7/8/2020
Mexico 9768, 9780 and 9828
Municipal Committee allowing the examination of the certificate on which the final results were
based, which were favorable to the PRI. The PAN representatives were expelled, according to
the claimant, when they challenged the procedure being followed.
10.
The de facto irregularities denounced in case 9828 are more serious and
important because they refer to the legal procedures aimed at amending electoral legislation to
give greater control to the government party, different episodes during the electoral campaign–
the use of funds and other public resources, pressures to undermine freedom of expression,
elimination of people from the list of voters, registration of non existent persons, arbitrary
creation and cancellation of polling places–and, during the election, stuffing ballot boxes; early
opening of polling places, change of location of polling places; refusal to recognize
representatives of opposition political parties; heavy presence of police and the military during
election day under the control of the State Governor and by the President of the State Electoral
Commission, both from the PRI, in charge of overseeing the electoral process and protecting
the ballot boxes. All of this manipulation, according to the claimant, led to a massive fraud
after the election while voters were being counted.
b.
Internal remedies
11.
In the three cases, the de facto irregularities denounced led to filing of writs with
the competent electoral bodies, who rejected them. The claimants hold that the rejection was
motivated by political reasons since said organizations are controlled by the PRI, and violate the
right set forth in Article 8 of the Convention or, ultimately, of Article 25.
12.
In case 9768, the claimant filed a complaint alleging forgery with the Attorney
General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) on August 26, 1985, without any
apparent result. Against the result consigned in the certificate of the district tally, the claimant
filed a complaint in the Chamber of Deputies sitting as an Electoral College, which declared it
inadmissible on August …, 1985. On August 21, 1985, a writ (recurso de reclamación) was
presented to the Supreme Court, the decision of which according to the claimant, was not
communicated despite the fact that an address had been given for that purpose; he contends
that he heard through other Deputies that his writ had been rejected.
13.
The claimant argues that the ruling of the Electoral College concurs with decisions
of the PRI because most of its members belong to that political party. As to the Supreme
Court, its members are named by the Federal executive Power with the consent of the Senate,
which is made up exclusively of members of the PRI.
14.
In case 9780, the claimant requested that the decision of the Municipal Electoral
Committee, be revoked (recurso de revocación). That complaint should have been heard by
this body and that, according to the claimant was not processed, and no reasons given. When
faced with this situation, the claimant filed a request for review (recurso de revision), which
also was not processed. This lack of procedure prevented an appeal to the Electoral College of
the State Congress, which ratified the election without the election without opposition. The writ
of habeas corpus was not filed because, according to the claimant, Article 73.7 of the Law of
Protection (Ley de Amparo) declares it inadmissible for political rights.
15.
The claimant believes this refusal to hear these complaints against de facto
irregularities is based on the political orientation of the bodies in charge of dealing with these
remedies. Thus, he states, the State Electoral Commission, in the state of Durango, consists of
the government Secretary General who is also its President, named by the Governor of the
state of Durango, and, therefore, it is logical to assume that the appointment is give to a
member of the PRI, and by the representatives of the Legislative Power who, since the PRI is in
a majority, belong to the government party; two magistrates of the Supreme Court appointed
by the plenary of the Court, whose members are named by the Governor of the State (from the
PRI) with the consent of Congress (controlled by the PRI); a representative of the Municipality
of the Capital (which on this occasion, as an exception, included a representative of the PAN); a
representative of each political party (4 opposition plus the PRI and 4 of its allies according to
the claimant); a notary public that will act as Secretary (following an appointment by proxy
from the Governor of the State). The claimant alleges that said composition gives the PRI total
control of the aforementioned electoral body.
cidh.org/annualrep/89.90eng/Mexico9768.htm
3/17