VZCZCXRO9171
OO RUEHCD RUEHGD RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM
DE RUEHME #3668/01 3651836
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 311836Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9607
INFO RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MEXICO 003668 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR MX
SUBJECT: MEXICO PROSECUTES FIRST CASE UNDER THE FEDERAL TIP LAW 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary.   On November 28, the Mexican Attorney General's 
Office (PGR) charged 6 suspects with Trafficking in Persons (TIP) - 
the first time anyone has been charged under Mexico's TIP law since 
its adoption in November of 2007.   The judge handling the case is 
evaluating the PGR's petition and has ordered the detention of the 
suspects until the resolution of the case.  With four additional TIP 
investigations underway, both USG officials and the PGR are 
optimistic that more cases will be prosecuted under the TIP law in 
the near future.  By establishing a more direct and informative 
dialogue with U.S. counterparts, and seriously pursuing 
prosecutions, the PGR reaffirms its ability to tackle the challenges 
posed by TIP.  End Summary. 
 
Why the Delay in Prosecutions? 
 
¶2. (SBU) Many attribute delays to date on prosecutions to competing 
jurisdictions between the two bureaus assigned to the investigation 
and prosecution of TIP cases:  the Specialized Bureau of 
Investigation on Organized Crimes (SIEDO) and the Office for Violent 
Crimes against Women and TIP (FEVIMTRA).   Earlier in the year, 
PolOff met with Sadot Sanchez Carreno, the Director of the TIP 
office of the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH), to discuss 
the delay in prosecuting cases under the TIP legislation.  Carreno 
noted that when TIP is suspected, the case is initially sent to 
FEVIMTRA for investigation.  If FEVIMTRA finds organized criminal 
activity after conducting an investigation, the case should 
hypothetically be transferred to SIEDO.  SIEDO claims to have a good 
working relationship with FEVIMTRA, but critics from the NGO 
community fear that the competing jurisdictions between the two 
complicate the timely and efficient investigation and prosecution of 
cases.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have 
worked with the GOM vigorously to help address this question. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Both FEVIMTRA and SIEDO maintain that scant financial 
resources and personnel problems also compromise the judicious 
investigation and prosecution of TIP cases.  Then-acting head of 
FEVIMTRA, Oscar Gonzales Mendivil, told PolOff in September that 
FEVIMTRA was a resource-poor bureau that did not have sufficient 
staff to deal with TIP cases.  Although SIEDO faces its own resource 
constraints, it has 13 attorneys dedicated specifically to TIP 
cases, while FEVIMTRA has a total of five attorneys who must cover 
cases involving both violence against women and TIP country-wide. 
Moreover, although FEVIMTRA deals with crimes against women, it 
lacks the capacity and expertise to address trafficking issues. 
 
 
¶4. (SBU) The PGR also cited as an obstacle to prosecution the 
current trafficking law that limits what TIP cases FEVIMTRA and 
SIEDO can investigate and prosecute.   The law stipulates that for a 
case to be prosecuted at a federal level, the crime must fall into 
one of the following categories: 
 
a. External trafficking, 
b. Trafficking committed by government officials, 
c. Trafficking occurring on federal territory, or 
d. Trafficking involving organized crime, where three or more 
individuals are implicated, and where the violence is systematic. 
Cases that do not meet one of the four criteria identified above 
fall to the states for investigation and prosecution.  Both FEVIMTRA 
and SIEDO argue that state attorney general offices and local police 
forces should take more responsibility for prosecuting TIP cases 
insofar as identifying occurrences of TIP within their states and 
conducting investigations are concerned. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Notwithstanding PGR's claim that the law limits the number 
of cases that fall into its jurisdiction, it would appear that most 
should in fact fall under the federal law as TIP almost invariably 
involves organized crime.  Meanwhile, the suggestion that the states 
should take on more cases also appears flawed.  The federal law is 
included, to some extent, in the penal code of 20 Mexican states. 
Chiapas and Mexico City, however, are the only two states that have 
adopted the federal law in its entirety.  Seeking to foist the lead 
for most TIP cases back on federal authorities, states further argue 
that the GOM has not provided them with sufficient funding to 
implement TIP reforms.  On this point, though, the states are on 
shakier ground, as the federal government provides the states with 
funding, dividing it among different state secretariats. 
Unfortunately, no enforcement mechanism holds the states accountable 
for spending funds on TIP. 
Mexico's First TIP Prosecution 
 
¶6. (SBU) Mexico passed anti-trafficking legislation over two years 
ago in November 2007, but until recently the PGR had yet to 
prosecute anyone for violating the federal TIP law.  When PolOff met 
with Guillermina Cabrera Figueroa, head of the Unit for the 
Investigation of Smuggling of Minors, Undocumented People, and 
Organs (UEITMIO) under SIEDO to discuss the lack of prosecutions of 
TIP cases, Figueroa told PolOff that the Secretariat of Foreign 
Relations (SRE) remained concerned about the USG annual assessment 
of Mexico in its TIP Report.  She expressed willingness to cooperate 
with the USG in terms of exchanging information, and is optimistic 
that Mexico's ranking will improve once it starts prosecuting more 
 
MEXICO 00003668  002 OF 002 
 
 
TIP cases. 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) Presently, SIEDO is investigating five TIP cases.  On 
November 28 charges were filed in one of these cases thanks to 
cooperation and coordination among the Department of Justice (DOJ), 
ICE, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 
and the PGR. This marks the first prosecution under Mexico's federal 
TIP law since its adoption. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The six suspects charged in the above-mentioned case were 
involved in the recruitment and transport of Mexican women and young 
girls for forced prostitution in the U.S.   Following a DOJ-ICE-PGR 
meeting in Washington, D.C. in late August 2009, a fugitive indicted 
in a DOJ-led sex trafficking case in Georgia and three others were 
arrested.  The fifth suspect was indicted in the United States and 
charged in Mexico.  The sixth suspect and apparent ringleader 
remains a fugitive who authorities believe to be in Mexico.   A 
follow up operation to locate and arrest him is pending.  One 
defendant in the case was arrested and pled guilty in the U.S. and 
is pending sentencing there, while the other four are under 
preventive detention in Mexico while the judge evaluates the 
evidence against them.  The progress made in this case - the first 
of its kind in Mexico - speaks well of the collaboration between the 
USG and Mexico on TIP, and offers hope that more TIP prosecutions in 
Mexico will soon follow. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Comment.   Mexico deserves praise for its first prosecution 
under the two-year old federal TIP law, but obstacles affecting the 
efficient prosecution of TIP cases will continue to plague the PGR. 
Sentencing of the suspects can take anywhere from one and a half to 
two years.  Both SIEDO and FEVIMTRA are well aware of the 
institutional challenges as they attempt to tackle trafficking on a 
national level.  Getting all 31 states on board will be an even more 
difficult task, given resource constraints and the need for 
wide-range judicial reform.  The GOM remains wary of its Second Tier 
TIP country ranking and the possibility of falling back onto the 
"Watch List" category.  It is, nevertheless, encouraging that the 
GOM appears to be taking TIP more seriously and that the PGR is 
working closely with the USG to improve its record on TIP 
prosecutions. 
PASCUAL