CAT/C/75
page 5
7.
At its twenty-second session (May 1999) the Committee assigned two of its members,
Mr. Alejandro González Poblete and Mr. Antonio Silva Henriques Gaspar, to examine the
Government’s response. They noted that the Mexican Government reproached the Committee
with acting rashly in concluding that torture was being practised systematically in Mexico, since
the information brought to the Government’s attention referred only to 60 cases involving a total
of 177 victims in 12 of the country’s 32 Federal States. According to the Government, that
sample was not representative of the real situation in Mexico. The Government also pointed out
that the cases in question had not been brought to the attention of the competent authorities, in
particular, the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Committee’s representatives dismissed that
argument since the information from PRODH showed that almost all the cases had been the
subject of complaints either to the National Human Rights Commission or to its counterparts in
Federal States. The information received by the Committee suggested that, despite the
legislative and administrative measures taken by the Government, torture continued to be
practised systematically, in particular by members of the judicial police and the armed forces, in
the fight against subversive groups. The Special Rapporteur on torture,1 the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights2 and the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch3
had all reached the same conclusion in their reports on the matter. In its reply the Government
had provided statistics on all the recommendations concerning legal system employees made
since 1990 by human rights commissions, but had given no indication of how many of them
referred to cases of torture, nor of how the recommendations had been followed up. The
representatives considered that the Committee should continue its procedure under article 20.
8.
During the same session, the Committee endorsed that conclusion and decided to
undertake a confidential inquiry in accordance with article 20, paragraph 2, of the
Convention and rule 78 of its Rules of Procedure, designating Mr. González Poblete and
Mr. Silva Henriques Gaspar for the purpose. It also decided to invite the Mexican Government,
in accordance with article 20, paragraph 3, of the Convention and rule 79 of its Rules of
Procedure, to cooperate with it in the conduct of the inquiry. Lastly, it decided to request the
Government of Mexico, pursuant to article 20, paragraph 3, of the Convention and rule 80 of its
Rules of Procedure, to allow a visit to take place in September 1999.
9.
In a note verbale dated 29 June 1999, the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the
United Nations Office at Geneva expressed the Government’s surprise at the Committee’s
decision, since the Government had provided the Committee with a wealth of conclusive
evidence showing beyond doubt that the information supplied by PRODH was baseless,
unreliable, distorted facts and arguments, was at variance with reality in the country and did not
support the conclusion that torture was systematically practised in Mexico. That
notwithstanding, the note stated the Government’s willingness to cooperate with the Committee
in the inquiry and to provide such information at its disposal as the members of the Committee
might consider of help in examining the events that were the subject of the inquiry. It also said
that the Government would assess the justification for, and appropriateness of a visit to the
country once its accredited representative, Ambassador Miguel Angel González Félix, had met
the Committee’s designated representatives.
10.
The meeting between Ambassador González Félix and the two Committee members
assigned to conduct the inquiry took place on 19 and 20 October 1999 in Geneva. Besides
Ambassador González Félix, the Government of Mexico was represented by Ms. Perla Carvalho,
the deputy permanent representative at the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations