SUPREME COURT DECLARES OAXACA GOVERNOR VIOLATED

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 MEXICO 003450 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/20/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV PINR MX SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT DECLARES OAXACA GOVERNOR VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS REF: A. 2007 MEXICO 00719 ¶B. MEXICO 3174 Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Gustavo Delgado. Reason: 1.4 (b),(d). ¶1. Summary: After two years of review, the Mexican Supreme Court announced on Oct. 14 that serious human rights abuses occurred in the state of Oaxaca after a 2006 teacher's strike led to violent unrest. The Court specifically held Governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz and a number of top state security officials responsible for not taking action to protect human rights. In the runup to elections next year in Oaxaca, the Court's findings undercut Ruiz's political stature as he angles to become president of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and maneuvers to secure the election of his hand-chosen successor as Governor of Oaxaca. While it is unlikely that the Supreme Court's decision will lead to criminal charges against Ruiz, it represents the kind of political baggage that could undermine his political prospects in the future. It also puts the PRI in a difficult position as its members rise to his defense. At the same time, the announcement reflects favorably on the Supreme Court and its evolving independence, as it proved itself willing to criticize a powerful political figure in serious terms. The Investigation... ¶2. (U) In June 2007, Mexico's Chamber of Deputies formally requested the Supreme Court investigate possible human rights violations after a prolonged teacher's strike turned violent in Oaxaca in 2006 (see ref a Oaxacan Governor Ulises Ruiz opposed the inquiry on grounds he had adopted the National Human Rights Commission's (CNDH) recommendations to address concerns arising from the 2006 events. Ultimately, the Chamber and Court went forward with a decision calling for an investigation on the understanding that the Court would produce a report on its findings regarding whether human rights violations occurred, but that it would not pursue criminal proceedings against those responsible. ¶3. (U) After more than two years of review, on October 14, the court ruled 7-4 that Oaxacan Governor Ruiz, Director General of Public Security Jose Manuel Vera Salinas, Director of Ministerial Police Lt. Jose Moreno Rivas, and Director of Auxiliary Police Joaquin Dario Berges y Dorantes, were guilty of human rights violations. Specifically, the Court ruled they had "violated guarantees of access to justice, personal integrity, life, peace, and information." Rejecting a bid to qualify Ruiz's actions as "diminished," the Court instead ruled that his crimes were clear and straightforward. The press widely reported Supreme Court President Guillermo Ortiz criticizing Ruiz by saying "the fundamental complaint is that he (Ruiz) did not maintain public order and by not fulfilling this key responsibility, (Ruiz) allowed the situation to deteriorate which led to fundamental human rights abuses." In the same decision, the Court absolved former President Vicente Fox and his cabinet of wrongdoing, rejecting one justice's assertion that Fox had "abandoned the state." While the Court found Ruiz responsible for negligence, it let Fox off the same hook. ...An Exercise in Futility? ¶4. (SBU) Ironically, the Court's unequivocal ruling against Ruiz and the leading members of his security team does not necessarily imply legal repercussions. As noted prior, the Court's mandate was simply to investigate the case and signal guilty parties. Its findings will now go to the Attorney General (PGR) and the Chamber of Deputies for further consideration. PGR retains the prerogative to investigate further and pursue criminal prosecution of Ruiz and/or his security team. Most experts, however, consider that unlikely. The Chamber will debate potential sanctions, but most analysts expect the Chamber will base its decision on political factors rather than facts. Already the PRI, the lead party in the Chamber, has circled around Ruiz, defending him against calls from the PRD and PAN for his prosecution. It is unclear when the Chamber will take up the issue. MEXICO 00003450 002 OF 003 Stakeholders Respond: Ruiz Lines up Supporters and Opponents Attack ¶5. (SBU) Oaxaca State officials downplayed the decision, telling Poloffs that the Court's announcement was merely "an academic exercise" and stressed that it was non-binding. Nonetheless, State Attorney General officials arrived late to a meeting with Poloffs because they were working out a response strategy, signaling more concern than they otherwise let on. Nationally, the PRI took the same stance, downplaying the decision and standing behind Ruiz. Both party President Beatriz Paredes and leader of the PRI block in the Chamber of Deputies Francisco Rojas publicly offered their support for Ruiz and reiterated the non-punitive aspect of the decision. PRI Deputies from Oaxaca came out most vocally in support of Ruiz, accusing the Supreme Court of bias and of having made its decision under political pressure. With so many well placed supporters, Ruiz faces little risk of being prosecuted by PGR or punished by the Chamber. His long term political prospects however, are less predictable, as rumors are swirling that national party leaders are looking to select their own candidate for governor and will refuse to support Ruiz's choice. Such a move would represent a major blow to Ruiz's political strength in his own state, where he has proven the strongest political force over the last few years, and would weaken his chances of becoming PRI party president. ¶6. (SBU) Local NGOs launched vehement attacks against Ruiz in the wake of the decision while calling on the government to take legal action against him. The November 25th Liberation Committee, an NGO which grew out of the 2006 unrest, applauded the Supreme Court decision, stating that while, "the decision is non-binding, it carries moral and political weight," imposing on the government an obligation "to correct this injustice." This group and others, however, expressed disappointment that the finding had not held federal officials, including former President Fox, responsible for the abuses. Overall, human rights NGOs and political opponents see the decision as a major blow to Ruiz and have used the opportunity to speak out in the press and publish editorials harshly critical of the Governor. ¶7. (C) Comment: Although Ruiz will most likely not face prosecution as a result of the Supreme Court's findings, his hopes of becoming president of the PRI when his gubernatorial term is up in 2010 have probably suffered a serious blow. In addition, rumors are rife that PRI leaders will not support Ruiz' candidate to succeed him as governor, suggesting anyone Ruiz selects will be fiercely attacked by his many opponents. If the rumors are true, the field for potential gubernatorial candidates in Oaxaca will open up and national party leaders will get more involved. Then again, Ruiz exerts near total political control over his state ref b and has a large block of sympathetic Deputies to support him in the Chamber. In addition, in November he launched a major national publicity campaign on t.v. and in newspapers, touting his efforts to create jobs in Oaxaca and continuing with efforts to position himself as a leader of his party. Despite these efforts, Ruiz's political ambitions may be frustrated by this ruling. Nevertheless, his case demonstrates the PRI's proclivity for defending members of questionable legal and moral ethic, despite the party's efforts to present itself as a modern, reformed political force. In this case, the knee-jerk response was to defend a Governor labeled a human rights violator. In doing so, the PRI proves the old guard continues to hold sway and the party's legacy of strong-handed leaders remains. ¶8. (C) Comment continued: Beyond PRI party dynamics, this Supreme Court decision also speaks to the Court's slow evolution towards a more democratic entity. This is only the second instance in which the Court has investigated a sitting governor. In 1996, the Court conducted an investigation into the massacre of 17 people in Aguas Blancas, Guerrero. The Justices determined that then Governor Ruben Figueroa was responsible for the deaths and he resigned from office shortly thereafter. While the recent Court decision implicating Ruiz will most likely not cause him to resign, it MEXICO 00003450 003.3 OF 003 ¶8. does burnish the Court's credentials as an independent institution and proves the Court intends to continue exercising its ability to investigate and criticize powerful authorities. ¶9. 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