CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016
touched the steering wheel of the car without wearing gloves and told the family that he
could not take fingerprints because of the dust. As part of the investigation, Ms. Galindres
was summoned on 26 October 2010 to work on facial composites of the police officers (the
authors claim to have asked to see the photograph album of the inter-municipal police, to
make it easier to identify those responsible).
2.5
On 22 October 2010, Ms. Galindres filed an application for amparo for illegal
deprivation of liberty and incommunicado detention.3 On 3 November 2010, after
requesting information from the inter-municipal police and being told that Mr. Téllez
Padilla had not been detained, the court ordered a stay of proceedings. After proceedings
had been stayed for a year, the judge considered the lawsuit not to have been filed (in
accordance with the law in force at the time of the events).
2.6
On 26 October 2010, in view of the perceived indifference of the authorities in Poza
Rica, Mr. Téllez Padilla’s family went to the Directorate-General of Judicial Investigations
in Xalapa, the capital of Veracruz, where another preliminary investigation was opened. 4 In
the context of this investigation, the family gained access to the photograph album of the
inter-municipal police and Ms. Galindres identified Pablo García García (of whom a facial
composite had been made) and two other police officers (Marco Alfredo Castellanos López
and Carlos Vicencio Santiago) as being among those responsible for the disappearance. 5 In
addition, and also in the context of this investigation, a number of people were questioned
but claimed to have seen nothing in particular. 6 Family members were also informed that
there were no surveillance cameras in the area (which turned out to be untrue, but due to the
time that had elapsed, the video footage had been erased). On 29 November 2010, Pablo
García García was summoned to testify. In his testimony of 6 December 2010, he stated
that he belonged to the Canine Unit and did not drive patrol cars or motorcycles, and that he
had been on holiday on the day of the events. He provided as evidence an official letter
signed by the chief of the inter-municipal police (Juan Carlos Novoa Torres – who was
linked to a murder in 2014) and the 20 October 2010 duty log of the Canine Unit, signed by
the deputy chief of the inter-municipal police, Javier Amador Mercado Guerrero.
2.7
On 22 November 2010, a complaint was filed against the three police officers
identified – Pablo García García, Marco Alfredo Castellanos López and Carlos Vicencio
Santiago – in the Kidnapping Unit of the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the
Investigation of Organized Crime, in the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic,
which gave rise to a preliminary investigation for the crime of illegal deprivation of liberty
in the form of kidnapping. 7 The authors of the communication were very active, 8
contributing various pieces of evidence for the investigation, including the news of the
arrest of the deputy chief of the inter-municipal police, Javier Amador Mercado Guerrero,9
reputedly the leader in Poza Rica of the organized crime group Los Zetas. According to the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
GE.19-15740
Case No. 0809/2010 before the Eleventh District Court of Poza Rica, for violations of articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution.
Preliminary investigation 174E/2010.
The photographs of four police officers (Leodagario Amador González, Marcelo López Hernández,
Gregorio Maldonado Ramírez and Guillermo Gómez Castillo) who, in January 2015, were summoned
to testify and declared that they did not know Mr. Téllez Padilla were missing.
The authors claim that this was probably out of fear: a lady at the newspaper stand near the place
where the police had asked Ms. Galindres what she was looking for, said that she had seen nothing,
and two people – who refused to give their details – asked the family not to involve them. Moreover,
the file also shows that some of the people questioned by the authorities said that they were “doing
some repair work at home” and so were not aware of any situation involving patrol officers, or that
they could not provide any information “because at the time mentioned this branch is closed”, or that
they did not notice the presence of the inter-municipal police in their shop because they had their
backs turned and could not see anything, or that they could not see anything because “the premises
has air-conditioning and the door has to stay closed, and in any case the door is made of tinted glass”.
Preliminary investigation PGR/SIEDO/UEIS/561/2010.
Mr. Téllez Padilla’s mother testified on 3 and 28 December 2010, 17 November 2011, 17 January, 27
June, 9 November and 10 December 2012, 5 February, 2 April, 22 May and 1 July 2013, offering, for
example, colour photographs of her son and a blood sample for genetic-profiling purposes.
The person who had denied family members access to a padlocked room in the police station.
3