7/8/2020
Mexico 9768, 9780 and 9828
16.
For its part, the Municipal Electoral Committee in the State of Durango, consists
of four commissioners appointed by the State Electoral Commission (controlled by the PRI as
the claimant points out above), a commissioner of the corresponding municipality and one from
each political party of which one is the PRI and the other four operate as allies, always
according to the claimant, plus four other opposition parties. This had led, likewise, to the
control of this electoral body by the government party according to the denunciation.
17.
The control mentioned by the claimant leads him to two conclusions: first, that
the rehearing and revocation remedies should have been heard by the Municipal Electoral
Committee, where the alleged forgery was perpetrated, which is contrary to every sort of logic.
The second conclusion is that since every electoral body is controlled by the PRI, there is no
impartiality which guarantees due process for electoral complaints, therefore, producing the
situation foreseen in article 46.2 of the American Convention, according to which the requisite
of exhausting internal remedies, when due process does not exist for the protection of the
rights which are allegedly violated, does not apply.
18.
In case 9828, it is the Congress of the State of Chihuahua which acting as the
Electoral College rules on elections and where the corresponding complaints were filed and later
rejected. According to a provision of the Constitution of the state of Chihuahua, the ruling of
the Electoral College is final, and unappealable. Moreover, the claimant argues that the writ of
protection (amparo) is inapplicable to cases of political rights because of an explicit provision of
the Protection Law (Ley de Amparo) (Article 73.VII) and by the reiterated rulings of the
Supreme Court.
19.
The claimant believes that the complaints were rejected because the Electoral
College is controlled by the PRI and that, therefore, there is no legal due process to protect
rights which are alleged to have been violated. He holds, therefore, that domestic remedies
have been exhausted, despite the fact that due process does not exist with respect to these
rights.
3.
The Government’s position
20.
The position of the Government of Mexico in the electoral cases changed, since it
first adopted a procedural position in cases 9768 and 9780 and objected in toto to case 9828
including the jurisdiction of the IACHR and the limits of the obligations as a party to the
American Convention. In its observations to the Commission’s report, the Government of
Mexico advances its arguments on the admissibility of the Government of Mexico advances its
arguments on the inadmissibility of the cases under consideration, interprets the scope of
Article 23.1.b of the American Convention with regard to political rights and electoral processes,
sets out the possible effects of a decision of the Commission on the principle of nonintervention,
and warns of the consequences such a decision could have on the validity of the Convention for
Mexico.
3.a
Admissibility
21.
Therefore, in case 9768, the Government of Mexico holds that the case is
inadmissible since more than six months have elapsed since the Supreme Court notified the
Chamber of Deputies of its rejection of the writ submitted by the claimant. With respect to
case 9780, the government holds that it is also inadmissible because the claimant did not
exhaust internal remedies against the resolution of the Electoral College of the Chamber of
Deputies of the State of Durango since a writ could have been filed before the Supreme State
Tribunal, but was not filed.
22.
As to the admissibility of the cases, the arguments advanced repeat the
government’s previous positions. Thus, there is a restatement of the argument that the
petitioner in case 9768 was given notice, in accordance with the law, in the Chamber of
Deputies, to which he had not been elected and of which he was consequently not a member.
The petitioner had completed the entire process of seeking remedies under domestic law and
had established domicile to be given notice pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedures, which the government did not apply even though it was an altogether reasonable
cidh.org/annualrep/89.90eng/Mexico9768.htm
4/17