with whom Poloffs spoke, offered somewhat different slants on the root causes of Guerrero,s difficult human rights environment. SEGOB,s Human Rights Director, Jose Antonio Guevara, said narco-traffickers and other outlaw groups had made life difficult for the state's rural population and put them in the middle of a conflict with security forces. Victor Hugo Perez Hernandez, Director of Human Rights for the Secretariat of Public Security (SSP),however, is clearly less sympathetic to Guerrero,s rights victims and their defenders. Perez believes that bad choices by members of indigenous organizations, particularly their cultivation of opium and ties to both narco-traffickers and others to protect and sell their crops, put them outside the law and expose them to violence. (Note: Embassy security and law enforcement elements have seen nothing to indicate that this is as widespread a practice as Perez claimed.) Perez attributed one high profile case, the February 2009 murders of two community activists, to their alleged ties to the guerrilla group, the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR),but offered no evidence support this assertion. In discussing another case, the 2002 sexual assault of an indigenous woman by soldiers currently before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACDH),Perez questioned the authenticity of the victim's testimony and said the assault remains unproven. ¶3. (C) SEGOB,s Guevara, who spent years working for NGO,s in Mexico before taking his position at the Interior Secretariat, maintains close contacts with rights defenders in Guerrero, and is widely respected by them. Perez is frustrated with human rights NGOs working in the state. Perez said they are often distant and difficult to contact, offer little or contradictory evidence when presenting complaints, and often do not follow up complaints with documented reports to local, state, and federal police. Shooting Incident Investigation Demonstrates Difficulties ¶4. (C) Perez cited a recent case to Poloffs as emblematic of the difficulties involved in collaborating among GOM and NGO human rights representatives in Guerrero. On June 24, international human rights organization Peace Brigades International reported to Perez,s office that a car carrying two members of a local human rights group had been shot at. Perez claims he made twenty calls to Brigade representatives after its initial report. PBI was unable to return his calls until the following day. When SEGOB asked SSP to send federal police to investigate the incident, Perez declined because, he said that SSP was not trained to work in the rural mountainous terrain of Guerrero. Language barriers prevented SSP from obtaining specific details from the alleged victims. The victims and NGO interlocutors gave contradictory accounts of the shooting, and could only provide a general location of the incident. When SSP officials did travel to the area, they were unable to find bullet shells or other forensic evidence of a crime. This case demonstrates why Guerrero,s human rights picture MEXICO 00002409 002 OF 002 remains murky, despite the attention it gets from both human rights groups and the GOM. The status of Internationally Mandated Protective Measures ¶5. (C) This April, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered the Mexican government to protect the lives and physical integrity of 107 human rights defenders in Guerrero (Reftel). SEGOB is responsible for coordinating implementation of the measures, working with the Attorney General's office (which has also agreed to take on the investigation in the February murder of the two community activists),SSP, and the Foreign Relations Secretariat (SRE). SEGOB relies on SSP to provide escorts, implement other physical security measures, and coordinates with state and local police. ¶6. (C) SEGOB claims that approximately 95% of the measures have already been implemented, although it acknowledges that Mexican human rights NGOs feel only a small portion of the measures are in place. Guevara said that human rights defenders have received cellular phones, radios and satellite phones. SSP has begun escorting and providing security to three prominent defenders, and will provide additional escorts with 48-hours notice. ¶7. (C) Despite these efforts, both SEGOB and SSP acknowledge multiple obstacles to enacting the IACDH recommendations: --(C) Guevara expressed frustration that local authorities are not always willing to cooperate, and said the federal government was having difficulty motivating the Guerrero state government to assume its role implementing protection measures. --(C) SEGOB has no earmarked funds for implementation and has had difficulty buying the equipment needed to implement protection measures. --(C) SSP cannot currently provide additional satellite phones, one of the priority items requested by the Inter-American Court. Further, many of the phones that have been provided to human rights defenders often do not work in remote mountain communities. --(C) Community leaders distrust local police and the army prevents both groups from assisting with escort duties. SSP,s requirement that defenders give 48 advance notice is cumbersome. Moreover, SSP claims that it is not trained and equipped to operate in remote rural areas, making them unable to accompany defenders back to their villages. ¶8. Comment: (C) Guevara and Perez both see Guerrero,s drug groups and small guerrilla organizations as a major obstacle to ensuring human rights in Guerrero. Both tend to discount the human rights community's belief that the longstanding presence of the Mexican military in the state has contributed significantly to human rights abuses and believe a military drawdown under present circumstances would be impossible at any rate. While SEGOB appears to communicate effectively with human rights NGOs, SSP maintains distance with these groups and often views them with suspicion. The differing views between an organization charged with policing (SSP), versus one charged with political coordination (SEGOB) are not surprising. Each brings its own world view and operational culture to the issue. With the GOM,s attention to security matters consumed by the war against the cartels, and continued criminality and violence in the state, Guerrero,s human rights situation remains static. End Comment. 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 / PASCUAL