Mexico

• ‘Tenemos que reconstruir con un enfoque de derechos humanos, es decir reactivando comunidades, y no solamente edificando casas’

  English

  Los dos terremotos que afectaron a México en septiembre de 2017 dejaron cientos de muertos y miles de heridos, y la sociedad civil respondió rápidamente. Además de tener impactos inmediatos, los terremotos expusieron graves deficiencias de gobernanza. CIVICUS habla con dos personas de Fundar: Centro de Análisis e Investigación - Eduardo Alcalá, Coordinador de Planeación, Seguimiento y Evaluación, y Sarahí Salvatierra, investigadora del Programa de Rendición de Cuentas y Combate a la Corrupción. Fundar es una organización de la sociedad civil mexicana, plural e independiente, que promueve una democracia sustantiva y la transformación de las relaciones de poder entre gobierno y sociedad. Realiza labores de incidencia a través de la producción y diseminación de conocimiento especializado, la reflexión crítica y propositiva y la experimentación y vinculación con actores civiles, sociales y gubernamentales.

  1. ¿Piensan que la respuesta del gobierno mexicano ante los sismos de septiembre de 2017 fue adecuada y suficiente?

  El 7 de septiembre de 2017 un sismo de 8.2 grados afectó gravemente a la población de Chiapas y Oaxaca. Poco después, el 19 de septiembre, otro sismo de 7.1 grados causó graves daños, principalmente en la Ciudad de México y en los estados de Guerrero, México, Morelos, Puebla, Tlaxcala y Veracruz. Los sismos pusieron en evidencia la existencia de diversas falencias que el gobierno mexicano debe atender de manera urgente en materia de prevención y respuesta a los efectos de desastres naturales.

  Desde nuestra perspectiva, la respuesta oficial ante estos hechos debe contemplar los siguientes elementos. En primer lugar, debe incluir la provisión de información accesible, clara, precisa y de calidad. Esto es determinante para la atención inmediata, es decir para el adecuado rescate de sobrevivientes, su cuidado y la recuperación de su patrimonio; para la reconstrucción de sus viviendas y de la infraestructura de sus localidades; para la provisión de condiciones de vida adecuadas a sus necesidades tras el desastre, y eventualmente para reparar daños y garantizar otros derechos.En este sentido, está claro que las plataformas y los sistemas oficiales de información y de comunicación deben ser actualizados con urgencia para ofrecer datos completos que permitan conocer de manera inmediata la magnitud de los daños, el tipo de asistencia de emergencia enviada a las poblaciones afectadas y, sobre todo, las estrategias planificadas y el origen y el destino de los recursos públicos con que el gobierno responderá a la catástrofe en el corto, el mediano y el largo plazo. En el caso de los sismos recientes, las respuestas del gobierno a las necesidades de información no cumplieron con estos estándares mínimos de transparencia ante desastres naturales.

  Segundo, la respuesta oficial debe asimilar el hecho de que, en la fase de emergencia, la participación ciudadana encarada desde la solidaridad y la voluntad de las personas se organiza y coordina de manera natural y virtuosa. En ese sentido, las acciones para atender la fase de emergencia que desarrollaron las comunidades en México evidentemente superaron en tiempo y forma a las estrategias oficiales. Las redes sociales habilitaron una respuesta social mucho más ágil y efectiva que los procesos burocráticos. El involucramiento del gobierno a través de la marina, el ejército y los operadores públicos, si bien contribuyó a ordenar algunos aspectos durante esta fase, en ciertos momentos generó confusión e impuso medidas no necesariamente acordes a los protocolos internacionales en materia de rescate y salvaguarda de las vidas de las personas.

  

  Tercero, la respuesta gubernamental debe incluir la participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones para la reconstrucción. Las estrategias e intervenciones deben ser diseñadas e implementadas de acuerdo con los más altos estándares de derechos humanos. La participación no solo empodera a las comunidades sino que también garantiza una mayor congruencia entre las políticas resultantes y las prioridades de las comunidades. En este sentido, apremia que el gobierno mexicano habilite, promueva e implemente mecanismos efectivos de participación ciudadana para la formulación de planes de reconstrucción y, más en general, que fortalezca en forma permanente el diálogo con la ciudadanía.

  Cuarto, la respuesta del gobierno debe ir acompañada de mecanismos adecuados de rendición de cuentas, basados en plataformas y sistemas eficaces de información, para que sea posible hacer un monitoreo en tiempo real tanto del avance físico como del aspecto financiero de los planes de reconstrucción. Asimismo, el gobierno debe estar dispuesto a reorientar sus acciones y ajustar la inversión en función de las necesidades más apremiantes desde una visión estratégica a corto, mediano y largo plazo. En este punto, el gobierno mexicano debería introducir mejoras sustantivas en el diseño, la implementación y la operación de mecanismos de rendición de cuentas y control ciudadano. La ciudadanía debería poder monitorear los procesos de reconstrucción en todas sus dimensiones, tanto físicas como financieras y en lo que respecta al desembolso tanto de recursos públicos como de recursos procedentes de donaciones privadas. Actualmente el marco normativo es poco robusto en este sentido y tiene lagunas procedimentales que complican la adecuada fiscalización.

  2. ¿Qué rol desempeñó en este contexto la sociedad civil?

  La sociedad civil ha estado desde hace años activa en todos estos temas. En primer lugar, diversas organizaciones han puesto en el centro del debate público la necesidad de una mejor planeación urbana y de vivienda, así como de un diseño integral en materia de protección civil y prevención y atención a riesgos. En segundo lugar, ante la ocurrencia de desastres - sismos, sequías, huracanes, inundaciones - la sociedad civil ha contribuido mediante la provisión de información y la puesta en marcha de mecanismos participativos para atender necesidades puntuales de las comunidades afectadas. Tercero, a través de diversas plataformas cívicas e iniciativas ciudadanas, desde la sociedad civil nos hemos involucrado en distintos frentes para, sobre la base de nuestra experticia,mejorar los procesos en las fases posteriores a una catástrofe.

  De modo que, aunque el voluntariado fuera una de las caras más visibles de la sociedad civil en los momentos inmediatamente posteriores al desastre, nuestra presencia lo excede con creces. La sociedad civil ha impulsado el análisis y la discusión de enfoques que reconceptualizan la noción de bienestar de las personas afectadas por un desastre natural. Tenemos claro que “reconstruir por reconstruir” no sirve; tenemos que reconstruir con un enfoque de derechos humanos. Esto implica no solamente edificar casas sino también reactivar comunidades, impulsar un desarrollo acorde a las necesidades de cada población, priorizar los requerimientos de los grupos en situación de mayor vulnerabilidad y, en suma, asegurar mejores condiciones de vida para prepararnos para futuros eventos similares.

  Es resumen, tenemos conocimientos especializados y experiencia de sobra, y el gobierno debería reconocerlo mediante la promoción de un diálogo fluido y la adopción de compromisos concretos con la sociedad civil. Sin embargo, todo esto requiere de una gran voluntad política y administrativa, y difícilmente ocurra a menos que nosotros elevemos nuestras exigencias. En sentido estricto, lograr que el gobierno adecue sus mecanismos a las oportunidades de mejora y a nuestras observaciones y recomendaciones es el principal reto que tenemos enfrente. Como todo proceso de incidencia en pos de transformaciones estructurales, no será fácil. Será un esfuerzo permanente y de largo plazo, y en ningún momento podrá perder de vista los principios y las prácticas de información, participación y rendición de cuentas. Pero solo en la medida en que hagamos nuestra labor de vigilancia lograremos mejorar los procesos democráticos y asegurar mayores niveles de bienestar humano para la ciudadanía.

  3. ¿Acaso los sismos pusieron en evidencia otros problemas subyacentes de larga data? ¿Ha abierto la emergencia alguna ventana de oportunidad para la resolución de esos problemas?

  Los sismos confirmaron la existencia de fallas estructurales e instruccionales, así como la necesidad de fortalecer los controles y la rendición de cuentas en materia de ejecución de recursos y procesos de contratación por adjudicación y licitación. El mapa de las comunidades más afectadas dejó en evidencia que ellas enfrentaban fuertes precariedades y desigualdades desde mucho antes de los sismos. De igual modo, se observa que las mujeres son las principales víctimas de los desastres, al mismo tiempo que las tareas de asistencia inmediata tras el sismo otorgaron a las mujeres un protagonismo sin precedentes. De modo que esta es una oportunidad ideal para atacar esos problemas, vulnerabilidades y desigualdades desde la raíz. El gobierno mexicano no debe perder la oportunidad que tiene enfrente. Por un lado, debe mejorar la conceptualización y el diseño del marco normativo y procedimental, a partir de principios y estándares de derechos humanos. Por otro lado, debe transformar las prácticas institucionales mediante las cuales implementa sus acciones y gasta los recursos públicos. En ese sentido, los sismos también abrieron una ventana de oportunidad (que todavía debe ser aprovechada por el gobierno) para poner en marcha una estrategia de colaboración con la sociedad civil.

  La toma de decisiones en esa dirección contribuiría a resolver no solamente el tema inmediato de la respuesta a emergencias sino también otras problemáticas que cruzan profundamente a la agenda pública: la falta de transparencia y rendición de cuentas, la desigualdad, la corrupción, las violaciones de derechos humanos y la impunidad.

  4. ¿Han surgido iniciativas novedosas de la sociedad civil en el contexto del desastre?

  Han surgido varias iniciativas novedosas. Una de ellas es la plataforma #Epicentro, integrada por organizaciones de la sociedad civil, de la academia y del sector empresarial, así como por voluntarios. Con el lema “Reconstrucción social con integridad”, #Epicentro surgió a partir de un núcleo de diez organizaciones, que en pocos días se convirtieron en 30 y en las últimas semanas se multiplicaron hasta superar las 100. Fundar forma parte de esta iniciativa, que busca promover la participación ciudadana en las distintas fases de la reconstrucción, exigiendo del gobierno mexicano los más altos estándares de transparencia y rendición de cuentas. La atención a la reconstrucción es clave porque ésta insumirá mucho más tiempo y recursos que la propia situación de emergencia: actualmente se calcula que llevará tres años y costará unos 30 mil millones de pesos, buena parte procedente del sector privado. Y por supuesto que en un período tan largo la atención mediática declina, y dados los montos involucrados, el descuido puede tener enormes costos. En este caso, además, el período de reconstrucción se superpondrá con el próximo proceso electoral que se desarrollará en 2018, y es preciso minimizar el riesgo de que se haga un uso político y clientelar de los recursos destinados a la reconstrucción.

  La coalición #Epicentro se articula en tres nodos temáticos. El primero está a cargo de hacer un seguimiento minucioso para vigilar que los recursos para la reconstrucción se gasten correctamente y lleguen a quienes realmente los necesitan. El segundo se ocupa de monitorear que la reconstrucción se lleve a cabo siguiendo las mejores prácticas, los aprendizajes de otras experiencias y los estándares de derechos humanos. El tercero se centra en el tema de las reparaciones del daño causado a las víctimas de casos de corrupción y la sanción de los responsables. En ese sentido, es necesario investigar porqué murieron personas cuando se derrumbaron construcciones que tenían permisos que probablemente nunca deberían haber sido otorgados.

  En suma, #Epicentro representa un compromiso y una apuesta ciudadana de largo aliento. El formato de la plataforma, diseñada por jóvenes especialistas en tecnologías cívicas, es novedoso en el marco de la experiencia mexicana de construcción de redes, alianzas a iniciativas para el monitoreo ciudadano, no solamente por la cantidad de organizaciones y voluntarios involucrados o por su diversidad y complementariedad temática y técnica, sino también por el grado de coordinación logrado en torno de un fin común.

  5. ¿Ha recibido México suficientes expresiones de solidaridad y apoyo financiero de la comunidad internacional? ¿De qué modo adicional podrían los actores externos apoyar la reconstrucción?

  Tras los sismos la solidaridad de la comunidad internacional se hizo sentir. El apoyo abarcó desde ayuda humanitaria en especie y asistencia técnica para el rescate hasta un gran caudal de aporte financiero procedente de donativos de diversos actores de la comunidad internacional, tanto públicos como privados.

  El portal “Transparencia Presupuestaria” ofrece información oficial acerca de los donativos que el gobierno mexicano ha recibido de distintos países y organizaciones internacionales, entre las cuales se cuenta el Equipo de las Naciones Unidas para la Coordinación y la Evaluación en Casos de Desastre (UNDAC). Sin embargo, la publicación de la información no alcanza para asegurar que los recursos atiendan las necesidades de las poblaciones afectadas por los desastres naturales.

  La multiplicidad de fuentes de recursos internacionales incrementa la necesidad de instrumentos eficientes para su administración, garantías de transparencia en su ejecución y mecanismos de participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones y en la vigilancia sobre el destino de los recursos. Expresados como mera cantidad, los montos de los recursos financieros no dicen demasiado: en lo inmediato, claro que es importante que esos fondos no acaben en el bolsillo equivocado. Pero en el largo plazo, lo que realmente importa es que esos recursos se materialicen en estrategias y acciones concretas que aseguren una reconstrucción encarada con un enfoque de derechos. En ese sentido, sería importante que los donantes de los recursos expresaran interés en el destino de los fondos y en el impacto que ellos van teniendo en el logro de los fines para los cuales fueron dispuestos.

  • El espacio cívico en México es clasificado por el CIVICUS Monitor en la categoría ‘represivo’, indicativa de la existencia de serias restricciones sobre las libertades de asociación, reunión pacífica y expresión.
  • Visite la página web o el perfil de Facebook de FUNDAR, o siga en Twitter a @FundarMexico.

   

   

• “La inclusión es una ilusión”

  English | French 

  Ochoa Ayala, Fundación 11:11, México

  

  ¿A quién no le gusta sentir que pertenece a un lugar, comunidad, espacio, algo? El sentido de pertenencia tiene que ver con la identidad que cada individuo va desarrollando a lo largo de su vida, da una muestra de quienes somos; por ejemplo yo, soy una mujer, joven, mexicana, activista, soñadora etc., es como me identifico y las palabras que elegí para describirme hacen que me conecte con personas afines.

  Al ser una mujer joven mexicana activista soñadora encontré a CIVICUS

  “Una comunidad mundial de ciudadanas y ciudadanos informados, inspirados y comprometidos en el abordaje de los desafíos que enfrenta la humanidad.”[1]

  Al leer su visón de inmediato supe que quería ser parte de esa comunidad y es que me sentí identificada, supe que al otro lado del planeta, en el hemisferio de a lado, existían personas con una visión muy similar a la mía, con la intención de cooperar y crear alianzas para que los problemas de la humanidad se combatieran de manera conjunta e unificando esfuerzos aislados.

  Ingrese mis datos y cada semana me llegaba información sobre sus boletines, actividades y demás, hasta que un día llego un correo invitándome a la convocatoria “the Global Learning Exchange and AGM” en donde se hablarían temas de inclusión y diversidad en Montevideo, Urugay; Sin pensarlo mucho tome una decisión y apliqué, sin imaginar que acababa de abrir la puerta a una de las mejores experiencias de mi vida. Meses después me confirmaron que fui seleccionada y el 13 de diciembre me encontraba en un avión rumbo al intercambio de aprendizaje.

  Fueron tres días donde hablamos sobre el significado de diversidad e inclusión, de entrada tanto las personas seleccionadas como los encargados de dirigir el intercambio teníamos diferentes nacionalidades, idiomas, aspecto, creencias e ideas pero eso no importo para intercambiar experiencias y crear conceptos nuevos, al interactuar entre nosotros le dimos vida y realidad a los conceptos de diversidad e inclusión, puesto que estás dos palabras no significan nada sino las llevas a la acción. Comprobamos de primera mano que las diferencias enriquecen las ideas y la disposición a escuchar da pie a la inclusión.

  Juntos concluimos que la diversidad es la riqueza de lo diferente y la inclusión es la bienvenida de eso, dos conceptos que coexisten puesto que uno necesita de otro para fortalecer cada acción que realicemos en pro de la humanidad.

  Antes de este encuentro veía a la diversidad e inclusión como una ilusión, tenía el anhelo de que en mi país existieran personas que fomentaran acciones de bienvenida a lo diferente, y es que ya llevaba un tiempo trabajando por ello pero no se materializaba.

  Lamentablemente vivimos en una Era de discurso y poco accionar, las personas hablan de aceptación, las leyes de inclusión, pero en la realidad parece más una exclusividad de lo diferente, es decir, “si eres diferente júntate con los que son diferentes como tú” pero entonces ¿dónde está la inclusión? ¿Es una ilusión inalcanzable? CIVICUS respondió mi duda al integrarme a un equipo donde lo que imperaba eran las diferencias, pero aprendí que la disposición, el respeto, la humildad, el reconocimiento, son actitudes que cualquier ser humano puede tener con otro y al hacerlo se da la oportunidad de conocerlo e incluirlo a su mundo.

  Recordemos que desde nuestra existencia pertenecemos a un mundo en el que todos coexistimos y al que todos tenemos la oportunidad aportar algo valioso.

  Gracias CIVICUS por hacer mi ilusión realidad.

  [1] https://www.civicus.org/index.php/es/quienes-somos/acerca-de-civicus

• As the climate crisis intensifies, so does the crackdown on environmental activism, finds new report

  New research brief from the CIVICUS Monitor examines the crackdown of environmental activism and profiles important victories civil society has scored in the fight for climate justice.

  • Environmental protests are being criminalised and met with repression on all continents
  • State authorities and private companies are common perpetrators of violations to civic freedoms
  • Despite the risks and restrictions, activist groups continue to score important victories to advance climate justice.

  As world leaders meet in Glasgow for the UN Climate Change Negotiations (COP26), peaceful environmental activists are being threatened, silenced and criminalised around the world. The host of this year's meeting is one of many countries where activists are regularly facing rights violations.

  New research from the CIVICUS Monitor looks at the common tactics and restrictions being used by governments and private companies to suppress environmental movements. The research brief “Defenders of our planet: Resilience in the face of restrictions” focuses on three worrying trends: Bans and restrictions on protests; Judicial harassment and legal persecution; and the use of violence, including targeted killings.

  As the climate crisis intensifies, activists and civil society groups continue to mobilise to hold policymakers and corporate leaders to account. From Brazil to South Africa, activists are putting their lives on the line to protect lands and to halt the activities of high-polluting industries. The most severe rights abuses are often experienced by civil society groups that are standing up to the logging, mining and energy giants who are exploiting natural resources and fueling global warming.

  As people take to the streets, governments have been instituting bans that criminalise environmental protests. Recently governments have used COVID-19 as a pretext to disrupt and break up demonstrations. Data from the CIVICUS Monitor indicates that the detention of protesters and the use of excessive force by authorities are becoming more prevalent.

  In Cambodia in May 2021, three environmental defenders were sentenced to 18 to 20 months in prison for planning a protest  against the filling of a lake in the capital. While in Finland this past June, over 100 activists were arrested for participating in a protest calling for the government to take urgent action on climate change. From authoritarian countries to  mature democracies, the research also profiles those who have been put behind bars for peacefully protesting.

  “Silencing activists and denying them of their fundamental civic rights is another tactic being used by leaders to evade and delay action on climate change” said Marianna Belalba Barreto, Research Lead for the CIVICUS Monitor. “Criminalising nonviolent protests has become a troubling indicator that governments are not committed to saving the planet .”

  The report shows that many of the measures being deployed by governments to restrict rights are not compatible with international law. Examples of courts and legislative bodies reversing attempts to criminalise nonviolent climate protests are few and far between.

  Despite the increased risks and restrictions facing environmental campaigners, the report also shows that a wide range of campaigns have scored important victories, including the closure of mines and numerous hazardous construction projects. Equally significant has been the rise of climate litigation by activist groups. Ironically, as authorities take activists to court for exercising their fundamental right to protest, activist groups have successfully filed lawsuits against governments and companies in over 25 countries for failing to act on climate change.

  ---

  DOWNLOAD REPORT

• BINDING TREATY: ‘It's not a silver bullet, but it will be a step forward in regulating excessive transnational corporate power’

  Spanish 

  

  As part of our 2018 report on the theme of reimagining democracy, we are interviewing civil society activists, leaders and specialists about their work to promote democratic practices and principles, the challenges they encounter and the victories they score. CIVICUS speaks to Fernanda Hopenhaym, Co-Executive Director of Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER), a regional civil society organisation (CSO). Based in Mexico, PODER has a mission to improve corporate transparency and accountability in Latin America from a human rights perspective and strengthen civil society stakeholders affected by corporate practices to help them function as long-term guarantors of accountability.

  What are the indispensable conditions for a fully functioning democracy? Is corporate power a limit to democracy?

  A full democracy must be based on a rule of law that really works, with guarantees for the full exercise of human rights, transparency and citizen participation in all matters of public interest, an independent justice system to which access is ensured, and a serious strategy to combat inequalities.

  Although some may view the private sector as an ally for democratic consolidation, Latin America continues to be the most unequal region in the world and corporations, particularly large companies, continue to operate opaquely. This has its roots in structural problems that have prevented our countries from truly consolidating democracy and sustaining their development. These political-institutional, socioeconomic and financial deficits have their distant origin in the conquest of Latin America, but deepened in the 1990s, when neoliberal policies failed to fulfil their promises of economic growth and development. As described by economist Álvaro Vargas Llosa, it became the norm for state enterprises to be handed out to friends of the government under monopolistic conditions, and this exacerbated a system already characterised by economic elite control of public decision-making. Joel Hellman and Daniel Kaufmann, of the World Bank, named this phenomenon state capture. These are the mechanisms by which corporate elites interfere with or exert undue influence over laws, rules and decrees for their own benefit.

  A recent example of this is the package of so-called structural reforms implemented in Mexico since 2013: labour, education, energy and other reforms that changed the rules of the game for the most important sectors of the economy to facilitate investment and favour capital.

  When we talk about accountability, we usually think about holding state agencies accountable. Why do you think it is necessary to strengthen the accountability of corporations?

  Corporations play a key role in the global economy, and hold increasing power. Public-private links have deepened, the separation between the spheres of action of business elites and governments has become very tenuous, and this has contributed to state mechanisms failing to regulate and balance the interests of corporations with the public interest effectively. That is why it is key that organised citizens focus their efforts on demanding accountability, higher standards of transparency and responsibility from companies for the negative impacts of their operations on human rights and the environment.

  There are numerous examples of corporate abuses that have not been effectively addressed by states. The most notorious in Mexico is the case of the Sonora River, where the worst spill occurred in the history of mining in the country. Forty million litres of copper sulphate were spilled, which contaminated two rivers and affected almost 25,000 people. The culprit, a company with enormous power, has so far managed to evade full compliance with its obligations to provide compensation, and has even obtained new permits to expand the mine where the spill occurred. In Ecuador, there is the case of Chevron-Texaco, which has caused oil pollution in the territories of indigenous communities, which have been seeking redress and justice for decades. In Brazil, the case of the Samarco mine stands out, which caused the collapse of a dam. This resulted in terrible pollution of the Doce River, even reaching the ocean and causing death and desolation in the communities of Mariana. And I could continue bringing up more examples from Latin America and beyond, of companies causing harm with total impunity and not being held accountable.

  What tools do you use, and what mechanisms do you promote for other stakeholders to use for improving corporate accountability?

  At PODER we use a variety of methodologies to push for greater corporate accountability. We work on two levels: on a case-by-case basis, and at the normative level. For the cases that we follow, we use rigorous business research into strategic industries, including close follow-up of project financing, to expand access to information by affected communities and civil society in general. By reducing information asymmetries, we are able to refine campaigning and negotiation strategies and, when appropriate, legal strategies as well, to protect human rights from business activity. In this terrain, to sum up, PODER produces research, accompanies organisational processes, undertakes advocacy with key actors and, in some cases, resorts to strategic litigation.

  Regarding normative change, we use various mechanisms, ranging from promoting greater transparency and access to public interest information using technology and open data, to carrying out investigative journalism in order to expose cases and increase the pressure of public opinion. We participate in processes at the national, regional and international levels to promote instruments that guarantee human rights and offer tools for corporate accountability. We are also present in multi-stakeholder spaces with the aim of exerting direct influence on the practices of both the state and companies in strategic sectors.

  We share our methodology with other actors through workshops, the provision of online resources and above all by participating in networks and coalitions in which every group contributes their lessons learned to push this agenda forward. This exchange and collective effort is fundamental to reducing the enormous imbalance of power that exists between states and companies on one side and civil society on the other.

  PODER, and you personally, have been invested for years in the process of developing a binding treaty on transnational corporations and human rights. Why do you think there should be a treaty on this topic, and how have you worked to carry it forward?

  Civil society working on human rights has increasingly identified abuse by companies as one of the roots of the problems it seeks to address. That is why the mobilisation to generate a legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and human rights has encompassed such a wide array of civil society actors, including movements as diverse as environmentalists, peasants, feminists and labour and indigenous groups, among others. An instrument of this nature would address some of the issues mentioned above that are weakening the role of states as guarantors of human rights, such as the transnational nature of big capital and the fact that negative impacts don’t respect borders between jurisdictions.

  The mobilisation of organisations, networks and movements in recent years has been enormous. It has encompassed not only participation in formal spaces, both in the United Nations (UN) and within countries, but also the creation of its own spaces, public demonstrations, advocacy, communications and the generation of analysis and content to support the treaty process. In all these instances, the participation of Latin American civil society has been important.

  The two largest coalitions are the Treaty Alliance, a very broad global platform that promotes civil society involvement in the work leading to the treaty and calls on states to participate effectively, and the Global Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power, which works on this agenda in addition to other issues related to human rights violations by corporations. Another very interesting space is that of #Feminists4BindingTreaty, which includes groups, organisations and individuals who promote the inclusion of a gender perspective in the treaty process. Finally, PODER and our partners in the region are currently leading a coalition of Latin American organisations to disseminate information and add more voices to this process.

  The zero draft of the Binding Treaty was published two months ago. What are your first impressions after reading the document?

  The zero draft is still a timid document, with much emphasis on access to justice and little on damage prevention. But it does lay some important foundations and gives us something concrete on which to start negotiations. Leading to its elaboration, the government of Ecuador, in its presiding role as chair of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Group that was created with a mandate to draft the instrument by resolution 26/9 of the UN Human Rights Council, first generated a document of elements in 2017, then held informal consultations with states and organisations, and received numerous written inputs, which added to the work carried out in the three sessions of the Group. However, most of civil society views this first draft as insufficient.

  A key issue we are concerned about is insufficient emphasis on establishing the primacy of human rights over trade and investment interests and agreements. Some other issues that will have to be refined have to do with the type of companies that the instrument refers to, as well as with jurisdictional issues – in particular, with the balance between reinforcing states’ power to act within their jurisdictions and their extraterritorial obligations. Topics that have been included but need greater clarity include the following: due diligence on human rights, clauses on conflict of interest, and the establishment of a mechanism - a committee - for monitoring and holding companies accountable. Some issues that are fundamental for civil society have also been left out, notably the establishment of protections for human rights defenders and the introduction of a gender perspective.

  At the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Group, which will take place in Geneva from 15 to 19 October 2018, negotiations will start on the basis of the zero draft. Throughout this process there have been much resistance, particularly from the European Union and the United States. In addition, Latin American countries have not reached unified positions, and it is very unlikely that they will now. That is why the negotiation process and the production of further versions of the treaty are likely to take years, and only after that will the treaty come to light. From there on, there will be another stage leading to its signature and ratification. We in civil society will remain active and vigilant, since we believe that this process is a good opportunity to overcome obstacles to guarantee the protection of human rights at a global level and to better regulate transnational corporate power. It is not a silver bullet, but we are convinced that it will be a step forward.

  For more on civil society’s efforts to develop a binding treaty, see our2017 State of Civil Society Report, on the theme of ‘civil society and the private sector’.

  Get in touch with PODER through itswebsite andFacebook profile, or follow@ProjectPODER and@fernanda_ho on Twitter.

• CIVICUS and Consorcio Oaxaca demand the immediate release of unjustly detained Mexican human rights defenders

  Click here to read a Spanish language version of this release

  CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance and the Mexican CSO Consorcio para el Diálogo Parlamentario y la Equidad Oaxaca (Consorcio Oaxaca) are deeply concerned about the widespread use of arbitrary detention and torture against human rights defenders in Mexico. A recent report, jointly published by 11 Mexican and international human rights organisations, sets out how such practices are extensively used to restrict the work of human rights defenders.

• CIVICUS UN Universal Periodic Review submissions on civil society space

  CIVICUS and its partners have submitted joint and stand-alone UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submissions on eight countries to the UN Human Rights Council in advance of the 31^st UPR session (November 2018). The submissions examine the state of civil society in each country, including the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of association, assembly and expression and the environment for human rights defenders. We further provide an assessment of the States’ domestic implementation of civic space recommendations received during the second UPR cycle over 4-years ago and provide a number of targeted follow-up recommendations.

  Countries examined: Chad, China, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Senegal

  Chad EN or FR -CIVICUS and Réseau Des Défenseurs Droits Humains en Afrique Centrale (REDHAC) examine ongoing attacks on and intimidation, harassment and judicial persecution of HRDs, leaders of citizen movements and CSO representatives. We further discuss restrictions on the freedoms of assembly and association in Chad including through lengthy bans and violent repression of protests and the targeting of unions which protest against austerity measures or the reduction of salaries for workers.

  China - CIVICUS and the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) outline serious concerns related to the escalation of repression against human rights defenders, particularly since 2015, which Chinese activists described as one of the worst years in the ongoing crackdown on peaceful activism. The submission also describes unlawful restrictions on the freedom of association, including through the Charity Law and the Law on the Administration of Activities of Overseas Nongovernmental Organizations. CIVICUS and AHRC call on the government of China to immediately release all HRDs arrested as part of the “709 crackdown” and repeal all laws restricting civic space in China.

  Jordan -CIVICUS, the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND) and Phenix Center highlight the lack of implementation of recommendations on the right to freedom of association. Current legislation governing the formation and operation of civil society organisations (CSOs), including trade unions, imposes severe restrictions on the establishment and operation of CSOs. We are also concerned by the restrictive legal framework that regulates the right to freedom of expression and the authorities’ routine use of these laws to silent critical voices.

  Malaysia - CIVICUS and Pusat KOMAS highlight a range of restrictive laws used to constrain freedom of association and to investigate and prosecute government critics and peaceful protesters, in their exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. We also raise concerns about the harassment of and threats against HRDs as well as the increasing use of arbitrary travel bans by the government to deter their freedom of movement.

  Mexico (ES) - CIVICUS and the Front for the Freedom of Expression and Social Protest (Frente por la Libertad de Expresión y la Protesta Social - FLEPS) address concerns regarding the threats, attacks and extrajudicial killings of HRDs and journalists for undertaking their legitimate work. The submission further examines the multiple ways in which dissent is stifled through stigmatisation, criminalisation and violent suppression of social protests and restrictions on freedom of expression and independent media.

  Nigeria - CIVICUS and the Nigeria Network of NGOs (NNGO) examine the difficult operating environment for journalists who are routinely harassed, beaten and sometime killed for carrying out their journalistic work. CIVICUS and the NNGO are concerned by the actions of some officers of the Department of State Services who are at the forefront of persecuting human rights defenders.

  Saudi Arabia - CIVICUS, the European Saudi Organization for Human Rights (ESOHR) and Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) address Saudi Arabia’s continued targeting and criminalization of civil society and human rights activists, particularly under the auspices of its counter-terror laws, which severely undermine the freedoms of association, expression and assembly.

  Senegal - CIVICUS and the Coalition Sénégalaise des Défenseurs des Droits Humains (COSEDDH) document a number of violations of the freedom of expression and restrictions on media outlets. In particular we discuss the continued criminalisation of press offences in the new Press Code, including criminal defamation, among other restrictive provisions. Since its last UPR examination, implementation gaps were found with regard to the rights to the freedom of expression and issues relating to the freedom of peaceful assembly.

• Civil Society “Contested and Under Pressure”, says new report

  Read this press release in Arabic, French, Portuguese and Spanish

  Civil society around the globe is “contested and under pressure” according to a 22-country research findings report released by CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, and The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL). The report, Contested and Under Pressure: A Snapshot of the Enabling Environment of Civil Society in 22 Countries, brings together insights from Enabling Environment National Assessments (EENA) conducted around the world between 2013 and 2016.

• CM Feed Test 4

  Mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico mexico.

• Declaración del Comité Directivo de OGP sobre México

  Los países y representantes de la sociedad civil del Comité Directivo de la Alianza para el Gobierno Abierto (OGP) listadas abajo expresan su profunda preocupación por los informes de presunta vigilancia digital ilegal contra periodistas, activistas y otras personas defensoras de derechos humanos en México, como se destaca en una carta firmada por el Núcleo de Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil que lideran el proceso de OGP en México, y validado por Citizen Lab. Reiteramos la invitación al gobierno mexicano para que proporcione una respuesta formal, en caso de que así lo decida, de conformidad con las directrices del Protocolo de Respuesta Rápida.

  El tema de los informes es muy relevante para los valores de OGP descritos en la Declaración de Gobierno Abierto, que incluyen “proteger la capacidad de las organizaciones sin fines de lucro y de la sociedad civil para operar de manera consistente con nuestro compromiso con la libertad de expresión, asociación y opinión”. La participación cívica requiere un entorno propicio para la libertad de expresión y la libertad de asociación, que respete el derecho de todas las personas a tener opiniones sin interferencias, y el derecho a la privacidad. Por lo tanto, las actividades ilegales de vigilancia digital son incompatibles con los principios de gobierno abierto, disminuyen la confianza de la ciudadanía en sus gobiernos y socavan la seguridad de estos grupos y el papel fundamental que desempeñan.

  Reconocemos el compromiso de OGP del gobierno de México para establecer “controles democráticos sobre las intervenciones de comunicaciones privadas”, y alentamos a las partes interesadas del gobierno, incluida la Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional, la Guardia Nacional, el Centro Nacional de Inteligencia y otras agencias de seguridad relevantes, a utilizar el proceso OGP para priorizar su implementación. Reconocemos los esfuerzos realizados hasta el momento por el Secretario Salcedo, Secretario de la Función Pública, para avanzar en el diálogo entre la sociedad civil y los actores estatales para lograr las reformas previstas en el compromiso. Alentamos además al gobierno a fortalecer los controles democráticos para evitar la vigilancia digital injustificada de periodistas, activistas y defensores de los derechos humanos.

  El Comité Directivo de OGP está dispuesto a brindar el apoyo necesario, incluyendo para identificar necesidades y oportunidades de colaboración, y facilitar el diálogo. En caso de que las partes interesadas mexicanas lo consideren fructífero, respetuosamente ofrecemos a dos de nuestros miembros, uno de la sociedad civil y otro del gobierno, para trabajar con los miembros del Núcleo de Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil de la Alianza para el Gobierno Abierto en México y el gobierno mexicano, incluidas las agencias de seguridad relevantes, para continuar avanzando en el diálogo y cocrear un cronograma concreto para la implementación exitosa del compromiso de OGP de México “Controles democráticos en las intervenciones de comunicaciones privadas”.

  Firman: 
  Gobierno de Canadá
  Gobierno de Estonia
  Gobierno de Italia
  Gobierno de Kenia
  Gobierno de Nigeria
  Gobierno del Reino Unido
  Natalia Carfi, Open Data Charter
  Anabel Cruz, ICD Uruguay
  Aidan Eyakuze, Twaweza
  Eka Gigauri, Transparency International Georgia
  Blair Glencorse, Accountability Lab
  Lysa John, CIVICUS
  Lucy McTernan, Scottish Open Government Partnership
  Stephanie Muchai, International Lawyers Project
  Luben Panov, European Center for Not-for-Profit Law
  Doug Rutzen, International Center for Not-for-Profit Law
  Barbara Schreiner, Water Integrity Network

• Demands to release Mexican land rights campaigner on Indigenous Peoples’ Day

  On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, 9 August, global civil society alliance CIVICUS urges the Mexican authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Indigenous land rights campaigner Kenia Hernandez, and to free all Indigenous activists behind bars for their work protecting and promoting human rights.

• En el día de los pueblos indígenas exigimos la liberación de una activista mexicana por el derecho a la tierra

  En el Día de los Pueblos Indígenas, que se celebra este 9 de agosto, la alianza mundial de la sociedad civil CIVICUS insta a las autoridades mexicanas a liberar de forma inmediata e incondicional a la activista indígena por el derecho a la tierra Kenia Hernández, y a liberar a todos los activistas indígenas que se encuentran encarcelados por su labor de protección y defensa de los derechos humanos.

• MEXICO: ‘Alliances, public debate & diversification of voices are indispensable in the struggle to expand rights’

  CIVICUS speaks with Verónica Esparza and Rebeca Lorea, respectively lawyer and researcher and Public Policy Advocacy Coordinator at Information Group on Reproductive Choice (GIRE, Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida), about the significance of recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion rights, and sexual and reproductive rights in Mexico. GIRE is a feminist and human rights organisation that has been active for almost 30 years to ensure that women and others with the capacity to bear children can exercise their reproductive rights.

   From left to right: Verónica Esparza & Rebeca Lorea
  

  What is the situation of sexual and reproductive rights in Mexico?

  Currently, women and other people with the capacity to bear children do not find optimal conditions in Mexico to decide about their reproductive life: there are a high number of pregnant girls and adolescents, affected by a serious context of sexual violence that the state continues to fail to remedy; obstacles to access services such as emergency contraception and abortion in cases of rape; the criminalisation of women and other pregnant people who have abortions; daily obstetric violence during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum; and women who die in childbirth from preventable causes.

  The structural failures of the health system are compounded by the fact that the majority of people in Mexico are employed in the informal sector, which limits their access to social security and therefore to benefits such as maternity leave and childcare. Women, who continue to play the biggest role in household and care work, bear the brunt of this lack of access to services, which particularly affects those who experience multiple discriminations, such as girls and adolescents, Indigenous women and people with disabilities.

  What does GIRE understand reproductive justice to mean, and how do you work to advance it?

  GIRE understands reproductive justice as the set of social, political and economic factors that give women and others who can get pregnant power and self-determination over their reproductive life. To achieve this, it is essential for the state to guarantee these people’s human rights, taking into account the discrimination and structural inequalities that affect their health, rights and control over their lives, and for it to generate optimal conditions for autonomous decision-making.

  It is no longer sufficient to understand reproductive rights in terms of legally defined individual freedoms, while ignoring the barriers that limit the effective access of certain populations to these rights. Reproductive justice is a more inclusive analytical framework because it links reproductive rights to the social, political and economic inequalities that affect people’s ability to access reproductive health services and effectively exercise their reproductive rights.

  GIRE has worked for almost 30 years to defend and promote reproductive justice in Mexico, making visible the normative and structural obstacles that women and others with the capacity to bear children face in fully exercising their human rights, and promoting change through a comprehensive strategy that includes legal support, communications, the demand for comprehensive reparation for violations of reproductive rights, including non-repetition guarantees at both the federal and local levels, and the collection of data to feed into our work.

  Our priority issues are contraception, abortion, obstetric violence, maternal death, assisted reproduction and work-life balance. While we focus on sex and gender discrimination faced by women and girls in Mexico, our quest for reproductive justice recognises that these variables intersect with other forms of discrimination, such as class, age, disability and ethnicity. In addition, we recognise that the discrimination faced by women and others with reproductive capacity affects not only them, but also their communities, and particularly their families.

  What is the significance of the two recent Supreme Court rulings on reproductive rights?

  In the struggle for legal, safe and free abortion in Mexico, the National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) has played a fundamental role. Since 2007 it has issued several rulings recognising access to abortion as a human rights matter.

  In April 2018, the SCJN granted amparos – constitutional protection lawsuits – to two young female rape victims in cases that GIRE had brought forward. The two women had been denied abortions by public health services in Morelos and Oaxaca despite the fact that this is a right for victims of sexual violence. The Court stated that this denial constituted a violation of the women’s human rights and that health authorities are obliged to respond immediately and efficiently to these requests, so as not to allow the consequences of the rape to continue over time. This implies that health authorities cannot implement internal mechanisms or policies that hinder or delay the realisation of this right. With these rulings, the SCJN reaffirmed the legal obligation of health service providers to guarantee access to abortion in cases of rape.

  On 15 May 2019, in another case promoted by GIRE, the SCJN granted an amparo to a woman who had been denied an abortion despite the fact that continuing her pregnancy could cause her serious health complications. With this ruling, the SCJN recognised that the right to health includes access to abortion and ruled on the particular reproductive health service needs of women, highlighting the serious consequences of denial of termination of pregnancy for health reasons.

  On 7 July 2021, the First Chamber of the SCJN ruled on another case joined by GIRE, of a young woman with cerebral palsy and severe limitations on her ability to carry out tasks essential to daily life, which were aggravated by a precarious economic environment. As a result of a seizure, her family had taken her to a hospital in Chiapas, where they were informed that she was 23 weeks pregnant. The pregnancy had been the result of rape when she was 17 years old. A request was made to terminate the pregnancy, but the hospital director rejected the request on the grounds that the 90-day gestation deadline established by the state penal code had passed. The SCJN pointed out that this time limit ignored the nature of sexual aggression and its consequences on women’s health, and reflected a total disregard for the human dignity and autonomy of a woman whose pregnancy, far from the result of a free and consensual decision, was the result of an arbitrary and violent act.

  Finally, in September 2021, the Plenary of the SCJN analysed two pieces of legislation that had a negative impact on the right to choose by women and others with the capacity to become pregnant. First, it analysed an action of unconstitutionality (148/2017) on the criminal legislation of the state of Coahuila, which the Attorney General’s Office had considered to be in violation of women’s human rights for classifying abortion as a crime.

  In a landmark ruling, on 7 September the SCJN unanimously decided that the absolute criminalisation of abortion is unconstitutional; it became the first constitutional court in the region to issue such ruling. The SCJN pointed out that, although the product of pregnancy deserves protection that increases as the pregnancy progresses, this protection cannot disregard the rights of women and other pregnant persons to reproductive freedom, enshrined in article 4 of the Constitution. In other words, it ruled the absolute criminalisation of abortion to be unconstitutional.

  This ruling had several implications. Firstly, the Congress of the state of Coahuila will have to reform its criminal legislation to decriminalise consensual abortion. Secondly, it establishes a precedent, meaning that the central arguments of the ruling must now be applied by all judges in Mexico, both federal and local. From now on, when deciding future cases, they will have to consider as unconstitutional the criminal laws of all the federal entities that criminalise abortion in an absolute manner. In addition, the congresses of the states where voluntary abortion is still restricted and punished now have a set of criteria endorsed by the SCJN to act to decriminalise it.

  In the same week, the Court also analysed actions of unconstitutionality (106 and 107/2018) on the recognition of the ‘right to life from conception’ established in the Constitution of Sinaloa. These actions had been promoted by a legislative minority and the National Human Rights Commission. Unanimously, the SCJN considered that the states do not have the competence to define the origin of human life and the concepts of personhood and right-holding status, which is the exclusive domain of the National Constitution. Furthermore, it considered that personhood cannot be granted to an embryo or foetus and then be used as the basis for the adoption of measures restricting the reproductive autonomy of women and other pregnant persons; this is unconstitutional.

  Based on precedents set by both the Supreme Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the SCJN established that the main efforts of the state to protect life in gestation as a constitutionally valuable good should be directed towards effectively protecting the rights of women and other pregnant persons, guaranteeing the rights of those continuing pregnancies they desire, providing the necessary conditions for dignified births, without obstetric violence, and eradicating the causes that provoke maternal deaths.

  What are the prospects for achieving legal, safe and free abortion in all of Mexico in the near future?

  In Mexico as in the region, there have been several successes over the past decade in the struggle for access to legal, safe and free abortion, although many barriers and challenges persist.

  In our country strong stigma still prevails around abortion, based on the idea of motherhood as women’s inevitable fate. This idea continues to permeate all state institutions and laws, and forms the basis for not only the social but also the legal criminalisation of abortion, which particularly affects women and other pregnant persons living in situations of violence, economic marginalisation and lack of access to reproductive information. It also sends the strong message that the state plays a role in reproductive decisions that should belong to the private sphere.

  In most of Mexico, as in Latin America, voluntary abortion is still considered a crime. For decades, feminist activists, collectives and organisations have pushed for the repeal of these laws, pointing out that consensual abortion is part of the reproductive life of women and others with the capacity to bear children, and that criminalisation does not inhibit its practice but rather means that in certain contexts it will be carried out in an unsafe manner.

  From the 1970s onwards, Mexican feminists have raised the issue of access to abortion as a matter of social justice and public health and as a democratic aspiration. Despite the forcefulness of their arguments, it took 35 years to achieve – and only in Mexico City – the decriminalisation of abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. That victory was replicated more than a decade later in three states: Oaxaca, Hidalgo and Veracruz.

  In the short term, achieving decriminalisation at the national level is complicated because each of the 32 federal entities has its own penal code, so it would still be necessary for each state to reform its penal and health legislation to stop considering abortion as a crime and then recognise it as a health service and provide public institutions with the human and financial resources to ensure access.

  In practice, in recent years both the narrative and the reality of abortion in Mexico have changed due to the increasing prevalence of abortion pills. A few decades ago, clandestine abortion – that is, abortion performed outside the law – was considered to be synonymous with unsafe abortion, but this is no longer the case. Now there are safe abortion support networks, and in contexts of legal restriction, during the first weeks of pregnancy women and others with the capacity to gestate are able to have an abortion with pills at home, without the need to resort to a health institution.

  The victory of the Argentinian women’s movement in December 2020 has shown that alliances, public debate and the diversification of voices are indispensable in the struggle to expand rights. The exponential increase in safe abortion initiatives is an expression of the achievements of the women’s movement’s struggle for human rights and reproductive justice. The Green Wave, the movement whose distinctive colour became synonymous with the struggle for abortion rights in Argentina, has spread in Mexico and although access to legal, safe and free abortion throughout the country is still a long way off, in recent years the issue has started to be discussed in various legislative bodies, even in states with highly restrictive legal frameworks.

  What kind of additional support would Mexican civil society need from its peers in the region and globally to achieve its goals?

  Social support for the causes we feminist human rights organisations defend is indispensable to obtain achievements such as the SCJN ruling of 7 September 2021. The dissemination of our work and the amplification of our voices is also extremely valuable. Local, national and regional networking to share experiences and good practices has also proven to be a tool from which we all benefit. Similarly, connections with other struggles through reflecting about their intersections can strengthen human rights movements.

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with GIRE through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@gire_mx on Twitter. 

• MÉXICO: ‘Buscamos incidir en las políticas públicas del próximo gobierno para contribuir a solucionar los problemas del país’

  English

  En el marco de nuestro informe temático 2018 sobre “Reimaginar la Democracia”, estamos dialogando con líderes, activistas y especialistas de la sociedad civil sobre su labor de promoción de las prácticas y principios democráticos, los desafíos que enfrentan y los logros alcanzados. En esta oportunidad, CIVICUS conversa con Emanuel Johansen Campos, Coordinador de Fondos a la Vista de Alternativas y Capacidades, A.C. una organización de la sociedad civil (OSC) mexicana dedicada a fortalecer las capacidades de incidencia de la sociedad civil organizada, promover la inversión social estratégica y fortalecer la participación ciudadana en los asuntos públicos.

• MEXICO: ‘Civil society is a retaining wall against government malpractice’

  CIVICUS speaks with Carlos G Guerrero Orozco, a Mexican lawyer and co-founder and president of Human Rights and Strategic Litigation-Mexico (DLM Mexico), about a recent victory of Mexican civil society in defence of civic space.

  DLM Mexico is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes human rights and the strengthening of the rule of law in Mexico by providing strategic litigation advice and promoting accountability.

  What constraints does civil society experience in Mexico, and how is it working to preserve civic space?

  Historically, Mexican civil society has been a retaining wall against government malpractice. For playing this role, which the authorities can find uncomfortable, it has been subjected to restrictions, particularly denial of legal recognition of organisations and their functions.

  The state has reacted to the work of civil society by limiting its ability to act as a monitor, watchdog and check on power. In the legal area, it has sought to limit its capacity to undertake legal processes and generate accountability. One way of doing this is by disregarding the legal standing that allows CSOs to initiate appeals for protection and other proceedings to protect rights.

  Under Mexican law, CSOs whose mission is to defend the human rights of groups such as children, Indigenous people, survivors of gender-based violence, victims of corruption or public mismanagement and people deprived of their liberty can claim legal standing by virtue of these groups’ special situation with the legal system.

  DLM Mexico provides advice to CSOs, collectives, citizen groups, citizen participation committees and human rights defenders involved in strategic litigation cases, providing them with tools to strengthen their capacities in court and overcome obstacles they may face in proving their legal standing in the case.

  Another way of constraining civil society is to target CSO authorities and hold them criminally liable for actions taken in the course of their work. This is what happened with a recent reform of the Mexico City Penal Code. The reformed code’s article 256 equated CSO leaders with public officials and specified that public servants – and therefore also CSO leaders – could be liable for corruption offences. By including CSO directors and managers in the definition of ‘public servants’, it extended to them the criminal liability public servants are under.

  A particular concern was about the broad and imprecise wording of the definition of the crime of corruption as the conduct of anyone who ‘performs or fails to perform what the law requires them to perform or refrains from performing what the law forbids, in order to obtain an undue advantage of any nature, including financial, for themselves or for a third party’. This undoubtedly opened the door to arbitrary treatment.

  The publication of the reformed Penal Code brought concern from various quarters, but particularly civil society, which issued a joint communiqué expressing its alarm.

  DLM Mexico filed a request with the Mexico City Human Rights Commission to exercise its power to challenge laws deemed unconstitutional. Days later, the Human Rights Commission filed an action of unconstitutionality before the Mexican Supreme Court.

  How was the case resolved, and what do you think its impact will be?

  This month the Supreme Court discussed and resolved the case, declaring article 256 unconstitutional and void.

  The Court established that, according to article 108 of the Constitution, it is not permissible to extend the definition of public servant to people who do not hold a position within the structure of the state. It also considered that the classification of CSO directors and managers as public officials was potentially prejudicial to their rights and freedoms because it created undue criminal consequences for private individuals. It clarified that the fact they receive public funds does not justify extending the penalties applicable to public servants to private individuals who manage CSOs.

  This decision safeguards the rights of CSO leaders and ensures they can continue their work without fear of unfair criminal repercussions.

  Although the case focused on Mexico City’s legislation, the ruling put a brake on other states’ intentions to include in their legislation sanctions against CSO staff for their activities, used to silence the voices of civil society. This is particularly relevant in a country where the judiciary is neither robust nor independent.

  The Court’s decision is testament to the power of civil society advocacy and the importance of protecting civic space. It is a reminder of our collective ability to challenge and overturn laws that threaten our democratic freedoms.

  What other issues are on civil society’s agenda when it comes to the rule of law and democratic freedoms?

  Unfortunately, under the current administration there have been several issues that both civil society and the private sector have had to address. The president and members of his party use aggressive discourse towards civil society that is openly restrictive of civic space and hostile to judicial independence and autonomous bodies. The government has restricted access to public information, de-emphasised the protection of personal data, undermined the National Anti-Corruption System and downplayed Mexico’s crisis of enforced disappearances at the hands of organised crime.

  DLM Mexico’s agenda has focused on strengthening the National Anti-Corruption System by addressing the problem of underreporting of corruption, calling for registration and transparency of beneficial ownership of companies and training officials to better investigate acts of corruption in civil and administrative matters.

  Civil society’s reaction to defend against institutional erosion and the deterioration of the separation of powers was recently seen on the streets when many people mobilised in Mexico City and other cities across the country in the ‘March for Democracy’. A few weeks before the start of the June presidential election campaign, people mobilised against the government’s attacks on the National Electoral Institute, in defence of the independence of the judiciary and autonomous bodies and against the president’s undue influence on the electoral competition and his polarising attitudes.

  Although there was no shortage of opposition politicians who tried to exploit it for political gain, the mobilisation was basically a defensive reaction by civil society to government abuses. Before marching, protesters presented a list of demands. However, far from providing any response, the government has hardened its positions even further.

  Fortunately, Mexico still has strong institutions, as well as strong private and social sectors that take an interest in public issues. This tempers the risks to our democracy regardless of which party’s candidate wins the presidential election.

  ---

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with DLM Mexico through itswebsite and follow@DLM_Mx on Twitter and@dlmx on LinkedIn.

• MEXICO: ‘Human rights defenders constantly put their freedom and their lives at risk’

  CIVICUS speaks with Antonio Lara Duque, a human rights lawyer with the Zeferino Ladrillero Human Rights Centre (CDHZL), about the situation of Indigenous rights defenders in Mexico, and specifically about the situation of Kenia Hernández, a criminalised and unjustly imprisoned woman Indigenous leader.

  CDHZL is a civil society organisation in the state of Mexico that accompanies the struggles of Indigenous communities, native peoples and collectives who are seeking a dignified life by claiming and exercising their human rights.

  Who is Kenia Hernández, and why is she detained?

  Kenia is an Indigenous Amuzga young woman. She is 32 years old. She is the coordinator of the Zapata Vive Libertarian Collective, which promotes peaceful resistance against the neoliberal development model. She is a lawyer by training, a self-identified feminist and is dedicated to defending human rights, and specifically to defending people imprisoned for political reasons, looking for missing people with the goal of finding them alive and giving legal support to female victims of violence.

  Kenia was arrested on 18 October 2020 under accusations of attacks on a public thoroughfare and robbery with violence. She was charged with serious crimes to ensure she could be kept in the most terrible maximum-security prison for women in all of Mexico.

  On 15 March 2022 the trial court in Ecatepec, in the state of Mexico, will determine whether she is guilty or innocent in one of the five criminal cases against her. All these cases were fabricated with the sole purpose of isolating her and preventing her from continuing mobilising, as well as to send a signal of exemplary punishment to all those people she managed to bring together into a nationwide movement that questioned the private management of highways.

  Is Kenia’s case part of a broader trend of criminalisation of Indigenous defenders in Mexico?

  Indeed, Kenia’s case reveals that the Mexican state has a clear policy of a ‘pedagogy of punishment’, for two reasons.

  First, it sends a signal to the people who protest, and particularly to those who protest against the privatisation of highways, that they should no longer resort to public demonstrations as a form of social mobilisation, because if they do, they will bring upon themselves an unjust and cruel imprisonment such as the one experienced by Kenia.

  Second, Mexican state officials are trying to subdue and bend the will of Kenia, to punish her for protesting, but also to weaken her convictions, to subdue the energy and strength she puts into protest, to let her know who is in charge and who must obey. As she has not submitted to them, they continue to keep her in prison. They know that if she is released she will go back to her activism.

  Both situations are seriously worrying, because they seek to reverse decades of social struggles and opening of democratic spaces.

  What is civil society, and specifically CDHZL, doing to secure her release?

  CDHZL is dedicated to disseminating, promoting and defending the human rights of peoples, organisations and human rights defenders. We defend the environment, land and territory, the human right to water and Indigenous culture. And we focus particularly on the protection of human rights defenders, since in Mexico these are people who constantly put their freedom and their lives at risk.

  Part of our work consists in providing legal defence to human rights defenders who are unjustly criminalised and imprisoned for the peaceful defence of their rights. In its 10 years of existence, CDHZL has helped around 250 people regain their freedom.

  We hope that soon Kenia will be another of them. Mexican civil society has given a lot of visibility to her case, putting her criminalisation on the public agenda and involving key people, in particular Mexican senators, to convince relevant decision-makers to stop criminalising Kenia. We have also tried to bring her case to the international arena, pointing out the punitive policy of the Mexican federal government.

  Through its large team of lawyers, CDHZL has sustained a legal defence in the five legal processes against Kenia, with all that they entail: dozens of hearings, challenges and trials of guarantees, some of which we won. But clearly this is much more than a legal struggle, as high-ranking officials are determined to keep Kenia in prison at all costs.

  Has there been any improvement in the situation of Indigenous defenders under the current leftist government?

  We expected improvements in the situation of Indigenous peoples and human rights defenders and collective rights more generally, but unfortunately there continues to be a generalised disdain among the federal government, regardless of its leftist leanings.

  The government has been unable or unwilling to tune in to the most heartfelt demands of Indigenous peoples. Aggressions against human rights defenders have continued, including disappearances, murders and imprisonments. When it comes to imprisonment, Kenia’s case is one of the most shocking examples of the misuse of the criminal justice system against a human rights defender under a government that claims to be the architect of a ‘fourth transformation’ – a process of profound change supposedly comparable to those of independence (1810-1821), reform (1858-1861) and revolution (1910-1917).

  What kind of regional and international support does Mexican civil society need in its struggle for human rights and civic space?

  Undoubtedly, international observation, very poorly accepted by the current government, would help recover democratic spaces for social protest and the free expression of ideas.

  Appeals to the Mexican government can help sensitise the authorities to the importance of respecting human rights and those who defend them beyond political party affiliations.

  International mediation and good offices will undoubtedly be a key tool to strengthen civil society in the defence of human rights, particularly in processes where the life and freedom of human rights defenders and Indigenous peoples’ rights are at stake.

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with CDHZL through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow @cdhzloficial on Twitter.

   

• MÉXICO: ‘Las violencias contra las mujeres son una pandemia histórica’

  CIVICUS conversa conWendy Figueroa, directora de la Red Nacional de Refugios, una organización de la sociedad civil (OSC) mexicana con más de 20 años de labor ininterrumpida. La Red incluye 69 espacios de prevención, atención y protección de víctimas de violencia familiar y de género en todo el país. Trabaja con un enfoque multidisciplinario e intersectorial, con perspectiva de género, derechos humanos y multiculturalidad. Se enfoca en la incidencia en política pública, la visibilización de la problemática mediante campañas y presencia en los medios de comunicación y la provisión de atención integral especializada y gratuita para las mujeres y sus hijos e hijas víctimas de violencia familiar y de género.

  

  ¿Cómo ha evolucionado la violencia de género durante la pandemia del COVID-19?

  En México las violencias contra las mujeres son una pandemia histórica. No nacieron con el COVID-19; lo que hizo la pandemia fue evidenciar y profundizar la situación de violencia contra las mujeres durante el confinamiento. Las medidas del “quédate en casa”, adoptadas para mitigar el COVID-19, han dejado a cientos de mujeres en una situación de mayor riesgo y vulnerabilidad. La violencia de género también se ha magnificado durante la pandemia justamente porque en el marco del confinamiento las mujeres experimentaron una sobrecarga en materia de cuidados, labores domésticas y asunción de responsabilidades adicionales para optimizar los recursos disponibles, todo ello bajo la presión del agresor que se encuentra encerrado con ellas.

  ¿Cómo ha respondido la Red Nacional?

  Hemos reforzado las acciones e intervenciones que desarrollamos desde hace muchos años. Lo que caracteriza al trabajo de la Red Nacional de Refugios es que, si bien nuestra labor ha sido constante, nuestros abordajes para prevenir, atender y eliminar las violencias contra las mujeres, niños y niñas se han ido adaptando y enriqueciendo con el tiempo. Estos enfoques se actualizan según las necesidades de mujeres, niños y niñas. De modo que nuestras respuestas durante el período de confinamiento se enriquecieron y fortalecieron en varios sentidos. 

  En primer lugar, la Red tiene una línea de atención telefónica que opera las 24 horas del día todo el año, y también da intervención a través de las redes sociales. Estas han seguido fortaleciendo, aumentando el número de profesionales que brindan atención en estos dos espacios de comunicación con las mujeres. También implementamos un número de WhatsApp ya que hemos visto que, a mayor tiempo de confinamiento, disminuyen las posibilidades de las mujeres que experimentan violencias de contactarse con el exterior. Los mensajes de texto y las redes sociales han sido un vehículo sumamente importante para que las mujeres puedan mandarnos un mensaje en el momento en que encuentren la oportunidad.

  En muchos casos, estos mensajes han derivado en rescates. En el marco del confinamiento, las mujeres han aprovechado para salir la primera oportunidad en que el agresor no estuviera en casa, de modo que los rescates se han incrementado notablemente. En tan sólo dos meses hicimos 19 rescates, en comparación con los mismos meses de 2019, cuando hicimos alrededor de un rescate por mes. Para lograrlo hemos tenido que actuar creativamente y establecimos alianzas con algunas empresas privadas, tales como Avon y Uber, para la logística y los traslados.

  En segundo lugar, nuestras campañas de información, sensibilización y prevención han apuntado a tres momentos que atraviesan las mujeres en situación de violencia, de modo de proporcionar algunas estrategias de qué hacer antes, durante y después del evento de violencia. También compartimos estrategias para disminuir las situaciones de riesgo con los niños y las niñas dentro del hogar y establecer planes de seguridad. Hemos hecho una campaña incluyente y multicultural, con mensajes en lengua de señas para mujeres sordas y mensajes en las lenguas náhuatl, zapoteca y maya para mujeres indígenas.

  Dado que el COVID-19 profundiza y visibiliza discriminaciones y desigualdades preexistentes y que las mujeres están en una situación de mayor vulnerabilidad, también hemos preparado material para la sociedad en general. Fomentamos en la ciudadanía la formación de redes de apoyo solidarias que permitan visibilizar las violencias contra mujeres, niños y niñas, de modo que la gente pueda denunciar situaciones de violencia y participar de la construcción de una cultura de tolerancia cero.

  Tercero, hemos desarrollado la campaña “Confinamiento sin violencia”, también dirigida al gobierno, subrayando la necesidad y la urgencia de políticas públicas transversales y acompañadas de recursos presupuestarios, para atender las secuelas e impactos de la pandemia en las mujeres, con un enfoque de género, derechos humanos y multiculturalidad. Cuando se levante la cuarentena, estas políticas deben garantizar el acceso a la justicia, a los servicios de salud y a la compensación económica, entre otros derechos. 

  Cuarto, hemos realizado acciones puntuales dentro de los espacios de refugio, casas de emergencia, casas de transición y centros externos que integran la Red mediante la implementación de protocolos para mitigar el riesgo del contagio del COVID-19. Hemos aplicado la creatividad al uso de diversas plataformas digitales para continuar con el proceso integral de las mujeres que son atendidas en nuestros servicios. Hemos escalonado los horarios dentro de los refugios e implementado cuartos de cuarentena para continuar permitiendo el acceso de las mujeres, niños y niñas que lo requieren sin obstáculo o discriminación a causa del coronavirus, ya que para nosotras es sumamente importante poner a los derechos humanos en el centro de nuestras acciones.

  Estamos buscando financiamiento internacional y de empresas privadas para poder fortalecer la red de casas de emergencia y casas de transición. Las casas de emergencia son un paso previo al refugio y actualmente los estamos usando para mitigar el contagio del COVID-19 en los refugios: así, en vez de durar tres días, las estadías en casas de emergencia ahora duran 14 días, que es el tiempo de la cuarentena. Las casas de transición, por su parte, son sumamente importantes son el espacio disponible para las mujeres que salen del refugio y no cuentan con una vivienda o redes de apoyo sólidas. En esto espacios de transición ponen en marcha el proyecto que desarrollaron en el refugio y de a poco van transitando hacia la independencia. A causa de los impactos económicos del COVID-19, sin embargo, los acuerdos de empleo que teníamos para estas mujeres han sido cancelados. Pero las casas de transición permiten a las mujeres continuar con su proceso y evitan la frustración y la revictimización.

  ¿Han enfrentado restricciones adicionales de la libertad para organizarse, expresarse y movilizarse durante la pandemia?

  En términos generales, por supuesto que ha habido una limitación de movilidad a raíz de la campaña del “Quédate en casa”. En respuesta a ello, hemos tramitado buena parte de la atención por vía telefónica y a través de las redes sociales. Pero no hemos dejado de lado la atención presencial: hay algunas ciudades donde no hay ninguna alternativa disponible al centro de atención externa de la OSC local que integra la Red Nacional, y en esos casos hemos seguido operando presencialmente, tomando todos los recaudos para disminuir el riesgo de contagio. También seguimos operando y dando atención presencial, en los casos en que resulta necesario, en todos los espacios de protección: casas de emergencia, refugios y casas de transición. Y seguimos movilizándonos cuando el caso lo requiere.

  El derecho de reunión está limitado, pero no está prohibido que ante feminicidios y otras violaciones de derechos realicemos acciones conforme a nuestro modelo y en función de nuestros principios rectores, que son los derechos humanos y la vida de las mujeres. Hemos implementado estrategias creativas y nos hemos organizado para seguir con las indicaciones de limitar la movilidad y no estar afuera de casa cuando esto sea posible, pero manteniendo en el centro de nuestras acciones las necesidades de las familias que atendemos.

  ¿Cómo se ha adaptado el movimiento feminista al pasar de las protestas masivas al aislamiento social?

  Hemos transformado nuestras formas de protestar, nuestras formas de alzar las voces, de unirnos desde la sororidad en busca de justicia, igualdad sustantiva y respeto de todos los derechos para todas las mujeres, niñas y niños. Hemos utilizado las plataformas digitales y la tecnología para seguir comunicándonos, enredándonos, proponiendo acciones. Los movimientos feministas no se quedaron en silencio cuando llegó el COVID-19: a través de los medios y plataformas digitales hemos realizado conversatorios, webinarios, reuniones de acompañamiento y de sororidad, e incluso trueques feministas para contribuir a la economía de las compañeras y ofrecer nuestros servicios profesionales como psicólogas, médicas o abogadas en las redes sociales.

  También estamos haciendo pronunciamientos. Recientemente desde la Red Nacional de Refugios, junto con otros 42 grupos feministas, hicimos un video que acompaña a una carta con más de 6.000 firmas para exigir al Estado mexicano y a las 32 entidades federativas que implementen acciones urgentes y prioritarias para garantizar la vida y la seguridad de todas las mujeres, niñas y niños en nuestro país. Frente a la minimización del fenómeno de la violencia contra las mujeres, lanzamos la campaña “Nosotras tenemos otros datos”, que ha tenido mucha repercusión. También nos hemos hecho eco de las voces de las mujeres víctimas de violencia que se acercan a nosotras. De modo que estamos bien presentes y lo seguiremos estando.

  ¿Qué cosas deben cambiar después de la pandemia, y cómo podemos trabajar juntos para producir ese cambio?

  La pandemia del COVID-19 vino a evidenciar los problemas de fondo de nuestro país: el acceso sumamente inequitativo a la salud, la educación, la información, la justicia y la restitución de derechos. Desde mi percepción, la post-pandemia también puede ser una gran oportunidad para una reingeniería de nuestro sistema de atención, protección y de seguridad integral para garantizar que todas las personas tengan garantías legales y de hecho para gozar de un bienestar integral y de una vida libre de violencia, y en particular los sectores con mayor vulnerabilidad, entre los que se cuentan las mujeres, niñas y niños, las personas mayores, las personas migrantes y las personas con discapacidad. 

  Necesitamos políticas de Estado que garanticen el acceso igualitario de todas las personas a todos los derechos. Estas políticas de Estado deben tener asignado un presupuesto específico. Debe tratarse de políticas de Estado porque el problema es histórico, excede al gobierno de turno, y las políticas de los gobiernos son desmanteladas cada vez que cambia el gobierno, aún en el caso de acciones afirmativas que estaban dando resultado. Por eso es fundamental transitar a una política de Estado, con presupuesto garantizado y una actuación intersectorial desde un enfoque de género, derechos humanos y multiculturalidad para que ninguna persona se quede fuera. Esta política debe competer tanto al gobierno federal como a las 32 entidades federativas y a la sociedad misma, y por supuesto a las OSC, para transitar hacia una sociedad donde las violencias machistas no se justifiquen y naturalicen, como lamentablemente sigue sucediendo hoy en día. 

  Todas las personas en todos los sectores tenemos que trabajar para lograr un cambio cultural, empezando por nosotras mismas para identificar nuestros propios actos discriminatorios y acciones violentas, así como el modo en que reproducimos mandatos sociales y naturalizamos violencias. Por eso es que creo que el cambio tiene que ser en todos los niveles para que podamos hablar de una verdadera transformación.

  ¿Qué apoyo necesita la Red Nacional de Refugios de la comunidad internacional?

  Necesitamos que la comunidad internacional conozca los retrocesos que están sucediendo en nuestro país en el tema derechos humanos. Es importante que la información llegue a los organismos internacionales porque México ha firmado y ratificado la Convención de Belém do Pará (Convención Interamericana para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar la Violencia contra la Mujer), la Convención sobre la Eliminación de toda forma de Discriminación contra la Mujer (CEDAW) y la Plataforma de Acción de Beijing, y estamos en incumpliendo estas convenciones. El Estado mexicano ya ha recibido muchas recomendaciones internacionales en eses sentido, y no las está abordando con acciones concretas. 

  Por el contrario, el gobierno muchas veces se hace cómplice de las violencias. Cuando ignoran e incluso niegan que las mujeres experimenten violencia en sus casas y que ésta se haya incrementado durante el confinamiento, las autoridades no hacen otra cosa que revictimizar a las víctimas. Asimismo, la política de austeridad está afectando a programas y comunidades. Desde 2019 los refugios han estado en una constante y lamentable lucha para defender su presupuesto, mostrando los beneficios y el impacto que generan en las familias mexicanas. De modo que también necesitamos apoyo bajo la forma de donativos para fortalecer nuestra red nacional y establecer más casas de emergencia y casas de transición, las cuales desempeñan un rol sumamente importante a la hora de cerrar el ciclo de la violencia y restituir los derechos humanos y el estatus de ciudadanía a las mujeres violentadas.

  El espacio cívico en México es clasificado como “represivo” por elCIVICUS Monitor.
  Contáctese con la Red Nacional de Refugios a través de susitio web o su perfil deFacebook, y siga a@RNRoficial en Twitter.

• MEXICO: ‘Legal change on LGBTQI+ rights does not bring instant social change’

  CIVICUS speaks with Erika Venadero about the recent extension of same-sex marriage rights to all of Mexico’s states and the ongoing campaign to realise LGBTQI+ rights in Mexico. Erika is a sexual diversity human rights activist in the state of Jalisco and a member of the National Network of Diverse Youth (RNJD), a coalition of LGBTQI+ youth rights groups from across Mexico.

  What work does RNJD do?

  RNJD is a space that was born out of the 2019 Consultative Youth Parliament, where a Youth Law was discussed.

  As young people we had no legal recognition. We had never been considered as subjects of rights. The people in charge of making the laws and dictating the rules according to which we should lead our lives are adults, even quite old adults, and mostly men. Not surprisingly, they do not understand and prioritise our interests and needs, and instead legislate for adults, and especially for adult men. Hence the need to demand that we be recognised as young people and, above all, as diverse young people.

  Only recently has our network become formalised as a civil association. We are only three years old. Nevertheless, we have engaged in the recent process to legalise same-sex marriage.

  While most of us don’t wish to enter into a civil union, proving our relationship to a public official with signatures and other formalities, we know there are people who wish to have this experience, and exclusion from this right is accompanied by many other forms of exclusions Even if we don’t want this, or don’t want it at this point in our lives, we know that other LGBTQI+ people do, and that the denial of this right is part of what makes LGBTQI+ people second-class citizens.

  What was the process leading to the legalisation of same-sex marriage like, and what role did civil society play in it?

  The struggle for the recognition of the symbolic union between two people who love each other – simply two people, as the current law puts it, without any gender markers – began many years ago, and progressed thanks to the work of individuals and groups who pushed to extend this right to all people.

  LGBTQI+ people are treated as second-class citizens simply because we do not comply with socially established norms that privilege heterosexual relationships. Laws are written and implemented, and all political and social spaces are created, occupied and run by heterosexual people. So this struggle began with a reflection about our lack of representation and visibility in various spaces: personal, political, social and work-related, among others. We have the right to live a full life, but the hegemonic practices that are imposed on us prevent us from living a free life due to the simple fact that we are who we are and love who we love.

  The legalisation of equal marriage in Mexico has been a victory for civil society, and specifically for LGBTQI+ collectives and their allies working with LGBTQI+ people day in and day out. Through their daily work on the streets and in every space, they shifted opinions and reached agreements for the recognition of our rights to be taken forward to the political level of decision making.

  That is why RNJD has been present throughout the process, from the early drafts of the law to parliamentary debates and votes. These are debates that can go on for a long time. As they deal with ‘sensitive’ issues, some political sectors will try to postpone votes indefinitely in the hope that the issue will fade into oblivion. That is why it was important for RNJD to stand firm to demand these bills be discussed and voted on. We will continue to stand firm for the laws to be implemented.

  Have you faced anti-rights campaigns or any other form of backlash?

  Every time LGBTQI+-related news comes out, the response is an avalanche of diversophobic comments. Our very nature makes some people uncomfortable. All our lives we have been forced to live under heterosexual norms, so we have faced anti-rights expressions for as long as we can remember.

  During the recent process to change the law we have faced an intense anti-rights campaign. Not only do anti-rights groups insult and attack us, they also denounce our publications on social media and have sometimes managed to have them removed. We activists suffer constant personal attacks and our social media accounts are frequently blocked. In my case, for instance, an anti-rights group once attacked me so much and reported my profile so many times that Facebook took it down. It’s really hard to understand what it is that bothers them so much.

  Lots of people express hatred towards us. Many keep close watch of everything we do and every single thing we upload, both on the RNJD page and on our personal accounts.

  Clearly people already know who we are and what we do. The network is extremely active and visible in social, political and cultural spheres. We have had very tense internal discussions about the double-edge sword of visibility. Our work has made us visible to both those who hate us and those who are willing to get information, learn about our work, understand what we are about and eventually support us. I prefer to focus on those who come to us for information rather than those who throw their hatred at us.

  To confront anti-rights movements and hate speech, our strategy is to generate alternative narratives. We even use humour to disarm their arguments. For instance, we suggest that they love the traditional heterosexual family so much that they feel like having two of those – a reference to infidelities and what is colloquially known in Mexico as the ‘big house’ and the ‘small house’. These response mechanisms have helped us provoke dialogue.

  What are the next steps after the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Jalisco?

  The idea that equal marriage is now legal in all Mexican states and LGBTQI+ people can marry just about everywhere is simply not true.

  Although the bill has been voted into law in Jalisco, the civil registry manual continues to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As long as local legislators do not change this, many civil registry officials will continue to resort to this text to deny LGBTQI+ people access to equal marriage.

  In addition, several Mexican states have passed and implemented equal marriage laws years ago, despite which many obstacles still remain. Legal change does not bring instant social change. Hence the importance of continuing to focus on cultural change. Laws can change very quickly, and they do change overnight, but culture does not, and we must not forget that those who manage civil registries are people who have been socialised in a certain culture. Even if they are public servants and must apply the rules emanating from the state, they may also have particular religious or moral convictions. Changing these takes time. The process of cultural change is extremely slow, but we need it to happen to unlock all the locks.

  What other challenges do LGBTQI+ people face in Mexico, and what else needs to change?

  LGBTQI+ people in Mexico face many, many challenges, largely as a product of overlapping vulnerabilities and inequalities. For example, the same issues that affect women in general also affect LGBTQI+ women: the fact that we are lesbian, bisexual or transgender does not mean that we are not women and cannot become pregnant. But in most of Mexico it is still not legal to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy, despite what the Supreme Court has said about it.

  Another huge problem in Mexico is that of enforced disappearances. Jalisco, my state, is one of the states with the highest numbers of disappeared people – and LGBTQI+ people are among the disappeared.

  Another pending issue is the Care Act, currently blocked in Congress. LGBTQI+ people need safe spaces to inhabit, grow up and grow old. All our research, all our statistics indicate that LGBTQI+ people in Mexico are alone and largely unsupported.

  A specific problem for LGBTQI+ people is so-called ‘conversion therapies’. These consist of inhumane and degrading acts aimed at suppressing diverse sexual orientation, that is, aimed at eliminating our true selves. I have personally experienced ‘corrective rape’. My aggressors, people who claimed to be followers of the word of God, told me that they were ‘making me a woman’.

  Centres offering ‘conversion therapy’ operate throughout Mexico and do so legally. Legislation is currently being discussed at the national level to put an end to these therapies, but in the meantime these places continue to operate. In Jalisco, the centres that carry out these practices only need to register and pay a monthly fee. A simple formality and payment enables them to commit countless atrocities.

  Another pending issue is that of the recognition of gender identity, especially regarding children. Several states have laws granting trans people legal recognition of their self-perceived identity, but many more have not yet started moving in that direction.

  As much as we continue to fight and mobilise, we may not see all these changes materialise, in which case we will have done it for the generations coming after us. We are creating spaces for the future in the same way that others did for us since the 1980s. We will make sure that things keep moving forward.

  ---

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the National Network of Diverse Youth through itsFacebook page and follow@RNJF20 and@kika_venadero on Twitter.

• MEXICO: ‘The criminalisation of human rights defenders threatens the whole collective in order to deactivate it’

  CIVICUS speaks with members of the Collective for the Freedom of Kenia Hernández about the criminalisation of activism in Mexico.

  Kenia Hernández is an Amuzga Indigenous woman, defender of Indigenous peoples’ rights to land and territory. She coordinates the Zapata Lives Libertarian Collective, which promotes peaceful resistance to the extractivist development model imposed by the Mexican state. There are currently nine open legal cases against Kenia on fabricated charges linked to her activism, and she has been unjustly imprisoned since October 2020. She is part of the CIVICUSStand as My Witness campaign seeking her release.

  What’s the situation of Kenia Hernandez and the struggle for her release?

  Kenia’s work has always focused on denouncing and mobilising against serious human rights violations. Now she is experiencing firsthand the criminalisation of human rights and Indigenous rights activism that so many other activists in Mexico have gone through. The system seeks to keep her behind bars for as long as possible to prevent her continuing to do her work, and to this end prolongs the deprivation of her liberty by repeatedly opening new criminal cases against her.

  The campaign for Kenia’s release has two components: a legal struggle, led by a legal team that monitors the proceedings against her, and a political struggle, focused on raising the profile of her case. It is important that the whole country knows what is happening and that people continue to talk about Kenia’s case, and the injustice and impunity she is suffering. We cannot look the other way because her reality is the reality of many other criminalised activists.

  How many cases similar to Kenia’s do you estimate there are today?

  Kenia’s case is part of a pattern of criminalisation aimed at hindering the work of those defending human rights and the rights of Indigenous peoples in Mexico. The fact that Kenia is an Indigenous woman, a mother, a lawyer and a human rights defender is no coincidence: it is the very reason for her imprisonment.

  Other activists have suffered worse fates than prosecution and jail: they have been victims of assassinations, attempts on their lives and enforced disappearances.

  It is difficult to estimate how many criminalised activists and political prisoners there are in Mexico because there is no official body tracking them exhaustively. But it is a reality that we corroborate constantly. The main targets of this persecution are racialised activists, usually in a situation of poverty and vulnerability, who fight for a cause the government finds inconvenient. What those causes are depends on the context; each state is different. But they all fall victim to the same criminal system and are equally subjected to the violation of their rights and exposed to injustice and impunity.

  To what extent has Kenia’s criminalisation succeeded in silencing demands?

  Whenever a situation of criminalisation occurs, the group of activists accompanying or supporting the criminalised defender also fears for their own freedom. After all, what the criminalisation of defenders seeks to do is threaten the whole collective in order to deactivate it.

  Perhaps there was a moment when the group supporting Kenia was afraid to raise its voice. The mere fact of working to make Kenia’s situation visible and make demands on her behalf puts us all in a situation of vulnerability. But we have overcome this fear and have continued to put forward our demands and make visible the situation of this particular criminalised defender and the perverse functioning of a criminal justice system that is profoundly racist and classist.

  What are your demands to the Mexican state?

  President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, in his ‘Mañanera’ – a daily morning meeting with media – on 30 December 2022, instructed the Secretary for Security and Citizen Protection, Rosa Isela Rodríguez, to follow up on the case of Kenia Hernandez, which was our request. We demand that Ms Rodríguez meet jointly with Kenia’s legal team and with Federal Roads and Bridges (CAPUFE) so that they can have a dialogue and reach an agreement for her prompt release with reparations. CAPUFE is the federal agency that brought charges against Kenia in eight federal criminal cases for the alleged crime of attacks on general communication routes.

  In view of the appeal made by United Nations rapporteurs and the fact that Kenia’s case was highlighted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as an example of the criminalisation of protest in Mexico, we hope that all the documentation and support gathered will be taken into account and will result in Kenia’s prompt release, and the recognition that she has been criminalised for her work as a defender of human rights and Indigenous peoples.

  ---

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the Collective for the Freedom of Kenia Hernández through itsFacebook page and follow@ParaKenia on Twitter andlibertad_para_kenia on Instagram.

• MEXICO: ‘The decriminalisation of abortion is a huge collective achievement for the feminist movement’

  CIVICUS speaks with Alba Adriana Jiménez Patlán, director of the Network for Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Mexico (ddeser), about the historic ruling of the Mexican Supreme Court decriminalising abortion at the federal level.

  Ddeser is a citizen network of women and young activists that disseminates information and defends, demands and monitors respect for sexual and reproductive rights in Mexico.

  What is the current state of abortion rights in Mexico?

  There are many shades of grey. To date, voluntary termination of pregnancy up to the 12th week of gestation, without the need to provide reasons, is legal in 12 of Mexico's 32 states. It is therefore necessary both to continue to push for decriminalisation in the 20 remaining states and to enable access to abortion services throughout Mexico. To really work for women, laws have to be implemented. Decriminalisation is a great first step, but it is still important to act to counter the denial of effective access to services.

  What impact will the recent Supreme Court ruling have?

  The ruling issued by the Supreme Court on 30 August, in response to an amparo appeal – a writ for protection of rights – filed by a civil society organisation (CSO), is very important. In the past, when cases like this came before the Court, we were always silenced with the excuse that states are sovereign to make decisions on these issues. But the Supreme Court has changed a lot in the last decade, and the decriminalisation of abortion through the courts in the state of Coahuila, and then in Aguascalientes, opened the way for the decriminalisation of abortion at the federal level.

  As a result of this ruling, the women who have abortions and those who accompany them will no longer be criminalised throughout Mexico. Accompaniment is central to the work of civil society, and includes the provision of information, as well as reviewing and monitoring access to abortion-related services.

  While the Supreme Court ruling does not resolve the issue of access to abortion services, which is often denied in states where abortion had already been decriminalised, it serves as a reminder that both the Mexican Institute of Social Security and the Institute of Security and Social Services for State Workers must provide the service without restrictions. Those of us who do accompaniment work have an essential role to play in verifying that when women turn to public health institutions they are actually taken care of.

  Do you view this court ruling as a victory for the Mexican women's movement?

  The decriminalisation of abortion is a huge collective achievement for the Mexican feminist movement, which operates in a highly networked way in multiple areas and ranges from those of us who provide information and create spaces for debate to the lawyers who draft bills in favour of women's rights.

  But we must remember that legal, free and safe abortion is not a recent demand. It did not begin with the green tide, the regional movement that started in Argentina and gained momentum in the mid-2010s. It is an issue that the feminist movement has been pushing for since at least the 1970s, when feminists in academia and trade unions advocated for the decriminalisation of abortion and teachers and nurses demanded comprehensive sex education for public school students. Numerous activists and organisations preceded us in this struggle and paved the way for us to finally achieve the goal of free, safe and legal abortion.

  Advocacy and community work have made the difference in this struggle. As an organisation we have contributed by providing information on the grounds for legal abortion and linking institutions so that other specialised organisations can train doctors and nurses to ensure the service is provided.

  How does your organisation work to promote abortion rights?

  We are present in 12 states across Mexico, and we are mainly involved in information distribution and networking. We provide information to women in parks, schools, streets and door-to-door, in Indigenous communities, rural areas and urban peripheries. We let women know that abortion exists and is an option. We also promote women's networks across the country to facilitate access to safe medication abortion.

  We network with healthcare providers and other CSOs, such as Ipas and the Public Policy Advocacy Coordinator at Information Group on Reproductive Choice, to increase the impact of our work for Mexican women's rights.

  Are you experiencing anti-rights backlash?

  The situation varies from state to state. One state we need to pay special attention to is Aguascalientes, a highly conservative state that has a very conservative governor who may try to deny access to services.

  Efforts by conservative forces to limit abortion rights and comprehensive sex education could result in regression. We must understand that the personal really is political, and that the enjoyment of the basic right to make decisions about our own bodies and lives depends on our political choices. Many people, especially young people, think that politics is not important, but the decision on whether to leave government offices and legislative seats in the hands of the far right has huge impacts on all aspects of our lives.

  How do you connect with women's movements in other countries in the region?

  Our movement is part of a broader movement that encompasses all of Latin America and the Caribbean. The green tide has been an inspiration for the whole region, and has reached the USA. The tide has already become a tsunami that won’t stop, and we feel deeply identified with it.

  This regional dimension also involves a lot of work, because we do everything in our power to contribute to progress in other countries in the region. For example, decriminalisation initiatives have been submitted in Brazil and there we have been signing letters, sending videos and making statements. In Argentina we did the same things: some of us travelled there to talk to legislators about the Mexican reality regarding abortion. One of our major points of reference was and still is Colombia. Sixteen years ago we went to Colombia to see how abortion services were provided so they could be replicated in Mexico City.

  We are deeply engaged with what is happening with our colleagues in Central America, where abortion is extremely criminalised. We worked intensely to achieve the decriminalisation of abortion and effective access to this right in Mexico and across the region.

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with ddser through its website.

• MEXICO: ‘The problem of insecurity is paramount, but it cannot be solved with militarisation’

  CIVICUS speaks about the militarisation of security in Mexico and its implications for civil society with Sofía de Robina, a lawyer with Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín pro Juárez-Centro Prodh.

  Centro Prodh is a Mexican civil society organisation (CSO) founded in 1988 by the Society of Jesus with the aim of defending victims of serious human rights violations and promoting structural changes to allow all people in Mexico to enjoy and exercise the full range of their human rights equally. Its work focuses specifically on Indigenous peoples and groups, women, migrants and victims of repression.

  

  What trends do you see in the militarisation of public security in Mexico?

  At Centro Prodh we have seen that starting in 2006, with the deployment of the armed forces in the fight against drug trafficking, there has been an increased focus on the use of force by elements of the military sector instead of on strengthening the civilian police with a focus on prevention and prioritising access to justice and the fight against the corruption of authorities linked to organised crime. Consequently, rather than decreasing, violence increased, as did human rights violations.

  The presence of the army and its responsibility for human rights violations dates a long way back – it was involved in the so-called ‘dirty war’ of the 1960s and 1970s. However, this trend deepened under the administration of President Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party, continued under President Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party and further intensified under the current government of MORENA’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

  Over 80 per cent of the current members of the National Guard – created in 2019 through a constitutional reform and initially under the civilian command of the Ministry of Public Security – come from the military. According to the National Guard Law, the institution performs tasks of migration review and supervision, surveillance and investigation. This is extremely worrying as it is becoming a military body. Practically all of its commanders, both administrative and operational, come from the Ministry of National Defence (SEDENA), which means the National Guard is increasingly subordinate to the army.

  Congress recently approved an executive initiative to reform the National Guard Law, transferring its operational and territorial command to SEDENA. This is contrary to the constitution, which establishes that public security should be the responsibility of civilian institutions, as ratified by the Supreme Court.

  In addition, in 2020 it was established that the armed forces could continue to carry out tasks related to public security, without making clear how they would comply with the principles of exceptional, extraordinary, subsidiary, complementary and supervised intervention. Initially it was agreed that they would do so until 2024, but Congress has just approved a reform to extend the deadline until 2028, without providing any justification.

  All these decisions are evidence of the government’s commitment to militarised security instead of strengthening civilian police forces and state and federal prosecutors’ offices, which we believe would be more appropriate if the objective is to investigate crimes and human rights violations.

  Moreover, military presence has been strengthened not only in the area of public security, but also in other areas of public administration, such as customs and ports, as well as in the construction of public works. The armed forces have one of the largest budgets in the public administration and are not subject to adequate controls, even though they have historically been characterised by a lack of transparency and accountability.

  The National Human Rights Commission has shown no signs of true autonomy when it comes to military oversight. This is evidenced by the small number of recommendations it has issued despite the abundance of complaints involving the National Guard, as well as its refusal to challenge the unconstitutional legal changes.

  The attorney general’s office has also failed to carry out relevant investigations into the matter, perpetuating impunity. Oversight bodies are clearly not a sufficient counterweight to SEDENA’s growing power.

  Why has this trend developed?

  It is undeniable that the current context is one of unprecedented violence and that organised crime carries great weight in Mexico. It is responsible for many human rights violations, often in collusion or at least with the acquiescence of authorities at all levels. In some places, removing the armed forces overnight would not be the most appropriate measure to take.

  It is understandable that both the government and society are concerned about security: it is one of the problems that most affects Mexicans. However, the government has opted for militarisation, indicating that there are no other options available. Meanwhile, it has not taken any steps to strengthen adequate investigations to dismantle corruption and organised crime networks.

  The militarisation of security has not yielded good results. It has failed to reduce violence and has perpetuated human rights violations. For this reason, international organisations promote a ‘programmatic’ or gradual withdrawal of armed forces, while civilian forces and access to justice are strengthened. However, these recommendations are not being heeded and the role of the armed forces continues to be increased.

  We can’t emphasise enough that action must be taken to tackle insecurity. But it is important to discuss what measures should be employed. We believe it should be done by strengthening the civilian police and improving access to justice, and not by means of militarisation.

  How is Centro Prodh working on the impacts of militarisation?

  Centro Prodh defends and supports people who have been victims of serious human rights violations, mostly enforced disappearances, torture and extrajudicial executions. We work from a comprehensive defence perspective that includes legal defence, organisational and educational support for communities and organisations, international litigation, campaigns and public policy advocacy.

  Militarisation is one of the main focuses of our work because it has a great impact on human rights, especially for people in vulnerable situations and historically excluded people who are at the centre of our attention: poor people, migrants, Indigenous people and women.

  Although militarisation has deepened in recent years, Centro Prodh has long worked on cases of serious rights violations due to military involvement in public security. These types of abuses have always occurred, and we do not foresee them stopping any time soon.

  It is common that, as in the Tlatlaya case – where it’s alleged senior army officers ordered soldiers to kill suspected members of criminal gangs and survivors were tortured, and which remains unpunished – the armed forces carry out detentions making a disproportionate use of force and resort to torture to fabricate evidence, without being held accountable for it.

  We have worked on cases that have reached the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), such as the case of the Campesinos Ecologistas (‘environmental peasants’), two peasants who were defending their land and were arbitrarily detained and tortured by military forces. In 2010, the IACtHR ordered the Mexican state to redress the violations suffered by the two activists and implement structural changes to eradicate the causes of the abuses: to maintain an updated register of detainees with accessible information and control mechanisms, investigate allegations of torture and reform the Code of Military Justice to ensure that military jurisdiction does not apply to cases of human rights violations.

  We have also worked domestically on case of torture committed the armed forces – and specifically by SEDENA and the navy – which have often included sexual violence against women, including cases brought by Claudia Medina and Korina Utrera, Denis Blanco and Charly Hernández.

  In working with the families of the 43 students who were disappeared in Ayotzinapa in 2014, we have also observed the resistance of the armed forces to hand over information and be held accountable.

  In short, our concern about the militarisation of public security stems from our work to document and support action on cases of serious human rights violations committed by the armed forces.

  How is civil society responding to militarisation?

  Civil society has mobilised against militarisation for many years, and not just under the current government. This has been a longstanding and ongoing concern.

  Organisations working on the ground throughout Mexico have documented the impacts of militarisation. The Women’s Human Rights Centre in Chihuahua has done crucial work documenting violations, particularly disappearances perpetrated by the armed forces, and obtained a recent IACtHR ruling in the case of Alvarado v. Mexico, which established that ‘the intervention of the armed forces in public security activities must be based on criteria of strict proportionality, exceptionality and due diligence to safeguard the guarantees established in the Convention, because the fundamental role of the military forces cannot be conciliated with the essential functions of the civil authorities’.

  Organisations such as Tlachinollan have highlighted the repercussions of the presence of the armed forces in Indigenous and poor territories. They have worked on cases such as that of Inés Fernández and Valentina Rosendo, two Indigenous women who survived sexual torture by the armed forces, which led to a ruling by the IACtHR.

  Many local organisations, such as Fray Matías de Córdova Human Rights Centre in the south of Mexico and Casa del Migrante de Saltillo in the north, have expressed concern about the militarisation of the borders and the National Guard’s conduct in migration-related tasks .

  International human rights organisations have expressed similar concerns. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has been vocal on the issue since its first visit to Mexico in 1996. It has issued constant recommendations to successive governments ever since.

  So have various United Nations’ (UN) human right experts, such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The Committee on Enforced Disappearances recently visited Mexico and referred to militarisation as one of the main reasons why we currently have more than 105,000 disappeared people.

  The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has also consistently and emphatically expressed its concern about the military presence and resulting human rights violations.

  What alternatives is civil society proposing?

  Civil society stands in line with the recommendations made by international organisations, which are very clear: a programmatic withdrawal of the armed forces should be undertaken and civilian institutions should be strengthened – by means of training, funding and a public security strategy that addresses the root causes of the problem – alongside investigative institutions to ensure access to justice.

  Unfortunately, instead of following these recommendations, the government has deepened militarisation not only de facto but also de jure, through the creation of a dense legal and institutional framework. This indicates that the trend will be difficult to reverse and will have long-term consequences. SEDENA has always resisted controls and will not voluntarily give back the power it has gained, and it will not be easy for future governments to take it away from it. The possible erosion of the military’s subordination to civilian power opens up a question mark over the future of democracy.

  What kind of support could the international community provide?

  It is very important for the international community to keep an eye on what is happening in Mexico, monitor the decisions being made, defend civil society in the face of a government that has repeatedly restricted its work and that of independent journalists, and offer support to victims. We need their help so that human rights are placed at the centre of our politicians’ decisions.

  Our criticisms are not personal or partisan attacks. Over the years we have looked at the faces of people who have suffered the consequences of militarisation first-hand. The work we do is indispensable in any democracy.

  ---

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Contact Centro Prodh through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@SofiadeRo and@CentroProdh on Twitter.