COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF MEXICO
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today considered the sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports of Mexico on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing the report, Alejandro Negrin Munoz, Ambassador and Director General of Human Rights and Democracy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the Committee that major progress had been made in Mexico’s legal framework to comply with the Convention. The June 2011 reform of the Constitution included recognition of human rights and a broadening of its coverage in the criminal code. Specific laws had been passed in most of the 32 federative bodies of Mexico to prevent discrimination based on race, language and the colour of one’s skin. Numerous programmes to address discrimination against indigenous people had been established, including a right to consultation, institutions to promote indigenous languages and justice systems and a 149 per cent increase in the budget for indigenous peoples. Efforts had also been made to address discrimination against people of African descent, migrants and domestic workers. Resistance, prejudice and cultural barriers were deeply rooted. Some of the greatest challenges access to justice and incorporation of the principle of non-discrimination, and the design and implementation of affirmative action programs. Mexico would live up to its commitment to harmonize federal and national laws to prevent racial discrimination.
Pastor Elias Murrilo Martinez, Country Rapporteur for the Report of Mexico, said that Mexico faced unique difficulties in implementing racial discrimination legislation due to drug trafficking violence and voiced concern that security had been prioritized over the elimination of racial discrimination. Eleven articles of the Mexican constitution had been reformed to combat racism and racial discrimination and overcome the inequality impacting indigenous individuals, but indigenous women were victims of multiple forms of discrimination due to a patriarchal system. He asked what the Government was doing to address the negative impact of mega projects on indigenous peoples, which often lacked consultation with local populations and led to disputes over natural resources.
Other Committee Experts asked questions about the Yaqui indigenous people, especially how their right to land and to traditional economic and cultural livelihood was jeopardized by open cast mining projects; about human rights training for police, processes and mechanisms developed for migrant workers, support to non-governmental organizations and human rights defenders, and how the normative indigenous courts used customary practices to resolve cases.
In concluding remarks, Alejandro Negrin Munoz, said he looked forward to the upcoming recommendations of the Committee and stressed that although constitutional reforms had established a new framework to counter discrimination, the Government recognized the need for greater analysis and data gathering on discrimination complaints.
The delegation of Mexico consisted of the representatives of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court and the Attorney General’s Office,
The next public meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. on Wednesday 15 February, when it will consider the combined fourteenth to sixteenth periodic reports of Israel (CERD/C/ISR/14-16).
Report
The combined sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports of Mexico can be read here: (CERD/C/MEX/16-17).
Statement by Mexico
ALEJANDRO NEGRIN MUNOZ, Ambassador and Director General of Human Rights and Democracy of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, said Mexico was characterized by a complex, plural cultural nature and wide geographic dispersion. There were 112.3 million persons living in Mexico, 52 per cent were women, 5.7 million were persons with disabilities and more than 30 million were under 18 years of age. Such conditions created significant challenges for the Government in combating racism. However, major progress had been made and in June 2011 the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was incorporated into the constitution. A new law providing compensation brought national legislation into line with international standards. New national bodies created to deal with discrimination include the National Council to Prevent Discrimination and the National Institute for Woman. Specific anti-discrimination laws had been passed in most of Mexico’s 32 federative bodies as well as in the criminal code, which forbade discrimination based on race, language or the colour of one’s skin. To combat sexual and racial stereotypes in the media a number of instruments had been developed. Many measures had been taken to address the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly their right to consultation. Between 2006 and 2012 the budget for indigenous peoples had increased by 149 per cent, from 27 billion to 68 billion pesos. Electoral redistricting enhanced indigenous peoples’ participation in the political process, and more interpreters for indigenous languages had been employed. An outstanding challenge facing indigenous peoples was full access to justice. There had been considerable consultation with indigenous populations on natural resources, traditional knowledge and combating HIV/AIDS. In terms of land claims, 50 conflicts covering over 8,500 hectares had been resolved to the benefit of the indigenous communities in Teenak, Nahua, Pame, Cuyteca and Huasteca.
Today 105 million people had access to medical services and there were no cases of forced sterilization. A paradigm shift in legal migratory issues provided greater respect for the human rights of migrants, although a cultural shift was needed to effectively combat discrimination. Migrant workers came mostly from Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua and from 2008 to 2011 over 10,000 Central Americans had had their paperwork and conditions regularized. In 2007, the National Migration Institute launched a program to legitimize migrant workers by issuing over 100,000 documents for Guatemalan and Belize migrant workers. The population of people of African descent in Mexico was 450,000, and guidelines to stop discrimination towards people of African descent had been issued which would be disseminated into mainstream culture and the legal framework. Mexico still needed better public policy tools, and the Government understood its progress in the legislative framework had not changed society overnight. Resistance, prejudice and cultural barriers were deeply rooted. Some of the greatest challenges included articulating policies, and standardizing the approach to indigenous people. Access to justice and incorporation of the principle of non-discrimination were key challenges, as was the design and implementation of affirmative action programs. Mexico would live up to its commitment to harmonize federal and national laws to prevent racial discrimination.
Questions by Experts
PASTOR ELIAS MURRILO MARTINEZ, Country Rapporteur for the Report of Mexico, said drug trafficking violence gave Mexico unique challenges in implementing national racial discrimination legislation at federal levels. The Government was obliged to use the security forces, especially the army, to enter territories with costs in the area of human rights. The issue of racial discrimination had become less of a priority than the issue of security. Though Mexico had made major efforts in recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples to use their own legal systems, the Committee failed to see the possibility of using indigenous laws and courts in the country. What International Labour Organization Convention 169 used in practice as well as legislation?
Eleven articles of the Mexican constitution had been reformed to combat racism and racial discrimination and overcome the inequality impacting indigenous individuals. What had been the impact of all those programmes, notably the National Plan to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination from 2006 to 2010? An Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights study into the situation of indigenous women in Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca concluded that indigenous women were victims of multiple forms of discrimination due to the patriarchal system. For example 80 per cent of land was owned by men. Of the 25 indigenous regions in Mexico, those below the lowest level of human development were in Chiapas. What tangible measures had been adopted to include gender quotas or affirmative action measures to improve the situation of women in indigenous populations in Mexico? The vulnerability of indigenous people was reflected in the fact that of 406 indigenous women in prison at the end of 2009, 63 per cent had no access to an interpreter. What was the Government doing to address the negative impact of mega projects on indigenous peoples, which often lacked consultation with local populations and led to disputes over natural resources. The Rapporteur raised questions about open cast mining projects and what measures had been implemented to reduce violence associated with these projects. Had the Mexican Government considered introducing reforms in the mining sector or handed down any judgments against mining companies for the violation of the human rights of indigenous people?
The Rapporteur asked how the Convention had permeated the Mexican constitution. There were two major surveys on discrimination in the country and the Committee would like information on the results, on civil registration and whether indigenous names were rejected by local authorities in the registration process. Mr. Martinez mentioned three cases that human rights activists had brought to the attention of the Committee: Jose Trinidad de la Cruz from the indigenous population of Nahua; Jose Ramon Aniceto y Agustin Cruz from the indigenous population of Otomi and Hugo Sanchez. It was impossible to self identify oneself as belonging to an indigenous community. Mr. Martinez asked for information on the recent visit of the United Nations Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to the freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Frank La Rue. The earlier census of 2005 showed a discrepancy of life expectancy of only one year difference between the indigenous community and the mainstream population, which Mr. Martinez found difficult to understand. During his 2010 visit to Mexico, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education cited exclusions that targeted specific people, namely the poor, and stated that not even one per cent of the indigenous population who entered school at primary level went to university, as compared with 17 per cent of the national population. Mr. Martinez noted concern for human rights offenses against the Yaqui indigenous people, especially their right to land and to their traditional economic and cultural livelihood.
Other Committee Experts raised questions on the definition of discrimination in the Constitution of Mexico, traditional justice issues used by indigenous peoples, how many translators and interpreters were provided by the Indigenous Language Institute to facilitate access to courts and how many indigenous policemen were in the ranks of the federal police. They also asked whether any penalties had been handed down in cases of violence committed against indigenous people, and about the outcome of human rights training courses for the police when many non-governmental organisations had noted that most mistreatment of indigenous people was committed by the police. An Expert asked if there was a general police standard of reasonable suspicion before a suspect was stopped or apprehended by the police. In the case of indigenous peoples, was there a preference for other forms of punishment other than imprisonment?
Although Mexico accepted the Convention’s communications procedure in 2002, the Committee had not yet had a communication from civil society and would like more information on why that was the case. Mexico had a 90 per cent literacy rate but the majority of illiterates in Mexico belonged to the indigenous populations. Were there cases of discrimination of sport in Mexico and if so what measures had been taken to address them and assure there was no discrimination in sport.
Indigenous people in Mexico were characterized by extreme poverty with a high degree of marginalization, a low level of school enrolment among children and women who were forced to engage in domestic labour and weak land tenure rights. What specific measures would the State take to address the invisible position of people of African descent in Mexico?
Mexico had ratified virtually all of the relevant treaties, including Article 14, and the amendment to article 8 with no reservations. However there was a need to make more explicit statements, notably on the definition of racism. How could migrant workers obtain access to justice in cases of racial or sexual discrimination and what avenues of redress were open to them?
During Mexico’s Universal Periodic Review, it accepted 83 proposals from its peers and the 8 proposals that were to be studied related to organized crime, which seemed to indicate that the military enjoyed a great deal of impunity in their actions due to the insecurity in the country. Experts asked about administration of justice in light of the Government’s recent approach to combating crime with an emphasis on arrests and obtaining convictions. There was a concern that many innocent people were detained and convicted, particularly indigenous peoples. An Expert noted that 10 per cent of the population was native Indian and 4.5 per cent of the population was of African descent and that there was a general practice of discrimination against people of darker skin in Mexico. As only 9.8 percent of the population identified themselves as being indigenous, how had the rest of the population defined themselves in ethnic terms?
The early warning group of the Committee had indicated serious violations of human rights could be pending; an Expert asked the delegation what was the attitude of the Mexican Government to such a process. What sort of education and training existed, going beyond basic promotion and education of human rights, for employees in the public sector? There was a perception of rights holders themselves being inferior because they had been discriminated against.
Response by the Delegation
RICARDO BUCIO MUJICA, President of the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination, said the Mexican congress had recently approved many reforms in the area of human rights and the Government was fully committed to investigating and punishing human rights violations in the country. The Government fully recognized the work done by human rights defenders and was currently consolidating protective measures for defenders and journalists who were threatened by their work. Concerning the gaps in both institutional practices and perceptions, Mr. Mujica said the Government would make clear steps in the right direction to combat racial discrimination.
The delegation then identified clusters of questions on legislation; the operation of the justice system; the institutional structures to combat discrimination, the consultation process with indigenous peoples, issues related to migration, training in human rights; and political participation.
Concerning issues of legislation and justice, Mexico applied the theory of legal monism which meant there was no need for secondary legislation to mainstream human rights treaties. The Convention had been raised to a constitutional rank and all Government authorities were obliged to uphold and protect it. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld a ruling by the Inter-American Court, which established the important criteria that all human rights treaties should be ex officio, which meant that all judges must uphold the Convention when it was applicable to cases submitted to their court. In Mexico the process of amparao was a proceeding in which an individual could demand the upholding of the Convention in court. Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation was held at the highest level of the legal system in Mexico and could be brought to the courts as part of amparao proceedings.
The delegation noted that as it was not a requirement to be registered as a candidate to identify oneself as an indigenous person it was difficult to obtain the exact number of indigenous women occupying posts in the civil service. In 2004 there were nine indigenous federal deputies elected in the legislature; out of 2,000 municipalities, 700 were identified as indigenous and of these 146 were governed by women, 15 of whom were indigenous and seven who were elected using customary indigenous practices. There was a 40 per cent quota for women representatives and alternatives. The Government made an enormous effort to promote equality between men and women; notably by cross cutting budgets of 7,000 million pesos which had been distributed among more than 1,000 institutions, the greatest beneficiaries being poor women.
Article 27 of the Constitution guaranteed rights to land and the use of land in coordination with Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation, enabling indigenous people to claim land and water rights. The right to water was a fundamental guarantee that had been extended to all Mexicans; each person should have access to water for sanitation and supplies in sufficient levels for health.
Indigenous people who were land owners had the right to exploit the sub soil according under the Mexican constitution. The mining concessions must meet the requirements laid down in the law with preferential treatment to indigenous people when they owned or possessed the surface area. The Yaqui people had had a conflict with a mining company because of the opening of a well and there had been a negotiation processes opened up to resolve this dispute. The land claimed by the Yaqui was also used by other indigenous people and that complicated the problem, which was currently being considered by working groups.
In 2008, reforms were launched in the justice system with the objective of eradicating impunity. The reforms facilitated access to justice through oral courts and a respect for the rights of victims. Main improvements were the transition from an inquisitorial to an oral adversarial system, the recognition of the right of each person to remain silent, a prohibition of torture and ill treatment during confinement, the right to select counsel freely and the immediate need to record all detentions. A period of eight years would be required to establish those reforms across the country. Indigenous people had the right to use their own corresponding courts and judges. The normative indigenous justice system had spread to 19 local constitutions and 23 specific laws have been adopted in this area. Access to justice for indigenous communities was complex because of the wide diversity of local peoples in the country. In 2006, there was a meeting of indigenous justice groups to address institutional issues and mechanisms for punishment and sanction and how this system could be linked up with the local judiciary.
The Inter-American Court clarified a number of decisions regarding indigenous peoples. Courts were obligated to have an integrated and proactive assessment of indigenous peoples; self-identification without proof was sufficient, and a judge must provide an interpreter in indigenous languages. A model of accreditation and certification for competence in indigenous languages was developed for translators and interpreters. In the administration of justice, there were national standards of competence for translation from indigenous languages into and out of Spanish. There were 444 interpreters working with 80 languages across the country; 35 per cent of these interpreters were women.
Concerning the case of Hugo Sanchez, the delegation explained that he was detained in 2006 for suspicious behaviour. When Mr. Sanchez was arrested and found to be in possession of a firearm, he and was taken to the Criminal Court and convicted by a judge for illegal possession of a firearm. He appealed to the Supreme Court which was currently considering the case.
The Mexican delegation addressed questions on the institutional structures in place to combat discrimination. Historically, discrimination had filtered through institutions such as the education system and budgetary allocations. It was well known that many Mexican heroes were of African descent but had been whitened. Mexico was founded and built on an idea of a homogenous view of society which had at its centre a Mexican citizen who was a mestizo of one colour, mostly urban, heterosexual and masculine, and the impact of that perception could be seen in both legislation and institutions. However, in the last ten years more than 75 specific laws on the rights of women had been approved to mainstream the gender perspective in legislation.
Concerning domestic workers, more than 90 per cent were women and most were indigenous internal migrants. The Government recognized that domestic workers had a clear disadvantage in the federal labour act and were victims of multiple forms of discrimination. Programs were established to assist them with a micro credit system providing access to loans and mortgages.
The definition and broadening racial discrimination to cover race and ethnic origin were important reforms. To date, there were 24 legal orders prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, 45 prohibiting discrimination based on ethnic origin and 28 based on language.
The right to consultation was enshrined in the constitution of Mexico, which included the right to active participation for indigenous people. International Labour Organization Convention 169 had constitutional status and consultation was a daily practice in many Government institutions, especially the Ministries of Transport and Health. No mining company, even with a concession, could start work without submitting an environmental assessment. The Advisory Council, consisting of representatives of all 68 original peoples from Mexico, considered various stages from initial assessment to final results. More than 30 consultations had been held in Mexico on legislative harmonization and development plans and programs.
Questions by Experts
A Committee Member asked about the absence of clear data in the report, which made it difficult for the Committee to assess progress. As Mexico was one of the most polluted countries in the world, what measures were being taken to reduce the number of vehicles circulating in Mexico City and to promote the green economy to improve the quality of life of Mexicans?
Experts asked how measures taken by the United States, notably the building of a barrier wall along the border, acted as an economic constraint on the growth of the Mexican economy. Had oil companies or the Mexican Government given financial compensation to indigenous peoples who had requested it? Was there a trend to cutting financial assistance to non-governmental organisations responsible for combating racial discrimination and protecting minorities? What was the link between the State and religion in Mexico, especially concerning the Muslim minority, as the report made no mention of such a religious minority?
An Expert said that the today’s discussion showed that Mexico was an evolving society in the full throes of development. The criminal legal system should be the same for all and if there was no criminal norm then no sanctions could be applied to promote equality. He noted that in the case of Hugo Sanchez, he was sentenced not for possessing a firearm but for abduction and asked the delegation to provide more details on this case.
Mexico faced the challenge of a society that on one hand was proud of its cultural past while on the other hand maintained a negative perception of its indigenous community. As the federal law had not expressly included race-based discrimination as a part of its definition of discrimination, it would be desirable for all racist acts to be criminalized in domestic legislation.
The Committee would have liked the delegation to provide practical examples of how traditional modes of justice in indigenous communities were resolved. The Committee requested more information on land ownership among indigenous people, notably on the way land was distributed. What was the forecast for the proportion of the population that would be speaking indigenous languages and would these people be able to preserve their native languages.
Response by the Delegation
The Mexican delegation responded that on the question of freedom of expression, the media at all levels were free and independent and the right to access public and Government information was a right backed up by institutions. Concerning violent assaults on journalists, the Government had built protective measures to support journalists against threats they faced.
Thousands of teachers had been trained to support primary schools in indigenous communities. The educational system in Mexico placed great importance on bilingual pre-school and primary education; there were 9,700 preschool centres, and over 10,000 primary education centres. A pilot program with a baccalaureate for indigenous populations had begun started in two indigenous regions. The training of teachers at these levels was strengthened through workshops and by offering a degree in intercultural bilingual education. At the university level, there was still much progress that needed to be made to provide indigenous languages. The National Teacher Training University offered a degree course in indigenous teaching aimed at improving indigenous peoples’ access to university.
The delegation stressed the importance of migration issues in Mexico because of its border where over 200 million people crossed each year. Mexico had 50 consulates in the United States alone, one of the largest consulate networks in the world.
Concerning the Muslim population and religious freedom issues, according to the 2010 census, 82 per cent of the population were Catholic, 15 per cent belonged to Protestant churches and the remainder to minority churches. Muslims were a small minority group in Mexico but the religion was a member of federal religious councils and equal footing with all the other churches. To prevent discrimination, the Government had created a forum to promote dialogue and permit visits among different religious institutions.
In response to a question on the support the Mexican Government provided to non-governmental organizations, the delegation said it fully recognized the work done by civil society and human rights defenders to promote and protect the exercise of human rights in the country. There was a law to promote civil society and more than 12,000 organisations were registered in the Commission for Civil Society. In 2010, about 9,000 supports were given to 4,000 organisations in civil society, many of which worked with indigenous people and indigenous women.
Concerning racial profiling and criminalization, the delegation clearly stated that there was no systematic or recurrent mistreatment of citizens or detainees by Government officials on the basis of race. The delegation said that in many of the federative states, criminal sanctions against discrimination existed. The Government was building a legal system that would protect and uphold rights alongside the specialized counsels on discrimination.
A real revolution was taking place in the area of human rights and tackling impunity. Constitutional reform for human rights and amparo were two elements of the legal revolution to address impunity and increase access to justice. There were now collective actions as opposed to individual actions that could be used in indigenous justice. The delegation said that experts were welcome to visit Mexico to witness how disputes were resolved with traditional justice. The Supreme Court of Justice and the Electoral Court could intervene when customary or traditional justice systems were being used to prevent women from voting or to limit their rights.
Concluding Remarks
PASTOR ELIAS MURRILO MARTINEZ, Country Rapporteur for the Report of Mexico, thanked the Mexican delegation for their positive and self-critical attitude throughout its dialogue with the Committee. A qualitative and quantum leap had been achieved in the legal framework of Mexico, an important contribution to promoting human rights in the country. The case of Hugo Sanchez was a priority issue for the Supreme Court to take up, and the Committee looked forward to the resolution of that case based on due process. The Committee welcomed the budget increase for indigenous communities and emphasized the need for continued investment in minority areas. The Committee encouraged the State party to continue its study on persons of African descent.
ALEJANDRO NEGRIN MUNOZ, Ambassador and Director General of Human Rights and Democracy at the Ministry of Foreign Relations, said he looked forward to the recommendations of the Committee. Constitutional reforms were establishing a new framework to counter discrimination, while the Government recognized the need for greater analysis and data gathering on discrimination complaints. The Mexican national identity was being overhauled and the Ambassador encouraged all Committee Experts to visit Mexico to acquire a better understanding of the work that was being done by the Government to eradicate all forms of racial discrimination.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CERD12/004E