Between June 18 and 21, three delegates –Marina Pagès (France), Monica Wooters (USA) and Theres Hoechli (Switzerland)– conducted a four-day visit to the State of Guerrero as a follow up to the March delegation coordinated by the International Service for Peace (SIPAZ) which included the participation of representatives of 11 NGOs (nongovernment organizations) from six countries.

Photo: The SIPAZ coordinator at the Tlachinollan anniversary

This second trip included a stop in Ayutla de los Libres where the delegates met with the Tlachinollan Human Rights Center of the Montaña, the Organization of the Me’phaa Indigenous Peoples (OPIM, Organización del Pueblo Indígena Me’phaa) and interviewed five members of the OPIM in the municipal prison where they have been detained since April 18, 2008. In Chilpancingo, a meeting was conducted with the president of the State Commission for the Defense of Human Rights (Comisión Estatal de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos), Juan Alarcón Hernández, as well as the Secretary General of (State) Government, Ramírez Ramos.

Concluding the trip, the delegates attended the forum “Guerrero: Where poverty is punished and protest is criminalized,” organized by Tlachinollan Human Rights Center of the Montaña as part of its 14th anniversary celebrations. On the first day of the forum, soldiers from the Mexican Army established a roadside checkpoint at a distance of 50m from the event. This was interpreted by forum participants as a clear act of intimidation.

The emphasis placed on the issue of the criminalization of social protest during the event was noteworthy. From all parts of the state, organizations such as the OPIM, the Community Police (Policía Comunitaria), the Council of Ejidos and Communities Opposed to La Parota Dam (Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota), students of the Normal Rural School Ayotzinapa and Radio Ñomndaa reported events that illustrate this tendency: arbitrary detentions, arrest warrants, militarization, intimidation and threats.

Photo: Members of the OPIM detained in the municipal jail in Ayutla de los Libres

This trend had already been denounced in meetings held with social organizations during the March delegation. From the municipal prison in Ayutla de los Libres, the detainees belonging to the OPIM stated: “We’re imprisoned for defending our rights and the Me’phaa community. We have fought for the good of the people. We have reported injustices and militarization. This bothers the government, that’s why we’re imprisoned.”

In response to the “criminalization of social protest” signaled by local actors, the secretary general considered the accusation “a little harsh” and emphasized: “It isn’t a question of repression, it’s a question of poverty.” Ramos added, “if there is no money, we can’t resolve these problems.” In March, the original delegation stated, “While we recognize that poverty is a major challenge, we cannot accept that the state government uses this as a justification for the lack of promotion and protection of human rights.” After this return visit, the delegates continue to be concerned that this issue has not been made a higher priority.

Several of those interviewed informed the delegation that in the short term most political actors are more concerned with the coming elections than with paying serious attention to the community’s demands.

In Tlachinollan’s anniversary celebrations, Director Abel Barrera spoke of 201 legal cases against social leaders, including 75 arrest warrants, 73 investigations, and 44 preliminary investigations. The existence of so many arrest warrants or individuals with legal proceedings open against them acts as a sword of Damocles over local organizational processes. To be subject to legal proceedings implies that the individual must attend a designated Public Ministry at least once a month to “sign” documents, something like a good-behavior bond, a condition which can limit an individual’s ability to find or maintain employment.

Given this situation, the secretary general emphasized both the autonomy of Guerrero’s judicial branch and the fact that “it is not possible to refrain from applying justice because of pressure from social groups.”

Similarly, when speaking of militarization, Ramírez Ramos explained that it was the responsibility of federal authorities, not those of Guerrero. 

The current delegates’ concerns are identical to those expressed by the March delegation: the sensation that spaces for dissent are being restricted could lead to a radicalization of the local struggle, and that this may be demonstrated by a possible increase in conflictive situations related to the upcoming electoral period.