VZCZCXRO8882
RR RUEHCD RUEHGD RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM
DE RUEHME #3343/01 3171337
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121337Z NOV 08
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3938
INFO RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 MEXICO 003343 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CONS PREL PGOV PHUM KJUS KCRM MX
SUBJECT: CNDH AND PGR SQUARE OFF OVER BRAD WILL CASE 
 
¶1.  Summary.  Mexico's National Human Rights Commission 
(CNDH) and its Attorney General's Office have released two 
separate reports on the shooting of Amcit journalist Brad 
Will in October 2006 that places the two institutions at 
odds.  CNDH insists its investigation of forensic evidence 
demonstrates that Amcit Brad Will was shot from a distance 
of some 35-50 meters, in the course of civil unrest in the 
Mexican state of Oaxaca, implying local enforcement 
officials were responsible.  Prosecutors from the Mexican 
Attorney General's Office (PGR) are equally insistent that 
the evidence and testimony they have collected suggests 
Will was shot from a distance of two to eight meters, 
enabling them to identify  Juan Manuel Martinez Moreno, a 
supporter of the Oaxacan Popular Assembly (APPO) that was 
engaged in a skirmish with law enforcement officials and 
amongst whom Will was filming, as the shooter.  PGR 
officials maintain they took into consideration CNDH's 
report before presenting their case to the local judge 
presiding over the case in Oaxaca.  They described the 
prospect of an outside investigation of the evidence as 
"problematic."  The lawyer representing the Will family has 
endorsed the investigation conducted by CNDH and announced 
his intention to challenge PGR's case against Martinez 
before federal authorities.  End Summary. 
 
On the One Hand 
 
¶2.  On October 23, Mauricio Farah, the Director of CNDH's 
unit that investigates crimes related to human trafficking 
and against journalists and human rights defenders, met 
with Deputy PolCouns to discuss CNDH's investigation of the 
October 27, 2006 shooting of Amcit journalist Brad Will. 
He said that CNDH had decided to investigate Will's 
shooting becase it considered him a journalist and lacked 
confidence in local investigators.  He presented a variety 
of forensic evidence supporting CNDH's working theory 
regarding the location of the person who shot Will. 
 
-- First, CNDH measured the time between when the shots 
were fired and when they hit Will.  Cross referencing this 
"constant" against information from Smith & Wesson, a 
manufacturer of 38 revolvers, about the speed a bullet 
travels under the conditions that prevailed in Oaxaca at 
the time -- temperature, altitude, and wind -- CNDH had 
concluded the shooter was located between 35-50 meters from 
Will.  Note.  Both government and independent forensic 
examinations had previously determined that Will was shot 
by two 38 caliber bullets fired from the same weapon.  End 
Note. 
 
-- Second, CNDH assessed the angle from which the two 
bullets entered Will's body.  Its experts maintained the 
evidence suggested the first entered straight-on implying 
the shooter was facing Will.  The second entered Will from 
the side, occurring as he bent over and turned after being 
hit by the first shot. 
 
-- Third, they showed a clip of the tape Will was filming. 
At the point when he is shot, the camera pans rapidly and 
haphazardly to his right -- the direction from which PGR 
asserts the shooter fired -- but the footage CNDH displayed 
offered no image of any individual from that direction. 
 
¶4.  Beyond presenting CNDH's evidence that supports its 
theory that Will's killer fired upon him from a distance of 
35-50 meters in front of him -- which CNDH says implicates 
Oaxacan law enforcement officials who allegedly fired on 
the protesters amongst whom Will was located -- Farah 
called into question PGR's case against Martinez for lack 
of any apparent motive.  Farah noted that not only was Will 
regarded as sympathetic to the APPO protesters, observers 
agree that Martinez came immediately to Will's aid after he 
was shot and helped carry him to a truck so he could be 
transported to a hospital for medical assistance. 
 
¶5.  In releasing its report on September 26, CNDH made 
three recommendations which become binding only when the 
institution identified accepts the recommendation.  It is 
extremely rare for an institution to reject a 
recommendation. 
 
-- First, CNDH critized PGR for irregularities in its 
investigation and called on it to consider the evidence 
both CNDH and the NGO Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) had 
gathered in separate investigations.  (Note: PHR produced 
its own report on the forensics of the case that dovetails 
with CNDH's report. End Note)  PGR rejected this 
recommendation (see para. 8.). 
 
-- Second, CNDH called on the Governor of Oaxaca Ulises 
Ruiz to authorize the state's Internal Affairs Office to 
investigate state ministerial and police staff, including 
forensic experts, for negligence in their investigation of 
 
MEXICO 00003343  002 OF 003 
 
 
Will's death.  Ruiz accepted this recommendation. 
 
-- Third, CNDH called on the state Human Rights Commission 
to work with local authorities to ensure the municipal 
president of Santa Lucia del Camino, Oaxaca faced 
administrative disciplinary actions for failing to 
obstructing CNDH's investigation.  The State Human Rights 
Commission has not yet announced whether it plans to accept 
this recommendation. 
 
The Other Side of the Story 
 
¶5.  On October 30, Adrian Franco Zevada, PGR's Coordinator 
for International Affairs, accompanied Jessica de Lamadrid 
Tellez, PGR's Director General for International 
Cooperation, and two prosecutors who participated in the 
investigation of Will's death provided Deputy PolCouns with 
the conclusions of PGR's investigation.  According to 
Franco, PGR sent officials to Oaxaca within the same week 
that Will was killed but acknowledged that Oaxacan 
prosecutors enjoyed the lead on the case until April 2007 
when PGR decided to initiate its own investigation starting 
entirely from scratch.  In view of its assuming the lead on 
a case several months removed from the time the crime took 
place, he lamented that PGR consequently lacked access to 
key evidence at the scene of the crime. 
 
¶6.  PGR concluded its investigation in late September 
basing its findings primarily on witness accounts and 
expert testimony, but also forensic evidence. 
 
-- PGR's expert determined that the shots that killed Will 
were fired from a distance of two to eight meters.  Franco 
did not elaborate on how the expert made that 
determination.  Disputing CNDH's claim Will was shot by an 
individual located behind a truck some 35-50 meters in 
front of Will, PGR maintained a copy of Will's video (PGR 
was never given access to the original video) shows 
apparent members of APPO walking directly in front of the 
truck behind which CNDH believes law enforcement officials 
shot and killed Will. PGR insists this proves that the law 
enforcement officials were not firing from behind the truck 
as otherwise the APPO members would have manifested greater 
caution and/or the law enforcement officials would have 
shot at them or taken them into custody.   Instead, they 
claim witnesses report that police were firing from the 
other side of the street behind a corner located some 60-80 
meters from where Will was standing.  They maintain this 
location would not have offered a clear shot at Will. 
 
-- PGR rests much of its case on testimony from someone in 
the vicinity of Will at the time he was shot who maintains 
the shots were fired from close-by.  This person did 
not/not see Martinez shoot Will but did recall that someone 
in black clothing was close to Will when he was shot.  Film 
footage reveals Martinez in black clothing and close to him 
when he was shot.  Explaining why it took this witness 
almost two years to come forward, PGR officials remarked 
that the highly charge climate in Oaxaca that remained even 
as the violence subided may have intimidated the witness. 
They noted that CNDH's report did not take into 
consideration this witness's testimony. 
 
-- PGR asserts that Oaxacan law enforcement officials do 
not use 38 revolvers, the kind of gun used to shoot Will. 
They also maintain a 38 revolver can not fire in quick 
enough succession to hit a target twice from a distance and 
in a fashion as alleged by CNDH. Finally that point out 
that Will fell on this back after he was shot the first 
time calling into question CNDH's assertion he was shot in 
the side as he fell forward. 
 
¶7.  As to motive, PGR notes that Will's video captures the 
voice of someone close to Will saying in Spanish, "I told 
you not to film" immediately before Will was shot.  PGR 
suggests that it is possible APPO did not want those 
involved in the skirmish with police to be caught on film, 
particularly in view of claims one of those captured on 
Will's film is apparently a member of the Popular 
Revolutionary Army (EPR).  When asked why Martinez would 
have come to Will's aid immediately after allegedly 
shooting him, PGR officials asserted that the APPO members 
involved in violent confrontations with the police have 
"interests, not friends."  As such, they maintained that 
these individuals were more than capable of killing someone 
like Will, presumably sympathetic to their cause, if they 
could use it to pin responsibility on the police and garner 
greater public and international support. 
 
¶8.  Franco defended PGR's decision to reject CNDH's 
recommendation.  He maintained it had complied with CNDH's 
recommendation by taking into consideration all available 
evidence, including both the reports by CNDH and PHR. 
 
MEXICO 00003343  003 OF 003 
 
 
However, inasmuch as CNDH accused PGR of omissions and 
essentially called on PGR to agree to conclusions 
completely at odds with those drawn by PGR's investigation, 
it found it had not choice but to reject CNDH's 
recommendation. 
 
Where Do We Go From Here? 
 
¶9.  Mexican law allows PGR to assume the lead on the 
investigation of a local crime, but it also dictates a 
crime such as homicide be tried in local courts.  As a 
result, PGR has turned over all of its evidence to local 
Oaxacan prosecutors in order for them to present their case 
before a local Oaxacan judge.  The Oaxacan prosecutors 
could well call on PGR prosecutors to assist them in 
presenting the case but they will retain the lead on the 
case. 
¶10.  On October 22, the Oaxacan judge assigned to the case 
ruled that evidence was sufficient to detain Martinez 
pending trial.  Martinez's lawyers have indicated they plan 
to lodge legal challenges to the judge's ruling.  Local 
courts would review any initial appeals but successive 
appeals could eventually come before Mexican federal courts 
including the Supreme Court.  Mexican law dictates a 
defendant has a right to a trial within a year of his 
arrest but this is not always honored.  Further, should 
Martinez' lawyers request more time to prepare their case, 
that could also become a legal basis for it taking over a 
year to bring his case to trial. 
 
PGR Not Looking for Help 
 
¶11.  Franco was aware that Secretary Rice and Mexico's 
Secretary of Foreign Relations had discussed the 
possibility of an outside international legal authority 
reviewing all evidence and offering an independent 
assessment.  Given the fact that a judge had already ruled 
that evidence to detain Martinez and go forward with a case 
him, Franco saw a problem with involving outside 
authorities at this stage.  Further, given the political 
sensitivities involved in the case, he conveyed concern 
that inviting foreign entities to review the government's 
own investigation would only complicate matters. 
 
¶12.  Comment.  CNDH's investigation is based largely on 
forensic evidence that it interprets to suggest the shooter 
fired from 35-50 meters away.  It further rejects PGR's 
case against Martinez on grounds he came to Will's 
assistance immediately after he had been shot and had no 
apparent motive to shoot Will.  PGR's case is largely based 
on  expert testimony and an eyewitness who has appeared 
almost two years after the shooting.  PGR calls into 
question CNDH's conclusions, challenging the notion someone 
could have shot Will twice with a 38 revolver from the kind 
of distance CNDH proposes. 
 
¶13.  In some ways, both sides more effectively refute the 
credibility of the other's conclusions than build the case 
for its own.  Ultimately, any judge presiding over this 
case will have to review all of the evidence presented by 
not only PGR but also the reports prepared by CNDH and NGO 
PHR.  In the interim, however, we can expect Martinez's 
lawyers will energetically challenge the ability of Oaxacan 
legal officials to render a fair and objective ruling.  The 
tension between CNDH and PGR will also likely serve to 
create more controversy around this case.  In theory a 
review by outside legal observers might contribute to a 
more objective assessment of all the evidence.  Thus far, 
however, PGR officials have signaled reluctance to go down 
that road out of concern it will only complicate an already 
messy case. 
 
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North 
American 
Partnership Blog at 
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / 
GARZA 
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American 
Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / 
GARZA