• The content of the reforms must comply with the rulings by the Supreme Court and the Inter-American Court

• Human Rights Organizations welcomed the publication of the Project of reforms and holding public hearings.

Mexico D.F., 24 July 2013. While discussions at the Senate will resume on the pending reforms on military jurisdiction and enforced disappearance, the undersigned human rights organizations urge the Senate to prioritize the adoption of the necessary modifications, based on the rulings of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The reform to the military jurisdiction has been a constant demand of the victims who have been forced to unsuccessfully seek justice before authorities who lack competence, as well as from the human rights organizations that have accompanied such processes. In recent years, this demand has become more important given the increasing human rights violations committed by the Armed Forces, of which the majority remains in impunity. This claim has been supported by the recommendations of numerous international human rights mechanisms, and above all, by the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the cases Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, Inés Fernández Ortega, Valentina Rosendo Cantú, and Rodolfo Montiel Flores and Teodoro Cabrera García (“Campesinos Ecologistas”). In such resolutions, the Inter-American Court determined that Mexcian legislation regarding military jurisdiction violates the American Convention on Human Rights by allowing the Armed Forces to investigate and prosecute crimes that are not circumscribed to military discipline. It is worth noting that the Court also ordered to modify the amparo in order to allow victims to appeal the extension of military jurisdiction in cases that exceed their competence, which has recently been modified, proving that reforms mandated by international tribunals are possible when political will exists.

The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice also ruled on this regard, favoring compliance of international rulings. As is widely known, during August 2012, the Supreme Court determined by a clear majority that article 57 of the Military Code of Justice is unconstitutional. Such decision was taken in the case of the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Bonfilio Rubio Villegas, file 133/2012.

It becomes clear that reforming the military jurisdiction is urgent. While the discussions at Congress will resume promptly, the Justice Committee of the Senate has published on their website a draft project for the reforms. This project opens a new opportunity to move forward on the compliance of the international obligations acquired by Mexico.

In this regards, the draft project constitutes a significant step towards including international standards into the Mexican legislation for restricting the military jurisdiction on cases involving civilians or related to human rights violations.

Nevertheless, there are still relevant matters that are not contemplated by the draft project that should also be modified. In particular, article 435 of the Military Code of Justice, regarding the power to declare if a case is on the competence of a military tribunal, since such power should lie solely under civilian authorities, who may decline their competence only in cases where the offense is related to military discipline. This and other aspects need to be improved during the legislative debate, without any detriment to the progress of the reforms.

The undersigned human rights organizations welcome both initiatives of the Justice Committee to make publish the draft project and the announcement of holding public hearings with the participation of civil society and other interested actors, intended to enhance the project and promote transparency in a fundamental reform for human rights in Mexico. Both initiatives may result in exercises that in the end will open more spaces for democratic discussions.

Similarly, the undersigned human rights organizations call the Congress to prioritize the reforms to the Military Code of Justice, since that will allow Mexico to present progress in their compliance with international obligations during the next Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UN, to be held in October this year. It is important to note that Mexico was evaluated by the UPR on 2009, being the military jurisdiction one of the main topics of concern and that Mexico rejected those recommendations.

Co-signatories:

Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (Centro Prodh); Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan”; Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL); Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH); Equis, Justicia para las Mujeres; Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación; y la Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para Todos y Todas” (conformada por 73 organizaciones en 20 estados de la República Mexicana): Agenda LGBT (Estado de México), Asistencia Legal por los Derechos Humanos, A.C. (Distrito Federal); Asociación Jalisciense de Apoyo a los Grupos Indígenas, A.C. (Guadalajara, Jal.); Asociación para la Defensa de los Derechos Ciudadanos “Miguel Hidalgo”, A.C. (Jacala, Hgo.); Bowerasa, A.C. “Haciendo Camino”. (Chihuahua, Chih.); Casa del Migrante Saltillo (Coahuila), Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir, A.C. (Distrito Federal); Centro “Fray Julián Garcés” Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo Local, A. C. (Tlaxcala, Tlax.); Centro de Apoyo al Trabajador, A.C. (Puebla, Pue.); Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas”, A. C. (San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chis) ; Centro de Derechos Humanos Digna Ochoa A.C; Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria O.P.”, A. C. (Distrito Federal); Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez”, A. C. (Distrito Federal); Centro de Derechos Humanos “Don Sergio” (Jiutepec, Mor.); Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Matías de Córdova”. A.C. (Tapachula, Chis); Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña, Tlachinollan, A. C. (Tlapa, Gro.); Centro de Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres (Chihuahua), Centro de Derechos Humanos, “Juan Gerardi”, A. C. (Torreón, Coah.); Centro de Derechos Humanos Paso del Norte (Cd. Juárez); Centro de Derechos Humanos Victoria Diez, A.C. (León, Gto.); Centro de Derechos Indígenas “Flor y Canto”, A. C. (Oaxaca, Oax.); Centro de Derechos Humanos Toaltepeyolo (Orizaba, Veracruz); Centro de Derechos Indígenas A. C. (Bachajón, Chis.); Centro de los Derechos del Migrante (DF); Centro de Justicia para la Paz y el Desarrollo, A. C. (CEPAD) (Guadalajara, Jal.); Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral (CEREAL-DF) (Distrito Federal); Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral (CEREAL-Guadalajara) (Guadalajara, Jal.); Centro Diocesano para los Derechos Humanos “Fray Juan de Larios”, A.C. (Saltillo, Coah.); Centro Juvenil Generando Dignidad (Comalcalco, Tabasco); Centro Hermanas Mirabal de Derechos Humanos (León, Gto.), Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (Distrito Federal), Centro Mujeres (La Paz, BCS.), Centro Regional de Defensa de DDHH José María Morelos y Pavón, A. C. (Chilapa, Gro.); Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos “Bartolomé Carrasco”, A. C. (Oaxaca, Oax.); Ciencia Social Alternativa, A.C. – KOOKAY (Mérida, Yuc.); Ciudadanía Lagunera por los Derechos Humanos, A. C. (CILADHAC) (Torreón, Coah.); Colectivo Educación para la Paz y los Derechos Humanos, A.C. (San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chis.); Colectivo contra la Tortura y la Impunidad (Distrito Federal); Comité Cerezo (Distrito Federal); Comisión de Derechos Humanos y Laborales del Valle de Tehuacán, A.C. (Tehuacan, Pue.); Comisión de Solidaridad y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, A. C. (Chihuahua, Chih.); Comisión Independiente de Derechos Humanos de Morelos, A. C. (CIDHMOR) (Cuernavaca, Mor.); Comisión Intercongregacional “Justicia, Paz y Vida” (Distrito Federal); Comisión Parroquial de Derechos Humanos “Martín de Tours”, A.C. (Texmelucan, Pue.); Comisión Regional de Derechos Humanos “Mahatma Gandhi”, A. C. (Tuxtepec, Oax.); Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha A.C.(Codigodh A.C); Comité de Defensa de las Libertades Indígenas (Palenque, Chis.); Comité de Derechos Humanos Ajusco (Distrito Federal); Comité de Derechos Humanos “Fr. Pedro Lorenzo de la Nada”, A. C. (Ocosingo, Chis.); Comité de Derechos Humanos “Sembrador de la Esperanza”. A. C. (Acapulco, Gro.); Comité de Derechos Humanos “Sierra Norte de Veracruz”, AC. 4 (Huayacocotla, Ver.); Comité de Derechos Humanos de Colima, No gubernamental, A. C. (Colima, Col.); Comité de Derechos Humanos de Comalcalco, A. C. (Comalcalco, Tab); Comité de Derechos Humanos de Tabasco, A. C. (Villahermosa, Tab); Comité de Derechos Humanos y Orientación Miguel Hidalgo, A. C. (Dolores Hidalgo, Gto.); Comité Sergio Méndez Arceo Pro Derechos Humanos de Tulancingo, Hgo AC (Tulancingo, Hgo.); El Caracol A.C (Distrito Federal); Frente Cívico Sinaloense. Secretaría de Derechos Humanos. (Culiacán, Sin.); Indignación, A. C. Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (Chablekal, comisaría del municipio de Mérida, Yuc.); Iniciativas para la Identidad y la Inclusión A.C. (Distrito Federal); Instituto Guerrerense de Derechos Humanos, A. C. (Chilpancingo, Gro.); Instituto Mexicano de Derechos Humanos y Democracia (Distrito Federal); Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario, A. C. (IMDEC), (Guadalajara, Jal.); Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente, – Programa Institucional de Derechos Humanos y Paz. (Guadalajara, Jal.); Oficina de Defensoría de los Derechos de la Infancia A.C. (Distrito Federal), Programa de Derechos Humanos. Universidad Iberoamericana- Puebla (Puebla, Pue); Programa Universitario de Derechos Humanos. UIA –León (León, Gto.); Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales Y Culturales (Distrito Federal); Proyecto sobre Organización, Desarrollo, Educación e Investigación (Distrito Federal); Promoción de los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (Estado de México); Respuesta Alternativa, A. C. Servicio de Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo Comunitario (San Luis Potosí, S.L.P.); Servicio, Paz y Justicia de Tabasco, A.C. (Villahermosa, Tab.); Servicios de Inclusión Integral, A.C. (Pachuca, Hidalgo); Taller Universitario de Derechos Humanos, A. C. (Distrito Federal).