Message: Reina Trujillo and Pedro Arguello Morales against Mexico. Message No. 75/2014. The opinion was adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) July 21, 2017
In 2014, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Mexico.
The Committee's legal position: In accordance with its Committee's General Recommendation No. 19, the definition of discrimination contained in article 1 of the Convention covers violence against women, that is, violence committed against a woman because she is a woman, or violence that has a disproportionate impact on women. Violence against women that impedes or nullifies women's enjoyment of human rights is discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. These rights include the right to life. Article 2 (e) of the Convention requires States parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise. In accordance with general rules of international law and the provisions of specific human rights covenants, States may also be held responsible for acts committed by private individuals if these States do not take due care to prevent violations of rights or investigate acts of violence, punish perpetrators and pay compensation (paragraph 9.4 of the Opinion).
In accordance with the Committee's general recommendation No. 28 (2010) concerning the basic obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention, States parties should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such acts of gender-based violence (paragraph 19). If discrimination against women involves violations of other human rights, in particular the right to life and physical integrity in cases of, for example, domestic and other forms of violence, then States parties are obliged to initiate criminal proceedings, bring the perpetrator(s) to justice and impose appropriate criminal penalties (paragraph 34). The Committee also considers that impunity in the case of such crimes contributes significantly to perpetuating in society a culture of approval of the most extreme forms of violence against women, so that the commission of such acts does not stop (paragraph 9.5 of the Opinion).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee recalls that its concluding observations on Mexico noted the following:... Article 21 of the General Law on Ensuring Women's Access to a Life without Violence defines feminicide as an extreme form of violence against women and as a product of violations of their human rights in both public and private life, which is based on a complex of misogynistic behaviors and which can generate social impunity and impunity of the State and cause the murder of women or other forms of forcible deprivation of their lives. Nevertheless, he is concerned about the inadequacy of definitions of the crime of feminicide in local criminal codes, as well as differences between these definitions. He expresses his deep concern about the large and increasing number of cases of feminicide in several states such as Veracruz, Guanajuato, Quintana Roo, Mexico City, Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Puebla, Jalisco and Chiapas, as well as in the cities of Mexico City and Ciudad Juarez. It is also concerned about the inadequacy of procedures for recording and documenting murders of women, which undermines the proper conduct of investigations into cases, as well as prevents families from being promptly notified of murders and a more complete and reliable assessment of feminicide.
The Committee is also concerned about: ... (c) The low number of cases of violence against women that are reported to the authorities, as women fear retribution and do not trust the authorities; the lack of standard protocols for investigation and prosecution in cases of violence against women, which negatively affects the rights of victims in terms of access to justice and is the reason for The fact that in the context of a large number of cases, the perpetrators remain unpunished, as noted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in connection with the Campo Algodonero (Cotton Field) case; (d) The chronic impunity resulting from the way in which those responsible for acts of violence against women are investigated, prosecuted and punished throughout the country (paragraph 9.2 of the Opinion).
The Committee notes that after the date of acquittal of the person initially suspected of the murder of Pilar Arguello Trujillo, the State party's authorities do not appear to have taken any action to clarify the circumstances of the crime and identify the perpetrator, for example, they did not take new lines of investigation (paragraph 9.3 of the Opinion).
While recognizing that the State's obligation to investigate crimes is an obligation with respect to the means and not the result, the Committee considers that in the present case the State party has not demonstrated that it has done everything possible to comply with its obligations under the Convention in terms of investigating the crime, bringing the perpetrator or perpetrators to justice and imposing appropriate criminal punishment. The State failed to prove that, in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of article 2 and article 5, in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, it took the necessary measures to act with due diligence in order to guarantee the investigation and trial, and this led to the crime remaining unpunished, and The authors were victims of denial of justice (paragraph 9.6 of the Opinion).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts presented... evidence of a violation of Pilar Arguello Trujillo's rights under paragraphs (b) and (c) of article 2 and article 5 in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention (paragraph 9.6 of the Opinion).