E/CN.4/1998/38/Add.2
page 3
5.
In order to interview prisoners who had allegedly been tortured, the
Special Rapporteur visited the Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre (CEFERESO)
of Almoloya de Juárez, the Social Rehabilitation Centre (CERESO) of
Chilpancingo and the women's sector of the Northern Preventive Prison of the
Federal District, and also met the authorities in charge.
6.
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Mexico for allowing him
to make this visit and for its valuable collaboration, which greatly
facilitated his task.
I.
THE PRACTICE OF TORTURE:
SCOPE AND CONTEXT
Information submitted by non-governmental sources
7.
Before and during his visit to the country, the Special Rapporteur
received a great deal of information from non-governmental sources to the
effect that torture continued to be a common practice. The majority of cases,
however, are not reported to the authorities due to ignorance, limited means
of substantiating the case, mistrust on the part of the victims in
institutions or fear of reprisals. A selection of approximately 116 cases,
which reportedly occurred between January 1996 and September 1997, is given in
the annex to this report.
8.
The sources indicated that the most common cases were those occurring in
the course of crime investigations. The legal instruments promulgated in
recent years, to which the Special Rapporteur will refer below, have not been
successful in eliminating the use of torture, which apparently continues to be
common among the judicial police forces. In addition, responsibility for
cases of torture has often been attributed to the army, as the annex shows.
On the pretext of a rise in the crime rate in the country and a social demand
for greater public security, the Government introduced a series of legal
amendments allowing the armed forces to intervene in areas which pertain to
the civil authorities, such as public security and the prosecution of certain
offences. As a result, the armed forces intervene in the investigation and
prosecution of offences such as terrorism, smuggling and illegal trafficking
in persons, arms and drugs, despite the fact that article 21 of the
Constitution provides that the investigation and prosecution of offences is
the province of the Public Prosecution Department.
9.
It was reported that in order to justify this role of the armed forces,
it has been argued that they assist the civil authorities, although in actual
fact they are not subordinate to the latter. They undertake duties on their
own account which are the province of the Public Prosecutor, such as arresting
and interrogating suspects, carrying out searches without a warrant and
setting up checkpoints on roads and other ways of communication on the pretext
of looking for drugs or weapons. This is contrary to article 129 of the
Constitution, whereby in peacetime no military authority may engage in duties
other than those which are directly related to military discipline. However,
in March 1996 the Supreme Court when examining a remedy of unconstitutionality
filed with regard to the army's participation in public security activities,
ruled that the army could, if expressly requested by the civil authorities,