Freedom of Expression
Intimidation, threats, and harassment in retaliation for expressions
This section refers to cases addressing arbitrary or unlawful acts, other than violence or murder, undertaken by state agents in order to stifle freedom of expression.
In a 1990 case against Mexico, [1] the petitioners, members of the National Action Party (PAN) who were running for office in Chihuahua, alleged that members of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the party in power in Mexico at the time, were responsible for manipulating various elements of the election in question, causing electoral fraud. Specifically, the petitioners alleged that the PRI implemented legal procedures aimed at amending electoral legislation to give greater control to the government party, used funds and other public resources for their benefit, exerted “pressures to undermine freedom of expression,” eliminated people from the list of voters, registered non-existent persons, created and cancelled polling places arbitrarily, stuffed ballot boxes, refused to recognize representatives of opposition political parties, benefited from the heavy presence of police and the military during election day. The petitioners alleged violations of Article 13 as well as Articles 5, (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), 11 (right to privacy), 15 (right of assembly), 16 (freedom of association), 23 (right to political participation), 24 (right to equal protection), and 25 (right to judicial protection) as a result of the de facto irregularities that allegedly occurred during the election. The Commission held that it could not confirm nor deny the veracity of the petitioner’s evidence of the irregularities that occurred and therefore did not rule on these issues.
In the case of Brigadier General José Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez, [2] also in Mexico, the petitioner alleged that he had been threatened, harassed, and intimidated by State agents in retaliation for criticizing the human rights record of the military. The victim was also subject to arbitrary detention and imprisonment based on false accusations, and had been the victim of a defamation campaign. He was the subject of criminal proceedings, and was later released. The Commission did not find a violation of Article 13. The Commission considered that the primary objective for the State’s campaign against General Gallardo was not to prevent from expressing his opinions about the military’s human rights record, based on the timing of the incidents. Additionally, the Commission found that because the State dropped charges against General Gallardo, the issue had been resolved within the domestic jurisdiction.
In 1999, in another case against Mexico, the petitioners alleged that three priests were abducted and taken at gun point to a destination identified in two cases as the Chiapas State Judicial Police Station, were stripped, and were forced to undergo medical examinations.[3] They were flown, in a government plane, to Mexico City, where they were interrogated by immigration officers. They were then flown to Miami. Petitioners allege the priests were deported for their human rights activism in Chiapas. The State contended that the three priests were deported because they were encouraging the people to act against the authorities. The petitioners alleged that the State was in violation of several provisions of the Convention, including Article 13. The Commission held that the State was in violation of Articles 5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 22, and 25 of the Convention. The Commission did not find that the State was in violation of Article 13, and did not provide its reasoning with regard to the petitioners’ allegation of the State’s violation of the priests’ freedom of expression.
-------------------------------
[1] Cases 9768, 9780 and 9828, Nº 01/90, Mexico, May 17, 1990.
[2] Case 11.430, Report Nº 43/96, Mexico, Jose Francisco Gallardo Rodriguez, October 15, 1996.
[3] Case 11.610, Report Nº 49/99, Mexico, Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Alberto Barón Guttlein and Rodolfo Izal Elorz, April 13, 1999.