UNHCHR on Mexican Military Justice Cooperation

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MEXICO 000071

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
WHA/MX DESK

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/01/22
TAGS: SNAR PREL PGOV PHUM KCRM MX
SUBJECT: UNHCHR on Mexican Military Justice Cooperation

REF: 09 MEXICO 2341

CLASSIFIED BY: Gustavo Delgado, Political Minister Counselor; REASON:
1.4(B),(D)


1. (SBU) Summary. The United Nations High Commission on Human
Rights (UNHCHR) has been frustrated with the Mexican Army (SEDENA)
for its lack of cooperation in progressing human rights issues, and
has expressed serious concerns about the proceedings of the
military justice system. SEDENA's lack of transparency with UNHCHR
has complicated the organizations ability to make meaningful
progress on human rights issues. End Summary.





SEDENA Avoids Human Rights Discussions




2. (C) Poloffs met with UNHCHR representative Nira Cardenas, who
provided an overview of their relationship with SEDENA following
the signing of their agreement in July 2009 on human rights
cooperation (REFTEL). Cardenas, the U.N.'s point person on the
agreement, complained about SEDENA's failure to work constructively
in developing a human rights program. Instead of working with
UNHCHR to make real progress, SEDENA's Human Rights Directorate
points to the military's participation in various human rights
conferences and highlights the log book it issues to every solider
to track their participation in human rights seminars and training
as evidence of attention being paid to human rights issues. To
date, SEDENA has not invited UNHCHR to evaluate a single human
rights training or seminar and as a result, UNHCHR or SEDENA had
not begun to create the indices required by the agreement to
measure progress. UNHCHR had requested additional information
regarding cases involving alleged human rights abuses by soldiers
in order to evaluate SEDENA's compliance with international
standards, but SEDENA officials responded that they could not
comment on on-going investigations or trials. UNHCHR had received
no new information.





The Trial




3. (C) Rather than invite UNHCHR to a human rights related trial,
SEDENA invited representatives to observe a trial for a retired
military zone commander charged with illegally possessing a rifle
that he allegedly confiscated from a civilian check point. Even
though the trial did not provide any insight into SEDENA's
investigation or prosecution of a case involving human rights, it
did provide direct insight into the military justice system and the
manner in which cases are handled. At the time of the proceedings,
the Colonel was retired, and the charges against him had been
levied five years prior, while the individual was an active duty
zone commander. Cardenas believed that the retired Colonel had
been living in the community and was not restricted in movement or
liberties while awaiting trial.




4. (SBU) The trial commenced with a reading of the charges, as
well as a dissertation on the legality of the proceedings. Stacked
in front of the tribunal were two large piles of papers that
supposedly contained official reports detailing the charges and
evidence against the Colonel. The papers, however, were never
entered into evidence or discussed. The prosecuting attorney
presented neither physical evidence nor the actual rifle in
question. The defense consisted of little more than a parade of
character witnesses that spoke on behalf of the defendant but never
really addressed the charges. The trial was oral, as opposed to
the inquisitorial proceeding that characterize civilian trials.
Six hours of testimony resulted in a not guilty verdict by the
panel. The UN representative observed that that if this trail were

MEXICO 00000071 002 OF 002


representative of a normal military proceedings, the Mexican
military judicial system was grossly lacking in some basic elements
of common jurisprudence.






5. (SBU) Comment: Despite its historic agreement with the UNHCHR,
SEDENA treats the U.N. with the same diversionary tactics it uses
with the USG, NGOs, and others. SEDENA's lack of transparency with
UNHCHR has complicated the organization's ability to make
meaningful progress on human rights issues. Moreover, the UNHCHR
representative's observation of the military judicial system
appears to affirm deficiencies intrinsic to the system that would
make the successful prosecutions of human rights cases in military
courts that much more difficult. Nevertheless, the military's
willingness to expose its judicial system to the scrutiny of
outside observers is a small positive step. We will look to take
advantage of this opening by developing programs to work with
SEDENA on adopting appropriate measures to reform its judiciary
into an institution that effectively and objectively prosecutes
violations of law in accordance with internationally respected
standards and procedures. End Comment
FEELEY