Search



No Mercy In Mexico: Story Behind It Read Know

  • Share this:

In March 2015, two years after Enrique Peña Nieto's presidency, UN human rights expert Juan Méndez reported that torture was “commonplace” in no mercy in mexico. The government responded by attacking Méndez. The then foreign minister, José Antonio Meade, described him as “unresponsive and unprofessional” for his published findings “he could not prove it.” What makes this ad hominem attack so remarkable is that the findings of UN experts — while very disturbing — were actually not so significant. Few Mexicans were not surprised by the news of the increase in persecution in their country.

DONT WATCH THIS after I did I felt sick to the stomach.

No Mercy In Mexico: Watch Here


The government tried to justify its attack on Méndez by saying that his report identified only 14 cases of alleged harassment. It is possible to add physical cases to fill in the details and other information already included in the report would make the findings even more satisfying — if, indeed, anyone who needed to be trusted. But, as Peña Nieto's management was well aware, there was ample evidence to support the conclusion of the UN expert.

Blog Del Narco No Mercy in Mexico

In 2011, the year before Peña Nieto's takeover, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a comprehensive report on the harassment of the Mexican security forces, which received widespread media coverage, including the front pages of the country's leading papers. We have documented the formal use of abuse in more than 170 cases. The tactics varied: there were beatings, lightning strikes, constipation, death threats, sexual assault. So did the perpetrators: they were state, state, and municipal police; soldiers and sailors; prosecutors of the state and the state.

And these were cases in which only one researcher from our organization was able to write about the work in just five regions. In 2013 and 2014 alone, the State Prosecutor's Office received nearly 2,000 reports of abuse, while human rights commissioners received more than 6,000 complaints of abuse or cruelty. How many of these complaints were valid could not be ascertained, as many were not properly investigated. Regardless of the actual number of cases, reports of harassment that surfaced in the months before Méndez presented his report were more than enough to make the government's response seem absurd.

For example, there was a video of February 2015 — which was becoming increasingly popular — showing police and soldiers beating a woman with a plastic bag and threatening to kill her. There was also an October 2014 report by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) detailing how state prosecutors who were conducting a "investigation" of the 22 killings of soldiers by soldiers in Tlatlaya municipality arrested witnesses, beat them and killed them, and threatened them. raping and killing them if they did not sign statements liberating the soldiers.

And then, of course, there was Ayotzinapa. Toward the end of 2014, in the face of unprecedented public pressure to resolve the case of the 43 students who went missing in Guerrero, the State Prosecutor's Office created an official account of what happened primarily based on the testimony of detainees, many of whom showed signs. of torture. According to a report published this year by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, more than 30 of these detainees have been subjected to torture, including “beatings, kicking, electric shocks, blindfolds, sleepless nights, sexual assault, and various forms of torture. psychological abuse. ” One prisoner may have been tortured to death. At a news conference broadcast on national television, Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam announced that the Attorney General's Office had resolved the case and described the findings of the torture as "historical fact," a phrase representing sexual criticism.

As expected, the government's attack on the UN expert on torture did not end the problem. By the end of 2015, commissions at state levels of human rights received nearly 2,000 complaints of harassment. The following year, the National Institute for Statistics and Geography (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Geografía, INEGI) conducted a survey of more than 64,000 incarcerated in 338 no mercy in mexico prisons, more than 60 percent of whom had been incarcerated since 2012 — the year Peña Nieto. he took his place. About two thirds reported physical abuse by the authorities who detained them. More than a third reported being strangled, submerged, or mutilated. A fifth — about 13,000 — reported electric shocks.

How many of these allegations were true? Also, if there is no proper investigation, it is impossible to know. But there are two things we do know that give reason to suspect that the answers are many. One — represented by the Ayotzinapa and Tlatlaya cases — is that no mercy in mexico prosecutors believe they can use compulsory statements to “resolve” criminal cases. Another is that they believe they can escape. And for good reason: state prosecutors “opened” more than 9,000 investigations into allegations of abuse between Peña Nieto taking office in December 2012 and January 2018. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, during that time they did not receive a single sentence.

If anything good came out of the Ayotzinapa disaster, it was a great public outcry that forced Peña Nieto to take a few unusual steps to deal with the dire human rights situation. At the end of November 2014, he promised to follow ten steps to enforce the law. One was the anti-harassment law, enacted in April 2017, which contained provisions that, if applied forcefully and honestly, could really help prevent this type of harassment. Among other things, the law strengthens existing restrictions on the use of permits.

It also authorizes the establishment of anti-harassment units at prosecutors' offices, at the state and provincial levels, and to strengthen and provide independence to the national detention center, where harassment is common. The law therefore aims to address two factors that further perpetuate this practice: the ability of authorities to use harassment to “resolve” cases, and their ability to escape.

Yes, Mexico has a long history of creating laws and procedures to prevent harassment that look good on paper but that achieve little through practice. That is to be expected when officials in charge of implementing these measures are more concerned with denying problems than with solving them — as Peña Nieto's management did in response to a Méndez report.

But the denial could be even worse after Ayotzinapa — in large part because of Peña Nieto's second unusual move. Responding to public outrage over the heinous crime, Peña Nieto invited the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to send a team of investigators — the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts — to investigate the government's handling of the case. Prosecutors' work had never been exposed to external tests, and the findings were extremely damaging.

In a report released in 2015 and 2016, international experts revealed how the Ayotzinapa investigation was overcome by a toxic mix of incompetence, harassment and bad faith within the prosecutors' office. And in doing so, experts have highlighted what local and international human rights experts — including Méndez — have been saying for years about the important role that compulsory confession plays in advancing non-punishment in Mexico.

A report by the UN High Commissioner for Justice earlier this year provided further evidence of mistreatment by prosecutors in the case. In June, a 712-page appellate court ruling ruled that prosecutors could not be trusted to resolve the case and ordered the federal government to establish a “Commission of Inquiry into Justice and Truth” to do the job.

Ayotzinapa will soon be the work of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The president-elect has promised to set up a commission to look into the matter. Undoubtedly, the commission of inquiry that may determine the fate of missing students will certainly be well worth the effort — and even more so if it opens the way to bring justice to those involved.

But the tragedy of Ayotzinapa, in the end, is greater than the end of the students — even greater than the great suffering of their families. The fact that this cruelty is still to be solved — despite the fact that the whole world has looked to it — is just one example of Mexico's widespread failure to provide truth and justice to the thousands of families of loved ones who have died or been killed. Abuse has been a major part of this failure.

No mercy in mexico desperately needs effective law enforcement. Harassment is your opposition. It is a crime that works to cover up other crimes. As Ayotzinapa, Tlatlaya, and other recent cases have made it clear, harassment does not prove the truth. It forces victims to say whatever they think their abusers want to hear in order to put an end to the purpose of unbearable suffering. The victims confessed to crimes they did not commit. They falsely accuse — or liberate — others. Innocent people are then persecuted, while true crimes are always full. Abuse therefore perpetuates non-punishment that allows crime and abuse to flourish.

López Obrador can do well by taking a few courses at Ayotzinapa. The first is the urgent need to build an independent public prosecutor's office that is committed to committing in-depth investigations into minor and minor atrocities committed by security forces and organized crime. This urgent obligation should be an important factor in guiding the elected president in the process of creating a new prosecutor's office.

The second lesson is that ensuring a thorough investigation of atrocities and other crimes — and thus the success of the new prosecutor's office — will require fighting and ending harassment. This requires the full and effective implementation of the new harassment law — which includes ensuring that the national register of harassment cases and the special prosecutor's office of harassment is as effective as possible. But even though the harassment law required PGR to have national register infrastructure in December 2017, PGR told us in August 2018 - eight months after its expiration - that the work was not yet completed. Nor has it issued a national anti-harassment program, as required by law.

The third unimaginable lesson in Ayotzinapa is about the important role played by three types of actors in exposing the state's mistreatment: victims' families, local organizations, and international investigators. The slandered “historical truth” would likely have been successful had it not been for the tireless efforts of the victim's family to seek answers, guidance, and legal assistance from local human rights organizations to ensure compliance, and investigations. international experts and other civil society organizations. The new authorities should welcome and encourage the continued participation of all these groups in order to end harassment and non-punishment for human rights crimes in no mercy in mexico.

Natasha Chung

Natasha Chung

Natasha is Research Analyst and loves to express her findings in reviews. She was previously working for a Fashion Startup in Thailand. She is Foodie and Travelling is her major Hobby.