CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE JESUITS TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN MEXICO.docx

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE JESUITS TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN MEXICO

CHAPTER ONE

Background of Study

In 1995, having recently completed law school, I began working at a non-governmental

organization (NGO) in Mexico. I came to realize that my professional work as a lawyer had to

focus on the education and defense of human rights if I were to fulfill my commitment to the

empowerment of oppressed populations. Shortly after joining the organization, I decided to

become a Jesuit priest. Since then, I have directed similar institutions dedicated to the

advancement of human rights in communities utilizing diverse approaches.

In 2006, I was appointed Director of the Center of Human Rights Miguel Agustin Prodh

Juarez by my Provincial. My work consisted of coordinating the efforts of a team of 30 staff

members dedicated to defending and promoting human rights in Mexico. In the history of Center

Prodh, great effort had been made to maintain its political presence in the region. Over the years,

I have often asked myself how this type of human rights organization could have a greater impact

on the development of democratic life in the country. This study was the result of such inquiry

and provides answers to this question.

Statement of the Problem

At the time of this study, in Mexico there had been a crisis regarding human rights.

According to an article published by the New York Times on February 20, 2013, nearly 150

people and possibly hundreds more had disappeared at the hands of the Mexican police and

military during the recent drug wars. At the time of this study, little to no investigation of these

cases had been undertaken, given that human rights in Mexico was not considered a government

priority (Center Prodh, 2013). As a result, the most vulnerable populations were always at risk of

being adversely affected by a number of exclusionary human rights violations. These violations

had a variety of root causes related to economic policy, citizen security agenda, impunity, and the

lack of a solid national culture of defense and protection of human rights. Thus, the cycle of

violations and corruption had historically been repeated within disenfranchised communities.

Similarly, within political, economic, social, and cultural contexts across Mexico, ongoing and

dangerous risks persisted that attacked the integrity of human rights, particularly for the most

excluded sectors.

Existing inequality was documented by Lopez (2005) who described it as “economic and

social inequality [is seen] in the southern region of Mexico’s marginalized indigenous groups and

economically disadvantaged people” (p. 78). The former was owed, in part, to the deepening of

the neoliberal economy both nationally and globally, and to the spread of Free Trade

Agreements with the United States that not only violated the economic, social, and cultural rights

of Mexican working people, but the rights of indigenous communities as well. In addition, the

increasing inequality that neoliberal policies created functioned to dismantle the integrity of

human rights. As an example of this phenomenon, the National Council of Social Development

Public Policy confirmed that poverty was on an upward trend. In 2013, El Economista (The

Economist) indicated that from 2008 to 2010, the number of people living in poverty had grown

from 48.8 to 52 million (Franco, 2012). The data also revealed that 1,003 of 2,400 Mexican

counties (75% of the population) lived in poverty.

To reverse, prevent, and denounce human rights violations, NGOs, and in particular the

Jesuits, have utilized diverse strategies. Some have been adequate and, in some instances,

successful. Nonetheless, other measures may have been counterproductive or complicated, given

that realistic expectations were not proposed. Moreover, despite the extent of poverty and

political powerlessness that existed at the time of this study, there were no in-depth studies of

Jesuit NGOs in Mexico and their influence on democracy. This was particularly the case

regarding the work of protecting and educating individuals about human rights as performed by

NGOs established by the social apostolate of the Society of Jesus. Hence, there was a need

tobetter understand the work of such NGOs and their impact on the communities they serve.

Center Prodh was a different type of NGO in that it was a Jesuit institution that

participated in political matters by providing educational and legal services in

disenfranchisedcommunities. Until the time of this study, there had been no research conducted

that examined the impact of this organization with respect to its human rights work. Thus, it was

important to explore both its practices and its actual impact on the people it served. A

substantive analysis of Center Prodh would allow us, as Jesuits, to make more prudent decisions.

The study was not simply about describing the Center’s activities, but also about analyzing the

impact that the Center’s practices had had and might have in the long run.

Has Center Prodh contributed to fortifying democracy? If so, in what ways? What were

the possibilities and the limitations it faced with respect to protecting and supporting the practice

of human rights? In my study, I analyzed the effectiveness of the strategies employed by Center

Prodh, while also critically examining the question of human rights and how it did or did not

impact their practice.

The Question of Human Rights

According to Stammers (2009), the study of human rights has been an unusual field of

study. It has not been a discipline in its own right nor could it be confined within one academic

discipline. Stammers pointed out that just a few disciplines have historically dominated the

scholarship on human rights. By far, “the most important are philosophy and law” (p.12).

According to Spring (2004), the notion of human rights comprised an ideology or set of ideas

about the organization of society. The termhuman rights” has been defined as a value upon which

all contemporary nation states have been united (Menon, 2010). The Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, recognized that

human rights were basic rules for peaceful coexistence, justice and solidarity between people.

Through democracy, governing bodies could better organize society and secure these rules. As

Henkin (1990) pointed out, “they are those benefits deemed essential for individual well-being,

dignity, and fulfillment and that reflect a common sense of justice, fairness, and decency” (p. 2).

The international agreements cited above offered "a common standard for which all peoples and

nations should try to achieve and to do this properly, teaching and education are needed”

(Henken, 1990, p. 2) as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights texts

and values could be interpreted and reinterpreted to forward the demands of new subjects of

rights, as well as a consideration of how social agents widened the scope of rights in both courts

and politics (Estévez, 2008). Schmelkes (1998) argued that human rights must then be

considered as the basis for a universal ethic, so it must be acknowledged and respected by all.

Human Rights Education

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also affirmed that the objective of education

was to fully develop the human person and to strengthen human rights. In this way, respecting

human rights has been a precondition to the development of a person. The building of

knowledge, skills, and values that enabled individuals to advance peacefully was tied to the

realization of human rights for all people. At the time of this study, human rights

wereunderstood as those rights to which people were entitled by virtue of the fact that they were

human beings (Menon, 2010).

The Universal Declaration’s concept of human rights education has been deepened by

numerous international and regional documents; conferences from experts on the subject; and

experiences from political and educational leaders. It has also been supported by civil society

organizations throughout the world. Rorty (2010) argued that human rights were part of a

cultural ethos and people needed to be educated about the need for such a cultural fabric, making

the existence of human rights possible (as cited by Menon, 2010).

However, it has been noteworthy that human rights discourse in Mexico did not develop

as an exclusively liberal discourse but emerged as a hybrid of liberal democracy and liberation

philosophy—inspired human rights approaches that led to the inclusion of economic, social, and

cultural rights as well as civil and political rights (Estévez, 2008). Ellacuria (1999) provided an

important example of this hybrid model. His emphasis on the historization of human rights

focused on the socioeconomic context. Furthermore, in Mexico, liberation theology played an

important role as well. These ideas influenced the human rights understanding of Jesuit and

Dominican Priests who founded the first human rights NGOs in Mexico. At the same time,

human rights education has been concerned with the collective construction of knowledge about

human rights doctrines and the development of critical attitudes with communities that would

protect, enforce, and expand human rights doctrines in the larger society (Spring, 2004).

Research Questions

Three research questions guided this study:

(1) What was the main approach utilized by the Jesuits in their human rights practice at

Center Prodh?

(2) In what ways did Center Prodh’s litigation practices linked to human rights enhance

the Jesuit Mission within disenfranchised communities in Mexico?

(3) What were the strengths and challenges of Center Prodh, with respect to its human

rights practices in communities?

Purpose of the Study

The overarching purpose of this study was to investigate Center Prodh’s influence in

defending and promoting human rights and enhancing democratic life in Mexico. This study

highlighted several significant cases that have contributed to the creation of a culture of respect

for human rights in Mexico. More specifically, the study sought to accomplish three main goals:

(1) To explore the Jesuit concept and approach to human rights of Center Prodh;

(2) To determine what influence the Center Prodh human rights approach had had on

democratic life, as evidenced through their education programs and defense of

strategic cases; and

(3) To analyze the strengths and challenges that Center Prodh had with reference to its

past practices in Mexico.

Significance

A diverse body of literature on human rights theory and practice existed at the time of this

study. A variety of authors (Donnelly, 2013; Griffin; 2008; Ignatieff, 2001; Neir, 2012;

Stammers, 2009) had studied the subject of human rights and the links to human rights and

practices. However, few case studies had been conducted that offered knowledge and

understanding about the impact of Jesuit NGOs on human rights and the democratic life of

communities in Mexico. This study sought to fill this gap in the literature, so that its findings,

conclusions, and recommendations could be used as a guide for other organizations that worked

to defend and promote human rights, especially those linked to the Society of Jesus.

This study could also help clarify the mission of the social apostolate of the Society of

Jesus by strengthening these organizations with the possibility of supporting better

decisionmaking skills in their future service to disenfranchised communities. Moreover, this

study was based on the strategic plan of the Center Prodh, which included an assessment of the

educational program, as well as the integral defense process of certain legal cases. The aim here

was to use the knowledge gained from this study to offer technical and ideological guidelines for

a sociological analysis, which could be replicated in other social efforts by the Jesuits, as well as

by other Mexican human rights NGOs.

There were also a variety of examples in the literature of human rights approaches and

challenges faced by NGOs (Aguilar, 2012; Heins, 2010; Human Rights Watch, 2011). Among

these approaches had been encouraging the participation of the citizenry, identifying new forms

of dialogue with the government, constructing new alliances of collaboration with various

agencies, developing strategic approaches for protecting and defending human rights,

participating in public politics; and contending with a variety of other challenges. However at

the time of this study, there was no literature that examined this issue within the context of the

Jesuit approach to human rights organizations in Mexico.

In order to develop more just practices and clarify the Jesuits’ social apostolic mission,

this study helped answer five questions:

(1) What was the approach to human rights of Center Prodh?

(2) What were the debates in understanding human rights?

(3) What were the new challenges for this particular NGO as a Jesuit Institution?

(4) How could the Center improve its practices to accomplish its goals?

(5) What was relevant to this approach of critically evaluating the results of Center Prodh

within the field of human rights organizations?

Through this study, I critically evaluated the impact of Center Prodh in conjunction with

other human rights organizations. This study highlighted the practices of Center Prodh and

explored the organization’s strengths and weaknesses as part of the work of the Society of Jesus.

Two well-respected scholarly works served as an effective starting point for considering the role

of human rights organizations. The first study by Kim (2010) examined the roles of NGOs and

their impact on the human rights of North Korean refugees. The second study by Cakmak (2004)

examined the role of NGOs in the norm-creation process in the field of human rights. Both

authors agreed that the work of NGOs in the human rights arena played a crucial role in the

political life of the nation-state. However, Cakmak (2004) pointed out that “the increasing role

of NGOs made it necessary to evaluate their nature, types and procedures in detail” (p.104). It

was precisely for this reason that in this study I evaluated the foundational characteristics of an

NGO in Mexico, established by the Society of Jesus.

Link with Social Justice

The research was conducted from a social justice perspective, given the institutional

documents, doctrines, and ethics found at the heart of Jesuit practice in communities. The

preferred option or focus of the work of Center Prodh was to serve marginalized and excluded

populations. Serving women, indigenous people, poor migrants, and victims of social repression

had been the priority of their practice. Center Prodh served these vulnerable populations as an

expressed commitment of the Society of Jesus. The selection of locations and priorities of

service applied were those that were set forth in the Society of Jesus in the United States,

General Congregation Assembly Number 34 of the Society of Jesus in the United States (1995):

The criteria of the major need determines the place and the critical situations of injustice:

the major criteria which will bring about the major results, the services that are more

likely to create a community of solidarity; the criteria of the right which is the most

universal, to the action that contributes to a capability of structural change of a society

based in corresponding responsibility. (n.p.)

Historically, the idea of social justice has been enacted and developed through the

collective effort of men and women. Neil (2012) noted that in different parts of the world and

during various periods in time, the recognition of human dignity as an essential ethical concern

had gradually been achieved. These efforts had been associated with specific historical

conditions and circumstances. Examples included the fight against slavery, racism, and labor

exploitation, as well as for women’s equality, the rights of indigenous people, and other

hardfought political struggles.

Social justice has been defined in different ways. Principally, it has been closely

associated to human rights. As such, social justice has been linked to the demands and rights

formulated by people and communities for a better life, on both an individual and collective

level. Social justice and human rights have been both proposals that should achieve social

consensus and whose recognition and fulfillment would be required by the state. Darder (2009)

proposed that as a consequence, either proposal should be understood as an unfinished idea and a

dialectical process. In fact, Griffin (2008) pointed out that human rights were an incomplete idea

and that “we need not adumbration of this idea but its completion” (p.18). The latter should

resolve contradictions and offer yet unachieved explanations. It would only grow and become

richer and more fully complementary as conceptualizations of human rights and social justice

were revised from different viewpoints and conditions. This implied that no person or

community should ever have to renounce its way of being in order to fully enjoy the dignity of

human rights.

However, it must be clear that the aim of social justice struggles has been generally tied to

those rights being recognized and lived by all people and communities in a comprehensive

manner. Accordingly, social justice has been linked with human rights as the expression of those

civil liberties that are the birthright of all people, without exception. This unquestionably

included the rights of the most impoverished or vulnerable populations in society, including

indigenous, religious, or sexual minorities. In this sense, the Society of Jesus had attempted to

integrate and practice a commitment to social justice among its institutions.

Theoretical Framework

Several critical bodies of work influenced the conceptual framework employed for the

analysis of the literature and data gathered for this study. These included the writings of the

Social Apostolate of the Society of Jesus and the critical education principles of cultural

democracy posited by Antonia Darder (2012). Darder drew on the work of Freire (2000),

Giroux (1981), and McLaren (1995) to provide an analytical framework. That framework

addressed questions of culture and power regarding the subordination of cultural communities.

Social Apostolate of the Society of Jesus

Within the variety of work carried out by the Society of Jesus, the founding of human

rights organizations has historically been an important focus. It was important then to address

this topic through a critical analysis that could provide suggestions as to how to improve the

social apostolate of the Jesuits to achieve this objective. Thus, I intended to discuss certain

fundamental documents of the religious order, such as the constitutions, the General

Congregations, and other key documents such as guidelines about the social apostolate. With

this in mind, the internal documents of the Center Prodh were critically analyzed, in order to

unveil the specific workings of the organization and its outcome with respect to its vision of

human rights.

In accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus (Social Apostolate Secretariat of

the Society of Jesus, 1998), there existed three criteria to classify the responses that attempted to

defend human dignity:

(1) Where there exists the most need, to crystallize the most need, there should be

analysis of places where there exists major injustices;

(2) To obtain the best results possible where Jesuits can make better use of their time;

(3) To facilitate the most universal good that brings about the creation of structural

changes that favor dignified life of the majority.

The Social Apostolate of the Society of Jesus has attempted to defend the excluded. This

apostolate consisted of social work that was intended to bring about a service to persons

marginalized by society. It has attempted to accomplish this mission that, at the time of this

study, was understood as service of the faith and the promotion of justice. (Society of Jesus in the

united States. General Congregation No. 32, Decree 4). The service had as its foundation the

work among the poor; and its intention was to respond to difficult problems of social injustice in

conformity with the tradition of the Jesuits. In this manner, the social work of the Society of

Jesus attempted to address these criteria of its mission. The dignity of the person was the point of

merger and of convergence among the Jesuits and those collaborating with their work. For that

matter, it was not religion but ethics that brought about dialogue and aspired to make history of

the promotion of justice (Communal Reflection on Jesuit Mission in Higher Education, a Way of

Proceeding, 2002).

In 2003, Promotio Iustitiae published an issue dedicated to the social apostolate of the

Society of Jesus. The articles outlined the general situation of social work and its challenges.

Franco (2012), in charge of the Secretariat for Social Justice, pointed out the necessity of

focusing the sentiment of justice for order. He cited Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, at that time,

superior of the Jesuits, who emphasized human rights and the right to sustenance. For

Kolvenlbach, human rights were a shield that protected the poor. For that reason, he argued that

the fights for justice and for sustainable development were founded not only on the necessities of

the poor or in our compassion for them, but also in the right of each human being to live a life

with dignity. For Franco (2012), it was important that the fight for justice in the Society be in

conjunction with the civic groups and town organizations already engaged in the fight for their

dignity.

The above implied a dialogue with society participants committed to establishing a

national and international order, based on laws capable of widening and augmenting everyone’s

access to a protection guaranteed of these minimal rights. We could deduce that for the Society,

independent of the academic debates, the basic ethics of human rights have been founded in the

dignity of the person as being a social being. For the Society, the dignity of being human and,

especially, the dignity of the poor should be protected, assured, and accessible.

Society of Jesus in the United States, General Congregation 35, convened in 2008,

established the commitment of the Society of Jesus to help build just relationships. It invited

members “to see the world from a perspective of the poor and marginalized, learning from them,

acting with them and in their favor. . . with a prophetic calling”. The document referred to and

included the calling of the Pope to renew our mission “among the poor and with the poor.”

(Society of Jesus in the United States, General Congregation 35, Decree 3, n. 27, 2008).

The social apostolate of the Society of Jesus has been defined as the

Conjoining of apostolic activities which, rooted in the commitment of the Church and of

the Society of working in favor of the poor, completes the common dimension of all our

apostolates from working with them and in some cases, living with them. (Society of

Jesus in the Unites States, General Congregation 35, Decree 3, n. 19)

This definition took into consideration that, on one hand, the Church, by virtue of its evangelical

commitment, felt called to be close to these multitudes of poor. It was committed to discern

justice on their complaints and to help make them a reality without losing sight of the groups

working for the common good (Board of the Jesuit Conference, 2002). On the other hand, it

referred to that expressed in the orderly assemblies: “We have recognized our conscience in

critical situations that affect hundreds of millions of people and that, because of that, demand a

special interest on the part of the Society” (Society of Jesus in the United States, General

Congregation 34, Decree 3, n. 11).

In accord with the characteristics of the social apostolate of the Society, there existed

certain service specifications that seek to obtain structural transformations toward a more just

and fraternal society. According to the norms of the Society of Jesus, the criteria for

accomplishing the social apostolate were the following:

(1) Is rooted in its preferential love for the poor (universal dimension);

(2) Concretize this common dimension of all our apostolates by being with the poor, and,

in some cases, living like them;

(3) Seeks, from the perspective of the poor and marginalized, to achieve structural

transformation towards a more just and humane society;

(4) T for granted that the poor are always the subjects of change and never

(5) objects of our work;

(6) Is carried out locally with an increasingly global articulation structured from the

bottom upwards;

(7) Presupposes a rigorous socio-cultural analysis;

(8) Is implemented by a team with an inclusive sensibility aimed at eliciting the

cooperation of other Jesuits, religious women and men together with lay persons.

(Promotio Iustitiae 80, 2003, p. 20)

Critical Educational Principles

The critical analytical framework used for this study was based on a critical analysis that

acknowledged the relationship between culture and power in both societies and their

organizations. Foucault (1977) argued that power should understood as the multiplicity of power

relations imminent in the sphere in which they operated and through which ceaseless struggle

and confrontation transformed, strengthened, or reversed them. The underlying assertion was

that “power is everywhere,” not because it embraced everything, but because it extended from

everywhere. With this in mind, I utilized critical educational principles for cultural democracy

articulated by Darder (2012) in Culture and Power in the Classroom; but, in this instance, I

applied them to the field of human rights organizations and more specifically the analysis of the

literature and case study data gathered. For this study, I specifically drew on those principles

identified by Darder explicitly grounded in neo-Marxist theories and the foundational critical

articulations of the Frankfurt School, as they linked to the philosophies and practices of Center

Prodh. These included seven elements:

(1) Cultural Politics: Empowerment of the powerless and transformation of existing

social inequities and injustices.

(2) Economics: There existed a relationship between economic inequality and violations

of human rights and their underlying causes. I argued that, given historical conditions

of economic inequalities, current neoliberal policies and practices in Mexico

generated human rights violations.

(3) Historicity: Social practices and the knowledge constructed were derived and

analyzed within a particular period of history of Center Prodh, which was understood

in relationship to the larger historical question of the time.

(4) Dialectical View: My intention was to critically examine the underlying political,

social, and economic conditions that shape the life of the organizations, utilizing a

dialectical perspective to critically highlight tensions, oppositions, and contradictions

that might also be in play.

(5) Ideology: The study concentrated on the debate of different approaches to human

rights based upon distinct ideologies that influence these concepts. Overall, the

traditional liberal approach of human rights were interrogated and critiqued. Ideology

here was understood as the production and representation of ideas, values and beliefs

and the manner in which they were expressed and lived out by both individuals and

groups (Darder, 2012).

(6) Praxis (alliance of theory and practice): In order to determine the manner in which

the center supported an emancipatory practice, I intended to critically analyze and

evaluate the specific practice of the organization. Such a critical approach required

that one engage with the dialectical relationship that exists between theory and

practice.

(7) Dialogue: The interview of center directors will incorporate a critical dialogical

approach. Conceptually, this permitted a critical analysis of Center Prodh cases and

educational processes and practices that were grounded in an emancipatory logic.

These critical principles were those that were most relevant providing the conceptual

lens from which to evaluate critically the results of Center Prodh and its contribution

to the field of human rights organizations.

Methodology

The objectives of this research were to systematically document and systematize the

practice of Center Prodh, and then evaluate its contributions to the improvement of democratic

life in the country. According to Benedek (2012), civil society organizations helped to amplify

the voice of the economically and politically disempowered. Principally, through Center Prodh’s

joint educational projects with base groups and organizations, legal defense, and affirmative

action, these groups and organizations elicited the respect of human rights in their communities.

This qualitative case study aimed to understand the influence and impact of Center Prodh in

Mexico.

I was aware that measuring impact was not always easy to do, especially without

substantial amounts of time and money to perform repeated evaluations. To counterbalance, I

utilized different approaches to qualitative study. These included:

(1) Ethnographic: Attending a number of events (including day-to-day activities at the

Center) and taking field notes on how people talk about work within the educational

mission;

(2) Archival: Reviewing materials and internal documents such as plans and assessments

will be analyzed under a critical lens. Some of these materials included Triennials

Strategic Planning, databases from Defense and Education Areas, and annual

evaluation documents. I analyzed three legal cases litigated by Center Prodh.

(3) Historiography: Interviewing long-time participants in the organization and

reviewing documents specific to the Center as well as general historical documents

(for context) to construct a critical history of the educational work. This historical

approach is also utilized to review and analyze the Center’s documents.

(4) Interviews: Conducting interviews with former directors and some NGO leaders. All

of the interviewees were members of the Society of Jesus. One was a former

member, but all understood the Global mission of the Society of Jesus.

Site Description: Center Prodh

The Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez Human Rights Center (Center Prodh) was founded in

1988 as a reaction to the Mexican state’s repressive regime against social activists, church and

political leaders, and communities and organizations calling for a response to these actors’ social

demands. It is an institution overseen by the Society of Jesus in Mexico. Since its creation,

Center Prodh had focused its commitment on the defense and promotion of civil and political

rights, relative to the respect for life, integrity and personal security. In 2002, Center Prodh

added the promotion and defense of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights to its

activities through the defense of paradigmatic cases. Center Prodh’s mission in 2015 was “to

promote and defend the human rights of excluded, vulnerable or marginalized people or groups

in order to contribute to the construction of a fairer, more equitable and democratic society which

fully respects human dignity” (Center Prodh, 2010, n.p.).

Center Prodh worked with its own methodology, devised as a result of 27 years of

experience in education and legal defense. The defense of cases itself was called “integral

defense.” Such methodology involved the joint work of different areas of Center Prodh. Thus,

the defense area designed and set up legal strategies; the communications and analysis area

disseminated the case and carried out awareness raising campaigns; and the international area

reported the case to international institutions and made connections with relevant organizations

overseas. For its part, the educational area researched the state of the issue that was brought to

light from the case. This helped develop the public approach to the issue, in order to carry out

educational workshops on the subject.

As a result of the above strategies, Center Prodh had contributed to monitoring the human

rights situation in Mexico. Most noteworthy, the issues and cases taken on by Center Prodh had

gained the support of national and international public opinion. The former had been

demonstrated through the establishment and implementation of alliances, networks, and

resolutions.

Limitations

Issues of the theoretical framework and neutrality of the researcher posed limitations to

this study. These limitations could impact the generalizability of the study findings.

Theoretical Framework

Any theoretical or methodological framework used to explain a social phenomenon could

constitute a limitation. Many approaches have been used to provide explanations regarding that

which has been reflected in reality. Perhaps that was how the father of critical social science,

Karl Marx, began to discover the complexity of analyzing reality from the perspective of the

proletariat. However, it appeared to me that a better method of analyzing the work and impact of

Center Prodh was through the theoretical framework provided by the Social Apostolate of the

Society of Jesus, in conjunction with principles of critical educational theory (Darder, 2012).

Social theory has constantly changed. At a minimum, the results of this part of my dissertation

must be recognized as grounded within a specific historical moment.

Neutrality

One could argue that, because I previously served as the Director of the Center, I could

not be objective in this research. However, one could also argue that one who had never been the

director of the Center or affiliated with the Center could not be objective because he did not have

the formative information that I obtained while serving as director. Bourdieu and Loic (1995)

argued that it was likely that all scholarship was neither neutral nor unbiased. There was no

neutral data and there was no neutral question. In this sense, the researcher could manipulate the

response to the question by the type of question that was asked such as by posing a leading

question. One could also manipulate the information according to the researcher’s own interests.

Given my understanding of the scholarship and data collected, I attempted to provide a sound

critical perspective. This was accomplished by following the above methodological framework.

I recognized that, as was congruent with a critical approach to the research, I came to this work

with a set of values that was anchored in a commitment to the most vulnerable.

Organization of the Study

The dissertation begins by introducing the reader to the field of human rights NGOs. The

concepts of human rights and its different meanings and characteristics are developed through the

review of the literature. In Chapter Three, a qualitative methodology is set forth based on the

technical approaches of a case study applied to the field of human rights. In Chapter Four, I

address the history of Center Prodh and explore some of the relevant approaches in the area of

litigation. To support the analysis, this study included a careful review of Center Prodh’s internal

documents including, letters, and decisions of the teams meetings, projects and reports.

Likewise, in Chapter Five, I analyze some emblematic cases that have highlighted crucial topics

having significant impact on human rights in the country. Wishing to provide a response in

Chapter Six, I perform an analysis of the data and of a conceptual framework of human rights

according to the critical principles articulated by Darder (2009). Finally in Chapter Seven, I

provide a conclusion that speaks to the implications of this study and sets forth recommendations

for a critical human rights approach, as well as considers areas for future research.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

At the time of this study, there existed a vast amount of literature that engaged different

approaches and perspectives on human rights. For the purposes of this study, I used the

definitions and theoretical approaches adopted by Center Prodh as the basis for its work. Those

definitions were compared, contrasted, and reevaluated with respect to an interdisciplinary body

of literature discussed in this chapter that examined the contributions of sociologists, jurists,

philosophers, and theologians to our understanding of this concept. In regard to the

confrontation between the state and society, it had been necessary to try and develop new

strategies of political discourse that could replace the established or hegemonic logic of the state.

One such way had been to recognize the social demands, and those who made those demands,

from a critical perspective that focused on the human rights of the most vulnerable. This critical

discourse must then have included scholars and advocates of human rights, rather than merely

the politicians and bureaucrats who generally dominated these discussions.

Moreover, it was also important to include perspectives on human rights that reflected a

Latin American point of view. The inclusion of other relevant perspectives was required to

complement the traditional discourse in the field, especially when addressing issues relevant to

Latin America. Without including this perspective, we would have been left with an incomplete

analysis, given the generally limited expertise of most scholars related to the global region in

question. A new approach to understanding human rights then should not only have taken into

account the concept of “universality” but also should have created space to problematize this

notion. Though international law expressed and consolidated universality, there still remained

contradictions that should be scrutinized in the international arena.

As previously stated, universality referred to the idea that human rights were “guaranteed

to all individuals, regardless of nationality” (Benedek, 2012). This implied that each human

being was entitled to human rights, but the question still remained as to the definition of human

rights and the limits of its universality. Generally, the modern concept of basic human rights has

been defined according to a Western, liberal perspective—the perspectives of Western Europe

and the United States. Thus, it became apparent that traditional universality arguments, wittingly

or unwittingly, imposed Western ideologies upon individuals and nations who may have had a

differing worldview or perspective on human rights, such as Asia, the Middle East, and Latin

America. To critically engage these potential conflicts, it was necessary to consider alternative

perspectives of human rights, especially those that stem from non-Western points of view.

With this in mind, this chapter begins with an exploration of the literature by defining

human rights and the violation of human rights from an integral perspective, in accordance with

leading scholars. In the second section, I define the principal responsibilities attached to the state

with respect to human rights. As an aside, I contextualize the struggles for human rights in Latin

America; and, in so doing, I establish the relationship between human rights and the Mexican

Constitution. Next, I establish links that currently exist between human rights and the

commitment of the Roman Catholic Church, by pointing out similarities between human rights

and the doctrine of Catholic Social Teaching; focusing on the Declaration of Human Rights

(1948) and the encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963). I then discuss critiques to the Western human

rights perspective and offer an indigenous understanding of human rights, according to

international scholarship on indigenous human rights. Finally, I conclude with a preliminary

critical approach to human rights, grounded in the critical principles for cultural democracy

posited by Darder (2009).

A Brief History of Human Rights

Historically, governments did not unilaterally concede human rights to their peoples.

Instead, human rights existed as a result of the long struggle of the oppressed carried out over

centuries. The expression of demands and social revolutions of the oppressed have manifested

themselves in a protracted history of battles fought over centuries. Since the mid-twentieth

century, in particular, there have been several formidable events that influenced the way in which

human rights were viewed and employed within the context of public and private institutions.

Several key events that have shaped our understanding of human rights as a social phenomenon

—the Holocaust, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Cold War, and human rights in

Latin America.

The Holocaust

The killing of 50 million people and the hundreds of thousands maimed and injured

during World War II instilled an impetus for the human rights movement (Weissbrodt,

Fitzpatrick, & Newman, 2001). However, it must be noted that it was ultimately the combined

brutality by Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan that united the allies. The worst example of brutality

during World War II was the Holocaust, a state-sponsored genocide of approximately six million

European Jews executed by Nazi Germany, prior to and during World War II (Weissbrodt et al.,

2001).

The origin of the Nazi movement started in the late 1920s. Both the German elite and the

general electorate contributed to bringing Nazism to power (Hartmann, 2002). The elite

supported Nazism because they believed the party could advance their quest for power.

AntiSemitism was, for the most part, a personal and cultural outlook. Post 1929, notably, the

support of the Nazi party was more of a potential political tool than a vehicle to use against Jews.

Hartman (2002) reported that German folklore and popular literature contained spiteful

images of Jews. Vile jokes were made about Jews and they were banned from participating in

certain fraternities and in the military. Many people harbored anti-Semitic views, wanting Jews

gone from their world, but they were engaged actively in making this a reality. Accordingly,

news of deportations and rumors of mass killings, therefore, received little public emotional

reaction. Hartmann (2002) also pointed out that

Anti-Semitism not only allowed for extreme forms of scapegoating, but also it was linked

to what may well be the most enticing feature of Nazism: the delusion of German Aryan

superiority. . . .Ruthless grandiosity made it possible for Nazi Germany to execute

licensed violence without remorse. (p. 639)

Before such massacre, the Catholic Church faced a dilemma (Laqueur, 1964). Some

German theologians argued that Catholics were obliged to support Hitler’s new regime not only

for his moral authority, but because it represented Germany itself (Laqueur, 1964). Other liberal

Catholics argued that Catholicism and Nazism could never be reconciled.

As a result of the systematic killing, approximately two-thirds of the Jews who resided in

Europe prior to the war were exterminated (Dawidowicz, 1979). The devastating results of the

Holocaust created greater international awareness about the importance of human rights and the

need to implement international measures to ensure that culturally and economically oppressed

population would be sufficiently protected in the future.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, largely in response to the atrocities committed during World War II. It set forth

the importance of rights that were threatened and violated during the early to mid-1940’s

(Weissbrodt, et al., 2001). The Declaration was considered to be the first global expression of

rights inherently possessed by all human beings (Morsink, 1999), such as the right to life, the

prohibition of slavery, freedom of thought, and freedom of association. It also included

protections for economic, social, and cultural rights. However, its force was limited by very

broad exclusions and the omission of monitoring and enforcement provisions (Morsink, 1999).

By January of 1976, thirty-five nations had ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and it subsequently entered into force as international law. By September of 1995, 132

individual nations had ratified the it (Williams, 1999).

The Cold War

From approximately 1947 to approximately 1991, there existed a military tension between the

United States and the former Soviet Union known as the Cold War. The end of the Cold War left

a world divided over many areas of conflict

Accordingly, the Cold War offered a ripe arena for the expression of human rights concerns for

political dissidents in the Soviet Union, Cuba and other Eastern European nations.

Human Rights Issues in Latin America

Since the mid-twentieth century, several significant periods of social and political turmoil

have occurred in Latin America, which ultimately affected the perception of human rights in the

region. These events shaped both the climate for and attitudes of human rights across Latin

America, giving rise to numerous international denunciations against human rights violations and

calls for intervention by the international community. The most significant events during this

time frame occurred in Argentina, Chile, and El Salvador, as briefly described below.

Argentina. From 1976 through 1983, the Argentine military government engaged in

state-sponsored violence against its citizenry in a period known as the “Dirty War” (Robben,

2006). During this period, the Argentine government, led by Jorge Rafael Videla, utilized a

system of violence against political dissidents and anyone believed to be associated with

Socialism. According to Robben (2006), an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 individuals became

victims of the oppressive regime, including approximately 10,000 individuals who went missing

and were never found. These missing individuals are often referred to as “los desaparecidos,” or

“those who disappeared.” The victims of this oppressive Argentine regime included, but were

not limited to, students, journalists, political dissidents, and trade unionists.

Chile. Under the authoritarian rule of Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990, Chilean

government agents and officials committed with impunity brutalities against various segments of

the population. The Pinochet regime implemented a systemic suppression of all political

dissidents, thereby destroying the prior established political system (Stern, 2009). Stern wrote

that government agents tortured approximately 35,000 individuals and executed an estimated

2,279, and that 200,000 individuals were believed to have suffered exile because of the

repressive actions conducted by the Pinochet regime.

El Salvador. From 1980 through 1992, El Salvador experienced a Civil War between the

military-led government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, a

coalition of left-wing guerilla groups (Wood, 2003). Wood (2003) noted that during this nearly

thirteen-year armed conflict, both sides utilized violent tactics that targeted large segments of the

civilian population, including executions by death squads, the recruitment of child soldiers, the

use of torture, and false imprisonment. Furthermore, the United States exacerbated the conflict

by providing military aid to the Salvadorian government during the Carter and Reagan

administrations (Wood, 2003). The United Nations (1993) estimated that over 75,000 individuals

were killed during this armed conflict.

The Concept of Human Rights

The term “human rights” has been conceptualized in many ways such as fundamental

liberties, prerogatives, guarantees, and demands. However, the most important thing to consider,

with respect to this study, was that the concept of human rights arose from human needs and

aspirations to improve the living conditions for individuals and communities (Donnelly &

Howard, 1987). Often, human rights have been associated with basic needs, such as the right to

sustenance, freedom of movement, and those opportunities that allowed individuals to form their

own ethical view of the world, such as the right to political participation and the freedom of

expression (Pogge, 2002). According to Pogge, these rights have been limited to a certain

qualitative and quantitative amount, usually referred to as the “minimally adequate share.”

The Vienna Conference of 1993, often referred to as the United Nations World

Conference on Human Rights, established that human rights were inherent to all human beings,

whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion,

language, or other status. All were equally entitled to human rights, without discrimination, and

these rights were interrelated, independent, and indivisible (United Nations Office of the High

Commissioner on Human Rights, 1993). On 25 June 1993, representatives of 171 states adopted

by consensus the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference on

Human Rights, which incorporated this definition of human rights.

Other well-established definitions of human rights relied upon human dignity as the

origin and essence of human rights (Mac-Gregor Poisot, Caballero Ochoa, & Steiner, 2013).

Under this reasoning, human rights were characterized as everything which a person or group of

people needed in order to live with dignity and to lead fully developed lives. Center Prodh

adopted this dignity-based definition, utilizing an “integral defense” approach to defending

human rights. This approach was comprehensive in that it utilized legal, psychological, political,

and educational resources to defend human rights.

According to Hollenbach (1979), “The United Nation’s Charter makes promotion of

respect for human rights throughout the world one of the fundamental tasks of the community of

nations” (p.27). As such, most states recognized the concept of inherent human rights.

Governments included them in their constitutions, though not every human right was recognized

on the level of the state or laws, regulations, and international treaties. Agarwal (2003) however,

argued that human rights were not the same as constitutional rights. For example, Agarwal

writes: When courts enforce the right to dignity, they are saying something important not only

about what dignity means; they are also saying something about what it means to be an

individual in the particular contemporary society in which the court sits (p. 286).

Characteristics of Human Rights

Taking into consideration the universal nature of human rights, a series of characteristics

inherent in each right was highlighted or stood out in the literature. The information that follows

is a general description of the inherent principles, according to the literature, that comprise

human rights.

Interdependence. Human rights were described as interdependent, which was to say that

no one right was more important than the other (Waldron, 2013). This implied that a violation of

one right resulted in the violation of others, and likewise, the fulfillment of one right lead to the

fulfillment of others. Further illustrating this idea, Waldron (2013) described human rights

within the notion of interdependence, so that if any one individual had them, then all other

individuals had them. However, this notion of interdependence did not suggest that each right

held equal significance to all individuals. Instead, each right was considered to be dependent

upon the existence of the other; for example, the existence of the right to life was dependent upon

the existence of the right to free speech.

Historical and Cultural Phenomenon. Human rights must also be understood as a

historical and cultural phenomenon. They were seen as a product of social battles fought for the

recognition and satisfaction of the demands and necessities of people and their communities.

Therefore, they were described as profoundly connected to political, cultural, economic, and

social realities. Furthermore, they have developed over the years through the interpretation of

national and international texts (Clapham, 2007). As stated by Motilal (2010), the concept of

human rights was a philosophical idea that united all modern nation states and although all

modern states seemed to agree that all individuals were entitled to human rights, there was

disagreement as to which individual rights all humans were entitled to claim. Because the

concept of human rights developed from a historical and cultural perspective over time and

different cultural perspectives about what precisely constituted human rights, the concept was

often explained by way of the notion of “cultural relativism,” an idea that is explained in greater

detail later in this chapter.

Inalienable. Donnelly (1989) also described human rights as inalienable, which meant

that they could not be taken away or transferred to another individual (Donnelly, 1989). As such,

they were considered fundamental rights, which were guaranteed to each individual. They were

also considered to be perpetual. They were permanent in character, as they could not disappear,

could not be lost, or could not cease to be recognized over the course of time.

According to Donnelly (1989),

Human rights are a special class of rights, the rights that one has simply because one is a

human being. They are thus moral rights of the highest order. Usually, however, they are

closely related to parallel [lower] rights, or the struggle to establish such rights. (p. 12)

Universal. Human rights were described as universal. They belonged to all individuals

and groups of people in the world, without distinction. As such, they were considered

fundamental rights, guaranteed to all individuals regardless of their nationality (de Mello &

Benedek , 2012). According to Chwaszcza (2010), the notion of “universality” encompassed two

concepts:

(1) That human rights are possessed, regardless of the sociopolitical views of the

individual, and

(2) That a transnational obligation is created that addresses humankind.

Motilal (2010) expressed that this idea of “universality” could be somewhat exaggerated, though,

as the differing cultural views on morality and existence could lead to differing epistemologies

on what would be accepted as essential human rights.

Dynamic. Human rights were characterized as dynamic, which implied that they were in

constant process of evolution and could adapt over time. They were also progressive. They were

inclined to advance and evolve, and by no means could they be cancelled or regressed. Human

rights corresponded to the satisfaction of necessities and were, thus, protected content, just as the

efficiency of the process for their fulfillment was also considered protected.

Judicially Enforced. They could be judicially enforced. Depending on the country, there

existed a system of procedural protections in place to protect an individual from abuse against

human rights or human dignity (Donnelly, 1989). As such, human rights were included in

different legal ordinances and states were obligated to deliver judicial mechanisms to ensure they

were fulfilled. For example, Article 1 of the Constitution of the Mexican United States, amended

in 2011, expressed that all individuals were guaranteed the rights recognized by the constitution

and by international treaties, to which Mexico was a party (Colli Ek, 2012). Many states might

lack the ability to enforce human rights due to political or economic instability. In this instance,

Merino (2011) argued that, “international agencies should step in to provide assistance through

collaborative casework, a model in which international human rights lawyers and law

enforcement professionals work with local authorities to protect the rights of the people in the

community.” (p. 33)

Impetus for Social Action. The discourse of human rights also gave rise to discourses

for social action, as they often fueled the mission of organized social movements, which fought

for the satisfaction of particular human rights demands. Benedek (2012) described this

characteristic of human rights as “a means which people can use as a tool for social

transformation on the national, regional or universal level” (p. 40). Examples of this were the

movements by environmentalists and workers that have contributed to the fulfillment of their

demands.

Standard of dignity. In short, we could say that human rights were standards, in that

people and groups needed to live with dignity (Donnelly & Howard, 1987). Donnelly (2009)

described human dignity as a respect or worthiness attributed to individuals, simply by the fact

that they were human beings and, as such, discourses on human rights provided a powerful

mechanism for the realization of characteristics associated with human dignity. Ultimately,

human rights have been judicially enforceable in courts of law, and it has been the state that

hashad the responsibility to guarantee the dignity and human rights of each individual within its

borders.

Violation of Human Rights

Formally speaking, a violation of human rights has occurred when officials, civil

servants, or authorities have violated, denied, restricted or made conditional the human rights of

people or groups. Cryer, Friman, Robinson and Wilmshurst (2011) noted that the obligation to

ensure that human rights remained respected had been primarily imposed on states, and

frequently state agents had been the transgressors. Expanding on this concept, particular agents

had violated or infringed human rights because of personal economic interests that could be

gained or because of complicity with authorities that sought to implement these practices. A

basic example of this type of violation was the case of international or transnational companies

that contaminated the environment, with the permission and/or silence of governmental

authorities, without any fear of inspections or sanctions. In this example, these actions violated

the human rights of the individuals harmed by the effects of contamination to their lives as

individuals or populations.

The state has been seen as responsible for the performance of its officials and, therefore,

it has been the responsibility of the state to take action to enforce the human rights violations

made by their agents (Cryer, Friman, Robinson, & Wilmshurst, 2011). They stated that the state

should thoroughly investigate and sanction those who were found to have abused their power,

wittingly or unwittingly, resulting in human rights violations. Further, they argued that the state

not only had an obligation to remedy any harm to the human rights of a person or people caused

by any of its authorities, but it also had an obligation to focus on preventing any future cases of

human rights violations. An appropriate method to achieve this was by refusing to grant

immunity, or an exemption to punishment, to those who had violated the human rights of others.

In the literature, there were differences noted between human rights violations committed

by a nation-state and a simple failure of administration by the state. One such difference was that

violations of human rights did not depend on a solitary mechanism to direct sanctions. Sanctions

could be imposed by officials of the state where the violations occurred, or by a foreign nation

responding to the violation. However, this option often made it difficult to ensure that sanctions

were exercised expeditiously, completely, and uniformly by all parties involved. As described in

the literature, there also existed a wide range of human rights violations that might be considered

criminal offenses. As long as the violation threatened the dignity and physical integrity of a

person or groups of people, that violation might be considered a crime. A clear example of this

were the cases related to the forced disappearance of people, where their liberty was affected just

as significantly as their physical integrity, presumed innocence, legal protections, and due

process.

In general, violations of human rights have occurred when officials, public servants,

public employees, or authorities abused their power to violate the rights of groups or

persons. Violations could also occur when these individuals allowed particular entities,

such as companies, to violate human rights through the use of intimidation, thereby

refusing to respect human rights. Cryer, Friman, Robinson and Wilmshurst (2011)

explained this concept by stating, “Human rights obligations are imposed primarily on

states, and it is frequently state agents who are the transgressors; where states do not

comply their human rights obligations, the principles of international criminal law are a

useful and necessary alternative to state responsibility.” (p. 13)

The State and Its Obligations

Given the role of the state in understanding the question of human rights, it is useful to

briefly define a state and its obligations. The United Nations defined a state as “one where the

great majority are conscious of a common identity and share the same culture” (United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, n.d.). When one refers to the responsibilities

of Mexico, one refers to the obligations that the Mexican Government has expressed in its

national legal framework such as its constitution, secondary laws, and regulations; and in its

international obligations on human rights such as conventions, declarations, and pacts.

Dundes (1988) posited that the obligations of a state to enforce human rights could

generally be divided into at least two significant types: positive obligations and negative

obligations. Positive obligations required a state to have an active presence or to take action in

activities that protect or fulfill an established right. These included, but were not limited to, the

creation of programs that prevented others from violating human rights, strengthening

mechanisms to remedy violations, investment in social programs, and the expansion of the

protections of rights. According to Dundes (1988), a specific example of positive obligations

was welfare obligations to individuals, and the extensive governmental actions that were required

to ensure them. Given that the state is not a single person and is generally organized in a specific

manner, it was necessary to clarify that these obligations applied to the different levels of public

power (institutions, officials, and public servants). This was essential since each level had

certain functions and competencies that dealt with the promotion, protection, defense, and

restitution of human rights. Furthermore, it was important to understand that positive obligations

did not only refer to the distribution of economic resources, but also referred to the formation of

government policies so that officials could execute and fulfill these obligations.

According to Dundes (1988) negative obligations implied that the state, in its different

levels of public power, should also refrain from taking certain actions so that human rights

remained in effect. According to Dundes (1988), an example of a negative obligation was that

where a person had a right to freedom of speech, the state had an obligation not to interfere with

that right. Other examples of negative obligations were a state’s duty to abstain from opening

another’s mail in order to comply with the right to privacy; to abstain from impeding on the free

transmission of ideas; to abstain from detaining individuals arbitrarily; and to abstain from

preventing individuals from joining a union.

There did not exist positive or negative obligations that were exclusive to any one type of

human right. As such, government bore the obligation, both positive and negative, to ensure

human rights were guaranteed. According to the United Nations Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights (n.d.),

Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties

under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfill human rights. The obligation

to respect means that states must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment

of human rights. The obligation to protect requires states to protect individuals and

groups against human rights abuses. (n.p.)

For example, to guarantee the right to vote, the state must have invested in elections—a

positive obligation. This could be accomplished by ensuring judicial protection, guaranteeing the

right of association, and establishing requirements for the registration of candidates. In regards

to economic, cultural, and social rights, there were also negative obligations. For example, in

order to ensure the right to proper nutrition in indigenous communities, the state should not

intervene in indigenous territories and should allow indigenous towns to achieve proper nutrition

through their own means.

An important caveat to note here was that the classification of obligations did not mean

that obligations, in and of themselves, were characteristics of human rights, such as universality

and interdependence were considered to be. When the government failed in some of their

obligations, the other obligations were generally affected as well. It was generally accepted,

however, that the state had obligations in insuring the fulfillment of human rights. According to

the Treaty of Maasstrich (1992) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2003), the state

should commit itself to the performance of all human rights, on several levels:

(1) Respect: The treaty noted that state should not interfere in the enjoyment of human

rights, nor should it impede access to the enjoyment of the good that constitutes the

object of the right. Furthermore, in Yatama v. Nicaragua (2005), the court noted that

a state’s responsibility to respect an individual’s human rights was an essential

element of every legitimate, representative democracy. As such, it was generally

accepted that the state should look to satisfy individual or group human rights by

taking into consideration their identity (cultural, social, sexual, in general etc.), as

well as their necessities and desires. Some basic examples of a state failure to respect

human rights were when a state enacted laws that were contrary to its international

human rights obligations or when the state encouraged others to interfere with the

enjoyment of human rights.

(2) Protection: Courts have supported the concept that the state should prevent the rights

of its population from being violated by the acts of third parties such as businesses,

transnationals, and supervisors. Plainly speaking, the state must prevent others from

impeding and obstructing the enjoyment of a right, and if the rights were violated, the

state must offer the judicial recourse necessary to resolve the violation (Cinco

Pensionistas v. Peru , 2003). , “to protect human rights is to ensure that people

receive some degree of decent, humane treatment” (n.p.). That people should receive

reasonable decent, humane treatment must be ensured. For example, if there was an

attempt to invest in a particularly abusive industry, laws or regulations should have

protected the human rights of workers.

(3) Assuring a Minimum Standard of Employment: The treaty supported the concept that

the state should ensure the satisfaction of essential levels of each individual right,

even during periods of severely limited resources. This obligation included, but was

not limited to, an obligation to provide the recourses necessary for the satisfaction of

a right, if a person could not realize the right on his own. As such, the Government

failed to carry out this obligation when it failed to provide measures for individuals to

achieve a right, where these individuals lacked the ability to achieve this right on their

own accord. Also, it failed in its responsibility when the structural measures that it

put into place failed to allow access to rights for all sectors of the population.

(4) Promotion: As expressed in the case Fluery y Otros v. Haiti (2011), the state must

enact and elaborate on a political action plan for the short, medium, and long term,

which will guarantee the respect, protection, and security for the enjoyment of human

rights. The state was described as having an explicit duty to defend and promote

individual human rights. Accordingly, it should promote conditions for the owners of

rights, in order to ensure they were guaranteed. A basic example of a failure of this

obligation has been when a states failed to establish measures such as programs and

laws to ensure that individual human rights remained in force.

(5) Establish and Accomplish Objectives that Demonstrate Progress: To accomplish this,

the treaty noted that the state must demonstrate that it does not solely guarantee

the minimum, but also that it is working toward more ambitious goals in regards to

human rights. The meaning of this was like an affirmative in favor of the community.

In that respect, it could be interpreted that the state had a duty to demonstrate it was

working to further progress in the availability and development of human rights. An

example of this concept was the state’s treatment of accused criminals. Not only

should the state refrain from arbitrarily imprisoning individuals, but it should also

ensure that the individual was given a fair and speedy trial, as well as the right to

representation.

(6) Adoption of Immediate Measures: According to the Court in Valle Jaramillo v.

Colombia (2008), the state must, within a “reasonable period of time” from ratifying

a treaty, have adopted measures that were consistent, deliberate, necessary, and

certain to completely satisfy a totality of the human rights. This concept, though, was

contingent on what was considered a reasonable period of time to the parties involved

in the matter. A government failed in this obligation when it did not, within a

reasonable period of time, implement measures, or clearly demonstrate intent to

create conditions for the progressive fulfillment of human rights.

(7) Satisfaction: According to the treaty, the state should expressly guarantee the

fulfillment and enjoyment of human rights. Accordingly, the state should adopt, by

any means necessary, measures to guarantee the opportunity to adequately satisfy the

recognized necessities in the instruments of human rights. This principle was

expressed in Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia (2008), where the Court stated that the state

must not only be prepared to expressly guarantee a means to correct past violations

but also to attempt to deter similar violations from occurring in the future. These

measures were necessary so that individuals could enjoy rights, even though an

individual may not have had the ability to personally fulfill the right. Furthermore,

these measures applied to every individual under the jurisdiction of the state,

regardless of citizenship. A state failed in regards to this obligation when the state did

not expressly guarantee human rights, or, when it failed to provide a mechanism for

which to correct a past violation.

(8) Sanction for Crimes Committed by Public Servants or Persons: According to the court

in Barrios Altos v. Peru (2001), the state should guarantee that crimes committed by

public servants, or individuals operating under the consent of the state, were duly

investigated, tried, and sanctioned according to the right violated. Furthermore,

sanctions should also aim to repair any harm done and seek to deter future similar

action. An example of this concept could be seen in the case of Mexico, where there

existed numerous stories about the changes caused by the military presence in

indigenous areas such as a change in community dynamics, a weakening of

community ties, harassment and other abuses against the most vulnerable in society,

including violence against women. Among the cases of sexual abuses committed by

military elements against women were those of Valentina Rosendo Cantú and Inés

Fernández Ortega in the state of Guerrero. Here, the Inter-American Court on Human

Rights issued a ruling recommending the Mexican state transfer the investigations

from the military to the civil jurisdiction. This was done to guarantee impartiality and

independence as well as to insure reparations for the damage caused. In all the

mentioned cases there has not been a ruling against the perpetrators nor has there

been reparations awarded. (Fernández Ortega and others vs. México, 2010;

InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. Report No. 53/01, 2000; Rosendo

Cantú and other vs. México, 2010). In those cases, the state failed in this obligation

when, in its military jurisdiction, it permitted members of the military to act as judges

in cases where a violation of human rights had been committed by members of the

military. This government procedure violated concepts of legality, impartiality, and

independence (Atala Riffo y Ninas v. Chile, 2012).

(9) Non-discrimination: According to Atala Riffo y Ninas v. Chile (2012), the principles

of equality and non-discrimination were obligations of the state owed to each

individual within its borders. To achieve this principle, the state could adopt special

measures, including political and legislative measures, to safeguard women and other

historically vulnerable groups. This obligation required the state to avoid politics,

laws, programs, or actions that specifically sought to discriminate against any person

or group. The state failed in this obligation when it excluded certain sectors of the

population from social programs or when it promoted policies or laws that were

clearly discriminatory.

Legal Framework on Human Rights

When speaking of human rights from legal standpoint, literature and case law referred to

a body of laws, regulations, and procedures that were created to organize social, political,

economic, labor, and family life as the legal framework. This body of laws established a

framework of rights and obligations, in conjunction with those that regulated and maintained the

relationship with the power of the public. Their aim was to ensure human rights remained valid,

respected and definite; and to ensure that restitution, or reparation of damage, was available

when those rights were violated or injured. Human rights were defined to include a combination

of legal norms such as constitutions, laws, treaties, declarations, and jurisprudence; petitions and

mechanisms such as judicial power, public commissions on human rights, Inter-American

Court/Commission on Human Rights; as well as available appeals and procedures such as prison

appeals, complaints against public organizations, precautionary measures, refuge, elaboration and

broadcasting of reports of human rights violations, and demands.

Important to the legal framework of human rights was the question of rule of law.

Peerenboom (2005) suggested that

At its most basic, the rule of law refers to a system in which law is able to impose

meaningful restraints on the state and individual members of the ruling elite, as captured

in the rhetorically powerful, if overly simplistic, notions of a government of laws, the

supremacy of the law and equality of all before the law. (p. 19).

Within the context of human rights, the defense of human dignity has been the perspective taken

by many states. Thus, this perspective recognized the rule of law as a situation where different

groups, which consensually compose society, establish an understanding whereby equitable, just,

and democratic relations were recognized among different groups and authorities. This

understanding supported the establishment of a state where the necessities and aspirations of

everyone in society was recognized and restraints on government power are in place.

From this perspective, the rule of law must not only deal with the absolute application of

a normative body of rights, but also with the possibility that it is an instrument for the aspirations

of wellbeing, justice, equality, solidarity, and democracy in society. According to Peerenboom

(2005), the rule of law was an essential concept in order to achieve democracy and good

governance. Furthermore, it was a concept essential to facilitating geopolitical stability and

global peace; which, in turn, tended to prevent military conflicts and some of the worst atrocities

associated with military conflicts (Peerenboom, 2005). In regard to the idea that constructing a

rule of law required a medium and long-term strategy, it was also necessary to promote a practice

different from the legal instruments that already were in place.

The principle of judicial norms of the nation, explicitly outlined through a ratified

constitution, serves as an important legal framework for execution of the rule of law. As such, it

represented a significant concern in the literature with respect to the question of human rights

and issues of compliance or violation. Since the question of human rights in Mexico was the

specific focus of this study, the following examines the Mexican political constitution.

The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States

Every nation-state today has a ratified constitution that expresses the rights and

obligations of its citizens, as well as the limitations placed on state authorities. Because of this, it

has been generally accepted that the Constitution was the most important legal norm that a

country could possess. In 2011, Mexico underwent an important constitutional reform that

focused specifically on the protection of human rights in the country (Colli Ek, 2012).

Under that constitutional amendment, the basis for the application of human rights was

explicitly stated, thereby making this legal framework fundamental law. According to

Villanueva (2011), the constitutional reform had six distinct aims:

(1) The recognition of human rights in the constitution;

(2) A commitment to human rights education;

(3) The creation of a new institutional design for public entities that protect human

rights;

(4) The authorization of public human rights agencies to handle labor issues;

(5) The establishment of a program for accountability before the Senate; and

(6) The promotion of a greater impact of international human rights instruments. In

its actual application, the constitutional reform made several significant changes to the

legal system in Mexico. Specifically, reform efforts centered on respect for human

dignity and a means to defend dignity through the guarantee of human rights. Villanueva

(2011) expressed that this idea was achieved by strengthening the “pro personae

principle, according to which interpretation of norms must favor human beings as much

as possible” (p. 7). Additionally, the reform also strengthened the Constitution’s system

for protecting human rights by prohibiting Mexico’s legislative inclination to constrain

human rights in favor of achieving greater public security (Villanueva, 2011). Specific

rights were identified and defined, such as rights of public agencies to deal with labor

issues and the right of individuals to be educated about their rights (Villanueva, 2011).

In addition to defining the rights of individuals and members of social groups that formed

communities, the Constitution also organized the authority of the government and established the

power of the sovereign within the territory (Villanueva, 2011). This organization worked to

define the relationship between the public and the different branches of the government. It also

established the power of the sovereign in dealing with other countries. Some theorists described

the Constitution as an expression of sovereignty and, therefore, believed it should be considered

the supreme law of the land, because its source of power was the sovereignty of the people. In

Article 123 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States (2011), it was established that the

Constitution, along with the international treaties ratified by the Senate, were the Supreme Law

of the Land. This concept implied that international treaties on human rights, upon being signed

by the President and ratified by the Senate, became part of national law, valid and applicable

throughout the Republic of Mexico. Although there existed one common denominator in the

declarations, pacts and conventions, because of the multiplicity of different problems in different

regions of the world, the result encompassed four regional consolidated systems: the inter-

American, the African, the Asian and the European approaches.

Still, it has been impossible for a constitution to mention and develop each particular

aspect regarding family life, commerce, education, health, property, and the organization of

public powers and interests. These specific aspects have been addressed more thoroughly in

other sources of laws, mainly secondary or derivative, which were founded in the basic principles

contained in the constitution.

The Mexican Economy and Human Rights Conflicts

Though constitutional reforms in Mexico sought to address several fundamental

shortcomings of the government, the global financial crisis demonstrated several key

vulnerabilities of the economic system in Mexico, and of capitalism in general. It has been

generally accepted that Mexico’s position in the global economy was as a peripheral or less

developed nation. This concept implied that the Mexican economy was generally dependent on

the extraction and exhaustion of its natural resources in order to satisfy the needs and demands of

more economically developed nations, such as the United States. Mexico’s employment of this

economic strategy promoted the short-term, hegemonic, corporate interests of such actions,

rather than a long-term strategy for development and growth. Since this strategy failed to

promote the protection and sustainability of important natural resources, it raised several key

issues that must be addressed.

One significant consequence of Mexico’s economic strategy has been the implications

and impact it has had on the human rights of a large segment of the population. Because of the

government’s failure to address the sustainability and protection of its natural resources, the

lifestyles and standard of living of several groups, in particular that of culturally indigenous and

poor populations, became threatened. These groups were especially dependent on the land to

make a living and to keep alive their important cultural practices. Since the rural lands that these

groups lived on became subject to overuse in order to satisfy short-term national interests, the

poor and culturally indigenous communities faced the choice of being displaced off the land or

finding a new means of support. Furthermore, this economic strategy affected other segments of

the population who have been exposed to environmental contamination caused by natural

resource extraction. They also have been affected by overconsumption of resources, and by the

migration of large segments of the population within the country. Ultimately, these consequences

of Mexico’s economic strategy resulted in a steady deterioration of the social fabric of the nation.

As could be expected, the economic policies of the Mexican government caused an

increasing portion of its population to become economically oppressed. Among the causes were

poverty, unemployment, foreign influence of national industries, and arrogance of its politicians.

In response to a growing fear of continued hardships, social groups within the country mobilized

themselves in an attempt to secure and expand their rights. The Mexican government, however,

responded to these movements with a strategy that involved three distinct actions:

(1) Invincibility,

(2) Escalation of conflict, and

(3) The closure of communication channels.

At the time of this study, the Mexican government responded initially to social

movements with an attitude of invincibility. This meant that the state did not look to, nor listen

to groups that had legitimate grievances against it. There was no clear and productive discourse

established between the Mexican government and the concerned public, nor was there any clarity

on who should lead the negotiations between the sides. Because many of these groups were

unable to express their legitimate grievances, the invincibility of the government was further

reinforced.

Since the social groups were unable to express their legitimate demands or often suffered

abuse when they attempt to do so, they generally resorted to more radical actions, such as violent

protests and vandalism, to ensure their grievances became public. This type of action resulted in

an escalation of conflict that, in turn, brought publicity to their cause. It has often been

characterized in a negative light due to the radical nature of the action that has been taken to

break through the government’s invincibility. Ultimately, the escalation of conflict has tended to

complicate the legitimate demands of the public and has created new problems in its relationship

and dealings with the state.

Finally, due to the strained relationship that resulted between the state and the social

group, the state felt justified in limiting discourse with the protestors. Furthermore, the state felt

its actions were legitimate when it either used physical force to repress the public, or it

introduced legislation to further limit the rights of the public. As such, state violence against

vulnerable populations was quickly rationalized and presented to the public as a justified

response, ignoring the human rights violations or the legitimate demands that initiated the

conflict in the first place.

As illustrated, the implementation of the current economic strategy adopted by the

Mexican government has threatened the human rights of a significant portion of its population.

By examining the economic policies of the government, one cannot only see the harm that results

to the human rights of many individuals, but also can witness how the Government’s political

response to social movements further amplifies the harm, and legitimizes the Government’s

actions.

Development of Human Rights in Mexico

The issue of human rights has been a significant objective of the Mexican government

since independence was officially declared in 1821. As such, it has been generally accepted that

human rights in Mexico have evolved gradually over decades. In 1857, the Congress of Mexico

drafted and ratified what was considered a liberal constitution under the presidency of Ignacio

Comonfort (Knapp, 1953). The Constitution of 1857 not only established individual rights such

as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, but it also included the

“Writ of Amparo” (Knapp, 1953). Under the Writ of Amparo, human rights were declared to be

the foundation and objective of the state and, thereby, became a judicial instrument that

guaranteed their effectiveness. According to Knapp (1953), the Constitution of 1857 was

considered by many to be one of the most influential constitutional expressions of the nineteenth

century.

In the early twentieth century, Mexico experienced a significant social uprising due to

perceived social injustice and inequalities. This ultimately led to the Mexican Revolution of

1910. Under the leadership of the autocrat, Porfirio Diaz, the Mexican government promoted the

accumulation of wealth and the growth and expansion of industry, often at the expense of the

working class population (Johnson, 1968). Johnson noted that, in order to facilitate the growth of

industry, the working class was frequently oppressed or exploited, so that roads, factories, and

other infrastructure could be built, and manpower in the factories would be provided.

Ultimately, this oppression of the Mexican working class resulted in a series of uprisings led by

individuals such as Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata, forcing the Mexican government to enact

social and political reforms.

One of the main products of the revolution was the adoption of the Political Constitution

of the United Mexican States (Niemeyer, 1974). Among the significant achievements of the

Constitution of the United Mexican States were two specific issues: workers’ rights and property

rights. The Mexican Constitution sought to protect the rights of workers through the

implementation of principles that assured a minimum standard of decent life (Niemeyer, 1974).

For example, Article 123 of the Mexican Constitution established the eight-hour workday, a

minimum wage, required a one-day rest period per week, and prohibited child labor.

Furthermore, working conditions were also addressed through the provision of secure working

environments, workers’ pregnancy issues, and employer liability in case of accidents while at

work (Constitution of the United Mexican States, Art. 123, 1917).

The Mexican Constitution also sought to protect an individual’s right to own and enjoy

property. This goal was largely the result of the “hacienda” system, which led to the

appropriation of large parcels of land by a limited number of powerful, wealthy landowners.. For

example, Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution (1917) allowed eminent domain over all of the

land within the national territory and empowered small communities to possess lands by splitting

up large existing properties and estates. These expropriations of land ultimately led to the

redistribution of land to the peasantry in order to assure them a source of income and a means of

survival.

Catholic and Jesuit Approach to Human Rights

Just as human rights in Mexico developed over time, the social teachings of the Roman

Catholic Church have developed at a similarly slow pace. Progressively, human and Christian

values have been discovered as being contained in declarations on human rights that were

developed by non-church agents (Gonzalez, 2005). The first sign of the Church’s acceptance of

these concepts was found in 1937, when Pope Pius XI affirmed in his encyclical against Nazism

that man as a person had rights received from God and that those rights were to be defended

against whatever attempts were made by communism to negate, abolish or impede.

During the 19th century the defenders of human rights regarded authentic values as those

considered inherent in humanity. They believed it was the belligerent acts confronting the

Church that were impeding their development. At the time of this study, historical circumstances

had had a notable influence in the ecclesiastical changes. On the one hand, a majority of the

countries had abandoned their antireligious policies. On the other hand, it was evident that the

persecution suffered by the Church occurred in those countries where human rights were not

respected. There has been controversy regarding the role of the Church with respect to Nazism.

The Guardian (2011) published an article that showed how the Vatican, as well as the Red Cross

helped thousands of Nazi war criminals and collaborators to escape after World War II. It was

notable then that both encyclicals of Pius XI were initiated toward the end of the cold war and

were expressly addressed against German Nazism and Soviet communism. The Church had

observed the evolution of western democracies and had noted that the defense of freedom was

not necessarily synonymous with atheism or with anticlericalism. Above all, the Church

developed its own intolerance toward totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Stalinism.

Confronting totalitarianism, it could not oppose the proposition that human persons were

entitled to dignity. In 1942, Pope Pius XII commented on what could be called a declaration of

human rights. Consequently, the Pope could have publicly accepted the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights when it was developed six years after his original comments were made on this

matter. However, he was silent on the issue. Contrary to the actions or failures to act by Pope

Pius XII, Pope John XXIII publicly accepted the Declaration, albeit with some unspecified

reservations.

The foundation of the Catholic Church’s modern involvement in human rights could be

traced to its origins in Pope Leo XIII’s defense of workers against exploitation (Witte, 1996).

According to Witte, the focus of Leo XIII’s writings in this area was economic rights.

Subsequently, Pius XII added political-civil rights and ideas of democracy. These ideas gained

increasing importance because of the growing prevalence of totalitarian states in the period

between World War I and World War II and with these contributions Pius XII set the stage for

John XIII (Witte, 1996).

Drawing on the work of Leo XIII and Pius XII, John XXIII further developed the

importance of human rights in the Church. The theological legitimization of Catholic

involvement in the struggle for human rights came in 1965, with the publication of Gaudium et

Spies (Paul VI, 195; Witte, 1996). Significantly, global political events and realities of the 1970s

and 1980s provided a context in which to apply these new developments of Catholic teaching.

In Latin America, the Church was driven to purse the defense of human rights because of

the prevalence of massive human suffering and injustice in the region (Hennelly, 1982).

Hennelly noted that the Latin American Bishop’s Conferences in 1968 and 1979 served as an

official endorsement and further development of the Church’s role in human rights. The Bishops

committed to the poor and condemned widespread extreme poverty. A theological movement

focused on the poor that arose in the Latin American Catholic Church was “liberation theology”.

Liberation theology highlighted the rights of the poor and interpreted the teachings of the Church

in relation to liberation from unjust economic, social, and political conditions (Engler, 2000).

Hollenbach (1979) described how this movement influenced the Catholic perspective on human

rights. Hollenbach noted that Liberationist insight prioritized the needs of the poor.

Additionally, the freedom of the dominated and participation of marginalized groups took

priority over the liberty of the powerful. Furthermore, society was required to create structures

that could provide these rights to the poor and dominated. In concert, liberation theology’s key

tenet was precisely this preferential option for the poor. Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2009)

argued that this theology was counter-hegemonic given that it was oriented at constructing a

social order more equitable and just for the poor. In Chapter Six, I elaborate on this concept of

human rights.

Until the 1980s, theologians in the movement avoided the term “rights,” opting instead

for “solidarity.” (Brackley & Schubeck, 2002). In terms of Latin American theology, rights

included social and economic human rights like those in the United Nations Declaration. One

example was the right to an adequate standard of living. This idea of rights conformed to the

idea of rights that Liberation Theologians highlighted, such as the right to work and to participate

in the political and economic systems (Engler, 2000). Liberals, on the other hand, adopted a

meaning of rights more individualistic, such as the rights to private property and free speech

(Brackley & Schubeck, 2002). Because some of these liberals ignored or persecuted those who

defined rights broadly, the word “solidarity” became the preferred terminology.

Today, the use of the term “rights” is readily observable. Solidarity evolved from a

counter to neoliberal individualism to the center of an ethic that integrates human rights, with

other values such as love, justice, freedom and forgiveness. Solidarity came to reflect what

Hollenbach (1979) emphasized—that social justice requires active participation by all persons in

society’s sociopolitical and economic activity. Liberation theology and the Latin American

Catholic Church’s perspective similarly recognized that respect for human dignity required both

civil-political and socio-economic rights.

Liberation theology suitably applied to the economic, social and political realities of Latin

America. Poverty and structural inequality were identified as Latin America’s gravest moral

problems (Brackley & Schubeck, 2002). In terms of political realities, Witte (1996) argued that

totalitarian rule inevitably suppressed independent sources of power such as the press,

legislature, unions and universities. This, consequently, left the Church as the only institution

capable of confronting unrestrained political power.

The resulting classical church-state confrontation meant that a fight for justice would

come at a price. Sobrino (2000) mentioned Monsignor Romero’s surprising comment that the

prosecution of the Church for its activities in promoting human rights served as a positive

indication of its commitment to this cause. A Church that suffered oppression and prosecution

similar to that of those it served symbolized a Church involved in the problems of marginalized

populations.

According to Engler (2000), while the concept of the human rights of the poor was firmly

established, some critics remained skeptical. Some questioned whether economic or social ideas

could also be accepted as rights. Could this human rights movement be a force for progressive

change or would it serve only as a rationalization? Liberation theologians believed that an

intellectual analysis addressing these questions should include an active engagement with the

poor. This would require a commitment to challenge the oppressive systems that existed. This

practical approach actually mirrored the praxis element of the critical pedagogical model, which

is discussed later in this chapter.

Sobrino (2000) described the Jesuit’s role in promoting human rights as building a

kingdom of God, a world where rights, justice and peace would reign. Sobrino believed that

faith demanded such a fight for justice and likened this struggle to Jesus’ role defending the poor

and denouncing oppressors. Sobrino further noted that while injustice divided society, a fight for

justice provided unity.

To determine which issues caused reservation, one could compare the text of the

Declaration of 1948 with the encyclical of Pacem in Terris promulgated in 1963 (Appendix B).

The above similarities were particularly relevant in the Latin American context. The

Church began to address human rights as a result of the issues raised during the Vatican II

Council, and the conferences of the Latin-American Assembly of Medellin, of Puebla, and of

Santo Domingo. The Church was also motivated by recent writings such as the document of the

Church in America (Cortez, 2002). It expressed the belief that man’s vision of human kind was

of conscience, of sensitivity, and of its superiority over things, facts, and universal

responsibilities. There was recognition of the person, and of the rights and obligations that

flowed from the responsibilities of the person. It urged that fundamental equality must be

acknowledged because “men are endowed with rational souls and are created in the image of

God” (p.44). It also recognized the significance of the violation of human rights, not only as an

attack on human dignity but also as an attack of the image of God, which was imbued in us by

being human.

In Latin America, the Church also has spoken for and assumed the work of taking on the

voice of those who had no voice or the voiceless within the impoverished and marginalized

population. It has defended those who did not have the capacity on their own to raise their

voices and exercise their right to object. In time, this has been modified because the Church has

taken the position that in addition to being “the voice of those without a voice,” it had the great

responsibility of assisting these social sectors to become a subject of its own rights, a subject of

its own demands, and a subject of its own destiny. The Jesuits, as part of the Church in Latin

America, have taken those theories into practice.

The entire period of repression was against social movements and political dissidents of

the times. Applied retroactively, it spoke of hundreds of people who disappeared during that

turbulent time. Facing that reality, the Church seriously questioned those authoritative regimens

as well as their sustaining ideology. Therein lay the concept of national security under which

was the torture and disappearance of men and women, including genocide, addressed. There was

an explicit description of a more serious compromise of human rights in the document from

Puebla, which was the Third General Conference of the Latin American Bishops held in 1978.

In 1992, the Conference of the Latin-American Bishops was held in Santo Domingo. It

reiterated that human rights were violated among conditions of extreme poverty and unjust social

structures. These factors were permanently maintained in great inequality in our societies of

Latin America. This was particularly of significance regarding the conditions that impacted

indigenous populations in Mexico.

Indigenous Perspectives of Human Rights

Some indigenous perspectives of human rights also offered counter-hegemonic

approaches to human rights (Santos, 2012). An important milestone in the recognition of an

indigenous perspective of human rights came in 1972 with the Inter-American Commission’s

recognition that states had a responsibility to protect indigenous peoples (Madariaga, 2004). The

structure and culture of indigenous communities, such as an emphasis on the community and

communal land rights, shaped this perspective of human rights. The Inter-American

Commission’s subsequent rulings developed case law to help define the indigenous perspective.

The human rights approach was pluralistic and progressive and brought with it what Boaventura

de Sousa Santos (2009) defined as a font of radical energy for the counterhegemonic battles over

human rights. I develop this approach in the analysis and discussion chapter.

An important component of human rights from an indigenous perspective was the idea of

collective rights. The Inter-American Commission’s decision in Case of the Plan de Sánchez

Massacre v. Guatemala (2004) incorporated this concept when addressing the applicable

remedies. In addition to awarding reparations to individual surviving victims of massacres, the

Commission also petitioned for collective reparations to the affected communities as a whole.

The Commission’s decision acknowledged the importance of preserving the MayanAchi’s

culture, communal structure, and self-governance methods. The Commission understood the

death in the massacres of the oral transmitters of Mayan-Achi culture, the women and elders,

created the potential for a cultural vacuum. Reparations to the community as a whole attempted

to address this threat to the indigenous culture. The Commission’s later actions continued to

recognize the importance of protecting the physical integrity of these traditionally discriminated

groups (Picado, 2004).

Community land rights were another significant component of the indigenous perspective

of human rights. The communal lands of indigenous communities served not only as an

economic unit but also an important basis for cultural and social life and development

(Madariaga, 2004). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights first recognized community land

rights in the Awas Tingi case (Picado, 2004). In this decision, the Court decided that the state had

to adopt domestic laws needed to create mechanisms to delineate, legally recognize, and provide

title to communal lands of indigenous communities. The Court has also held that indigenous

peoples must be able to enjoy their communal lands in order to preserve their culture (Madariaga,

2004). Through these actions, the Court recognized the importance of communal lands to

indigenous communities and set an important precedent for protecting indigenous rights.

At the time of this study, the indigenous perspective of human rights was relatively new

and was continuing to develop and evolve. The participation of representatives from indigenous

communities in this process was an innovative step in the structure of the Organization of

American States (OAS) (Madariaga, 2004). This participation is meant to help facilitate a

consensus between OAS member states and indigenous communities.

Latin America has been composed of a multi-cultural population in which indigenous

people played a crucial role (Pasquuialluci, 2006). Mexico has been no exception. According to

estimates in the United Nations’ Indiginous Peoples’ Rights in Mexico, (2011), 15% of its

population was composed of various indigenous groups dispersed throughout its national

territory. The indigenous scene in Mexico presented great economic gaps in comparison to other

sectors. On the one hand, we had the case of subsistence and on-farm consumption agriculture.

Here, terrains progressively cease to produce a sufficient amount of food to feed a family. On the

other hand, small rural lands continued to preserve traditions and a strong cultural identity.

Indigenous communities had only recently seen their rights recognized. The human rights

situation of indigenous peoples, despite advances achieved in the legal realm, shows delays and

shortcomings to which, unfortunately, sufficient political willpower has not been applied.

Mexico's multi-cultural character has had very few practical and legislative repercussions

at the local and state levels. The prevailing economic and political structures in Mexico have led

to an ambiguous justice system. Along with the possibility of serving as an instrument for

defending the legitimate interests of individuals and communities, it has also been employed in

the legitimization of arbitrary interests. Propped up by those who impose a particular vision of

human rights, this second use has served to cover up processes of domination, exploitation, and

manipulation.

It is indisputable that the idea of human rights was derived from notions of liberalism.

Nonetheless, the field of human rights has been encountering new content, meanings, and

tensions. Often indigenous struggles, moreover, must confront notions steeped in a western

universal vision of human rights (Higgins, 1996; Mutua, 1996). There also have been tensions

between liberal perspectives and indigenous approaches to human rights. Under the dominant

rubric, human rights work has placed an emphasis on the value of individuality (Darder, 2010),

whereas an indigenous view placed the emphasis on community rights and communal

relationships. Thaddeus (2011) argued that the

Communitarian conception of dignity is more attractive than the life-based one because it

more naturally entails and plausibly explains many uncontroversial judgments about what

we have as human rights. (p. 20)

Under the Center Prodh’s perspective, the aim of the human rights struggle has been that

these rights should be recognized and lived by all people and communities in a comprehensive

manner. Human rights belong to all people without exception. This clearly included indigenous,

religious, or sexual minorities. Acknowledging different viewpoints and realities, such as those

of indigenous peoples, would serve to grow and enrich our human rights practice. This implied

that no person or community should have to renounce its lawful ways in order to fully enjoy

human rights.

Among the diversity of peoples in Mexico with their own way of life were indigenous

communities. Important issues to indigenous communities included “autonomous

selfgovernment, cultural self-determination, and land rights” (Magallanes, 2010, p.180).

Demographic realities required that human rights, from a Latin American perspective, included

these issues. An important foundation for this approach came from Yatama v. Nicaragua (2005).

There, the Court considered local realities and indigenous rights in the context of electoral laws.

The Yamata case reflected a willingness to accommodate indigenous issues into the analysis. A

similar approach, cognizant of cultural differences could be applied to human rights through an

indigenous approach that required respect communal relationships and demanded our willingness

to enter into relationships beyond those that solely privileged individual rights. Instead, it

affirmed the combination of sharing a way with others and of caring about their and our shared

quality of life (Thaddeus , 2011).

Towards a Critical Human Rights Conceptual Lens

Lastly, it was important to conclude this chapter with the critical principles that informed

my conceptual lens for a critical human rights approach, which were key to the analysis of the

data gathered and in arriving at conclusions and recommendations that might serve to inform a

culturally democratic human rights practice. Toward this end, a critical pedagogical framework

provided a useful lens by which to analyze the concept of human rights under a Jesuit perspective

in that it appears most consistent with Center Prodh’s view on human rights in Mexico.

Darder (2009) posited a framework of critical pedagogy that emerged from a desire to

give some coherence to the articulation of critical principles, beliefs, and practices in the field.

These have been foundational elements that educators could use to evaluate critically the impact

of capitalism and asymmetrical relations of power among students from historically racialized

and economically disenfranchised populations. An important intellectual foundation of critical

pedagogy has been found in the work of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. Freire (1970) raised

political questions of power, culture, and oppression within the context of hegemonic schooling.

In addition, Gramsci (1971) and Foucault (1977) explored notions of power and its impact on the

construction of knowledge (Dunoff, Ratner, & Wippman, 2010). Critical educational thought

also has drawn on “theories of society from the Frankfurt School” (Darder et al., 2008, p.7). The

Frankfurt School intended their findings to serve as a material force against domination of all

forms but especially the advancement of capitalism (Darder, 2012).

From these foundations emerged critical principles that later characterized the

philosophical roots and heterogeneous ideas that became known as critical pedagogy (Darder et

al., 2008). This heterogeneous character of the field distinguished critical pedagogy, in that it

provided a fluid and dynamic framework. It allowed for consolidation of principles that were

anchored in an underlying explicit intent and “commitment to the empowerment of marginalized

populations (p.9). The critical educational principles for cultural democracy, as articulated by

Darder (2012) are briefly described below, with respect to their particular relevance to this study.

Cultural Politics

Center Prodh has worked to defend, promote, and increase respect for human rights in

Mexico. Members of the center have applied a holistic perspective toward that defense.

Accordingly, Darder’s perspective mirrored the Center’s notion of human rights. This was

illustrated as Darder presented a culturally democratic approach towards human rights as

“fundamentally committed to the development and enactment of a culture of schooling that

supports the empowerment of culturally marginalized and economically disenfranchised

[people]” (2009, p. 9).

In order to achieve this empowerment, Darder’s ideas pointed to that need of NGOs to

break away from traditional teachings that have “historically embraced theories and practices that

serve to unite knowledge and power in ways that sustain asymmetrical relations of power” (2009,

p.10). Such theories and practices have hindered the development and universal application of

human rights. Violations of human rights placed marginalized groups of people and, in particular

indigenous populations, within certain power relations that perpetuated existing cultural values

and privileges of dominant classes.

Political Economy

This principle acknowledged the significant privilege that has existed in the hands of

those controlling the political economy in developing countries. Such control over the education

of marginalized groups allowed a history of normalized inequalities to persist. Darder (2009)

challenged this phenomenon and presented a method of teaching, echoing Freire, which required

marginalized groups to “understand themselves as subjects of history and to recognize that

conditions of injustice, although historically produced by human beings, can also be transformed

by human beings” (p.11).

When applying this concept of social agency to the fruition of human rights, the centrality

of human agency and the possibilities for change became apparent. This vision of change was

the starting point for the implementation of human rights. As the starting point, it positioned

marginalized groups to break away from the “asymmetrical power relations that replicate the

existing cultural values and privileges of the dominant class” (Darder, 2009, p.10).

Once those existing values and privileges are broken down, there will be room to develop a

society where the implementation and enforcement of human rights are the norm.

Historicity of Knowledge

A critical analysis of human rights supported the notion that all knowledge was created in

history, which in turn created all knowledge within its context. Throughout history, people have

had to fight for human rights. Controlling classes never merely granted such rights to

marginalized groups without tough advocacy efforts and a difficult process of political

persuasion. This history provided a foundation for the enforcement of human rights. By learning

this history, marginalized groups learned to “recognize that conditions of injustice, although

historically produced by human beings, can also be transformed by human beings” (Darder,

2009, p.11).

This key concept supported the empowerment of marginalized groups, in that they were

inspired to analyze their situations and to work to transform the unjust conditions that impacted

their individual lives and communities. This critical understanding of human rights served to

empower marginalized groups because it linked their situation today with their past histories of

struggle. Current unjust conditions then required them to fight for their basic human rights, as

history had required oppressed people to do so in the past. Being able to relate the current

situation to the unfinished struggles of the past has inspired hope in the possibilities for change.

This sense of critical hope for change has been essential to the process of societal transformation.

Ideology

Additionally, Darder’s (2009) work pointed to the notion of human rights as an ideology.

She described ideology as “a societal lens or framework of thought, used in society to create

order and give meaning to the social and political world.” (p. 11). This lens developed over time

and, through the inner histories and experiences of individuals, was constructed by their needs,

motivations, and desires, along with societal and economic changes around them. A critical

examination of an educator’s ideology provided insight to examine their own views about their

surrounding cultural circumstances. This insight led educators and community workers to ask

questions that would help them determine how the culture of the dominant class infiltrated their

curriculum in ways that diminished the knowledge and wisdom of indigenous groups.

In the area of human rights, community educators have worked with marginalized groups

as teacher/students to name the unjust conditions and break their normalized marginalization.

The chains of marginalization began to loosen and eventually broke once educators could

analyze the roots of their own hegemonic ideas. This critical analysis could lead to personal

realizations of the invasion of discriminatory societal norms in their own practices and could

allow educators to steer away from oppressive ideologies that perpetuated deficit notions and

discrimination. Once educators critiqued their own ideologies, they were able to support

students in developing more insight into their own unjust circumstances and break free from the

chains of their discriminatory society.

Dialectical Theory

In sync with Freire’s notion, Darder continued by stressing the importance of dialogue.

This concept became particularly important when examining the universality of human rights and

varying definitions of human rights throughout the world, which often absolutized and negated

the legitimacy of epistemological views outside its purview (Darder, 2015). Darder et al. (2008)

described dialogue as “an emancipatory educational process that is, above all, committed to the

empowerment of students through challenging the dominant educational discourse and

illuminating the right and freedom of marginalized groups to become subjects of their world.”

(p.13).

This theory applied human rights as a tool of social transformation that promoted social

change. It did so because the current lack of basic human rights in developing countries

facilitated the ongoing marginalization of indigenous people, which, in turn, perpetuated a lack

of human rights. Communicating societal problems with a critical human rights approach

motivated communities to change their circumstances and eventually yield wider societal change.

This societal change will encompass a vision where everyone is entitled to the same rights.

Hegemony

Hegemony has hindered the growth and development of marginalized groups. Darder

(2008) encouraged the incorporation of hegemony into teaching “in order to demystify the

asymmetrical power relations and social arrangements that sustain the interests of the ruling

class.” (p. 12). When critically examining the process of social control that the dominant social

class held over marginalized groups, the root of the problem became apparent. Here, the

problem was the absence of basic human rights for certain groups of people as well as the lack of

advocacy on their behalf.

At the time of this study, leaders of the political economy and intellectuals of developing

countries administered a society where oppressed populations from lower social class standing

and those from certain cultural backgrounds were marginalized to the outskirts of society. Being

able to pinpoint the heart that pumped this hegemonic culture of perpetual marginalization for

subordinate groups provided educators an opportunity to better critique the political apparatus of

inequality and to work to transform the status quo. Transforming the status quo with regard to

education has aimed to empower marginalized people and ultimately has sought an

implementation and enforcement of basic human rights.

Resistance and Counter Hegemony

Darder (2008) continued her analysis by incorporating the idea of resistance to explain

why many marginalized groups consistently fail within society. This idea began with the notion

that all human beings had the capacity to resist oppression. However, their options on the

manner in which they could resist were limited by the societal and material conditions in which

they live. The principle of resistance worked to explain the degree to which the oppositional

behavior of marginalized groups was related to their need “to struggle against elements of

dehumanization or are simply tied to the perpetuation of their own oppression” (p.12).

The idea of counter-hegemony has been used here to describe certain societal spaces

where power relationships were constructed to empower the voices of those who have been

historically marginalized and silenced. This empowerment has been achieved whenever a new

social context came to life out of instances of resistance. Here, as Darder (2008) argued, “Given

the powerful and overarching hegemonic political apparatus of advanced capitalist society, there

is often great pressure placed upon individuals and groups who, rather than simply conforms to

the status quo, seek to enact counter-hegemonic alternatives of teaching and learning” (p.13).

The catalyst of counter-hegemonic principles when enacted by the oppressed has served as a

significant political force toward societal transformation, promoting social change.

Praxis: The Alliance of Theory and Practice

A critical analysis of human rights should encompass a view of knowledge where “theory

and practice are inextricably linked to our understanding of the world and the actions we take in

our daily lives” (Darder, 2008, p.13). Herein, Darder pointed to the importance of active

participation in the world, linked to our theories of social justice and human rights, if we were to

yield genuine societal change. This principle echoed Freire’s concern with educators or

community activists collapsing either solely into verbalism (or theorizing), on one hand; or solely

into activism devoid of theory and reflection, on the other (Darder, 2015; Freire, 1970).

Moreover, this principle supports the importance of reflection, dialogue, and critique in enacting

struggles for human rights. Emancipatory praxis then must be anchored upon an evolving

consciousness among the oppressed, where theory and practice are seen as constantly

regenerating one another, in forging liberatory possibilities of community life.

Dialogue and Conscientization

Marginalized groups, such as women and indigenous communities, have been both the

teachers and students. This approach instilled in marginalized groups the tools and freedom to

engage in a critical dialogical process that deepened their consciousness of their surroundings, as

they embraced responsibility for their own empowerment and for transforming their own

communities. Fulfillment of basic needs such as food and shelter, for example, then led to a

greater opportunity for communal growth and the exercise of self-determination, community

solidarity, and political creativity. The growth of students or community members in this case

then led to fundamental societal changes.

In concert with Freire’s (1970) writings, all change must begin with dialogue, where

students or cultural workers were “actively incorporated as part of the exploration of existing

conditions and knowledge in order to understand how these came to be and to consider how they

might be different” (Darder et al, 2008, p.14). Developing such knowledge through the process

of social struggle, marginalized communities could yield positive change through embodying a

holistic or integral perspective in their struggle for human rights. Through the sustain process of

such dialogical labor, communities could undergo a process of conscientization that would

enhance their collective capacity to work for social justice in their lives.

Conclusion

Darder's (2012/1991) critical pedagogical approach to cultural democratic practice

provided a framework from which to analyze the approach of Center Prodh to human rights

within a Latin America context. Critical pedagogy’s fluid and dynamic nature allowed the

several principles outlined above to work coherently towards the goal of empowering oppressed

populations. Rooted in this perspective was an understanding that the status quo in education

and societies served to perpetuate the domination of disenfranchised populations. Application of

the principles of critical pedagogy could effectively guide a conceptual analysis of human rights

—one that recognized entrenched barriers and worked to empower disenfranchised populations

to become active participants in bringing about social change for themselves. Hence, it provided

a viable conceptual lens for this study from which to analyze research data and formulate

conclusions about the impact and contribution of Center Prodh to the arena of human rights in

Mexico.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

This purpose of this study was to document and analyze critically the legal and

educational practices of Mexico’s most important human rights organization, Miguel Agustin

Prodh Juarez Human Rights Center (Center Prodh). Through a variety of research methods,

including interviews, examination of archival document, and an analysis of key litigated cases,

the study sought to demonstrate how the organization’s human rights work has contributed to the

improvement of democratic life in Mexico, in accordance with the Jesuit mission. The result is a

critical history of the Center and its work, based on a set of guiding research questions that

informed the focus of this study.

Research Questions

The research questions addressed by the study included:

(1) What was the main approach utilized by the Jesuits in their human rights practice?

(2) In what ways did Center Prodh’s litigation practices linked to human rights enhance the

Jesuit Mission within disenfranchised communities in Mexico?

(3) What were particular examples of Center Prodh’s influence on law and public policy?

(4) What were the strengths and challenges of Center Prodh with respect to its human rights

practices in communities?

Research Design

This research entailed a qualitative case study of Center Prodh and its contributions to

human rights in Mexico. According to Hatch (2002), qualitative methods were vehicles by

which social contexts could be systematically examined as a whole, so as not to break them

down into isolated, incomplete and differing parts. Qualitative reports usually have been

complex, detailed narratives that included the voices of the participants being studied (Tellis,

1997). They have built the case of the researcher’s interpretations by including enough detail and

actual data to bring the reader inside the social situation under examination (Biklen & Bodgan,

1992; Hatch 2002, p. 30-31 ). A case study is a useful framework for a multidisciplinary study in

an in-depth approach with specific boundaries (Hatch, 2002, ).

In a research study that focused on the quality of the contributions made by an

organization in a defined area, the qualitative research method was the most effective.

According to Gay, Mills, & Airasian (2011) the benefit of a qualitative study was that it assisted

in describing current conditions and possible relationships in a cause-effect phenomenon.

Additionally, a qualitative study seeks to describe the meaning of the results from the perspective

of the participants (Hatch, 2002). Specifically, my study focused on the nature of the work

performed by Center Prodh, and how that work related to the mission of the Society of Jesus. As

such, this study sought to understand the findings as they related to sectors of the Mexican

population whose rights were in question, and to the individuals who worked for Center Prodh.

Case Study

This study addressed the research questions through the application of a case study

method. A case study is a type of qualitative research that focuses on the product of case study

research (Airasian, Gay, Mills, 2011). Yin (2003) proposed that a case study was an empirical

inquiry that investigated a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within a real life context,

especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context were not clearly evident. The

case study attempted to relate a unique story, especially interesting and relevant. Neagle (2006)

pointed out that “case studies are appropriate when there is a unique or interesting story to be

told” (p. 4).

In accordance with the literature, there were different ways of understanding the case

study. Pursuant to Yin (2003), the case study design must have five components:

(1) The research question(s);

(2) Its proposition,

(3) Its unit(s) of analysis;

(4) A determination of how data are linked to the propositions; and

(5) The criteria under which the findings will be interpreted.

The study of the case must give an account of a phenomenon or an organization. The researcher

should perform a work of exploration, description and interpretation, and must explain principal

findings (Manano, 1993). Center Prodh had acquired a wealth of experience during more than

27 years of existence. I examined the specific works and contributions of Center Prodh that had

been previously documented in various publications, as well as directly expressed by its various

reports and legal cases. However, due to the volume of the data, not all aspects of the

organization could be addressed here. Instead, I addressed those aspects of its practices directly

relevant to this study on human rights.

Site Selection

Center Prodh was the first human rights center founded by the Jesuit Order in Mexico and

is located in Mexico City. It was founded in 1988 in reaction to the Mexican Government’s

repressive regime against social activists, church and adversarial political leaders, and

communities and organizations that disapproved of their method of governing. After its creation,

Center Prodh focused its commitment on the defense and promotion of civil and political rights,

in particular those that related to respect for life, integrity, and personal security.

In 2002, Center Prodh added the promotion and defense of economic, social,

environmental, and cultural rights to its services. The strategy adopted was the integral defense

of paradigmatic cases approach. Center Prodh’s mission was to, “promote and defend the human

rights of victims, especially those in situations of vulnerability and poverty, and to build a more

just, equitable, and democratic society that fully respects human dignity” (Center Prodh, Internal

Plan, 2008).

At various times, the Center has employed from 25 to 30 people. The majority of the

persons working at the Center have been attorneys, social educators, political scientists, and

psychologists. All services provided by the Center have been free of charge, including the

educational materials and litigation costs. To defray these expenses, the Center received funding

from international foundations. Such foundations are the MacArthur Foundation, the Open

Society Foundation, the Global Fund of Human Rights from the United States, and the Misereor

and Brot fur die Welt (Bread for the World) Foundation from Germany, among others.

In 2010, with at most thirty people, the Center handled nearly 1500 cases and a

considerable number of human rights workshops. The Center played an important role in the

community because it addressed the needs of the poor and underrepresented. Both have been

groups whose rights were in jeopardy. Those who seek services from the Center usually resided

in rural areas such as Oaxaca, populated by a majority of peasant and indigenous peoples.

The Center devised its own methodology as a result of twenty-six years of experience in

educational projects and legal representation. The defense of cases has been called “integral

defense,” and has involved the joint work of several the Center’s departments. The Integral

Defense department designed and executed legal strategies. The Communications and

Communication department disseminated information about the cases and carried out

awarenessraising campaigns. The Educational department researched the current state of the

issues brought to light from the cases. This helped develop the public interest in the issue in

order to carry out educational workshops on the subject. The International department reported

the cases to international institutions and made connections with organizations overseas with

similar missions.

As the result of the above strategies, Center Prodh contributed to the monitoring of

human rights in Mexico. The issues and cases taken on by Center Prodh gained the support of

national and international public opinion. This qualitative case study sought to understand the

influence and impact of Center Prodh on the issue of human rights in Mexico, particularly among

indigenous populations.

Data Collection

The data for this study were derived from interviews and document review.

Interviews

Qualitative researchers have utilized special interview strategies that were different in

nature from interviews conducted in quantitative studies.

Qualitative interviewers create a special kind of speech event during which they ask

open-ended questions, encourage informants to explain their unique perspectives on the

issues at hand, and listen intently for special language and other clues that reveal meaning

structures informants use to understand their worlds (Hatch, 2002, p. 23; Mishler, 1986;

Seidman, 1998).

Hatch (2002) noted that there were several types of interviews: informal, formal

(sometimes called structured or semi-structured) and standardized. As described by Hatch, in

formal interviews, the researcher is in charge and sets a specific time limit for the interview. The

participants know they are being interviewed to generate data. The researcher poses open-ended

questions—those that can be answered with a yes or a no. The researcher is open to digressions

and amenable to moving the interview in the direction that the participant takes. The researcher

listens carefully to the participant’s answers and from these formulates follow up questions (See

Appendix A). Standardized interviews use only predetermined questions that are asked in the

same order, using the same words that are posed to all participants alike. In this manner, the

answers can be systematically compared.

Process

I used both formal and structured interviews because of the two-hour time limit for each

interview. The questions, for the most part, were open ended.

Although Hatch (2002) included a factor that the researcher may be open to digressions

and was amenable to moving the interview in the direction that the participant takes, my study

used structured interviews to maintain the focus in the direction of participant responses, unless

the digression was relevant to issues in this study.

Before the interview, I informed the persons I planned to interview that I would be there

to generate data. Prior to the interviews, I provided the participants with the specific initial

questions (see Appendix B) I would ask during the interview. I advised them I planned to pose

follow-up questions based on their responses. My interviews could be characterized as partially

standardized because they began with predetermined questions that were asked of all participants

in the same order, using the same words. The interviews could also be characterized as partially

standardized because I gathered information from all the participants that could be compared

systematically.

During the summer and fall of 2014, pursuant to Institutional Review Board’s procedures,

I interviewed the current Director of the Center, six previous directors, and the current

coordinators of the departments. To prepare for their interviews, I previously engaged in several

conversations with the directors to familiarize myself with their current work and the work of the

Center under their direction.

The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed in Spanish. The translation into

English was not simply a literal translation, but took into account the context and the culture of

the interviewee. The translation was abridged to retain only the relevant information consistent

with the dissertation research questions. The translation narrative was followed by a synthesis of

each interview according to the topic discussed.

Participants

Six former directors of the Center, most of whom served at least two years in the position

of Director, were interviewed. Four others interviewed included the current coordinators of the

Integral Defense, Communication, International, and Education departments. In addition, two

laypersons associated with the center were also interviewed.

Table 1

Study Participants

Name Position Years at Center

Prodh

Jose de Jesús Maldonado Garcia Director 1988-1994

David Fernández Dávalos Director 1994-1998

Edgar Cortéz Morales Director 1998-2004

David Velasco Yáñez Director 2004-2005

Luis Arriaga Valenzuela Director 2006-2011

Jose Rosario Marroquin Farrera Director 2011-present

Victor Hugo Carlos Banda Coordinator of Education Services 2008-present

Stephanie Brewer Coordinator of International Services 2007-present

Andres Diaz Coordinator for Integral Defense 2008-2015

Quetzalcoalt Gonzalez Communications Coordinator 2012-present

Profiles of Directors. I interviewed ten people who had been directors of Center Prodh

between 1988 and the time of the study. In preparation for the interviews, I gathered

biographical data for each interviewee:

Jose de Jesús Maldonado Garcia (Maldonado). Moldonado was the first Director of

Centro Prodh, serving from 1988 to 1994. He was born in León, Guanajuato, in 1940. He

received his Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology from the Iberoamerican University in Mexico City.

He was the pastor of the Resurrection Catholic Church and former President of the Intercultural

University Ayyuk, a Jesuit institution in Jaltepec, Oaxaca, Mexico. Prior to joining Center

Prodh, Maldonado worked on several Jesuit social projects in Mexico, including “Accion

Popular.” Accion Popular was a group of about 120 Jesuits from all parts of Mexico, who

gathered to discuss current issues in their communities. A common issue that many Accion

Popular participants identified in their communities was repression and human rights violations.

Addressing the prevalence of these issues would later serve as the mission of Center Prodh.

In 1990, Maldonado became a publicly recognized human rights leader due to a magazine

article focused on his worked, which reported the Jesuits had accused the Salinas Government of

being anti-democratic and violating human rights in the name of safeguarding an economic

project (Rodriguez Castañeda, 1990). His role in the early years of Center Prodh will be

discussed in further detail in the “History of the Center” section below.

David Fernández Dávalos (Fernandez). Fernandez was born in Guadalajara, Mexico in

1957 and served as Center Prodh’s second director from 1994 to 1998. He obtained his

Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy from the Institute of Philosophy in Guadalajara. He obtained a

Bachelor’s degree in Theological Studies from the College of Theological Studies in Mexico

City. Fernandez then went on to obtain a Master’s Degree in Sociology from the Iberoamerican

University in Mexico City. In 1996, he received the Human Rights Watch Award for his work in

human rights. He has been President of two Jesuit universities: Iteso University of Guadalajara

and the Iberoamerican University of Puebla. At the time of the interview, Fernandez was

President of Iberoamerican University in Mexico City.

Edgar Cortéz Morales (Cortéz). Cortéz was born in Tlaxcala, Mexico in 1960. He

served as the third director of Centro Prodh from 1998 to 2004. He obtained his Bachelor’s

degree in Philosophy and Social Sciences from the Institute of Philosophy in Guadalajara, and

his Bachelor’s degree in Theology from the College of Theological Studies in Mexico City. He

obtained his license to practice law from the Autonomous University in Tlaxcala, Mexico. He

was Secretary General of the Network of Civil Organizations of All Rights for Everyone

(Secretario General de la Red de Organismos Civiles Todos los Derechos Para Todos y Todas).

At the time of the interview, Cortéz served as a researcher at the Mexican Institute of Human

Rights and Democracy (Instituto Mexicano de Derechos Humanos y Democracia).

David Velasco Yáñez (Velasco). Velasco was born in Zacatecas, Mexico in 1952 and was

the Director of Centro Prodh from 2004 to 2005. He obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in

Philosophy and Social Sciences from the Institute of Philosophy of Guadalajara and his

Bachelor’s degree in Theology from the College of Theological Studies in Mexico City. Velasco

had a doctorate degree in education from the Academy of Christian Humanism University in

Chile in coordination with the Interdisciplinary Program of Educational Research. At the time of

the interview, Velasco served as an academic researcher in the Department of Socio-political and

Judicial Studies of the Technological Institute and of Advanced Studies of the West.

Luis Antonio Macias (Macias). After Velasco, Macias served as director for only six

months. An interview could not be conducted with Macias due to his unavailability.

Luis Arriaga Valenzuela (Arriaga). Arriaga, the author of this study, was born in Tijuana,

Baja California in 1970. He served as Director of Centro Prodh from 2006 to 2011. He became

licensed to practice law as an attorney through his studies at the Iberoamerican University in

Tijuana, Mexico. He received his Master’s Degree in Social Philosophy from the Technological

Institute of Advanced Studies of the West. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Law

from Fordham University Law School. Arriaga has taught human rights and legal ethics at the

Iberoamerican University in Mexico City as an Adjunct Professor and was a member of the

Technical Council of the Master’s program in Human Rights of the same University. During his

tenure as director, Center Prodh litigated the cases of Rodolfo Montiel, San Salvador Atenco and

Jacinta Marcial, which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

Jose Rosario Marroquin Farrera (Marroquin). Marroquin followed Arriaga in 2011 as

Center Prodh’s seventh and current director. He was born in Berriozábal, Chiapas in 1970. He

received his Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy and Social Sciences from the Institute of

Philosophy in Guadalajara. He obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Theology from the

Iberoamerican University, Mexico City. Marroquin had vast experience in coordinating

grassroots organizations, preparing communication campaigns, and designing social

communication strategies.

Profiles of Key Personnel. There are several other key persons who have had major

roles in the operation of the Center and who have been interviewed for this study. These

participants include:

Victor Hugo Carlos Banda (Banda). At the time of the interview, Banda was the

coordinator of the education services at Center Prodh. He was a lawyer with a master’s degree in

education. He had experience in human rights promotion through popular education. Prior to

working at Center Prodh, he worked as the coordinator of the education services for the Ciudad

Juarez Diocese´s.

Stephanie Brewer (Brewer). At the time of the interview, Brewer was the coordinator of

the international services at Center Prodh. She was also a lecturer at the Harvard Law School

seminar for human rights practice in Latin America, as well for the course “Doctrine and Practice

of the Inter-American Human Rights System.” She held degrees in law and psychology from

Harvard University. Brewer previously worked in human rights organizations in Thailand, the

Philippines, and London. She has published several academic papers on human rights issues.

Andres Diaz (Diaz). At the time of the interview, Diaz was the coordinator for the

integral defense area of Center Prodh. He was an attorney with a master’s degree in

anthropology and held a diploma in international human rights from American University. Diaz

has had solid experience with human rights litigation.

Quetzalcoalt Gonzalez (Gonzalez). At the time of the interview, Gonzalez had served as

the communications coordinator since June of 2012. He was involved with different areas of

Center Prodh. He monitored and provided analysis of the human rights issues in Mexico and

also interacted with the education and training programs.

All seven directors had extensive experience with the work and goals of the Center, as

well as the human rights violations which have occurred in Mexico. All directors were Jesuits at

the time of their service as directors. All were male and all Mexican citizens. The department

coordinators were laypersons, some male and some female, and all Mexican citizens. The other

two persons who were interviewed are laymen, not connected to the Center, but who were greatly

knowledgeable about the human rights work of the Center.

Document Analysis

As indicated earlier, the Center devised its own methodology and integral defense as a

result of twenty-six years of experience in educational projects and legal representation. Center

Prodh’s integral defense has approached violations of human rights with the use of all of the

resources the Center has available. Stated another way, the Center has utilized its judicial

litigation resources, its educational processes, communications and international public relations.

The Center has not approached each case for purposes of addressing a particular violation, but

from the standpoint of the violation as it has affected the general population

Research on human rights has different potential problems. As addressed in the previous

chapter, it has not been easy to find one concise definition of human rights. This study sought to

provide an empirical and qualitative approach in an effort to address the concern expressed by

Coomans, Grunfeld and Kamminga (2009) that there was a lack of methodological rigor in

human rights scholarship. In this sense, the findings and the validity of a research project could

have certain failures of credibility depending on the audience. This study also raised problems of

comparing the quality of the research, given that there existed different disciplines from which

one could engage the study of human rights. For that reason, the chosen methodology became a

crucial issue, which had a significant impact the research. As pointed out by Coomans et al.

(2009), “The method chosen for a research project should follow logically from the project´s

research question” (p.15). A specific method to be utilized in the field of human rights, however,

has not been established in the academics. Thus, for the purpose of this dissertation, in addition

to the literature presented, I used the following plan for analysis of the legal cases and other data.

The most significant documents reviewed and analyzed during the preparation of this

dissertation included

(1) Plans and internal evaluations of the work of Center Prodh from the year 2000 to

2011;

(2) Documents related to the Center’s integral defense methodologies;

(3) Projects developed for foundations and international agencies that provided support

for the Center;

(4) Agreements of cooperation with diverse universities and institutions of the Society of

Jesus.

(5) Minutes of the meetings of the Center’s staff from 2004 to 2010;

(6) Personal notes regarding the general progress of the Center from 2006 to 2011;

(7) Informational documents and reports regarding human rights archived by the Center’s

staff. The review had a special emphasis on the following documents:

•Documents prepared for human rights workshops such as curricula and academic

aids;

•Personal arguments and outlines to be utilized in academic presentations and

debates;

•Diverse judicial documents regarding the cases analyzed in the instant

dissertation, which included outlines, legal strategies, research memoranda, and

legal briefs used to prepare for and in the litigation before the courts;

•Center Prodh projects and educational plans to be used in diverse states of the

country, especially in Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz and in Ciudad Juarez;

•Position papers and documents supporting the international activities of the

Center;

•Press releases regarding the cases and diverse position papers of the Center with

respect to problematic Mexican human rights issues.

Analysis of Legal Cases

Center Prodh has provided judicial, educational, communicational and analytical tools as

well as social support to human rights violation victims and/or their families in their search for

justice. Certain specific cases were highlighted to demonstrate the deleterious effect on society,

the environment and on the personal lives of individuals. Finally, the documentation of

paradigmatic cases was used to consider the Mexican government’s accountability for its

obligations and responsibilities as outlined in the international law on human rights.

By taking on paradigmatic cases of human rights violations, Center Prodh has attempted

to show the inherent deficiencies that have led to setbacks and obstacles in complying with

international human rights standards in Mexico. In utilizing its integral defense strategy in these

cases, Center Prodh has sought to contribute to improving the human rights situation in Mexico.

To these ends, this study emphasized specific activities that were directed to the construction,

documentation, and defense of paradigmatic cases. More specifically, the term “paradigmatic

cases” referred to those legal cases that represented a specific result from the Center in the

demand for justice from the state

Three paradigmatic cases litigated by Center Prodh were analyzed as part of this study.

The analysis of judicial litigation was conducted in four distinct steps. These included:

(1) Identification of the context and legal problem: Here the individual problem was

addressed, which was representative of the manner in which the government had

violated the human rights of an individual or a group of people.

(2) Description of the case: This section set forth the facts of the specific case and how

these facts were repeated on the many.

(3) The actions taken by Center Prodh: The manner in which the integral defense was

applied to the specific problem before Center Prodh was set forth.

(4) Description of the Results: In this context, not only was the direct effect that the

litigated case brought for the victim was addressed, but also the indirect effect which

means the structural impact on crucial issues related to human rights.

The approach to the analysis, moreover, emphasized the special method that the Society of Jesus

has in its orientation regarding the social apostolic and the search for structural change.

Analysis Plan

I designed systems for data preparation and manipulation that reflected the study

questions. The methods I used ensured sufficient data so that validity could be determined

through triangulation.

Data Preparation

I performed all the preparation and conducted all of interviews, observations, field notes

and reflections gathered or developed during the research. I allocated them according to the

categories that were previously described. The interviews took place during the summer and the

fall of 2014. I organized the interviews in electronic file according to the interviewees and

prepared separate folders for each of the categories. These were maintained in a password

protected computer.

Data Manipulation

I analyzed the data to determine whether the Center was complying with the

characteristics of the social apostolate of the Society of Jesus. In order to better understand that

information, I created summaries according to the topics of the research questions within the

following categories

(1) The approach to the concept of human rights by the Jesuits at Center Prodh,

(2) Contributions in human rights through litigation practices,

(3) Strengths and challenges of the Center’s practice of integral defense.

In the summaries, I highlighted examples of the Center’s work drawn from the documents and

interviews.

Validity

As a result of my research, I determined the best method to insure the validity of this

study was through triangulation. Triangulation is verification or extension of information from

other sources (Hatch, 2002). Triangulation, the use of multiple sources of data to confirm

findings, was a primary source of internal validity (Merriam, 1998). If the different sources of

information, whether oral, documentary, archival, legal cases, correspondence, or planning

summaries, are triangulated, the dissertation was more likely to be internally sound. All

interviewees were requested to review the summary of their interview. In that way interviewees

would be able to verify the validity of comments attributed to them (Merriam, 1998).

Study Limitations

It could be stated this dissertation did not present an objective or unbiased view of the

impact of the work of Center Prodh merely because I had served as a Director of the Center. On

the other hand, it could be observed that someone who has never been the Director or in some

way been affiliated with the Center would be deprived of experiential insight into the inner

workings. The energy, the spirit, the daily anecdotal examples of progress made and lives

changed could only partially be discovered through documented reports. The pulse of a place

could be usually best determined by those who could actually palpate the agency’s flow. In

addition, someone who had not been affiliated with the Center, who had no interest in human

rights might possibly have an unspoken agenda to influence the perception of the Society of

Jesus as failure. It could also be argued that it is most likely no scholarship is neither neutral nor

unbiased. Bourdieu and Loic (1995) argued that there was no neutral data and there is no neutral

question. The researcher could manipulate the data obtained by the type of question asked and

by posing only questions that elicited answers that supported a bias. By following the above

referenced methodological framework, with academic rigor, I worked tirelessly to provide a

critically sound analysis and conclusions for this study.

CHAPTER FOUR

HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF CENTER PRODH

Center Prodh was to the Society of Jesus. Its services have included legal representation,

analysis of human rights issues in Mexico, litigation and advocacy in international tribunals,

educational programs for the community, and media and public relations. Using a process of

integral defense, Center Prodh has applied all of these services in its efforts to promote human

rights. This chapter is devoted to the presentation of interview data gathered from the current

and former directors of Center Prodh and other key personnel, in order to gain insight into the

Center from their leadership and knowledge. A large part of the study’s overall findings were

grounded in the analysis derived from the interviews. The previous chapter included brief

profiles of the participants interviewed. The description of the interview material gathered is

presented in this chapter in four major topics. These topics include the history of Center Prodh,

Center Prodh’s conception of human rights, the contributions and influence of Center Prodh, and

Center Prodh’s strengths and challenges. The articulation of each topic was based on

compilations and composites of facts, anecdotes, and insights provided by participant interviews.

History of Center Prodh

The vision behind Center Prodh arose from the efforts of “Accion Popular.” Accion

Popular was a group of Jesuits from all parts of Mexico, who gathered to discuss current issues in

their communities. During his interview, Maldonado, Center Prodh’s first director from

19881994 and a member of Accion Popular provided insight into the Center’s history and

described the association as “a large group, of approximately 120 to 130 Jesuits from all over the

country who would periodically meet to do an analysis of the social issues in the country.” The

group also discussed religious and political matters, the role of Jesuits in other parts of Latin

America, and various other topics linked to their practice in communities.

In the 2014 interview Maldonado further described the development of the concept of the

center. Because Accion Popular members came from throughout Mexico, each shared the

challenging social issues they had experienced in their own communities. In 1987, during

discussions among members of Accion Popular, the Jesuits noticed one common issue: prevalent

in all parts of the country were instances of repression and unaddressed abuses by authorities.

During this time, Salinas de Gortari was the presidential candidate of the long ruling PRI party.

Accion Popular members became concerned with the increase in violence. Although the

presidential campaign was still in the early stages, there were already reports of deaths in rural

areas. Those killed tended to be leaders of social movements, labor movements, and others who

were opposed to Salinas de Gortari or to his party’s ideology. In addition to the murders of these

leaders, there were many reports of political leaders being harassed. What was apparent from

discussion held by Accion Popular was that this phenomenon had been occurring throughout

Mexico.

As the conversation turned to abuses and repression, the members of Accion Popular

observed that throughout Latin America, Jesuits had been involved in issues related to human

rights violations. For example, in Argentina, Brazil, and Central America, places that witnessed

horrific abuses, Jesuit organizations had been contending with human rights concerns. In

Mexico, however, there were no actions by Jesuits. The experiences and observations led the

members of Accion Popular to conclude that there was a need for a Jesuit presence in this area of

practice. Fr. Maldonado observed that Jesuits involved in Accion Popular realized that “we need

to get involved in this given what we are seeing; and we were seeing that things were getting

more complicated.”

Following the group’s discussions and the decision to get involved, two groups were

formed. One of these groups worked very closely with the Roman Catholic Cardinal in Mexico

City who was involved with reconstruction work after the devastating 1985 earthquake. The

second group was working with “Fomento Cultural y Educativo,” a Jesuit social center formed in

the 1970s and dedicated to educational and social issues relevant to the needs of disenfranchised

groups such as indigenous communities and the poor. Maldonado was in this second group. One

of the members of this second group spoke with the Cardinal about forming a human rights

center. The Cardinal bluntly retorted, “We don’t want any problems with the state” (Maldonado,

2014). The second group then turned to Bishop Alamilla, also from Mexico City, who was well

connected to other Bishops in the country. Bishop Alamilla was more responsive and asked for a

few months to meet and discuss with other Bishops and arranged for a follow-up meeting.

One of the issues Bishop Alamilla’s group encountered was with the name of the center.

The other Bishops opposed using the name “Miguel Agustin Pro” because they felt it politicized

an important religious figure. Miguel Agustin Pro was a Mexican Jesuit priest in the early

twentieth century. Pro Juarez worked and studied in Mexico, the United States, Spain,

Nicaragua, and Belgium. Miguel Agustin Pro returned to Mexico during the government’s

repression of the Catholic Church. The 1917 Mexican Constitution drafted after the Mexican

Revolution called for a secular state. As a result the government began persecuting the Church

by confiscating property, deporting bishops, and capturing and killing clergy and supporters of

the Church in what became known as the Cristero War. Miguel Agustin Pro died a martyr after

being captured and executed without due process.

The need to use Miguel Agustin Pro as the center’s name came from earlier negations

with Fr. Carlos Vigil, the Provincial. Fr. Vigil originally opposed any new projects from the

Society of Jesus because there were already several and the number of members was

diminishing. Fr. Vigil changed his mind when the idea for a human rights center had the support

of 120 Jesuits, Fomento Cultural y Educativo, and other important organizations. Fr. Vigil

imposed the condition that the Center be named after Miguel Agustin Pro because the martyr was

denied due process and he understood that Miguel Agustin Pro was going to be beatified soon.

However, as noted above, Bishop Alamilla and the other Bishops remained concerned that

naming the center “Miguel Agustin Pro” would politicize an important religious figure and

opposed the proposal. Their position was clear, they did not want any problems with the state

and they did not want to politicize the image of Miguel Agustin Pro.

Despite this disagreement with the Bishops, the group went ahead with the support of Fr.

Vigil. The human rights group was closely connected to Fomento Cultural y Educativo. It

shared members with Fomento Cultural y Educativo and was, in fact, first located in Fomento

Cultural y Educativo’s library. Maldonado described the early meetings, “We were just three or

four people meeting there [library] in the beginning that is really all it was.” From the beginning,

one of the other Jesuit members, Fr. Francisco Ramos, believed that a separation of the center

was required. He believed the Center should be physically, legally, and economically

autonomous. This independence would prevent the Center from implicating Fomento Cultural y

Educativo in any disputes or disagreements that the Center might have with the state as a result

of its work. Financially however, the Center was dependent on Fomento Cultural y Educativo

and a German Lutheran non-profit Brot für die Welt or Food for the World. Over time, the

Center moved towards an independent direction.

The early member of Center Prodh had little experience with human rights and running a

center. Maldonado described, “We thought four people working part time would be more than

enough.” Slowly a few more Jesuits joined, working diligently at the Center. There was also a

need to educate the staff on human rights. All members had little to no experience in human

rights work and a general view on human rights. The Center’s staff began meeting with people

from other human rights centers and developed their own human rights analysis to guide their

practice. This all took place at a time when most people were unaware of what exactly

comprised human rights issues and the role they played in society. People spoke of human rights

issues, in other places such as Central America. Mexican society did not view human rights as

an issue in Mexico. It was not until Rafael Rodriguez Castañeda’s 1990 article in Proceso that

human rights came to light in mainstream discourses in Mexico.

Castañeda’s article, whose title translated to Anti-Democracy and Human Rights

Violations in the Name of Saving an Economic Project (1992), was an in-depth look at a study by

Center Prodh about the human rights violations that had been occurring throughout Mexico.

These abuses were largely carried out to protect and advance the ruling party, its allies, and their

economic agenda. The article’s impact was significant in that this was one of the first times in

modern Mexican history that abuses by the government were actually communicated to the

masses by a reputable and widely read publication.

Proceso, the magazine in which the article was published, was similar to Time or

Newsweek in the United States. The article summarized and highlighted the findings of Center

Prodh’s human rights study. It began by describing how increases in violence against political

opposition resulted in electoral gains for candidates of the ruling PRI party (Castañeda, 1992).

The violations included everything from irregularities at the polls and threats of violence to

beatings and murders. The article also described how thugs would infiltrate protest by opponents

of the ruling agenda, inciting violence so their authorities could respond with force. Rodriguez

Castañeda described how Center Prodh’s study went beyond general accusations and actually

contained very specific, detailed descriptions of human rights violations throughout the country.

The article provided examples of how the study described events in detail, including information

such as specific times, places, and persons involved. The combination of Center Prodh’s detailed

and comprehensive study on the gravity of the human rights situation in Mexico, along with the

catalyst of Castañeda’s article in the mainstream press, widely communicated human rights

concerns into Mexican society.

The rest of the early stages of the Center consisted of fundraising, finding people who

would be interested in the work, and learning more about human rights, in general. At first,

hardly anyone knew of the Center and it received little attention and few visitors. This changed

when Pablo Gonzalez Casanova, the dean of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, a

prominent sociologist asked if the Center would write an article about human rights. The article

was eventually incorporated into a book Gonzalez was writing. Fr. Maldonado and his

colleagues saw this as an opportunity to gain publicity for the new Center. In preparing the

material for the article, Center Prodh staff’s research explored how the religious perspective

added to the field of human rights.

Human Rights, as it was understood by other organizations such as the CNDH, an

autonomous agency funded by the federal government charged with investigating human rights

abuses and promoting human rights in Mexico, was focused primarily on civil liberties and

political rights. The Jesuit perspective added the question of social struggle to the human rights

discussion. This perspective was directly reflected in the title of the article: “Human Rights: A

new area of social struggle in Mexico.”

After various discussion, the Center’s staff was aware of the violence, murders, and other

reports of other human rights issues in Mexico. As was the case with Accion Popular, the

members of Center Prodh learned of abuses and repression occurring in all parts of Mexico. The

staff visited some sites and this gave them a better understanding and context for the problem.

When the Center was founded, it did not have its own attorneys. When there was a need for legal

services, the Center relied on Corporativo Juridico, a public interest law center headed by a

Jesuit. Given the size and makeup of the Center at that time, the work mainly involved

improving the understanding of human rights among staff, analysis of current events, and

dissemination of information regarding abuses and repression. In addition, the Center began

cooperating with other non-governmental organizations from the beginning. Early partners

included World Organization Against Torture (2008), American Watch, Human Rights Watch

(2010), and Washington Office on Latin America. Although there was collaboration with these

partners, Center Prodh remained in many ways unique.

Other human rights organizations that were working in Mexico at the time held a foreign

perspective. One non-governmental human rights organization in Mexico, Fray Francisco de

Victoria worked primarily on human rights issues in Central America. There was concern among

the human rights community about the need to directly address human rights issues in Mexico.

Maldonado recalled how the director of Fray Francisco de Victoria warned him, “As long as you

talk about China, you won’t have any problems. The problem is when you start taking about

people here; then you will have all the problems in the world.”

Another aspect of Center Prodh that became part of the Center’s character from the

beginning was the manner in which it operated. In his 2014 interview, Maldonado described, “It

was very clear from the beginning that we had to support organized groups, not individuals. We

will make a bigger impact for change if we support groups who are organized and strong.” The

downside of taking cases of individuals was that it was very time consuming and expensive, and

it made little to no impact on the underlying fundamental issues, which caused human rights

abuses in the first place. Instead, it was believed there should be a focus on those cases that had

the potential to have a significant impact on the justice system, which enabled the human rights

abuses to occur. Building on this approach, Center Prodh started developing its integral approach

to litigating human rights cases.

Following an electoral fraud in the 1988 elections, an economic crisis and the ratification

of the North American Free Trade Agreement, in 1994, some members of indigenous populations

organized the Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional, (EZLN) or Zapatista National

Liberation Army. EZLN sought to vindicate indigenous rights, which had been jeopardized by

recent developments. The rise of the EZLN was met with repression. Government authorities

began cracking down on the movement and those affiliated with it. This led to cases of detention

of Jesuits, counterinsurgency and paramilitary attacks on populations seen as allied with the

EZLN. These events brought several cases to the attention of Center Prodh. These were mainly

focused on individual liberties and civil and political rights.

In the process, Center Prodh advocates began to recognize that a strategy for defending

human rights cases in Mexico required more than just litigation in the courtroom. Action in the

courtroom had to be accompanied by social mobilization, community education, as well as

national and international publicity. If the case was not publicized, it would have remained an

isolated incident to be resolved. In order to effect changes at the structural level, more complex

and diversified action was necessary. Eventually this led to the important development of Center

Prodh’s integral approach. This led to the Center becoming an organization that the United

Nations consulted on regional human rights issues, questions, and concerns. Next the Center

took its first cases to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

According to Maldonado, from a religious perspective, Center Prodh always had a

Catholic Jesuit identity and this was clear even if this factor was not constantly in the spotlight.

However, the educational and promotional activities had an autonomous character. The idea was

to appeal to disenfranchised groups by focusing on rights linked to civil liberties tied to freedom

of expression and assembly, instead of on religious grounds. Disenfranchised groups included

peasants, blue color workers, and the urban poor. Center Prodh sought to be a legal shield for

these groups by protecting their basic rights so they could continue their social justice efforts

within their communities.

Center Prodh began its work as an offshoot of a Jesuit organization investigating human

rights repression and violations prevalent throughout Mexico. It initially faced difficulties

gathering support from heads of the Church. As support finally came, the Center started to

develop a very unique approach to human rights practice. It started with no attorneys and a

handful of part time staff. Nevertheless, its human rights work, documented in the article written

for Gonzalez Casanova (1990), allowed the Center to gain notoriety and later this led to

additional support. Through its experience with early cases, the Center developed the integral

approach, which it continued to use in litigating its cases.

Center Prodh’s Conception of Human Rights

Center Prodh began with a staff that had limited experience and limited exposure to

human rights issues. The original Jesuits came from other areas of the Church. Jesus Maldonado

admitted that in the beginning during the late 80s “there was not much knowledge about human

rights, but there was an intuition that this could be an interesting field where the Jesuits could

give of great service to be involved in.” As described in detail above, the Jesuit founders became

involved in human rights after discussion at Action Popular meetings demonstrated that human

rights issues were a persistent and nationwide problem. As the Center gained experience, there

were slight modifications to the initial concept. However, the general idea remained constant.

Given the Center’s Jesuit background, Center Prodh’s concept of human rights was

understandably influenced by the Church.

In his interview, Edgar Cortez explained that a significant part of the Church’s influence

on human rights was derived from liberation theology as described in Chapter Two (Cortez,

Interview, August 12, 2014). Liberation theology highlighted the rights of the poor and

interpreted the teachings of the Church with an aim to liberate the poor from unjust economic,

social and political conditions. Accordingly, Liberation theologians believed society must create

structures that promote improvement in these areas for the poor. Cortez pointed out that several

of the Jesuits involved in the early days of Center Prodh were familiar with this theory so it

naturally became incorporated into the Center’s view of human rights (Cortez, Interview, August

12, 2014). Additionally, this ideology was appropriate given the significant economic, social,

and political problems faced by disenfranchised communities in the region.

This liberal perspective of human rights, moreover, expanded upon what was commonly

understood in the United States as human rights. A commonly understood view of human rights

from a traditional perspective was focused on civil and political liberties, for example, the right

to free speech, assembly, due process and things of this nature. In contrast, Center Prodh’s

concept of human rights became much more expansive, infusing ideas of liberation theology into

its conception of human rights.

Liberation Theology and Human Rights

Jesus Maldonado also stated that Center Prodh had begun with the tenets of liberation

theology in mind. Several of those interviewed for this study also reflected the view that in the

beginning there was a conception of human rights that included social, political, and economic

rights. Cortez (Interview, August 12, 2014) explained there was always a concept of human

rights that sought to include economic, social, and cultural rights (Interview. August 9, 2014).

Similarly, Fernandez confirmed that from the beginning, an ideological perspective was

incorporated throughout the work of Center Prodh that emphasized social, economic and cultural

rights, even when legal cases were largely involved with issues of civil liberties and political

rights (Fernandez, Interview, August 9, 2014).

This expansive view of human rights worked to ensure that the inclusivity of social,

economic, and cultural rights was always present in the Center’s analysis. Cortez illustrated this

point using the case of Montiel v. United States of Mexico, to be analyzed in Chapter Five. The

Montiel case had to do with civil liberty type of human rights issues, torture, arbitrary detention,

and due process irregularities. However there were underlying social human rights issues, here

environmental issues of deforestation. For this area, Center

Prodh used the assistance of Greenpeace, who were more experienced with these matters.

(Interview, August 12, 2014)

Brewer, the international Area coordinator for Center Prodh, expanded on this subject by

describing the Jesuit view on human rights:

Reflecting the prioritization of the poor and of groups in a situation of vulnerability.

Rather than seeing human rights “work” as a profession, the Jesuits view it as a

“vocation” and an expression of love and service to our fellow human beings.

(Interview, August 22, 2014)

Brewer also described how Center Prodh viewed human rights as

Indivisible and universal, based on the dignity of every human being. [Additionally, she

noted that the human rights efforts of the Center were focused] on groups in a situation of

vulnerability, principally women, migrants, indigenous people and victims of repression.

(Interview, August 22, 2014)

Human Rights in Mexico

As described above in the History of the Center, the very idea of human rights in Mexico

was a relatively new concept at Center Prodh’s beginning. At that time, Mexican society

associated human rights violations with Central America or other parts of the world. It was not

until the article by Rodriguez Castañeda in Proceso (1990) that human rights entered mainstream

debates as a Mexican concern. This change, coupled with the wider liberation theology

influenced concept of human rights, brought about what former director Maldonado called

A new battlefield for social justice in Mexico. (Maldonado Interview, August, 2014).

With respect to legal cases, David Velasco described the litigation process as

Strategically litigating emblematic cases. (Velasco, Interview, August 29, 2014).

As previously described, Center Prodh selected legal cases based on their potential

structural impact on the criminal justice system or on the human rights debate. This approach

allowed for a number of individuals beyond the original victims to benefit from the Center’s

work. As Brewer explained,

Litigation enhances human rights for the direct beneficiary and also by publicizing

human rights cases and principles, pressuring authorities to decrease human rights

violations, and in some cases setting legal precedents. (Brewer, Interview, August 22,

2014).

Cortez similarly described the goal of the approach as

Attempting to obtain the maximum benefit for the victim as well as helping to bring to

light the general underlying problems which lead to the case in the first place. (Interview,

August 12, 2014)

By attempting to change the underlying problems that caused or made human rights

violations possible, the hope was that there would be less of these violations in the future. After

selecting emblematic cases, Velasco explained that Center Prodh staff met and brainstormed in

order to determine the best strategies for actually litigating the case, within both the legal and

social context in which the Center had to posit their arguments against human rights violations

(Interview, August 29, 2014).

Integral Approach to Human Rights Cases

While Center Prodh provided legal services and assistance to victims of human rights

violations, this new battlefield for social justice expanded beyond the courtroom. This was

precisely from where the idea for an integral approach to human rights emerged. In addition to

the legal assistance to the victim, Cortez explained, Center Prodh also sought to have the

Victims participate in the process. (Interview, August 12, 2014).

This allowed the victim to learn, organize, and strengthen their process, empowering the

individual and those in the community working to support the victim’s case.

With regard to those other than the victim, Cortez noted that an integral approach

included

Using international support, providing assistance and support to the victims and those

similarly situated and empowering them to participate in the process. (Interview, August

12, 2014).

Banda provided additional details to the integral approach by noting activities, such as

Developing seminars, workshops, and forums about the human rights topic associated

with the case. (Interview, August 28, 2014)

Gonzalez pointed out that the goal of these social actions was always to

Generate processes that can serve as tools communities can use to vindicate their rights

and defend themselves through the law. It was this the inclusion of this very deliberate

communal dimension in the strategies employed by Center Prodh that, in particular,

defined their integral approach to human rights practice. (Interview, September 15,

100

2014).

Contributions and Influence of the Center

After 26 years in operation, Center Prodh, through its litigation and other programs had

made many important contributions to human rights in Mexico—a fact repeatedly reflected in the

interviews for this study. The Center’s approach integrated a dynamic and fluid process. Just as

the situation in the Mexico caused the actions of Center Prodh to shift, so too did Center

Prodh’s work inspire changes in the country’s attitude and engagement with human rights issues.

Even in its early stages, Center Prodh made important contributions. Perhaps the most

important initial contribution was the simple fact of putting the issue of human rights on the table

in Mexican society. The opening of this new ‘battlefield for social justice,” was a significant

contribution, particularly in a country that had previously denied having a problem. As described

above, the issue of human rights in Mexico as a topic in the mainstream media largely emerged

after Rafael Rodriguez Castañeda’s article in Proceso. This article, in a leading, reputable

nationwide publication described the findings of Center Prodh’s study, which linked ruling party

politicians with acts of repression and violence throughout the country. Maldonado recalled the

risk and fear associated with this early contribution:

Salinas de Gortari, [the ruling party presidential candidate] was very tough, the whole

situation was tough. So publishing this article, we were really putting ourselves at risk. I

actually could not sleep that night because I realized the danger that we might be in.

(Interview, 2014)

Fortunately, for Maldonado and Center Prodh, no immediate harm came from the publication of

the article.

101

In addition to addressing general issues related to human rights, Center Prodh’s actions

also led to public awareness of more specific human rights concerns. Of this Cortez noted, “Our

cases and efforts published in the media underlined and illustrated the general underlying

problems present in our society such as discrimination, lack of due process, and other topics”

(Interview, August 12, 2014). In addition to bringing problems of human rights violations to

light, the Center’s efforts also brought opportunities and resources to expand its work. Cortez

explained,

One thing that is dominant in this country is the use of the law and justice system as a

weapon or tool of oppression. Our work showcased how the law can serve as a tool to

strengthen and promote social change. (Interview, August 12, 2014)

Once the issue of human rights was on the table, more changes ensued, and Center Prodh

made additional contributions to the field. Maldonado recalled how, following the publication of

the article in Proceso, other small groups promoting human rights formed throughout the

country. This reaction, led to the formation of other human rights centers, which were not

limited to the private sector but extended to the government itself. Fernandez explained in his

interview that Center Prodh could be credited with influencing the creation of the Comision

Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDH). As Fernandez noted:

It is true that the creation of the CNDH was a response to the assassination of

investigative reporter Norma Corona [lawyer and president of the independent Human

Right Commission of Sinaloa who allegedly was assassinated because she uncovered

information connecting a power drug kingpin with the murder of 4 Venezuelan’s and

102

another Mexican lawyer (Poe, Pilatovsky, Miller, & Ogundele, 1994), and it is also

possible that it came as a result of pressure from the United States to improve the human

rights situation in Mexico. However, arguably both the government response and the

pressure from the United States were a result of the publicity and attention that Center

Prodh brought to the assassination of Norma Corona and the dire human rights situation

in the country. (Interview, August 9, 2014)

Moreover, it was significant to note that Center Prodh did not only change the

institutional make up of official and non-governmental human rights organizations, it also had an

impact on human rights jurisprudence (Committee on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights,

1999). These significant contributions were specifically linked to the cases litigated. As will be

discussed in detail in Chapter Five, legal cases like Montiel v. United States of Mexico, San

Salvador Atenco and Marcial made important and meaningful changes to human rights in

Mexico (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2006). Once Center Prodh began

litigating and winning cases, and gaining publicity, the impact on and Mexican jurisprudence and

policy in human rights was noticeable. The Center’s work resulted in legislative reform in areas

including the re-characterization of the crimes of forced disappearance, feminicide and torture.

Many of these changes, Velasco explained, came directly from Center Prodh’s litigation

of cases in the Inter-American Court, which resulted in verdicts calling on the Mexican

government to make changes to the law, incorporating an international perspective of human

rights (Velasco, Interview, August 29, 2014). Brewer pointed to a significant example from the

Montiel v. United States of Mexico case discussed earlier. This focused on the change in the

Code of Military Justice to require investigations of crimes committed by the military against

103

civilians to be subject to civilian rather than military jurisdiction. Center Prodh also succeeded,

according to Gonzalez, in decriminalizing the act of providing humanitarian assistance to illegal

immigrants crossing through Mexico (Gonzalez, Interview, September 15, 2014). Additionally,

Velasco explained that Center Prodh’s work actually influenced important changes in the

Mexican Supreme Court’s interpretation of civil liberties. With these changes, Velasco noted,

also came an improvement in the standards used to evaluate human rights issues, sentencing

guidelines, and favorable precedent in areas such as torture (Velasco, Interview, August 29,

2014).

A contribution Center Prodh made outside the legal system was in promoting a culture of

organized networking and cooperation between different organizations, both nationally and

internationally. Fernandez described this as one of the most significant contributions Center

Prodh made as it resulted in a permanent network of organizations to assist each other in their

human rights work (Fernandez, Interview, August 9, 2014). This network, The National Network

of Human Rights Organizations allowed for cooperation between human rights organizations so

they could develop joint strategies to promote human rights in Mexico, more effectively and

efficiently. Cortez spoke to one example of the effectiveness of working as part of a network in

the Montiel v United States of Mexico case, where Center Prodh worked with Greenpeace on

environmental issues of deforestation relevant to the case. (Cortez, interview, August 12, 2014).

Another significant contribution of Center Prodh was the work that was done with

women’s’ rights organizations, in the aforementioned case of San Salvador Atenco (date). Cortez

described how

104

Center Prodh was never an isolated organization. It always saw itself as a part of a wider

network and assumed a role as part of a wider collective. (Interview, August 12, 2014) This

attitude led to an established network of international organizations, which worked on different

cases and issues with Center Prodh. This network included organizations throughout Latin

America, the United States, Canada and Europe. In fact, Maldonado credited Center Prodh with

being the human rights organization in Mexico that sought actively to work with other

organization as part of a wider network, confirming,

This was very much our idea. (Interview, 2014)

Center Prodh also made important contributions that directly had an impact on the public.

Brewer noted,

The litigation and especially the education made the citizenry more aware of human

rights and the mechanics available to defend them. This has an effect of empowering

disenfranchised communities. (Interview, August 22, 2014).

Cortez, similarly observed that

Perhaps because of its influence from the Society of Jesus, there is an attitude to educate

and empower the citizenry. (Interview, August 12, 2014)

Much like Center Prodh brought the issue of human rights itself into the main stream, it

also brought attention to contemporary issues related to its broader interpretation of human

rights. For example, according to Cortez, Center Prodh’s integral approach to litigating cases

raised issues related to the environment, particularly access to scarce natural resources such as

water, communal land issues, labor issues, and economic inequality (Cortez, Interview, August

12, 2014). Hence, from the time of its inception, Center Prodh made important contributions

105

both in the immediate field of human rights jurisprudence, as well as directly on issues public

wellbeing. The integral approach, as noted earlier, was designed with precisely the idea of the

Center having a widespread impact.

Major Strengths and Challenges

Center Prodh’s efforts and experience over the years allowed it to develop important

strengths, which it has been able to use in litigating cases. However, like any other organization,

the Center has also faced challenges along the way.

Major Strengths

An important strength that has played a central role in all of Center Prodh’s efforts has

been that of the Center’s reputation, domestically and internationally. The issue of reputation has

been an important strength in that it has been directly linked to the Center’s credibility.

Maldonado observed,

I have spoken to lots of people, from different backgrounds, political views, and they all

have a respectful view of Center Prodh. They all see it as an organization that is diligent

and serious about its work. (Interview, 2014)

Similarly, Brewer added,

The litigation strength of Center Prodh has made it the most recognized case-based NGO

at the national level. (Interview, August 22, 2014)

In fact, Fernandez affirmed, Center Prodh now has status at an international level as a respected

authority in the area of human rights. The participants all agreed that reputation was important

because in litigation as well as in its public relations efforts, a credible respected source was far

more persuasive in advocating its position, particularly in very difficult contested terrains.

106

While Center Prodh initially relied on attorneys from other organizations, its litigation

capability at the time of this study was considered one of its strengths. Brewer again credited the

success of the litigation efforts with a favorable reputation. With regard to its clients, Brewer

noted that a strong ability for litigation had allowed Center Prodh to secure releases and

otherwise provide benefits and protections to victims through its successful efforts in the

courtroom (Interview, August 22, 2014). Marroquin also described how Center Prodh’s strong

litigation ability has allowed it to

Sooner or later impulse modifications, will translate improvements in the area of human

rights. (Interview, September 9, 2014)

Part of the strength in the litigation area also came from another strength: Center Prodh’s

ability to select the right cases. About this, Fernandez explained,

The center is very good at not only selecting the right cases but also handling them in a

manner conducive to maximizing the impact the case could have. (Interview, August 9,

2014)

This he believed had made the Center’s cases more visible, increasing the potential impact of the

case on the larger human rights field in Mexico.

Another strength of the Center has been in the area of community education. Brewer

noted,

As we have seen from the feedback we receive from the communities we serve,

education is another strong area for Center Prodh. This feedback indicates that

communities benefit from the workshops and training offered by Center Prodh.

(Interview, August 22, 2014).

107

Major Challenges

According to participant interviews, the most obvious challenge Center Prodh faced over

the years was the constant struggle to obtain the necessary financial resources it needed to

conduct its work. There was also, according to Brewer, an

Inability to provide services to all of the people that actually need the Center’s assistance.

(Brewer, Interview, August 22, 2014).

Diaz stated,

There is wide demand for Center Prodh’s services given the unfortunate human rights

situation in Mexico. While Center Prodh is an important organization, it is a small

organization in terms of staff and economic resources. This makes it impossible for us to

take a lot of cases. (Interview, September 1, 2014)

Center Prodh also faced challenges due to its relationship and affiliation to certain groups

and individuals. Diaz explained,

Many Jesuits maintain relationships with people in the upper class, especially people with

influence and wealth. (Interview, September 1, 2014).

These individuals were sometimes the very people in charge of companies or institutions who are

accused of violating human rights. Cortez stated that a similar conflict existed even within the

Church’s hierarchy; in that even if Center Prodh was affiliated with the Church, certain members

of the Church would not speak too loudly about human rights issues because they did not wish to

jeopardize their power and prestige (Cortez, Interview, August 12, 2014). This internal conflict

could become problematic, Fernandez noted, when more radical groups who might consider the

assistance of Center Prodh might see the Center as functioning within the rules of a system

108

responsible for the very causes of their struggle. The challenge for the Center then has been to

maintain its autonomy, while it was associated with groups and individuals who may not share

the same interest in advancing human rights.

Another challenge that Center Prodh faced threated the Center´s reputation. Fernandez

explained that opponents of Center Prodh’s efforts have attacked its reputation and credibility, in

order to undermine the Center’s power and influence. There were several examples of such

conduct. In 1995, the government attempted to indirectly associate the Society of Jesus with the

EZLN armed rebel movement. The accusation was not directed directly at Center Prodh, but

Center Prodh was part of the Society of Jesus and two Jesuits were detained. Fernandez also

noted that former president Ernesto Zedillo spoke publically against Center Prodh on several

occasions. President Zedillo even went to the Provincial to request that he intervene and get the

director of Center Prodh to “tone it down” Fernandez offered that as long as Center Prodh’s

activities threaten those in power, it was predictable that they would be subjected to this type of

attack on their reputation.

While it is great that Center Prodh receives publicity, [he insisted] it is important for the

Center that it is good publicity, that the information portrayed is accurate. (Interview,

August 9, 2014)

Another challenge Center Prodh has faced came from the dynamic environment in which

it carried out its work. It was a challenge, given the historical nature of the work, to develop

processes that responded to the ever-changing contexts and situations that may emerge in the

future. As social, political and economic conditions shifted and changed, Banda noted that the

problems might be different than before and would require new methods, ideas, and approaches

109

for dealing with them with them effectively (Banda, Interview, August 28, 2014). There was no

question that after years of experience, Center Prodh had acquired significant strengths including

its reputation and ability to litigate human rights cases effectively, offering new insights and

possibilities to the question of human rights in Mexico. Nevertheless, there have been and will

continue to be challenges the Center Prodh will need to constantly contend with in the years to

come, by the very nature of their work. As a non-profit organization it has faced and has

continued to face the huge challenge of working with scarce resources. Additionally, the Center

has had to contend with inner conflicts in the church, as well as external attacks, meant to either

undermine their efforts or derail the strengths of their reputation in the field.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE CENTER’S MAJOR LEGAL CASES

The Methodology of Integral Defense in Legal Cases

In Chapter Two, a literature review was developed based on Center Prodh's concept of

human rights. The concept has referred to the interrelatedness and interdependence of some

rights and their equal importance. In order to meet the challenge of insuring that all persons and

communities were able to exercise these rights fairly, the Center has undertaken an in-depth

investigation and analysis in addition to the implementation of the specific methodology.

The early attempts to establish this methodology arose from details set forth in the late

1980's document regarding the concept of integral human rights as referred to in Chapter Four.

The document was entitled "Human Rights, A New Field of Social Struggle in Mexico

(Maldonado, Interview, 2014). In his interview, Diaz spoke about his experience:

110

When I became aware of how the methodology of ‘integral defense’ was used to respond

to complaints of the need for intervention in human rights, I began to become involved in

this field not only because of the dynamics of Center Prodh but because I was becoming

aware of how human rights were being addressed in Mexico. (Interview, September 1,

2014)

Speaking about establishing the perspective of Integral Defense of human rights implied a

certain approach to the law. Human rights have been recognized as positive rights; however, it

was important that such recognition alone did not resolve the structural basis that gave rise to the

violations of human rights. The Center raised the issue of how to establish not only the integral

defense for the victims, but also that the defense of the cases should be an incentive for the

implementation of structural change that would insure those violations would not happen again.

The Center decided to put into play and to try to accomplish not only that remedy which was

personal but also that which was institutional.

At the beginning of the millennium, Center Prodh had the following objectives for the

integral defense of cases:

(1) To support the defense of persons and organized groups whose human rights were

attacked by the state (by action or inaction).

(2) To offer the judicial support necessary for the defense of human rights in significant

cases or of collective character.

(3) To have an active presence for the verification of the respect of human rights in the

eventuality of social conflict.

At that time, it was necessary that an interdisciplinary response be made in two instances:

111

when there were specific violations where the Center would try to untangle the origin of the

structural and contextual causes, and where the particular and specific instances did not involve

only particular and specific victims but which placed and documented consequences beyond

those that are personal such as those affecting the family, the community, and social, cultural, and

political organizations.

The proposition to make an alternative use of law for the defense of human rights and to

strengthen the popular struggle has caused great theoretical tools and practices as well as critical

discourses that have permitted the evidencing and questioning of the use of power, which, also

from the perspective of the law, has excluded the interests of the majority (Darder, 2015). For

example, it has developed educational principles from a critical perspective that questions the

status quo of domination that had imposed a system of antidemocratic values. Santos (2009)

emphasized that legal controversies hardly ever resolve the root causes of the origin of the

conflicts.

The integral defense of human rights developed by Center Prodh has had as its goal to

motivate structural change in the law and to cause the integral defense of human rights to take

advantage of the cases having wide effects so that they would have greater impacts on

individuals and advance the wider resolution of the problem, which case could be an example.

That has been how an intervention strategy would be conceptualized which sought to preserve

and strengthen the enjoyment and fruitfulness of all rights across integral justice for the victims

of the violations of human rights. We will illustrate this in the cases which are developed in this

chapter.

112

One fundamental element of integral defense of human rights has been to construct the

cases of paradigmatic problems which generate wider violations of human rights. This approach

has been more clearly linked to a major political and epistemological shift that sought to rupture

the binary and abyssal divide (Santos, 2009).

For Center Prodh it was an opportunity which allowed it to develop the participation and

commitments of the affected in their rights in the creation of a solution of one's own problems.

This approach created the communal conditions for empowerment, in that empowerment or

liberation of the disenfranchised was not something that is given but rather a collective human

process (Darder, 2009 date) which evolved in the relationship and joint labor for justice, human

rights, and dignity. Banda told us,

Center Prodh not only accomplishes these educational and legal actions, but it also

prioritizes the subjects on which it should focus, in our case: migrants, victims of social

repression, women and indigenous; in this manner we attempt to insure a closeness with

people and groups in serious situations of vulnerability in the nation. (Interview, August

28, 2014)

In essence, integral defense opened the necessary multidimensional space for the

participation of Center Prodh's staff with the victims, family and community. The center strove

to enact a defense strategy that was carried out through establishing a relationship of co-creation

with those most affected by the violation of human rights. Each case was given an educational

and pedagogical character of a type which would require our intervention such as organizations

involved in the vigilance of human rights, such that included the participation and corresponding

responsibility of those affected as protagonists of their own defense.

113

In this chapter, three major cases were analyzed in which Center Prodh made outstanding

contributions in the area of human rights in Mexico. (The list of specific literature bearing on

each of these cases can be seen in Appendix C.) The first one was the case of Teodoro Cabrera

and Rodolfo Montiel, ecological peasants who were tortured by the Mexican army. The case was

litigated in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The court handed down a sentence

favorable to the ecological peasants, and it ordered the Mexican government to change its

practices that violated human rights, such as by the use of military jurisdiction. The second case

was about the brutal repression in San Salvador Atenco, in which the evidence proved sexual

torture of women. That case, which commenced in 2010, was still being litigated before the

Inter-American System of Human Rights at the time of this study. In addition to the violence

against women, the evidence addressed the criminalization of social protest. Finally, the chapter

included analysis of the case of the indigenous woman, Jacinta Francisco Marcial. That case

exhibited evidence of triple discrimination by the system of justice, in the areas of gender,

ethnicity and social status.

The analysis for each legal cases has been presented in four sections:

(1) Identification of the context and legal problem: Here the individual problem was

addressed that represented the manner in which the government violated the human

rights of the many;

(2) Description of the case: This section set forth the facts of the specific case and how

they were repeated;

(3) The actions taken by Center Prodh: The manner in which the integral defense was

applied to the specific problem before Center Prodh was described; and,

114

(4) The Results of the case: This not only speaks to the direct effects that the litigated

case brought for the victim as it was addressed, but also the indirect effects tied to

structural changes or impact on crucial human rights issues.

More importantly, the analysis of cases presented here sought to also emphasize the

unique approach of the Society of Jesus’ orientation toward the social apostolic: that is, the

search for structural change.

Military Abuses in Guerrero: Montiel and Cabrera, ecological peasants in Guerrero

Identification of the Context and Legal Problem

The case of Montiel vs. The United States of Mexico illustrated several legal and human

rights problems in Mexico:

(1) Military jurisdiction over human rights resulted in an abuse of the investigation

process;

(2) An inadequate justice system consistently failed to provide basic guaranteed rights

and encouraged the use of torture, and

(3) Military jurisdiction resulted in the violation of human rights and in the persecution

of environmental activists.

Center Prodh was able to further the progress of human rights in Mexico by using an integral

approach before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in order to advocate on behalf of

Rodolfo Montiel Flores (Montiel) and Teodoro Cabrera Garcia (Cabrera). The Montiel v United

States of Mexico case helped to illustrate a variety of structural problems that had commonly

arisen in Mexico. By arguing such a case, Center Prodh was able to bring these issues before an

115

international forum, through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in order to bring about

meaningful change for many of those affected by these abuses.

Montiel and Cabrera, two environmental activists, were detained without warrants. They

were held for five days and subsequently charged and convicted based on confessions obtained

under torture (Arriaga, 2010). When the authorities finally agreed to investigate the allegation of

torture, the original civilian agency investigator transferred the matter to his counterpart in the

military jurisdiction. Not surprisingly, the military investigation concluded that there was

insufficient evidence to support allegations of torture and that the investigation should be closed.

There were a number of reasons the military would not investigate human rights

violations by its soldiers, according to the article Mexico: Ruling Calls for Military Justice

Overhaul (2010). The two major reasons cited included the use of questionable evidence and the

lack of impartiality. Allowing military jurisdiction over cases of abuse committed by military

personnel against civilians promulgated their repetition in as much as “military justice courts

have characteristically maintained impunity and limited transparency in these cases” (Arriaga,

2012, p.11).

In 1996, in a move to counter a leftist rebel group, the “Ejercito Popular Revolucionario”

in the state of Guerrero, the Mexican military entered a number of communities in that state

(Arriaga, 2010). This action followed the Mexican authorities’ practice of dispatching the

military for domestic crime-fighting tasks, most commonly in combating drug trafficking (World

Report, 2011). This Mexican policy led to widespread human rights violations against civilian

populations, according to the Amnesty International’s Report (2014) Out of Control: Torture and

116

other Ill-treatment in Mexico. The title of the report described well the shocking increase in

reported cases of torture and abuse across the nation.

As discussed in more detail below, the investigation into Cabrera and Montiel’s

allegations of abuse relied on questionable medical reports prepared by military doctors.

Investigations based on biased and questionable evidence failed to provide justice to victims of

abuses. However, after finally convincing a judge to investigate the allegations of torture against

Cabreara and Montiel, the investigation was transferred to military jurisdiction. The serious lack

of impartiality on the part of the military was clear. The same organization responsible for the

abuses was in charge of the investigation. The problem of military jurisdiction over human

rights abuse investigations came to the attention of the United Nations (Arriaga 2012). In the

Special Rapporteur’s Report on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (2002), the United

Nations Rapporteur affirmed “the lack of impartiality on the part of military tribunals and the

reluctance or unwillingness of civil witnesses to come forward before these tribunals are sources

of concern.” The lack of an effective independent investigatory mechanism was only a part of

the problem with the Mexican justice system’s treatment of human rights.

The fabricated crimes with which Cabrera and Montiel were charged were largely

supported by confessions obtained from the environmentalists after they were tortured (Arriaga,

2010). The case highlighted how the Mexican justice system’s design functioned to accept, and

even promoted the use of torture in criminal investigations. The United Nations Special

Rapporteur’s Report on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers noted that judges in Mexico

routinely accepted into evidence declarations without bothering to determine if these were

obtained through torture, abuse, or coercion (Amicus Briefs in Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro

117

Cabrera v. Mexico, 2010). Even Mexico’s legislature expressly recognized the severity of the

problem noting that the violations of civil liberties and due process in many cases were derived

from the courts themselves.

A significant factor contributing to this problem resided in the evidentiary rules of the

criminal justice system (Center Prodh, 2006). Simply, torture allowed prosecutors in this case to

obtain admissible confessions. Under the Mexican justice system’s principle of “principio de

inmediatez procesal” (effective access to justice,) statements made earlier by the accused were

accorded more evidentiary weight. An example in Human Rights Watch publication The Report,

El cambio inconcluso: Avances y desaciertos en Derechos Humanos durante el gobiernos de

Fox” (Achievements and errors in human rights during Fox Government) illustrated the problem.

A law enforcement officer detained an individual arbitrarily. Through abuse, torture or coercion

the detainee was forced to sign a confession. The confession contained an admission about

catching the detainee in the act. This undermined any argument the detainee could later make

that he was detained arbitrarily, without a warrant.

The signed statement, admitting that he was detained in the act supported the

apprehension without a warrant, because the detainee was in flagranti. As for any other

admissions that may have been contained in the coerced confession, they were accorded more

weight than any of the later retractions by the detainee, because the confession was again

accorded more evidentiary weight by virtue of being made earlier than any subsequent retraction.

As long as judges continued to admit a coerced confession as evidence in criminal trials, the

incentive persisted for the authorities to engage in such conduct in order to secure more

118

convictions. This pattern was common in the Mexican criminal justice system and was in fact

demonstrative of how Cabrera and Montiel were apprehended and charged.

In addition to structural problems in the criminal justice system that affected all suspects,

there existed the deliberate persecution by authorities of specific groups, among these

environmental activists (Arriaga, 2010). In this case, Cabrera and Montiel were persecuted

because environmental activism was adverse to the interests of those who benefited from the

logging activities in the forests of Guerrero.

At the time, logging activity that was highly profitable to a few local “caciques” (a term

that refers to local wealthy landowners, roughly translating to barons) was destroying much of

the forests in Guerrero (Wilkinson, 2010). Some environmentalists estimated that in the 1990s

approximately 38% of the woods in the area were lost. These devastating effects were a threat to

peasants in the area like Cabrera and Montiel. This led to an increasing number of protests

against the logging activity and those who profited from the logging practice. As the protests

increased, so did military presence. The local barons claimed the peasants were taking up arms

in the area that also contained a small leftist guerrilla movement and heavily armed drug

traffickers. Under the pretext of combating the guerrillas and drug traffickers, the military

suppressed the activities of the environmental activists. Cabrera and Montiel’s case illustrated

how environmental activists and others who opposed the interests of more powerful sectors of

society were criminalized and persecuted by government authorities.

119

Description of the Case

In 1995, the governor of Guerrero entered into a logging contract with Boise Cascade

Corporation to cut down trees from the Costa Grande region. The excessive logging resulted in

detrimental environmental impact on the region and surrounding area. Montiel and Cabrera, two

Mexican local peasant environmentalists, formed the Organization of Farmer Ecologists of the

Sierra of Petatlán and Coyuca of Catalán in 1988. The two environmentalists and their

organization fought to protect the Petatlan and Coyuca de Catalan forests from the devastating

environmental effects of excessive logging (Supulveda Iguiniz, 2012). Members of organization

protested the logging activity by blocking roads and staging disruptive protests. The

environmentalists’ efforts finally succeed in stopping the logging activity. At the time, the

Mexican military was in the area conducting operations against a small guerrilla movement and

well-armed drug traffickers (Wilkinson, 2010).

On May 2, 1999 while Montiel and Cabreara were meeting with others at Cabreara’s

home, approximately 40 soldiers came to the area. The soldiers fired at the home and the

occupants, including Montiel and Cabreara, who fled to the surrounding area. The soldiers

eventually discovered where Montiel and Cabreara were hiding and set fire to the area. During

their attempt to leave the burning area, soldiers detained Montiel and Cabreara, without a

warrant. The army contended that it was in the area as part of an anti-drug trafficking operation

and that Montiel and Cabrera were captured during this operation. The army falsely accused

Cabrera and Montiel of belonging to the armed guerrilla movement known as the Ejercito

Popular Revolucionario.

120

The two men were first held in an improvised command post in the area. They spent the

first day without food or water. Cabrera and Montiel were subjected to various forms of torture;

including beatings, electric shocks, pulling on their testicles and jaw bones, threats of death, and

maiming, in order induce them to confess membership in the EPR. The abuse caused the men to

lose consciousness on several occasions. Two days later, the men were transferred by helicopter

to a military installation where they were once again beaten and threatened with death. On the

fourth day, the two men were transferred to the custody of Federal Public Prosecutors, a civil

institution. After spending the night in jail, they were brought before a judge for the first time,

on the fifth day after their capture. In their statements before the judge, both men described their

torture. Montiel and Cabrera were eventually charged with illegal possession of firearms and

cultivating marijuana. On August 28, 2000, Montiel and Cabrera were convicted of the illegal

possession of firearms and marijuana cultivation charges.

Throughout the trial, Montiel and Cabrera sought an investigation into their torture

allegations, given their confessions, admitted as evidence, were obtained under conditions of

torture. Eventually, a judge ordered the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the allegations

of torture. The Public Prosecutor’s Office began inquiry but eventually ceded jurisdiction to its

military counterpart. The military investigation relied heavily on three medical reports. A

military doctor wrote the first report, the second by a state doctor, and a third by a doctor from

the attorney general’s office. At the request of Center Prodh, there was a fourth medical

examination conducted by a doctor from Physicians for Human Rights—Denmark. The Danish

Doctor reported, “The physical effects are fully consistent with the allegations of the time and

methods of torture used” (Brief for Harvard Law School Human Rights Program as Amicus

121

Curiae, 2009, p.6). The report by the Danish doctor concluded that the two men were tortured,

and they were still suffering effects from the torture. The military investigator largely

disregarded the last report and concluded that there was absolutely no evidence to support the

claim that military personnel had used coercion or violence against the two detainees to force

them to confess to the commission of a crime or to provide information. The military

investigation went on to state that because the medical reports did not support allegations of

torture the investigation should be closed.

Montiel and Cabrara illustrated the difficult environment for activists in Mexico and

highlighted the flaws in Mexico’s justice system. These flaws have functioned to perpetuate

abuses and provide impunity to those responsible. The Mexican government, moreover, has been

permitted to use the military in the absence of a capable police force that can confront organized

crime and drug trafficking (Arriaga, 2012). However, the cost has been very high, primarily due

to military abuses. As the Out of Control report by Amnesty International (2014) noted, the use

of the armed forces to combat organized crime led to a sharp and sustained increase in reports of

human rights violations. The report further upheld the 2012 UN Committee against Torture

observation, which noted an alarming increase in the use of torture during the interrogation of

persons arbitrarily detained by members of the armed forces.

In addition to the widespread violations of basic rights, and torture, the procedural and

evidentiary rules in the criminal justice system encouraged law enforcement to obtain

confessions trough torture. On the rare occasions where these incidents were investigated, the

same actors responsible for the abuses were often the same who were permitted to conduct the

122

investigations. As the case of Montiel and Cabrera illustrated, conditions permitted similar acts

to continue occurring, with impunity.

The Actions Taken by Center Prodh

Because the Montiel and Cabrera case was seen as representative of some of the common

challenges to justice and respect for human rights in Mexico, successfully litigating such a case

offered the possibility of meaningful change. Center Prodh utilized its integral approach to

handle the case, through incorporating a systematic process of strategic litigation to maximize the

impact of the litigation on larger human rights questions. Specifically, Center Prodh set

objectives, tracked the progress, analyzed positive and negative effects, and involved all areas of

the organization in the case.

Center Prodh was involved in the case from the early stages. It was the Center that

arranged for an independent medical report by doctors from Physicians for Human Rights—

Denmark. Center Prodh went on to represent Cabrera and Montiel in their case before the

InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Center Prodh’s integral approach served not only to bring justice to the victims, but to further

human rights on a wider scale in Mexico. With this in mind, Center Prodh set specific objectives

and metrics to evaluate the progress of these objectives and the case as a whole. There were

three specific objectives set for the case:

(1) To obtain a favorable judgment and reparations for Montiel and Cabrera;

(2) To impact the advancement of the rights to access to justice, due process, personal

integrity, specifically regarding persons or groups in vulnerable situations the areas of

citizen security and criminal justice; and

123

(3) To impact the advancement of the defense and promotion of the human rights of

human rights defenders.

To measure the progress of these objectives, Center Prodh designed a chart outlining each

objective, its expected result, relevant indicators, activities, and methods of verification. As part

of its integral approach, the Center described three specific areas where it wanted Cabrera and

Montiel’s case to have an impact:

(1) Public Safety: highlight the concern for public safety when the armed forces were

used to carry out functions better suited to civil institutions.

(2) Criminal Justice: promote awareness about the manner in which the criminal justice

system was used to criminalize activism, how torture was used to obtain confessions

admissible in court, and how military jurisdiction over investigations into human

rights violations deprived victims of justice.

(3) Abuses Against Human Rights Defenders: threats, harassment, arbitrary detention,

torture and extra-judicial killings of human rights defenders.

Center Prodh also considered the case’s impact from a geographical perspective. The

Center considered what influence the case could be expected to have on local, national, and

regional levels. At a local level, the case evidenced the abuses that human rights defenders and

environmental activists suffered in Guerrero. Additionally, the case brought attention to the

effects of excessive logging in the state. Bringing attention to these issues could help improve

the quality of life of the area’s inhabitants. At the national level, the case exposed the human

rights situation, specifically in the area of environmental activism, and personal liberties.

Additionally, the case established a precedent and provoked modifications to existing laws and

124

practices, to the benefit of all Mexicans. From a regional perspective at the Latin American

level, the case formed part of the Inter-American Court’s human rights jurisprudence. This

important precedent would benefit future litigants. Additionally, the case could potentially

benefit cases in the domestic courts of Inter-American member countries.

An integral approach also required considering the secondary effects of litigating the

case, both positive and negative. Among the positive secondary effects, there was the possibility

that publicity from the case could result in limiting or eradicating excessive and illegal logging in

Guerrero’s Petatlan forest. Additionally, the case could generate public support for cases

involving environmental activists. A possible negative effect was that the Mexican government

could partially or completely fail to abide by the Court’s judgment. This would deprive the

victims of obtaining justice. Even if the judgment was legally binding, given the Mexican

government’s current attitude towards findings from international organizations, there existed a

very real possibility that the government would fail to comply fully with the sentence.

Center Prodh’s approach also required the participation of different areas of the

organization. The legal defense area was charged with the design and implementation of the

litigation strategy. The communications area promoted the case through campaigns. The

international section coordinated cooperation with foreign organizations that share similar

interests. The education section, documented and developed educational materials and

workshops to disseminate and raise community awareness.

Another significant component of an integral defense included the active participation of

the victims. Center Prodh believed that that the participation of the victims and their families in

the case was essential to the broader goal of promoting human rights. By including the victims

125

as active participants, the process of defending human rights incorporated the input of the

victims, as well. With this in mind, Rodolfo Montiel appeared before the Court and for an hour

rendered his testimony during the trial at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Arriaga,

2010).

In addition to the wider goals of the integral approach, Center Prodh specifically sought

justice for Cabrera and Montiel. On November 7, 2001 the two activists were released for

humanitarian reasons by an executive order issued by then-President Vicente Fox (Supulveda

Iguinez, 2012). However, despite their release, they were still forced into exile (Arriaga, 2010).

Cabrera and Montiel received no formal recognition of their innocence of the fraudulent charges

for which they were convicted, as well as denied a proper investigation into their allegation of

torture and abuse. Since the Mexican legal system failed to effectively and independently

investigate the allegations of torture and otherwise provide justice in this case, Center Prodh

presented Montiel and Cabreara’s case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

in 2004. Following Mexico’s failure to provide justice, the Commission submitted the case to

the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The Inter-American System for the protection of human rights consisted of two branches

of the OAS: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of

Human Rights. Their purpose was to keep watch over respect and safeguards of human rights in

the Americas and, in particular, to supervise OAS member states’ compliance with their

international obligations acquired in the ratification of regional treaties on human rights (Arriaga,

2012). Only in the case that it became evident that a state was not fulfilling its duties in this

126

matter might the victims of human rights violations bring their cases before the Inter-American

System. This international forum was then considered the appropriate forum in which to litigate

Cabrera and Montiel’s case, in an effort to make a broader impact on human rights in Mexico.

Description of the Results

On November 26, 2010, the Inter-American Court issued a holding in Montiel and

Cabrera. The court condemned many of the actions by the military and issued statements,

verdicts, as well as provided guidance on what Mexico would need to do as a state to conform to

internationally recognized notions of human rights.

The Court ordered that the state conduct a criminal investigation into the acts of torture

against Cabrera and Montiel. Additionally, the state should punish those responsible according to

the law. The Court ordered that Mexico widely publish the judgment and pay reparations to the

victims. The Court also ordered that Article 57 of the military code of justice be reformed to

conform to international standards. It was this code that had allowed the investigation to be

transferred to military jurisdiction.

One of the successful outcomes of using the integral approach was that the Court’s

holding benefitted Mexican society in general as the Court limited the military’s jurisdiction by

requiring changes to the military code. Additionally, the publicity of the case promoted

awareness of the situation and abuses that activists were facing in Mexico. When Montiel was

asked what results he most wanted to see from the outcome of the case, he stated, “Justice would

mean no more corruption. . . . It’s important that we have real change. We hope that something is

done so that nobody has to suffer in the same way” (Arriaga, 2010).

127

San Salvador Atenco: Violence against Women

Identification of the Context and Legal Problem

Another important case Center Prodh litigated was the case of San Salvador Atenco

(Amicus Curiae Brief, 2006). The case took its name from a municipality in the state of Mexico

that witnessed human rights abuses following a confrontation between law enforcement agencies

and social protesters. In litigating the case domestically and internationally, Center Prodh aimed

at bringing attention and changes to three areas:

(1) Human rights violations specifically directed towards women;

(2) Criminalization of social protests; and

(3) Lack of access to justice before federal authorities.

The events in San Salvador Atenco involved one of the most notorious human rights issues in

Mexico, human rights violations directed specifically toward women. Many accounts of human

rights violations and violence towards women in Mexico have been widely covered in both

domestic and the international media.

This case also aptly illustrated the common practice of criminalization of social protest .

Local, state and federal governments constantly ignored the concerns of citizen's groups until the

discontentment led to an intense polarization between citizens and government officials. Once a

conflict reached a high pitch, the government used this moment of heightened tension to justify a

strong response against the protestors. Often this involved attempts to silence and oppress

legitimate social protests, by using the laws and legal system to charge protesters with crimes

(Arriaga, Hudlet, & Marroquin, 2009).

128

The San Salvador Atenco case illustrated the lack of access to justice for victims of

human rights violations such as the women in this case. A major concern in this area centered on

the inability or unwillingness of the government at all levels to address the problem in a timely or

meaningful fashion. Litigating the San Salvador Atenco case allowed Center Prodh to

significantly impact the advancement of human rights in Mexico by directly addressing some of

the major obstacles that human rights faced in the country. Thru the pursuit of justice for the

victims, Center Prodh aimed to improve conditions related to human rights in Mexico.

Description of the Case

In order to better understand the issues in this case, a general background of the situation

in San Salvador Atenco prior to the events giving rise to the case was necessary.

San Salvador Atencto was a municipality in the Mexican state of Mexico. In 2001, Mexico’s

federal government announced a plan to build an international airport to service the Mexico City

metropolitan area in Texcoco, an area neighboring San Salvador Atenco and Mexico City

(Arriaga, Hudlet, & Marroquin, 2009). Local farmers organized into a group called Frente De

Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra (FPDT) and protested against the construction of the airport,

which threatened to displace them.

The government’s response was to repress protests. However, in 2002, bowing to

significant pressure from FPDT, the federal government abandoned its plans to construct the new

airport. While FPDT succeeded in its goal of protecting lands of local farmers from government

appropriation, relations between the local population and the government remained poor.

Following the dispute over the airport, the FPDT remained active in the community, taking on

other local social issues. It was in this environment of tension that the next conflict arose.

129

In an attempt to address and resolve disagreements with the federal, state, and local

governments, negotiations were commenced between the FPDT and government representatives.

In early 2006, the government failed to adhere to various agreements entered into during the

negotiations. Disputes between public officials and the FPDT and members of the local

community followed. As a result, FPDT members abducted and later released a public official.

During this time he was being held, the public official was permitted to maintain communication

with his government agency.

In May 2006, several local vendors became upset over an urban improvement plan that

aimed to reorganize Texococo’s historic district (Arriaga, Hudlet & Marroquin, 2009). As part of

this plan, local flower vendors were no longer permitted to conduct their business in the local

marketplace, as they had been doing for years. This resulted in confrontations, when police

attempted to remove flower vendors from the area. The flower vendors sought the assistance of

the FPDT to initiate a dialogue with the local government, in order to attempt to negotiate and

resolve the dispute. The flower vendors sought to obtain temporary permits that would allow

them to sell in their regular locations during busier days. Among these busy days was May 3,

which celebrated the Catholic holiday of Santa Cruz.

On May 3rd, 2006, local and state police forces acting under orders from the government

of the state, attempted to prevent flower vendors from accessing the area where they regularly

conducted their business. The situation escalated into violence, pitting the flower vendors, other

vendors, their supporters and members of the FPDT against the police forces. Police forces

entered a private residence and arrested several sympathizers of the protesters.

130

To protest unlawful entry and arrests, the flower vendors and their allies blocked a nearby

highway. In the early morning hours of May 4, 2006. Using the justification of reestablishing

public order, approximately 2,500 state and federal police officers, along with several municipal

police officers, descended on San Salvador Atenco. During the operation, the police arbitrarily

arrested more than 200 people, including innocent bystanders.

Forty-seven of those arrested were women and twenty-six reported suffering various

forms of sexual abuse including rape, at the hands of police officers. The women reported that

police officers beat and kicked them, grabbed and bit their breasts, touched their genitals, forced

them to perform oral sex and raped them. The physical abuse took place while the women were

being transported to a local detention center. The physical abuse was accompanied by threats of

additional violence, including threats to kill them or make them disappear.

In addition to the sexual abuse against the women, there were other human rights

violations. The CNDH reported incidents of arbitrary arrests, cruel and inhumane treatment,

warrantless entries into dwellings, unlawful detention, and torture. After the confrontation, the

authorities brought criminal charges against several FPDT members and other protesters

including Ignacio del Valle Medina, Hector Galindo Gochiocoa, and Felipe Alvarez, whose cases

would end up in the Supreme Court.

The cases associated with Ignacio del Valle Medina, Hector Galindo Gochiocoa, and

Felipe Alvarez came before the Supreme Court Under Article 97 of Mexico’s constitution, the

Supreme Court has the power Sua Sponte to investigate abuses to constitutional rights (Arriaga,

Hudlet, & Marroquin, 2009). In its 2010 holding, which addressed the constitutional violations

against Ignacio del Valle Medina, Hector Galindo Gochiocoa, and Felipe Alvarez during their

131

arrests and trials, a divided Mexican Supreme Court ordered the release of the three protesters

and nine others (Aranda, 2010). The majority opinion based its holding on lack of sufficient

evidence to prosecute the defendants for the crimes of which they were charged and various

procedural irregularities. The majority opinion stated that the prosecutions of these individuals

were motivated by their political views and associations.

The Mexican Supreme Court also heard a related case arising from these events that

addressed to what extent high-level officials were responsible for the abuses that took place in

San Salvador Atenco (Aviles, 2009). Among the officials in this case was the governor of the

state of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto and the federal attorney general, Eduardo Medina Mora, as

well as ten other mid to high-level officials. The Mexican Supreme Court exonerated all but one

of these officials of any responsibility. The decision stated that the higher-level officials could

not be held responsible for the conduct or civil rights violations committed by police officers and

lower level commanders in this matter. Similarly, the human rights violations directed at women,

criminalization of social protest and lack of access to justice demonstrated by the events in the

San Salvador Atenco continue to prevail in many other instances in Mexican society without

redress.

An important aspect of human rights violations directed specifically against women was

the nature of the target of these violations. As the United Nations Committee on the Elimination

of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) recognized in its General Recommendation, these

abuses were based on gender. The violence was directed at a woman not only as an individual,

but because she was a woman. This attitude was supported by a perspective that objectifies

women (Arriaga, Hudlet, & Marroquin, 2009). Additionally, gender inequalities introduced a

132

power relationship. As feminist scholar Catharine MacKinnon (1982) observed, crimes of sexual

violation were determined not only by gender, but also a power relationship. In the context of

social protest like in San Salvador Atenco, the common attitude of objectifying women and the

disproportionate power relationship are coupled and further intensified by a view that social

protesters are the enemy. Instead of viewing protesters as fellow citizens legitimately exercising

their rights, the authorities and law enforcement viewed the protesters as an enemy meant to be

defeated. During protests, state agents perceived women aligned with social movements as

enemy objects of a subversive group meant to be conquered or suppressed. The UN Rapporteur

(1998) on violence against women described further how sexual violence against women was

used to send a message of castration and emasculation in order to demonstrate victory over a

group of men who have failed to protect their women.

Human rights violations directed at women have been a prevalent issue in Mexico. The

UN Rapporteur (2006) reported that Mexico had one of the highest incidences of rapes reported

in the world. According to a 2004 study, an average of 13.3 cases of rape were reported for every

100,000 women. It was estimated that the actual number may have been much higher, given that

many rapes go unreported. The problem extended to all sectors of society, including the police

and military.

Aside from the events in San Salvador Atenco, there were numerous other reports of state

agents violating human rights by abusing women. In February 2002, eight soldiers with the 41st

Infantry Battalion in Guerrero raped 17-year-old Valentina Rosendo (Nobel Women’s Initiative,

2014). Another example was from July 2006 in the state of Coahuila, where 20 soldiers beat and

133

raped 13 women (Human Rights Watch, 2007). These were just two other examples of a

widespread problem that the San Salvador Atenco case helped to highlight in Mexico.

Authorities arrested and prosecuted several protesters in San Salvador Atenco. As

discussed above in the related case before the Mexican Supreme Court, a number of these

prosecutions were plagued with civil rights violations and other abuses. The motivation behind

these prosecutions was not to enforce the law but to suppress dissent and opposition, by using the

law as a weapon. The practice of criminalizing social protest, like human rights violations

directed at women was another prevalent problem.

Historically social protest has been tied to strengthening the democratic process by

facilitating deliberation and consensus over public policy issues. Additionally, collective action

allowed marginalized groups to bring attention to their issues. In fact, many of the current

human rights protections were the product of social protest and collective action.

Notwithstanding the legitimate purpose of social protest as a tool to participate in a democracy,

the state, more often than not, has viewed the situation as a conflict between the state and

subversive elements. The state then has attempted to resolve the conflict through confrontation.

By characterizing acts of protest as crimes, the state has sought to transfer the social conflict

from the political arena to the criminal arena. By prosecuting protesters with charges such as

“obstruction of public transit pathways,” “destruction of federal property” or “kidnapping with

intent to blackmail” and leaving out any formal charges related to political dissidence, former

Mexican presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon made the claim that in Mexico there were

no political prisoners (Reygadas & Fontanot, 2012).

134

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE JESUITS TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN MEXICO.docx

Students also viewed