The PGR broke the agreement with the GIEI on the new expertise of Cocula
Mexico City, April 1st, 2016
The PGR broke the agreement with the GIEI on the new expertise of Cocula
On 6 September 2015, the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts, GIEI, introduced the report “Ayotzinapa, Research and first conclusions”. It concluded that there was no evidence that the 43 students were incinerated in the municipal dump of Cocula in the time, circumstances and conditions noted.
Faced with this conclusion, the PGR expressed its desire to make a new study, for which it requested the support of the GIEI. In the agreement signed with the Government of Mexico in October 2015, at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it was agreed that the GIEI would support the making of the same with the following conditions: "In connection with the proposal of the PGR to perform a new studio on the dynamics of the fire in the dump of Cocula, it is agreed that: (a) to establish by common agreement the objectives and conditions for carrying it out, b) to jointly decide on the profiles and the final selection of the experts, c) to reach a consensus on the way in which the study will be carried out".
In February an agreement was signed between the PGR and the GIE, which set the foundation for this new study. It was also established that the experts should maintain confidentiality on the work done and that all phases of the study will be conducted in consensus.
This day the team of fire experts gave a preliminary study of its conclusions. After the delivery, it was entered into a process of dialogue on the steps to take. It is important to note that the GIEI had an agreement with the PGR to manage jointly and by consensus any step in relation to this study.
The GIEI proposed a methodology in the case that message wanted to be transmitted: 1) that the fire experts write their message of consensus and consultation between all of them to ensure that there were no problems or confusion in the content; 2) that the message, with consensus, would be sent to the PGR and the GIEI tomorrow; 3) to jointly decide what response to give to their requests of making the agreement public or the response in the two or three days later.
The GIEI also emphasized in the meeting that one of the experts could not publicly speak on behalf of the collegiate group without presenting in a clear manner to the members of the same, and without explaining why they had been elected, information that the GIEI had proposed to make from the start, given the importance of the job.
When it appeared that a consensus had been reached on the points mentioned above, we were told by surprise that the decision that had been taken was that Mr. Torres was going to speak publicly.
We warned the PGR that that meant the rupture of two agreements: the confidentiality of the process until we have results and how to transmit them; and to take the decisions through dialog and consensus between PGR and GIEI. Mr. Torres pointed out the GIEI that in any case its message was to say that it had not been possible to determine whether the fact would have happened or not, and that the team needed new studies and pilot tests to determine it. However, its message made reference to parts of the contents of an interim report which have not even been analyzed by the GIEI and, more serious still, noting publicly things that were not explained to GIEI during the meeting, nor are the result of a consensus among the fire experts.
It is clear that someone took the decision to break the consensus agreement and not to listen to the proposals made by the GIEI, taking a unilateral decision by the PGR. Based on all this, the GIEI considers broken the working agreement on the subject of the dump, seen the lack of compliance of the Washington Agreement and the agreements taken to this case. It also implies a rupture of the criteria set out in the bases of the study.
The GIEI deeply regrets this way to change the dynamics of dialogue and consensus that we have had with the PGR in these months, in one of unilateral decisions and that violate the agreements taken. Thus, the GIEI further notes that such statements do not reflect the consensus on the content or the work process of a report that is provisional.
The GIEI will reconsider its work based on these responses and will carry out the actions that it considers necessary in order to make progress in the clarification of the case.
For more information:
Cecilia Navarro
prensa.giei.ayotzi@gmail.com
+52 55 5454 0678
