CONTROVERSY OVER THE RELEASE OF ACCUSED 1997

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MEXICO 002536

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/20/2019
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM PINR UN MX
SUBJECT: CONTROVERSY OVER THE RELEASE OF ACCUSED 1997
MASSACRE PERPETRATORS

Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Gustavo Delgado. Reason: 1
.4 (b),(d).


1. (SBU) Summary: On August 12, the Mexican Supreme Court
ordered the release of 20 individuals imprisoned for their
involvement in the 1997 massacre in Chiapas that occurred at
the height of the government's efforts to quell the violent
Zapatista movement. The Court also ordered retrials for six
others convicted for participating in the killing of 45
people. The Supreme Court cited irregularities in the
investigation of the crimes and claimed that the Attorney
General's Office (PGR) had fabricated evidence. Human rights
organizations criticized the decision, insisting those
released from prison were in fact responsible for the crime.
However, a number of legal experts have suggested the Supreme
Court decision reinforces the Court's commitment to due
process in the investigation of crimes, however heinous, and
should compel investigators and prosecutors to comply more
fully with their obligations under the law in future
investigations. End Summary.

2. (U) On December 22, 1997, 45 people were brutally killed,
including 18 children and 21 women, in what became known as
the Acteal Massacre in Chiapas. State and federal officials
claimed a land dispute between two Tzotzil Indian communities
spurred the killings. Victims' families, however, noted that
the killings occurred in the midst of the government's
efforts to crush the Zapatista Army of National Liberation
(EZLN). They also insisted that state officials provided
weapons and military training to the accused. According to a
local human rights NGO in Chiapas, the Center for Human
Rights Fray Bartolome, officials detained 87 suspects
immediately following the attack. Over the next five years,
81 were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison or
more. In 2001, the six remaining prisoners were released for
lack of evidence. Separately, fifteen municipal and state
public security officials were convicted of participating in
the massacre. All but one was sentenced to eight years or
less; one individual was sentenced to 36 years.

3. (U) In 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the
prisoners' claims that their constitutional rights were
violated in the course of the investigation. The Center for
Economic Studies (CIDE) filed "amparos" on behalf of 57
inmates and the court agreed to consider 26; the other 31
cases are still pending a review by the Supreme Court. In
announcing their decision, the ministers were careful to
clarify that they were not addressing the guilt or innocence
of the defendants. Rather, the ministers concluded that
serious irregularities in the investigation had deprived the
inmates of their constitutional rights to a fair trial. The
Court agreed with the convicts that the case against them had
been based on "illicitly obtained information which has no
value in a court of law." In speaking to the charges of
irregularities that occurred in the course of the
investigations, press reports noted claims that PGR had
fabricated witnesses and evidence, used torture against
suspects and witnesses, and prosecuted false charges against
some of the 81.

4. (C) Representatives of the human rights NGO Centro Prodh
told Poloffs that they believed the newly freed prisoners
were in fact responsible for the killings. They fear the
released prisoners pose a potential threat to eyewitnesses
and survivors of the 1997 massacre. They argue that while
tensions among indigenous groups in the area existed, it was
in fact a paramilitary group linked to Chiapas state-"the Red
Mask"-which carried out the massacre against another group,
the "Bees", whose members sympathized with the Zapatistas.
Jorge Hernandez, a lawyer at Fray Bartolome de las Casas,
expressed similar displeasure with the Court's decision for
its failure to look at the case comprehensively and for
focusing exclusively on administrative procedures of the
cases. Fray Bartolome de las Casas has worked closely with
the survivors and eyewitnesses of the massacre; Hernandez
expressed fears that the released could seek revenge.

5. (C) Comment: Human rights organizations may have good
reason to worry that some of those released may seek to exact
revenge on those who testified. However, few dispute
significant irregularities occurred in the course of the
investigation of this case which undermined the defendants'
claim to due process under law. According to Jorge Carpizo, a
former Supreme Court minister, a former Attorney General, a
former President of the National Human Rights Commission
(CNDH) and a current researcher at UNAM's Institute for

MEXICO 00002536 002 OF 002


Judicial Research, the decision could strengthen due process
by setting a strong precedent for standards to be met in the
course of investigations leading to trials. However, he
conceded to Poloff that guilty men were probably released as
a result of this decision. As Mexico begins the process of
undertaking wholesale judicial reform in keeping with
legislation passed by Congress last year, the Court will
likely take similar decisions that challenge society's
traditional concept of justice but ultimately make important
contributions to respect the rule of law and the Mexican
legal system. 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 /

FEELEY