En entrevista a periódico local el cura critica al partido por impulsar la candidatura de “una persona con preferencias sexuales diferentes”  Otorgan 10 días para presentar la grabación

El presbítero de Oaxaca Ignacio Rosete niega las declaraciones que le imputan

Exige Gobernación a México Posible pruebas sobre diatribas de sacerdote

En entrevista a periódico local el cura critica al partido por impulsar la candidatura de “una persona con preferencias sexuales diferentes”  Otorgan 10 días para presentar la grabación

ALMA E. MUÑOZ Y ALONSO URRUTIA

La Secretaría de Gobernación instó a México Posible a que presente pruebas contundentes y no sólo recortes de periódicos en un lapso de 10 días, contados a partir del 3 de junio, para demostrar que efectivamente el sacerdote Ignacio Rosete García realizó propaganda en contra del candidato de su partido a diputado federal por el distrito de Juchitán, Oaxaca, Jorge O. Amaranta.

El presbítero -cuyo caso fue de los primeros que denunció el instituto político por presunto proselitismo electoral de ministros de culto- negó haber realizado las declaraciones que se le imputan.

México Posible presentó como prueba una copia de la entrevista que la reportera del periódico Marca, Julia Bohórquez, hizo al cura de la Iglesia de Guadalupe. La edición del pasado 13 de marzo contiene críticas del sacerdote hacia el partido querellante por impulsar la candidatura de una “persona con preferencias sexuales diferentes” que “no es confiable para la ciudadanía”, y por defender propuestas en favor del aborto.

De acuerdo con la nota, Rosete García afirmó que la Iglesia católica siempre estará en contra de la unión de homosexuales, por ser ésta una degradación para la sociedad y un mal ejemplo, que los menores podrían adoptar.

El texto que envió Francisco Javier Fernández Perroni, director de Normatividad de la Dirección General de Asociaciones Religiosas de Gobernación, al coordinador jurídico de México Posible, Jesús Robles Maloof, sostiene un fragmento del expediente del párroco de Oaxaca: “Niego categóricamente haber realizado declaraciones ante reportero alguno o en misa. Asimismo, desconozco porqué los medios han difundido esta versión que es totalmente falsa”.

Dichas palabras son suficientes, de acuerdo con el oficio, para solicitar al abogado se sirva “remitir las pruebas que a su derecho correspondan, a fin de acreditar los hechos que se le imputan al referido ministro de culto, en el entendido que de no hacerlo se tendrá por precluido su derecho para ello”.

La representación jurídica de México Posible confía que en ese plazo, la autora del texto base de la acusación les proporcione el casete que contiene la entrevista efectuada al presbítero para obtener una sanción en su contra.

De acuerdo con Gobernación, hasta el momento ha recibido 13 denuncias por presunto proselitismo de representantes de la Iglesia católica. De todos los casos, sólo Juan Martínez Medina, párroco de la Asunción, en Amecameca, estado de México, aceptó haber invitado a los candidatos de PRI, PAN, PRD, Convergencia a la presidencia municipal y a la diputación local a exponer a la feligresía su plataforma política dentro del templo.

Sobre el resto aún continúan las indagatorias. La mayoría con base en notas periodísticas. Están los casos de José Carlos Vargas Soto, sacerdote de San Judas Tadeo, Cuautitlán Izcalli; Carlos Mayor Carrillo, párroco de San Juan Bautista, Tijuana, Baja California, quien habría bendecido las oficinas de campaña del candidato panista a diputado federal Manuel González Reyes, y de José Zenón Corrales Cabrera, de la Purísima Concepción, Otumba, estado de México, por inclinarse en favor del candidato priísta a la alcaldía, Adolfo Rojas Zamora.

Asimismo, por la publicación de manifiestos o difusión de declaraciones donde exhortan a no votar por plataformas políticas que favorecen el aborto, la eutanasia, la unión entre homosexuales y más, los jerarcas católicos de Querétaro, Mario de Gasperín Gasperín; de Tlaxcala, Jacinto Guerrero; de Cuernavaca, Florencio Olvera Ochoa; de Acapulco, Felipe Aguirre Franco; de Veracruz, Luis Gabriel Cuara, y de Guadalajara, cardenal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez. Salvo el primero, todos en proceso de notificación, lo mismo que el obispo de Aguascalientes, Ramón Godínez, quien habría calificado como pornografía un espectacular publicitario de México Posible, y su vicario, Rigoberto Ruiz, por rechazar, a través de un periódico, las formas de propaganda del mismo partido al repartir condones entre la población votante.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

SUN–AEE

CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Chih.- El sacerdote católico estadounidense Siegfried F. Widera, de 62 años de edad, buscado por cargos de abuso sexual contra menores de edad, fue detenido por elementos de la Agencia Federal de Investigaciones en Mazatlán, Sinaloa; pero se suicidó al arrojarse del segundo piso de un hotel, donde estaba recluido.

El pasado mes de abril la AFI de Juárez recibió la solicitud del Departamento Federal de Investigaciones (FBI) en El Paso, Texas y del departamento del Sheriff, para localizar a Widera, a quien catalogaron como un depredador sexual.

De acuerdo a informes de agentes de la Procuraduría General de la República (PGR) en esta frontera, el sacerdote fue localizado en Mazatlán ayer en la tarde, y luego de arrestarlo lo recluyeron en un cuarto de hotel en calidad de detenido, pero antes de que se hicieran los trámites para deportarlo a Estados Unidos, se suicidó arrojándose de la habitación donde estaba.

En la delegación de la PGR en esta frontera se comentó que oficialmente no darían información oficial sobre este caso por instrucciones de Francisco Echavarría, comandante de la AFI.

La Policía de El Paso alertó hace cerca de un mes a la población juarense, ya que creían que el sacerdote podría estar oficiando misas en esta frontera, pero fue acusado de abusar sexualmente de al menos 42 menores de edad en los estados de California y Wisconsin.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Assignments/Locations

 St. John De Nepomuc Parish (Milwaukee) Year Start- 1967 Year End- 1969

 St. Mary Help of Christians Parish (West Allis) Year Start- 1969 Year End- 1972

St. Mary Parish (Port Washington) Year Start- 1972 Year End- 1975

 St. Andrew Parish (Delavan) Year Start- 1975 Year End- 1977

Sigfried Widera 

On July 2, 1973, six years after being ordained, Widera was arrested in Ozaukee County and charged with sexual perversion for engaging in an act of sexual gratification involving a minor.  At the time, Widera was serving as associate pastor for St. Mary Parish, Port Washington.

In a July 13, 1973 letter by a psychologist to whom Archbishop Cousins had referred Widera after his arrest, the psychologist reported, after completing a battery of testing and initial therapy sessions, that Widera was an extremely good risk for psychotherapeutic intervention, and that the therapist did not see Widera as a constant threat to young people. 

In August, 1973, Widera pled guilty to the criminal charge, was convicted and sentenced to continue his therapy with a psychologist, and was placed on probation for three years.  The judge said Widera may not return to the Port Washington area.

The archdiocese subsequently assigned Widera as associate pastor for St. Andrew’s Parish in Delavan.  In June, 1976, while he was assigned there, the archdiocese received a report that Widera had abused a 13-year-old altar boy at the parish while the two were on a weekend fishing outing.  When confronted, Widera admitted that he made “a slip” while fishing with the boy several weeks earlier.  The archdiocesan official who met with Widera stated that he would try “to keep a lid on the thing” so that no police record would be made.  Efforts were undertaken to convince the mother, who had reported the abuse to a therapist, not to contact the police if the Church agreed to remove Widera from the parish and see that he received treatment.  Ultimately, the decision was made to have Widera continue treating with his current therapist until his period of probation ended, which occurred on August 13, 1976.  Thereafter, arrangements were made to have Widera go “on vacation” to California. 

In September, 1976, a member of the Archdiocesan Personnel Board voiced his concern that he would have a problem “in conscience” reassigning Widera given his record.  The following month, another member of the personnel board advised Widera of his option of completing treatment with the House of Affirmation, as a condition of being considered for another archdiocesan appointment, or they would release Widera to another diocese upon his request with the board to receive periodic reports on his status. 

In December, 1976, Archbishop Cousins wrote to Father Michael Driscoll, Chancellor-Secretary to Bishop William Johnson of the Diocese of Orange, California, about a possible pastoral assignment there for Widera.  Cousins detailed Widera’s prior sexual abuse of minors, including his recent repeat offense, as well as Widera’s therapeutic treatment past, present, and future needs should he be reassigned in California.  While Archbishop Cousins could see no “great risk” in permitting Widera to return to pastoral work, he acknowledged that there were “legal complications” related to Widera’s need to continue treatment (arrangements for which had been made).  Archbishop Cousins encouraged Father Driscoll and Bishop Johnson to meet with Widera and satisfy themselves before making any decisions on assignments.   

In early 1977, Widera was appointed “in hospitality” to St. Pius V Parish in Buena Park, California, an assignment that carried with it the faculties of an associate pastor.  Widera was subsequently appointed to serve as associate pastor at St. Justin Martyr in Anaheim. 

In August,1981, Widera advised the archdiocese that he had been invited by the Bishop of Orange to be incardinated there.  Widera claimed to have had no problems since he had been in California, noting that five years had passed since he had psychological problems, and that while he had not received any “professional help” in California, he intended to do so in the near future.  In November, 1981, Archbishop Weakland issue a decree excardinating Widera from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.  That same month, Widera was incardinated into the Diocese of Orange. 

After receiving reports of sexual abuse by Widera of four to five minor boys in a pool, which occurred on July 31, 1985, the Diocese of Orange removed Widera from ministry.  Widera was subsequently sent for therapy in New Mexico.  After Widera was released from therapy in the spring of 1986, he had orders to return to the status of a lay person, and prohibited from working in the Church.

In 2002, a warrant was issued in California for his arrest on multiple accounts of child sexual abuse.  Not long thereafter, he died, by falling or jumping from a hotel balcony in Mexico.  That same year, the archdiocese received five reports from individuals who claimed to have been sexually abused by Widera when they were young.  These reports include incidents in Delevan, St. John de Nepomuc Parish,  Milwaukee, and St. Mary’s Parish, Port Washington.  One individual claimed to have been abused at a number of locations in Wisconsin during the period from 1969-1976 when the individual was 9-16-years-old. 

The following year, the archdiocese received several more reports from individuals who claimed to have been sexually abused as children by Widera.  Two of these reports related to Widera’s tenure at St. Mary’s.  One of these reports revealed a report previously made by the individual to the West Allis Police Department in 2002 involving allegations of abuse to a woman when she was in 6th grade at St. Mary’s in Port Washington and 11-12-years-old.  The lengthy West Allis Police Department’s incident report documents numerous instances of sexual abuse by Widera involving other young victims, both male and female, in Wisconsin, Arizona, and California. 

In April, 2004, the archdiocese entered an agreement to provide $5,000 for a sustenance fund for an individual who claimed to have been abused by Widera while the individual waited to participate in the archdiocese’s voluntary mediation program.  That same year, the archdiocese entered into four settlement agreements with individuals who claimed to have been abused by Widera.  These settlements required payments of $50,000 with $15,000 for counseling, $50,000, $40,000, and $56,000 respectively.  During this period, the archdiocese received yet another report of abuse by Widera, which took place in 1973.  The archdiocese agreed to provide financial assistance for this individual, as well as therapy, with the expectation that the individual was going to proceed with mediation.

In 2005, the archdiocese entered into two more settlement agreements with individuals who claimed to have been abused by Widera.  They required the archdiocese to make payments of $100,000 and $88,000 respectively.  The archdiocese also received another report of sexual abuse by Widera while he was at St. Mary’s Parish, Port Washington during 1971-1973 when the survivor was approximately 11-13-years-old.

In 2006, the archdiocese and the Diocese of Orange settled lawsuits with nine California victims of sexual abuse by Widera and, in one case, another priest. The settlement payments involving individuals abused by both priests totaled $16.65 million. 

In July, 2008, the archdiocese received its last report of alleged abuse by Widera, which occurred in 1979-1981.

---

This narrative is based on facts contained in documents related to this Diocesan priest offender.

Note: File size varies for each document, larger files may take several seconds to display.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

San Francisco Archbishop William Levada styles himself as a leading advocate for openness among Catholic leaders on the clergy sex-abuse issue. So why doesn’t he practice what he preaches?

At a momentous gathering of U.S. Catholic bishops last June — the first such conclave after the clergy sex-abuse scandal erupted in Boston and spread across the nation — San Francisco Archbishop William J. Levada advanced an idea that set him apart from many of his cassocked brethren. Amid multiple proposals to crack down on pedophile priests, Levada challenged the bishops assembled in Dallas to examine their own conduct in handling sex-abuse cases involving the clergy. He called on fellow hierarchs to do everything they could to root out offending priests and to vigorously monitor their own progress in order to restore the badly shaken confidence of rank-and-file Catholics. Levada had hit on the same theme earlier in San Francisco in unusually blunt remarks during a special Mass. “We are suffering for the mistakes of bishops and administrators who did not place the future protection of children above their desire to protect the reputation and service of priests who had proven themselves unfaithful to their duties,” the archbishop told an audience of some 400 priests and 2,000 parishioners. His Dallas proposal — offered at a time when media attention to clergy sex abuse was at its zenith — helped catapult him to the front ranks of the American hierarchy on the issue. Pope John Paul II later chose Levada as one of four U.S. church leaders to work with the Vatican in crafting a compromise sex-abuse plan that His Holiness could accept. The pope signed off on the watered-down “zero tolerance” policy in December. 

But if he has distinguished himself by demanding that church leaders be open in dealing with the worst crisis to afflict the church in more than a century, Levada has a record as leader of 425,000 Roman Catholics in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties that suggests he has not practiced what he preaches. Advocates for abuse victims express frustration that more than a year after the clergy sex-abuse scandal burst into the headlines, Levada’s archdiocese has dragged its feet in response to victims’ pleas for help. And while Levada has drawn praise for his accommodating public statements on the issue, critics say he and his top aides have worked to keep complaints about accused priestly abusers shrouded in secrecy. (Levada declined to be interviewed for this article.)

“[Levada’s] method is to string you along in hopes that you will eventually tire out and go away,” says Terrie Light, the Northern California coordinator for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, which has members nationwide.

In March, the frustrated Light called for abuse victims to boycott meetings with archdiocese officials that were instituted last May, saying the monthly gatherings were fruitless “and nothing more than an attempt by the archbishop to co-opt the survivor community for his own purposes.” Only a few victims were attending the meetings, held in a third-floor conference room at archdiocese headquarters adorned by a bigger-than-life portrait of the archbishop. Levada rarely attended. Other than helping to plan a June 14 “ceremony of apology” for victims — an event over which Levada is to preside — participants in the talks have accomplished little, critics say.

“They’re throwing us crumbs,” says Patrick Wilkes, who belongs to a loose-knit group of abuse survivors known as No More Secrets, whose members have kept up the dialogue with local church officials. “The archdiocese is doing nothing of substance to respond to abuse victims.” 

+++

Victim advocates say the lack of candor on the part of Levada and his subordinates has discouraged victims from coming forward. Take whistle-blower priest Father John Conley, for example. In 1997, Conley unexpectedly walked in on a fellow priest, Father James Aylward, engaging in what he suspected was inappropriate contact with an altar boy in a darkened Burlingame church. Conley subsequently reported what he had observed to his superiors, including Levada. But it was Conley who was soon forced out of active ministry — for reasons archdiocese officials insist were unrelated to his whistle-blowing.

After Aylward later admitted touching boys for sexual gratification, the archdiocese shelled out $750,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the altar boy’s parents, while requiring that details of the settlement be kept secret. Conley then sued the archdiocese, contending that his priestly career had been unfairly cut short because of his whistle-blowing. In November, Levada authorized an extraordinary secret settlement with Conley just before the suit was to go to trial.

In another case, San Francisco preschool teacher Sylvia Chavez contends that local church officials stonewalled her after she sought their help in tracking down a priest in Mexico who she says molested her as a child while he served in the San Francisco parish where she grew up. Chavez spent much time last year communicating her concerns to Auxiliary Bishop John Wester, Levada’s point man on sex-abuse issues. Wester insists he personally informed the accused priest’s supervising archbishop in Mexico about her allegations in December. But the Mexican prelate says he was unaware of her charges until informed of them later by an attorney Chavez turned to for help.

Few cases have rankled Levada’s critics more than that of Father Daniel Carter, whom Levada yanked as pastor of the Immaculate Heart of Mary parish in Belmont in August and recently reinstated despite a pending lawsuit by a woman who contends that Carter sexually fondled her as a child. Carter has loudly proclaimed his innocence. But his restoration to the pulpit upset victim advocates who question the thoroughness and objectivity of an investigation conducted by a secretive panel Levada created in 2001 to look into abuse complaints.

Local church officials heralded the Archdiocesan Independent Review Board as evidence of Levada’s determination to get to the bottom of the clerical abuse problem. Critics, however, say the archbishop’s handling of the Carter case was deceptive at best. Although the review panel found the allegations by San Francisco social worker Danielle Lacampagne to be “inconclusive,” that is not what the archbishop told his priest. In a March letter to Carter announcing the decision to reinstate him, a copy of which was obtained by SF Weekly, Levada asserts instead that the review panel declared the charges “unfounded.” Besides prompting criticism that the archbishop is trying to have it both ways in dealing with Carter, the case raises questions about the role of the review panel, whose members operate in anonymity and about which the archdiocese has chosen to reveal practically nothing.

“The whole idea of a review panel should be to instill credibility that you’re actually doing something,” says victim advocate Paul Hessinger, who is among those who’ve pressed the archdiocese for information to no avail. “The secrecy around the review board just reinforces the perception that it’s a rubber stamp for the archbishop.”

As SF Weekly reported in March (“Bishop Bad Boy,” March 19), a similar pattern of secrecy marks Levada’s overseeing the cleanup of twin sex and financial scandals he inherited in the Santa Rosa Diocese in 1999. The archbishop’s longtime friend, Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann, had been forced to surrender his post after being caught shaking down a subordinate priest for sex. Following Ziemann’s departure — he now lives in church exile at an Arizona monastery — it was revealed that the diocese was more than $16 million in debt. Levada authorized a secret $532,000 settlement to Ziemann’s accuser, Father Jorge Hume Salas.

Church officials sought to vilify Hume, who nonetheless managed to retain his priestly faculties as part of the settlement. After Levada stepped in to govern the diocese, a criminal investigation into alleged financial irregularities hit a roadblock when diocesan officials refused to fully cooperate. Yet through it all, including his most recent actions related to the Carter matter, Levada has managed to avoid the kind of media scrutiny that has dogged other Catholic hierarchs, including his close friend, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony.

Besides Carter, Levada has taken action against at least six other priests, including some prominent ones, since the clergy abuse mess erupted on a national scale. They include Monsignor John O’Connor, who oversaw the landmark St. Mary’s Cathedral on the edge of Chinatown, and who took a leave of absence in August after being accused of having improperly touched a boy more than 30 years ago. Monsignor John Heaney, the longtime former chaplain of the San Francisco Police Department, has been accused by two brothers of molesting them more than 40 years ago. Father Miles O’Brien Riley, an author, actor, and former spokesman for the church who was well-known for his radio ministry and as a fixture on the old God Squad TV show, was the target of a complaint by a female parishioner who accused him of having consensual contact short of intercourse with her in the early 1970s. And a teenage Marin County boy accused Monsignor Peter Armstrong, former chaplain of the San Francisco 49ers, of having improper contact with him.

Each of the clerics has proclaimed his innocence. Except for Armstrong, who had already retired, each was allowed to go quietly, with Levada either suspending them with pay, placing them on personal leave, or allowing them to retire.

Citing Levada’s vigilance, church officials have declared the archdiocese free of child-molesting clerics. But Levada’s purges may have been triggered in part by a demand by San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan. In April 2002, Hallinan ordered the archdiocese to surrender records pertaining to potential cases of priestly child abuse that occurred as long as 75 years ago. The unprecedented — some called it nutty — request elicited grumbles from various quarters, including the Chronicle, which took Hallinan to task in an editorial for engaging in a fishing expedition. The archdiocese since has turned over many, although not all, of the records the DA wants, says Elliot Beckelman, the assistant district attorney charged with investigating clerical crimes.

Levada jettisoned a few of his problem priests within a couple of months of the DA’s edict. To victim advocate Hessinger, who has agitated for more openness from the archdiocese for years, the timing of the exodus was revealing.

“Despite all the talk about how concerned [Levada] is that everyone is above reproach,” Hessinger says, “it just told me that he doesn’t do anything until he has to.”

+++

In settling the Conley case out of court, Levada managed to avoid a public airing of an episode that could have been deeply embarrassing to the archbishop and some of his top lieutenants. A jury was set to hear the priest’s suit at an especially delicate time, just as Levada and the other papal appointees had finished work on the blueprint for the American church’s new Vatican-approved sexual-abuse policy.

Conley had sued after informing Levada and top archdiocese officials about something he had seen inside St. Catherine Church in Burlingame on a night when he had returned earlier than expected after teaching a class.

Although he was an associate priest answerable to Father Aylward as his pastor, Conley was no shrinking violet. A former federal prosecutor, the Detroit native had come to the priesthood after a stint as chief of the criminal division for the eastern district of Michigan. He had also served as a top legal adviser for the Michigan Racing Commission, which regulates thoroughbred racing.

After moving to the Bay Area in the early 1980s, he worked in federal bankruptcy courts for several years before realizing his lifelong dream of entering the priesthood. Conley graduated from St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park in 1993 and began the first of a string of parish assignments that resulted in his ultimately landing at St. Catherine in the summer of 1997.

His life — as well as Aylward’s — changed dramatically as a result of the encounter in the church on the evening of Nov. 6, 1997. Neither Conley nor anyone else associated with the case would discuss it, citing confidentiality constraints. But Conley’s detailed recollection of the incident and its aftermath, contained in court documents, provides a glimpse of the inner workings of the San Francisco Archdiocese that is less than flattering to Levada and some of his subordinates, including one — Patrick J. McGrath — who has since gone on to be San Jose’s bishop.

According to his sworn testimony in a deposition, Conley arrived back at the church at about 8 p.m. He unlocked the door and went inside, hearing a noise in a nearby hallway. He pushed open a door and, he says, spotted a 15-year-old boy, one of several youths Aylward had recruited as volunteers to answer phones and greet people entering the church. In his deposition, Conley says the boy, kneeling in the dark and facing away from him, was “panting” and out of breath.

“I said, ‘Hey, what’s going on? What’s happening? Are you wrestling?'” Conley testified.

“Yeah, yeah, wrestling,” the boy replied, according to Conley.

“I said, ‘Who is that in there with you?'”

The boy said nothing. Conley says he repeated the question and the boy responded, “Father Aylward.”

Even before hearing the answer, Conley says he saw a hand reach up from the floor and turn a doorknob on the other side of the hall. Aylward, he says, crawled away.

Conley later placed two significant phone calls: one to the San Francisco chancery office to request a meeting with Levada (Conley didn’t state his purpose) and the other to the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office. Levada was out of town the day of the appointment, and Conley was directed to McGrath, then an auxiliary bishop to Levada.

Conley says the first words McGrath uttered after inviting him into his office were, “John, these goddamn guys can’t keep it in their pants.” Conley says the bishop handed him a copy of a state law requiring priests and other religious workers to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement authorities. (The measure, which took effect on Jan. 1, 1997, had been strongly opposed by the state’s Roman Catholic bishops.) After reading it, Conley says he replied: “My God. This law went into effect 11 months ago. How come we haven’t heard about this? Why haven’t the parishes been briefed?”

McGrath, he says, responded: “We are still studying it.”

McGrath then said, “We better get the lawyers up here,” according to Conley. The priest says McGrath expressed reservations about getting involved in the Aylward matter, suggesting that John Wester, then the archdiocese’s vicar for clergy, handle it. (Wester was elevated to the additional role of auxiliary bishop in 1998.) Conley says McGrath also wanted to call Aylward to inform him that he was being discussed. Conley says he told McGrath, “Bishop, I had a background as a prosecutor. I can’t give you advice, but … I would strongly recommend against that.”

As they waited for an archdiocesan lawyer to arrive, Conley says McGrath turned to him and said, “Now, are you sure you want to do this?”

“I said, ‘Do what?'”

“He said, ‘Report this.'”

“And I said, ‘Well, I already have an appointment with the district attorney.’ And I said, “From what you just read to me, it’s a requirement of law.'” Conley says McGrath responded, “Well, I suppose so but you know, prior to this we’ve always handled these things in-house.”

Conley says he then stepped across the hall to call the assistant district attorney with whom he had arranged to meet the next day for the purpose of asking how he should proceed. He says the prosecutor told him to go back to McGrath and “tell the bishop that if he does contact Father Aylward that could be interpreted as an obstruction of justice.” Conley says he conveyed the message to McGrath, who agreed not to notify Aylward. (Through a spokeswoman, McGrath declined to be interviewed for this article. “He doesn’t want to discuss Father Conley,” said Roberta Ward. “He’s here [in San Jose] now. That was another time. He just doesn’t want to go there.”)

Not long after Conley’s Nov. 17, 1997, meeting with McGrath, he says, he received a call from Wester, the vicar for clergy, advising him to “keep quiet” about Aylward and not damage the priest’s “good name and reputation.” Conley says Wester said he had spoken with Levada and that “the archbishop forbids you to use the word pedophile” in relation to Aylward.

A few minutes later, Conley says, Wester called back to say he had just spoken to the archbishop and that Levada had also instructed Conley “not to tell the sisters” about the incident, an apparent reference to nuns assigned to the parish. Chafing at the constraints, Conley told Wester that he did not “deal well with the F word — forbid” and that as a grown man he knew “how to use vocabulary” in describing what he had seen.

Conley’s recollections of the exchange with Wester came in answer to questions from Paul Gaspari, an archdiocesan attorney who deposed the priest last year. (Unlike some other documents, the Conley deposition was not included in a gag order a judge imposed, at the archdiocese’s urging, on the parties to the settlement.) In response to Gaspari’s questions, Conley recalls telling Wester, “You must be in contact with the archbishop. … And he says, yes, he was. And I said, “Well, will you deliver a message for me?’ And he said, well, he’d be happy to. And so I had him deliver a message.”

Gaspari then asks, “And what was the message?”

“The message was to tell the archbishop to grow some balls and start acting like a man.”

Asked why he felt the need to express himself so angrily, Conley replies, “Because I felt this was a very serious matter involving child abuse and that they were hiding their heads in the sand, refusing to deal with it.”

+++

If Conley’s bluntness fueled Levada’s ire, what occurred at the archbishop’s residence on Dec. 20, 1997, appears to have given Levada the ammunition he needed to torpedo his whistle-blower.

Summoned to an audience with the archbishop, Conley showed up with a tape recorder, which Levada immediately asked him to turn off. Conley, seeking to protect his interests, resisted. “Don’t you trust me?” Levada asked, according to Conley. “This isn’t a matter of trust, it’s a matter of accuracy,” the priest says he responded.

Levada then purportedly said that since Conley refused to turn the recorder off he had no choice but to place him on administrative leave. The archbishop, according to Conley’s deposition, also referred to reports that Conley had exhibited bouts of ill temper, citing a woman’s complaint about the manner in which Conley had served her Communion. Conley says he got out the tape recorder again, prompting Levada to threaten to end the meeting. The archbishop told Conley he was out at St. Catherine, but that since it was the holiday season, he could stay until the day after Christmas, Conley says. Levada made Conley’s ouster official in a letter two days later.

Aylward, on the other hand, was permitted to continue as St. Catherine’s pastor for several months before being transferred to a Marin County parish. Conley, his clerical career in tatters, was banished to a church retreat center in Menlo Park; he was later allowed to take up residence in a San Francisco rectory with minimal responsibilities. Branded a troublemaker, he was shunned by many fellow priests, he says.

Archdiocese officials publicly treated Aylward’s alleged conduct with the boy as little more than a nickel foul.

“It’s the kind of thing which certainly we’re concerned about, but it is what it is. It’s not more than what it is, and it’s wrong to make more of it than it is,” Maurice Healy, the archbishop’s spokesman, told a radio interviewer. In a letter to the editor of the San Mateo County Times, Healy asserted that Conley’s dismissal from St. Catherine “was totally unrelated to his reporting of possible child abuse.” Noting that Burlingame police had cleared Aylward of criminal wrongdoing, he added, “While the archdiocese strongly disapproves of a priest wrestling with a youth, Aylward’s lapse of judgment does not warrant a witch hunt against a man who has been a good priest for 34 years.”

The boy’s parents, however, weren’t satisfied. They sued Aylward and the archdiocese, alleging that the priest sexually molested their son. And under questioning by an attorney for the parents in February 2000, the priest dropped a bombshell. Though he maintained his innocence on the night Conley walked in on him and the youth, he also made an astonishing admission with humiliating consequences for his defenders at the archdiocese. He described “wrestling” with several boys from various parishes he had served during trips to Half Moon Bay and elsewhere — and the physical effect the grappling sessions had on him.

A lawyer for the boy’s parents, Ronald Schwartz, then asked Aylward: “Did you ever get any kind of erection. … Did you get stimulated at all?”

“Sometimes,” Aylward said.

Schwartz: “Would you ever end up coming to a climax?”

Aylward: “That happened several times.”

Schwartz: “Would that be with your clothing still on, or both ways?”

Aylward: “I never took my clothes off.”

Later Aylward was asked if the roughhousing resulted “in sexual gratification or arousal for you?”

Aylward: “Sometimes it did. Sometimes it didn’t.”

Schwartz: “Was one of the reasons you were attracted to enter into this rough-housing or wrestling was [sic] the feeling of closeness or sexual gratification or the hope for it?”

Aylward: “Well, it may have been deep down. Most of the time I just like to — you know, this was physical activity, and I enjoyed the exercise, the physical activity, basketball.”

Aylward said in court documents that no one from the archdiocese had ever questioned him about whether he had sought sexual gratification by wrestling with young boys. Nor was the incident Conley interrupted the first time Aylward had grappled with the Burlingame altar boy. As court documents reveal, Aylward engaged in similar conduct with him for more than a year, something that Justine Durrell, another attorney for the boy’s family, says “became more and more uncomfortable” for the youth. The plaintiff, now 21, has never spoken publicly about his experience. Durrell says he “prefers to put it behind him and go on with his life.” The attorney says she was “as surprised as anyone” by Aylward’s admissions.

“I think he couldn’t live with it anymore and felt compelled to come clean and tell the truth,” she says.

In unburdening himself, Aylward essentially ended his church career. Soon after his disclosures he was ushered into retirement. Although he admitted no wrongdoing with the plaintiff, the archdiocese did not want to endure a trial. In May 2000, Levada authorized a secret church payout of $750,000 to the boy, halting his court action.

But the problem of what to do about Conley remained. The spectacle of a priest suing his archdiocese for supposedly punishing him after he reported suspected abuse by a fellow cleric would have attracted widespread media interest. Last September, with Levada’s calls in Dallas for a vigorous campaign to rid the church of abusers still echoing, the archbishop was deposed in the Conley case. Two months later, as jury selection was set to begin, the archdiocese agreed to settle out of court.

At the church’s insistence, little about the terms was revealed. But a joint statement issued by the two sides includes this remarkable acknowledgment: “The archdiocese and Father Conley have agreed that Father Conley was right in what he did in reporting the incident to police. As subsequent revelations confirmed, Father Conley’s instincts regarding the matter [were] correct.”

As for monetary arrangements, the statement says only that the archdiocese has “pre-funded” Conley’s retirement. But Conley appears to have done quite well. He retains his privileges as a priest and will soon move into expensive new digs in a two-bedroom flat on a Noe Valley hilltop with sweeping views of the city.

“After what Father Conley endured, what is remarkable about him is his steadfast desire to stay within the church and to carry on his position of being a priest, and we’re satisfied that he’s able to do that,” says Michael Guta, Conley’s attorney. Conley, who is said by friends to have been under severe emotional stress during his ordeal, recently underwent a heart operation but tells SF Weekly he is recuperating well. Of the Aylward affair, he says, “I don’t believe I had a choice to do anything other than what I did. Any person with a moral conscience would have done the same thing.”

+++

As a child attending San Francisco’s Church of the Epiphany, Sylvia Chavez held priests in high esteem. 

Her two brothers were altar boys. And when they came home from Mass to report that a young priest from Mexico had moved to their Excelsior District parish, it wasn’t long before Father Theodore Baquedano-Pech was an honored guest at the family dinner table. Father Teddy, as he was known, was 28 and boyishly good-looking when he arrived from Mexico’s Yucatán peninsula in 1967. Assigned to conduct Mass for Epiphany’s Spanish-speaking congregants, he regularly stopped in for meals at Chavez’s home on his way to night classes at San Francisco City College, she says.

Charming and unfailingly polite, Father Teddy “seemed to do no wrong,” says Chavez, now 48. “My parents, like everyone else, thought that he practically walked on water.” 

Chavez knew differently. It wasn’t long before he began molesting her, she says. He kissed and fondled her — in her bedroom, in the garage, and during outings he arranged with her and her brothers. “The first time he kissed my mouth, the kiss was so strong that my mouth actually hurt for a long time afterward,” she recalls. She was 11, “confused and frightened,” and didn’t dare tell anyone of the priest’s advances.

“He would come over and say, “Where’s Sylvia?’ and my mother would say, “Oh, she’s up in her room,’ and he would come upstairs and molest me,” Chavez says.

Sometimes he partially undressed and climbed into her bed, rubbing his penis against her, she says. Once, she says, he even groped her under the table during a family meal. In a confessional booth at the church one Sunday she told the priest what he was doing seemed wrong, prompting him to reply, “‘It’s OK. Don’t worry about it. Go home,'” she says. “That very night he came to the house and molested me again, and it just continued.” The abuse, she says, stretched over several months.

When Father Teddy departed for his next clerical station — South Korea — by passenger ship, she and her entire family were at the waterfront to see him off. “I remember standing there watching members of my family wave from the dock and thinking that I knew something horrible that they didn’t know.” The abuse didn’t end with the priest’s departure, she says. During a visit to San Francisco two years later, Father Teddy took advantage of her epilepsy by fondling her as she lay immobile and helpless across a bed during a seizure, she claims.

But her worst single fright was when Father Teddy came for an overnight visit in 1972. Chavez, then 16, spent a sleepless night with a chair braced against her bedroom door, afraid the priest would slip into her room after the rest of her family had gone to sleep, she says. The next morning, while she was alone in her mother’s bedroom, Father Teddy, wearing his clerical collar, grabbed her and tried to pull her pants down, she says. She says he let go after she threatened to expose him.

To her relief, when she returned from school that day, he was gone.

Although happily married and with a daughter who is a Peace Corps volunteer, Chavez says she has spent decades struggling emotionally with the effects of the alleged abuse. She was 30 before she was able to tell her mother what had happened. It wasn’t until 1993, during former San Francisco Archbishop John Quinn’s tenure, that she turned to the archdiocese for help, a pursuit that she says has left her feeling victimized a second time.

Indeed, Chavez’s attempt to enlist the archdiocese’s aid in blowing the whistle on Father Teddy is its own horror story, suggesting ineptitude, if not indifference, on the part of archdiocese officials.

When Chavez first contacted the archdiocese she was suffering from an eating disorder, which she attributes to being abused, and says she was assured that she would receive help in “doing something about Father Teddy.” The archdiocese paid for counseling, but her hopes of getting assistance in tracking down the priest were dashed during 1993 when, in a meeting at her therapist’s office, Father Gregory Ingels, then the vicar for clergy, announced that the archdiocese was not responsible for Father Teddy since he was merely a visiting priest during the time of the alleged molestations, Chavez says. (Ingels has his own problems. As this article was going to press, a criminal complaint had been filed against him alleging that he sexually molested a minor in Marin County in 1972. He is scheduled to be arraigned in Marin County Superior Court on May 28.)

She then turned to McGrath, the auxiliary bishop, who she says at first seemed agreeable to the idea of the archdiocese’s paying for a trip she wanted to make to Mexico to pursue the priest. But archdiocese officials soon discouraged her, she says, contending the journey wouldn’t be safe.

Then something unexpected happened. In May 1994, she says, she was notified that the archdiocese had received a letter from Father Teddy. In it, he acknowledged that he had become better acquainted with Chavez than with any other member of her family, adding, “Never did I ever think that my friendship or my affection would do her any harm.” Ingels let her view the letter, but refused to give her a copy. “When I asked him why he wouldn’t give me a copy of the letter, he told me it was ‘for the protection of the priest,'” she says, “which infuriated me.”

Soon afterward, she says, the archdiocese stopped paying for her therapy. 

+++

Last spring, after Chavez gave a newspaper interview in which she was quoted as saying that “my Latina ass would be in jail if I had hurt a child the way Father Teddy had,” Ingels mailed her the letter, she says.

At about the same time, a sympathetic Father Bruce Dreier, the current pastor of Church of the Epiphany, her childhood church, agreed to her request to print her allegations about Father Teddy in the parish bulletin. But that was about as far as the church’s cooperation went.

What followed, she says, was a series of meetings with Auxiliary Bishop John Wester, who she says “said all the right things, seemed to listen and be sympathetic, but did very little.” Her demands to Wester were simple, she says. “I wasn’t seeking money. I didn’t want to cause them any problems. I simply wanted them to do what they should have done years earlier. I wanted them to locate this priest in Mexico and make sure [local church leaders] were aware of my allegations against him — to protect kids from going through what I went through.”

But that didn’t happen, according to her.

Despite assurances by Wester in May 2002 that the archdiocese would do everything it could to locate Father Teddy, she says, months dragged by with no progress until, with Wester’s support, she agreed to detail her abuse in a letter that Wester promised to send to Mexican Catholic officials. Writing the letter was a painful exercise that she agonized over for two months. Last November, she says, Wester assured her that it had been mailed.

But the next month, at a meeting of abuse victims at the chancery office, she asked if he had heard anything and was flabbergasted to learn that he had misplaced the letter. But, Wester added, he had finally sent it that very day.

Something else that happened in December caused her doubts about the archdiocese’s sincerity to deepen.

Father Teddy’s superior, Archbishop Emilio Carlos Berlie Belaunzarán of Mérida, was to come to San Francisco for a celebration of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the revered Mexican saint. When Chavez learned of the visit, she says, she called Wester to help arrange a meeting with the Mexican prelate. She says Wester nixed the idea, saying Archbishop Berlie’s schedule was too crowded.

After Berlie left San Francisco, however, she says Wester called her to say he had spoken with Berlie about Father Teddy, and that the priest was being kept away from children. “[Wester] told me not to worry because Father Teddy was in a remote part of Yucatán. I found that to be astounding,” says Chavez. “To me, it was like saying, ‘OK, so I guess little Mayan kids don’t count.’ It was outrageous.”

By then, Chavez had turned to Minnesota attorney Jeff Anderson, who has represented more than 700 alleged victims of clerical abuse, for help. Anderson wrote to Archbishop Berlie in late December outlining Chavez’s claims and asking that he investigate.

In a Feb. 3 letter — two months after Chavez says Wester assured her that the Mérida archbishop had been notified — Berlie wrote that he had not known of Chavez’s allegations until informed by Anderson. In his letter, a copy of which was obtained by SF Weekly, Berlie says that until hearing from Chavez’s attorney, he “was without any complaints of any kind” regarding Father Teddy. He adds that “following [Anderson’s] request we have taken all the precautions in accord with [the lawyer’s] prudent advice to restrict” the priest’s contacts with children.

While declining to discuss details, Wester nonetheless defends his role, telling SF Weekly that he informed Archbishop Berlie of Chavez’s allegations both verbally and in writing. He says he mailed a letter about Chavez to Berlie on Dec. 2, but could not be specific about when he spoke with the Mexican archbishop.

“In that particular case, our main concern was for the safety of children,” Wester says. “We felt it was important to let [Berlie] know that this allegation had come forward. That was the responsible thing to do.” But Anderson, Chavez’s attorney, offers a different view. He says his client’s effort to obtain aid from the San Francisco Archdiocese “gives new meaning to the word ‘negligence.’ They stonewalled her and gave her the runaround for years when all someone had to do, if they were sincere, was pick up a phone.”

+++

Unlike other accused priests Levada eased out after Hallinan’s demand for potentially damning church records, Father Daniel Carter didn’t go quietly. In fact, he vociferously maintains his innocence, leaving parishioners at the 2,400-member Immaculate Heart of Mary parish in Belmont, where he is pastor, sharply divided.

Carter, 52, did not respond to interview requests for this article.

The Carter case, more than any other in recent memory, has upset abuse victim advocates for the way Levada has handled it. The archbishop removed Carter from the parish, placing him on administrative leave in August, shortly after Danielle Lacampagne, 34, a psychiatric social worker, sued Carter and the archdiocese alleging sexual misconduct by the priest. Lacampagne claims Carter placed his hand inside her clothing and fondled her breasts and vagina while he was a guest in the family home when she was about 8 years old.

At the time, he was a brother of the Marist order and a teacher at San Francisco’s Notre Dame des Victoires Parochial School, which Lacampagne attended. Levada restored Carter to the Belmont parish April 1 despite the pending lawsuit. “I don’t know of another case in the country where a priest facing a civil lawsuit like this has been given access to kids again,” says David Clohessy, national director of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. “It absolutely flies in the face of the Dallas Charter [adopted by U.S. bishops last year], which stipulates that no priest is to be around kids who has been credibly accused.”

Clohessy and others insist that Levada is trying to have it two ways in dealing with the controversy. Levada’s official position on the matter, as reported in mid-April in the archdiocesan newspaper, Catholic San Francisco, is that the Archdiocesan Independent Review Board found the allegations against Carter to be “inconclusive.” But in Levada’s March 25 letter to Carter informing the priest of his decision to reinstate him, the archbishop told Carter the review panel judged the allegations to be “unfounded.” (No criminal charges have been lodged against Carter.) Levada also told Carter he is being removed from the parish to take up an undisclosed new assignment as of July 1, adding, “This new assignment is unrelated to the recent allegations of sexual abuse of a minor.”

Prior to Levada’s decision, Lacampagne had, for tactical legal reasons, withdrawn and refiled her suit to take advantage of a new state law that went into effect on Jan. 1. The landmark law, passed with no dissenting votes in the Legislature, provides a one-year window of opportunity for victims to sue their alleged abusers, regardless of when the abuse occurred.

If Levada had deemed Lacampagne’s withdrawal of her suit a reason to restore his priest to the parish, it quickly became a moot point. Her lawyers reinstated the lawsuit on March 27, four days before Carter returned to the pulpit.

The Carter case also raises questions about the secretive nature of the archdiocesan review panel.

“Just who are these [review board members] and how independent can they be?” asks Stockton attorney David Drivon, one of Lacampagne’s lawyers. Archdiocese officials have frequently touted the panel’s purported autonomy as evidence of Levada’s progressive approach to the clergy abuse crisis. But those same officials, including Levada, have steadfastly refused to identify the board’s members and have provided victim advocates with meager information about the way the panel functions.

Approached by an SF Weekly reporter, the panel’s co-chair was similarly unwilling to identify its members or discuss its activities. “I would need to get permission from someone at the chancery office before I say anything,” said Janice McKay, a retired San Francisco police investigator.

+++

It was McKay who came to Lacampagne’s Outer Sunset home last May, more than a month after Lacampagne reported the allegations against Carter to the archdiocese in early April.

“She spent maybe 30 minutes visiting with me and didn’t want to get into much detail,” says Lacampagne. She says McKay was “sympathetic” and “said things that clearly made me believe that she had no trouble with my credibility.” McKay told her another member of the panel was contacting Carter to hear his account, she says.

Lacampagne says she thought McKay’s visit was preliminary and that she would get the chance to share her story with the entire panel, which McKay told her consisted of “six or seven” members. Lacampagne expressed a similar hope to Bishop Wester, her main contact at the archdiocese, she says. But no one else from the panel ever spoke with her. “The weird thing is that they never talked to anyone [among friends and family] to even know what kind of person I was,” Lacampagne says. (Although raised in the church, she no longer professes Catholicism. Both her father, Emile, a financial consultant, and her mother, Janet, a San Francisco police sergeant, attended the same Notre Dame parish and school that she and her two siblings attended.) In fact, no one from the archdiocese, including Wester, ever notified her about the official disposition of the matter, she says. As April dragged into May and then June, Lacampagne says she grew weary of making calls to Wester and McKay to find out what was taking so long.

“I didn’t want their money, or their sympathies really,” she says. “My only goal was to hope that [Carter] would be removed from being around children.”

At one point McKay attributed the delay in resolving the matter to scheduling, saying it was “difficult to get four people together,” Lacampagne says. She says McKay identified the four as McKay, another panel member said to have interviewed Carter, and two others — Levada and Wester. “It made me wonder just how the review board operates, since the only one of them who ever spoke to me was Janice McKay.” In her final phone conversation with McKay in June, she says, the board co-chair told her — mistakenly, at the time — that Carter had been removed from his parish job. She said he had denied the allegations but that as far as the review panel was concerned the case was “open but inactive.”

Carter wasn’t removed until August. By then, a frustrated Lacampagne had turned to attorneys in her quest to get the archdiocese to act. The experience with Wester and the review panel had been a dead end. In fact, she says, Wester, unintentionally or otherwise, had conveyed inaccurate information about important aspects of her account. A summary of her allegations provided by Wester to the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office — part of the disclosures Hallinan required of the archdiocese — that she later obtained from the DA differed on a couple of key points from what she says she told Wester and McKay.

The report, in which her name was misspelled and the month she was alleged to have first contacted Wester was inaccurate, erroneously portrayed the nature of her abuse as vaginal penetration, which Lacampagne says she never asserted. It also said the alleged molestation occurred in the bedroom of her home. She says Carter fondled her at the dining room table, after she had come downstairs in her pajamas to say good night, and while her parents and siblings were elsewhere in the house.

Carter’s supporters seized on the apparent discrepancies. As part of a vocal campaign for his reinstatement, a newsletter distributed to parishioners in February alleged that his accuser had changed her story between the time she contacted Wester and when she filed her lawsuit. His backers amassed a legal war chest of more than $100,000. Carter took the extraordinary step of supplying supporters with postcards attesting to his innocence and asking them to mail them to Levada. He wrote open letters to parishioners likening his efforts to regain his post to doing battle against “the forces of evil.” He even continued to preside over services for invited guests at a supporter’s home.

Particularly jolting, says Lacampagne, was an accusation by the priest’s backers that her father — a long-ago friend of Carter when the men sang in the same church choir — had expressed doubts about her story. The claim was part of a whispering campaign to vilify her, several parishioners at the Belmont church say. The charge was repeated in the newsletter distributed by Carter’s proponents, citing as a source none other than Wester. “Bishop Wester told [Father] Carter at the initial meeting with him in April [2002] that the accuser’s father had said that the alleged incident never happened,” the newsletter asserted.

But Emile Lacampagne says that isn’t true.

“I find that extremely offensive, both to me and to my daughter,” he says. “No one from the archdiocese, including Bishop Wester, ever spoke to me about my daughter’s allegations. Had they done so, I would have told them the same thing I’m telling you, which is that I support Danielle 100 percent in what she said happened to her, and always have.”

Pressed about whether he told Carter that Emile Lacampagne had expressed such doubts, Wester declined to answer. “That was a personal conversation … I don’t tell that kind of thing.”

+++

Carter’s reinstatement has hardly calmed the waters. Besides Lacampagne’s allegations, Belmont parishioners recently witnessed their pastor openly challenging the archbishop’s order reassigning him to another parish. Carter has taken the extraordinary step of soliciting parishioners to write letters to Levada asking that he be allowed to stay.

Neither do Levada’s headaches involving Conley, his whistle-blower priest, appear to be over. Although the court gag order prevents full disclosure of the controversial — and apparently costly — settlement the archdiocese entered into with Conley until next year, it does not indefinitely bar the priest from discussing his ordeal. And that could spell more unpleasantness for the archdiocese.

Conley intends to write a tell-all book.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Queretaro, Qro., 26 de abril. Autoridades judiciales dictaron auto de formal prisión al presunto sacerdote de origen canadiense Guilles Denis, acusado de violar a un joven de 15 años. Se informó oficialmente que Guilles Denis llegó a la comunidad de Los Cues, en el municipio de Pedro Escobedo, a principios de este año, donde se hizo pasar como sacerdote. En la comunidad rentó un cuarto a una familia a la que le manifestó que determinó radicar en este lugar porque construiría una iglesia. El 19 de abril, Guilles Denis obligó al hijo del dueño del lugar a tener relaciones sexuales. Gilles Denis fue detenido el 21 de abril como presunto responsable del delito de violación y se le inició la averiguación previa lV/563/2003; cinco días después el juez mixto de primera Instancia le decretó auto de formal prisión, además de declinar su competencia al juez mixto de primera instancia penal del distrito judicial del municipio de Amealco.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Durante años, el sacerdote José Guadalupe Borja de Borbón, conocido simplemente como “El padre Borja”, era visto como un personaje del paisaje tradicional acapulqueño Todas las mañanas se le veía con su hábito de monje franciscano, con una bolsa de mandado y un ejemplar del diario madrileño El País bajo el brazo A los parroquianos de El Astoria, uno de los cafetines más populares del zócalo de Acapulco, donde conviven políticos de todos los partidos políticos, intelectuales, periodistas y turistas extranjeros, el padre Borja, recomendaba leer el diario español y luego pedía apoyo para “huerfanitos” y niños de la calle que, contaba, atendía en su albergue localizado en el exclusivo fraccionamiento Costa Azul, donde también está el seminario de El Buen Pastor, de la Arquidiócesis de Acapulco El padre Borja también es famoso por ser hermano del exfutbolista mexicano Enrique Borja, con quien tiene un extraordinario parecido, sobre todo en la nariz Políglota, el misionero, al parecer expulsado de la iglesia católica, parecía un tipo simpático Hoy a las 7:45 horas, efectivos de la Policía Federal Preventiva (PFP), que resguarda el puerto desde el año pasado, lo pusieron a disposición de la Agencia del Ministerio Público de delitos sexuales por su presunta responsabilidad en corrupción de menores, violación, y prostitución y pornografía infantil, en agravio de dos niños de la calle De acuerdo con el delegado de la Procuraduría General de Justicia del estado, Efrén Suátegui Mayo, la dependencia recibió dos denuncias de niños de la calle que señalaban a Borja de Borbón de abuso sexual, por lo que se integró la averiguación previa TAB/ADS/ 196/03 El funcionario afirmó que el detenido no puso resistencia cuando fue abordado por los agentes de la PFP, y añadió que este caso se vincula con el de 17 personas, nueve de ellos extranjeros, arrestados el fin de semana pasado y sujetos a proceso Al ser presentado por las autoridades, el padre Borja se declaró inocente y “virgen”, por lo que afirmó que era imposible que hubiera cometido los delitos que se le imputan “De lo que he sabido es completamente falso, si alguna de esas cosas hubiera pasado, ya años y años (de trabajar con los niños de la calle) me hubieran dicho algo Yo tengo la conciencia tranquila, yo soy virgen, es imposible que haya pasado lo que dicen No sé qué fin tengan, pero es completamente mentira”, dijo el misionero Con sus enormes escapularios como prueba de defensa, Borja aseguró que durante más de 20 años que lleva radicando en el puerto, su única intención con los niños era “proveerles de alimentos” Pese a su imagen bonachona, las autoridades judiciales mostraron un largo historial de Borja como corruptor de menores Según los datos oficiales, se integraron dos averiguaciones previas contra el misionero en marzo de 1982 y en julio de 1987 por “abusos deshonestos” cometidos contra menores de edad, en tanto que existía una orden reaprehensión emitida por el juez primero en Materia Penal en abril de1989 Oscar Martínez Jaimes, defensor de niños de la calle durante los últimos 10 años en Acapulco y actualmente director operativo del DIF municipal, aseguró que “lo que se sabe es que alguien muy poderoso protege al padre Borja, porque a pesar de que fue detenido dos veces, nunca se le pudo procesar por los delitos de abuso sexual contra menores” El funcionario, quien desde 1980 trabaja con niños de la calle –en la Ciudad de México antes que en Acapulco–, destacó que “han sido reiteradas las denuncias que se han hecho contra esta persona, según los testimonios de los niños de la calle” El trienio pasado Martínez Jaimes interpuso una queja formal ante la PGR contra Borja de Borbón También ya había denunciado a extranjeros pederastas que vivían en el puerto “El padre Santiago Izquierdo –español expulsado del país el año pasado– y yo presentamos varias denuncias ante la PGR, y al menos ocho de los detenidos el fin de semana fueron identificados por nosotros en aquel tiempo, pero nunca se hizo nada, al contrario, después de las quejas al padre Izquierdo y a mí nos hostigaron; a mí me despidieron del DIF municipal durante el gobierno de Zeferino Torreblanca y al padre lo sacaron del país en dos ocasiones”, dijo Martínez Para Martínez, reinstalado en el DIF por el alcalde perredista Alberto López Rosas, “hay más personas extranjeras dedicadas a explotar sexualmente a menores, no se si son miembros de una sola banda o de varias, pero sin duda la acción de la PFP ayudará a detener a organizaciones criminales que ya le estaban echando el ojo a México y a Acapulco, como son los tailandeses” Optimista por las 18 detenciones, Martínez Jaimes espera que todos sean debidamente enjuiciados Por lo pronto, mañana el padre Borja será puesto a disposición del juez, cuando se decidirá su situación jurídica 09/04/03

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

                                    Se puede llegar a causar mas daño
                                 con una palabra…. que con una espada .
                                                                          Richard Burton

Se que nuestros cerebros ya están saturados y hasta “vacunados” contra las impresiones fuertes de sadismo y muerte ,  y quizá sea por ello, que ya poco nos impresionan. Pero que asesinen a aun sacerdote en una comunidad católica tan relativamente pequeña como lo es “La Laguna” es ya en si,  algo alarmante. El que pasen 2 años y nadie sepa aun quienes  mataron al padre Nacho , es algo verdaderamente “vergonzoso” . Pero que vuelvan a asesinar a otro sacerdote  en nuestra misma comunidad y con la misma saña , y que encima de todo pretendan enlodar su nombre agregándole periquitos “extras” a la ya de por si macabra impresión, eso si ya fue…..el colmo.

No negare que cuando leí las cochinadas que se publicaron acerca del difunto Padre Rogelio Carrillo , lo primero que pensé fue…”En todos lados se cuecen habas”  , pero  mi curiosidad se vio despertada de su marasmo,  cuando por todos lados empecé a oír de las cosas buenas que había hecho ese padre y de cuan dolida estaba su comunidad.

Y fue así que luego de algunos contactos pedí que un par de personas me informaran acerca de:  ¡¡Quien había sido realmente el Padre Rogelio!!… y allá voy como el borras a Gómez ,  sin saber que al llegar a la reunión no eran 2 las personas que me esperaban  sino 60 , quienes se habían apersonado para dar fe de la vida  y obras del padre Rogelio.

Pues bien , Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela nació en San Pedro del Gallo Dgo ,dentro del seno de una de las familias mas pobres -si no es que la mas pobre- del pueblo . Rogelio fue el 5 hijo de una familia de 9  hermanos . Y ya desde  pequeño su misticismo  se hacia  patente ,  cuando a los 8 años organizaba rosarios en su casa , colocando la imagen de la virgen de Guadalupe sobre una vieja silla de madera

Llegada su adolescencia  se vino a Gómez Palacio a estudiar Secundaria y  Prepa en la escuela Pedro de Gante, para después  trasladarse a Piedras Negras a estudiar la carrera de Químico Fármaco Biólogo .Y fue mientras hacia  su tesis sobre “desnutrición” que  Rogelio entro en contacto con ese “sub-mundo” que todos  desearíamos no existiera y que muchas de las veces pretendemos ignorar: los pobres , los humildes , los desprotegidos , los enfermos.

Tras haber terminado su primera carrera , se inscribió en la escuela de Medicina , y mientras  la estudiaba , en el fondo de su ser germinaba la pregunta de cual sería la mejor forma de ayudar a tanta gente  humilde  que le recordaba “de donde venía”  y en donde estaban sus raíces . Y  fue así que  mientras cursaba el 4 año de Medicina , su deseo por ayudar a los pobres  fue mas grande que su deseo de ser medico y abandonando la escuela de Medicina  – aun llevando excelentes calificaciones-  decide ingresar al seminario con la idea de ser algún día  ordenado sacerdote.

Y por aquello de que no hay fecha que no se llegue,  ni plazo que no se cumpla , años mas tarde Rogelio fue ordenado Sacerdote  en un día  venturoso de hace 15 años.

Apenas ser ordenado  le fue encomendada una parroquia de Gómez Palacio,   y fue ahí donde desde un principio llamó la atención de propios y extraños , por su interés desmedido  hacia los pobres , por su entrega incondicional hacia los desvalidos , por su interés hacia los menesterosos y  hacia los  enfermos .

Y vaya que ello era para llamar la atención  , sobre todo teniendo la posibilidad de departir con gentes de  posición  un poco mas “acomodada” que le harían  disfrutar de cosas  mas agradables

La fama de  la generosidad y entrega del padre Rogelio  corrió como reguero de pólvora entre los miembros de su comunidad ,  echándose a la bolsa en pocos meses los corazones de centenares  de personas quienes empezaron siendo sus feligreses , y terminaron siendo sus amigos ;  amigos sinceros que al paso de los años llegaron a considerarlo como..parte de su familia  .

Fue tal el sentimiento afectivo que el padre Rogelio hizo nacer en los corazones de “sus amigos” , que cada uno de ellos sentía ser “el amigo preferido del padre” , cuando  lo cierto era,  que el  corazón  de Rogelio lo tenía repartido por igual  entre todos  y cada uno de aquellos que lo conocían.

Y quizás fue por ello que a nadie extraño que en la misa de su funeral  , la iglesia hubiera sido insuficiente para albergar a  “sus muchos amigos”  ,  por lo que centenares de ellos  hubieron de permanecer incólumes fuera de  la iglesia  abarrotando las calles vecinas  ,  mientras entre lagrimas le daban  el ultimo adiós  a ese amigo incondicional que Dios les había mandado a su parroquia , a ese “amigo” que  siempre les había ayudado cuando mas lo necesitaban , a ese polémico padre Rogelio , a quien ni levantándole  no digo una,  sino , “50 calumnias  mas”  podrían siquiera empolvar – ya no digo enlodar- la  imagen que de el tienen todos aquellos que lo conocieron,  y quienes hoy  lloran  en silencio la partida de  aquel que primero veía por el bien de los demás y luego si había tiempo …por el suyo propio.

Entre las personas que ahí estaban  hablando acerca del padre Rogelio estaba la señora Rebeca Galindo , a quien Ud recordara por haber  sido arrestada como presunta culpable de la muerte del padre Nacho,  y a quien luego de 2 años de tenerla presa,  la dejaron libre, por no haber pruebas contra ella . La Sra. Galindo levanto la voz para ensalzar la imagen de una de las pocas personas que creyeron en ella , -el padre Rogelio- , y quien se gasto el poco dinero que tenía,  defendiendo  la inocencia de Rebeca,  incluso colocando desplegados en los periódicos .

Cuentan que un día en que el padre Rogelio tenía que salir de la ciudad por viaje familiar ,  ya con el boleto del avión  en la mano y a punto de  partir hacia el aeropuerto , recibió la llamada de uno de sus feligreses que requería de su ayuda . El sacristán que había contestado el teléfono  estaba a punto de decirle  a la persona que “por esta vez”  el padre Rogelio no podrían ayudarlo ,  pero el padre le dijo:  “Dile que voy para allá”….6 horas mas tarde el padre regresaba a su casa a las 2 de la mañana …¿el avión?…el avión había partido sin el , 5 horas antes, pero eso al padre no le importó , mas aun le dijo al sacristán….nimodo…primero están  las personas de mi parroquia ….y luego todo lo demás.

Me bastó platicar con algunas personas de la comunidad de la colonia las rosas , para  ver como saltaban como chispas en una hoguera los casos en  donde  el  trabajo pastoral del padre Rogelio  fue determinante para la felicidad de muchas familias . Bien fuera la hija que andaba noviando con un hombre casado , bien fuera el hijo que pretendía casarse con una muchacha de otra religión , ó la visita a un enfermo a altas horas de la noche . En todos  los casos el padre Rogelio intervenía  con una sonrisa en los labios  llenando de un amor muy especial  las vidas de aquellos que lo rodeaban.

A la muerte del padre Rogelio  , la comunidad de la iglesia de la colonia Las Rosas estaba realmente indignada y presta a la batalla  contra  quienes pretendieran enlodar  su nombre , sin embargo , fue su propio hermano Roberto quien les recordó ,  cuando  hace tiempo  Rogelio les decía que “siempre había que perdonar y perdonar de corazón” ,  y agrego : Si algún día alguien atentara contra mi vida , lo primero que quiero que hagan es decirles a mis asesinos , que tengan la absoluta seguridad  de que los últimos segundos que haya tenido de vida, los dedique para decirle a Dios…perdónalos señor , que  en este mismo momento yo ya los he perdonado . Se dice fácil ,  pero debe de ser algo verdaderamente heroico si se logra pensar  en ello , mientras  te  estas desangrando,  con un cuchillo atravesando tu cuello y sintiendo  como el aire ha dejado de llegar a tus pulmones.

No me cabe la menor duda ,  de que  hay plumajes , a quienes ni la mas vil y descarada de las calumnias puede manchar…y el plumaje del padre Rogelio , era  sin duda…..de esa categoría

Mis condolencias para la comunidad  Gomespalatina , especialmente para la de la colonia las Rosas . Mis felicitaciones para la madre del padre Rogelio… quien debe de sentirse muy orgullosa de que  una persona de esa categoría – digno hijo de su madre-  , haya  salido de su vientre en un feliz día…. de hace 45 años.

www.internetual.com.mx/llama 

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

SUN-AEE

MÉXICO, DF.- Autoridades del gobierno mexicano expulsaron de territorio nacional al sacerdote católico estadounidense Austin Peter Keegam en contra de quien hay dos órdenes de arresto en Estados Unidos por ser probable responsable en la comisión de los delitos de sodomía contra un niño menor de 14 años, así como de fuga.

Luego de que la Oficina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI) solicitara la colaboración de la Agencia federal de Investigación (AFI), se logró localizar al cura en Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, donde se mantenía escondido desde el año pasado.

Como resultado de las investigaciones de la AFI se logró detectar que Keegam retiraba de cajeros automáticos ubicados en Puerto Vallarta una pensión de que gozaba cada primero de cada mes. A raíz de este hecho, el primero de marzo pasado elementos de la AFI establecieron un operativo de vigilancia en los principales cajeros automáticos de esta localidad, logrando la captura del cura estadounidense.

Derivado de este hecho, el Instituto Nacional de Migración determinó que fuera expulsado de México, lo cual se concretó el fin de semana pasado en un vuelo comercial que lo llevó a la ciudad de Los Ángeles, California, donde fue detenido por elementos del FBI.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

México, D F- Un exsacerdote estadunidense acusado de abusar sexualmente de un menor durante su oficio religioso, y que se había refugiado en México para evadir la acción de la justicia de su país, fue expulsado por el Instituto Nacional de Migración, informó la Procuraduría General de la República La dependencia informó que el sacerdote retirado Austin Peter Keegan, fue acusado del delito de pederastia contra un niño menor de 14 años y que al querer evadir la acción de las autoridades estadunidenses escapó a Puerto Vallarta, en Jalisco, donde recibía, por medio de un cajero automático, el pago de una pensión que retiraba puntualmente el primer día de cada mes Fue este primero de marzo, cuando elementos de la Agencia Federal de Investigación (AFI) establecieron vigilancia en los cajeros del puerto turístico, que el sacerdote fue detenido en el momento que retiraba su dinero Previamente, la información sobre el presunto pederasta había sido enviada a través del Consulado de la embajada de Estados Unidos en Guadalajara, Jalisco y la Oficina del Federal de Investigación (FBI), y habían pedido a la AFI que interviniera en el caso para localizar al prófugo Keegan fue acusado el 12 de septiembre de 2002, por el Gran Jurado del Tribunal Superior de San Francisco, California, de haber abusado sexualmente de un menor, por lo que se le fijó una fianza de cinco millones de dólares Pero el sacerdote decidió evadir la acción de la justicia y viajó a México En tanto, una queja y una orden de arresto fue expedida el 27 de septiembre contra Keegan por el delito de fuga 03/03/03

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

TORREON / Coahuila

Luego de que el sacerdote José Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela, de 46 años, fue asesinado el viernes en una colonia popular de esta ciudad, ayer dos jóvenes se declararon confesos del homicidio, por lo que el Juzgado Primero del Ramo Penal ordenó su arraigo por 10 días.

Este es el segundo asesinato de un sacerdote católico que se registra en esta ciudad, el primero fue el del Padre Ignacio Flores Gaytán, el 15 de enero del 2000, y al haber obtenido sentencia absolutoria los dos inculpados, su crimen permanece impune hasta la actualidad.

Juan Enrique Rentería Aguilar, alias “El Keenworth”, y Jesús Herrera Reyes, “La Cotorra”, ambos de 18 años, declararon que el viernes en la madrugada, en la Alameda Zaragoza, se les acercó Carrillo Valenzuela a bordo de un automóvil Stratus modelo 2001 y les ofreció 400 pesos a cada uno a cambio de tener relaciones sexuales con los dos.

Tras aceptar el ofrecimiento, los dos jóvenes subieron al auto desconociendo que era sacerdote, compraron cervezas y se trasladaron hasta un domicilio de la colonia Prados del Oriente, en donde además de ingerir bebidas embriagantes consumieron mariguana.

En su declaración señalaron que mientras esperaron a que Carrillo Valenzuela salga de una recámara, acordaron asaltarlo, pero al considerar que podrían ser identificados optaron por matarlo y que para ello lo lesionan primero en diferentes partes del cuerpo con dos cuchillos que portaban, y luego le impieron que respirara al colocarle una almohada sobre el rostro.

“La causa de la muerte fue anoxemia por sofocamiento, según el dictamen que nos da el médico legal, no es la causa de la muerte la puñalada, de acuerdo a la mecánica de los hechos que tenemos bien establecida, fue primero una lesión en ambas muñecas, luego una en omóplato derecho, después una lesión en cara anterior de cuello, posteriormente le clavan el cuchillo en la cara anterior de cuello, está sometido boca abajo, lo presionan con una almohada contra la cama hasta que deja de respirar”, explicó Carlos Durán, secretario técnico de la Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado.

Tras cometer el crimen, los jóvenes salen de la casa, propiedad de una familia era amiga del sacerdote y cuyos miembros estaban fuera de la ciudad, llevándose diversos objetos, así como el vehículo de la víctima, el que finalmente sirvió para que las autoridades los localizaran, porque lo dejaron en una pensión.

Durán dijo que ambos jóvenes participaron en el crimen del sacerdote, por lo que ejercitarán acción penal por coautoría material y directa por homicidio calificado y robo en su modalidad agravante.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

EL NORTE / Coahuila

TORREON.- Luego de que el sacerdote José Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela, de 46 años, fue asesinado el viernes en una colonia popular de esta ciudad, ayer dos jóvenes se declararon confesos del homicidio, por lo que el Juzgado Primero del Ramo Penal ordenó su arraigados por 10 días.

Este es el segundo asesinato de un sacerdote católico que se registra en esta ciudad, el primero fue el del Padre Ignacio Flores Gaytán, el 15 de enero del 2000 y que al haber obtenido sentencia absolutoria los dos inculpados, su crimen permanece impune hasta la actualidad.

Juan Enrique Rentería Aguilar, alias “El Keenworth”, y Jesús Herrera Reyes, “La Cotorra”, ambos de 18 años, declararon que el viernes en la madrugada, en la Alameda Zaragoza, se les acercó Carrillo Valenzuela a bordo de un automóvil Stratus modelo 2001 y les ofreció 400 pesos a cada uno a cambio de tener relaciones sexuales con los dos.

Tras aceptar el ofrecimiento, los dos jóvenes subieron al auto desconociendo que era sacerdote, compraron cervezas y se trasladaron hasta un domicilio de la Colonia Prados del Oriente, en donde además de ingerir bebidas embriagantes consumieron mariguana.

En su declaración señalan que mientras esperan a que Carrillo Valenzuela salga de una recámara, acuerdan asaltarlo, pero al considerar que podrían ser identificados optan por matarlo y que para ello lo lesionan primero en diferentes partes del cuerpo con dos cuchillos que portaban, y luego le impiden que respire al colocarle una almohada sobre el rostro.

“La causa de la muerte fue anoxemia por sofocamiento, según el dictamen que nos da el médico legal, no es la causa de la muerte la puñalada, de acuerdo a la mecánica de los hechos que tenemos bien establecida, fue primero una lesión en ambas muñecas, luego una lesión en omóplato derecho, después una lesión en cara anterior de cuello, posteriormente le clavan el cuchillo en la cara anterior de cuello, está sometido boca abajo, lo presionan con una almohada contra la cama hasta que deja de respirar”, explicó Carlos Durán, secretario técnico de la Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado.

Tras cometer el crimen, los jóvenes salen de la casa, propiedad de una familia era amiga del sacerdote y cuyos miembros estaban fuera de la ciudad, llevándose diversos objetos, así como el vehículo de la víctima, el que finalmente sirvió para que las autoridades los localizaran, porque lo dejaron en una pensión.

Durán dijo que ambos jóvenes participaron en el crimen del sacerdote, por lo que ejercitarán acción penal por coautoría material y directa por homicidio calificado y robo, en su modalidad agravante.

“La averiguación está muy avanzada, tenemos lo principal que son las confesiones, todavía hoy aproximadamente a la una de la madrugada se recuperaron objetos que se sustrajeron de la casa, se recuperó una computadora completa, un estéreo modular”, dijo, “también se tiene asegurado el vehículo, y se tienen localizadas algunas joyas en bazares de la localidad”.

José Luis Ramírez, coordinador de Asuntos Especiales de la Delegación Laguna 1 de la Procuraduría de Justicia del Estado, dijo que los presuntos responsables no estudiaban ni trabajaban, y que “La Cotorra” tiene antecedentes delictivos, pues fue procesado por robo a casa habitación.

“A mí me sorprende la tranquilidad con que se manifiestan, son personas de 18 años, son jóvenes, pero yo les noto demasiada tranquilidad en la forma en que manifestaron como cometieron el crimen”, expuso.

Duele a Obispo

El Obispo de Torreón, José Guadalupe Galván, externó su pesar por el homicidio de Carrillo Valenzuela, quien era originario de San Pedro del Gallo, Durango.

“Como Obispo de Torreón me duele que un hermano sacerdote haya muerto de esa forma y me uno a los sentimientos de condolencia con el señor Arzobispo de Durango y elevamos nuestras oraciones para que Dios Nuestro Señor lo tenga en el cielo y pronto se haga justicia”, indicó.

Sobre las circunstancias en que murió el sacerdote católico, Galván manifestó que no le corresponde a él hacer algún juicio, que no tiene autoridad alguna para hacerlo, por no ser parte de la Diócesis de la que está al frente

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Fueron contratados para tener relaciones sexuales y decidieron matarlo para robar sus pertenencias y el carro

TORREÓN, COAH.- El robo fue el móvil del homicidio del padre José Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela, quien murió de una cuchillada en el cuello por dos sujetos a quienes había ?contratado? para sostener relaciones sexuales. Tanto los presuntos responsables como el sacerdote, andaban bajo los influjos de las drogas.

Carlos Durán Fernández, secretario técnico de la Delegación Laguna Uno de la Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado (PGJE), dijo que Jesús Herrera Reyes, alias “La Cotorra”, de 18 años de edad, con domicilio en calle González Ortega No. 448 norte y Enrique Rentería Aguilar, de la misma edad, vecino de avenida Escobedo No. 1819 oriente, fueron presentados ayer por la Policía Ministerial ante el Ministerio Público.

La jueza primera del Ramo Penal, María Mayela Hernández Valdés, concedió la orden de arraigo en contra de los inculpados como probables responsables de la comisión del delito de robo de vehículo y homicidio calificado en agravio de Carrillo Valenzuela, que se esclareció en menos de 24 horas desde que se encontró su cadáver.

El funcionario de la PGJE, destacó la eficiente labor de investigación desarrollada por Fernando Ruiz Castañeda, agente del Ministerio Público de Delitos Contra la Vida y la Salud Personal, Mesa Dos, Coordinación ?B?, además de los elementos de la Policía Ministerial del Grupo de Homicidios, así como del comandante de la corporación, Ricardo Carrillo Lucero.

Los hechos

Según las declaraciones de los arraigados, fue la madrugada del pasado viernes 21 de febrero, cuando fueron abordados por el párroco de la iglesia de la Sagrada Familia, en la alameda Zaragoza, a la altura de la Fuente del Pensador.

Ahí, José Rogelio los invitó a dar una vuelta a bordo de su auto Dodge Stratus, modelo 2001, color azul marino. En el trayecto del paseo, Carrillo Valenzuela les manifiesta que desea tener relaciones sexuales con ambos, para lo cual les ofreció 400 pesos a cada uno.

Ambos aceptaron la oferta y el conductor enfiló al domicilio ubicado en calle De los Puestos No. 1983 de la colonia Prados del Oriente, donde fumaron mariguana y consumieron bebidas alcohólicas.

Aprovechando que José Rogelio se fue a la recámara para desvestirse, Jesús y Enrique se pusieron de acuerdo para asaltarlo, pero como los podría reconocer posteriormente, entonces deciden matarlo, para lo cual los dos llevaban cuchillo.

Una vez en la habitación, los inculpados amordazaron y sujetaron con cadenas a su víctima y Enrique lo lesionó en las muñecas al pretender cortarle las venas. Posteriormente le causó una herida en el omóplato derecho y luego le dio una cuchillada superficial en el cuello.

Desesperado porque su cómplice no cumplía con lo planeado, ?La Cotorra? sacó un cuchillo de entre sus ropas y lo hirió mortalmente en el cuello destrozándole la tráquea y muriendo minutos después a consecuencia de la severa hemorragia producida.

Luego, los verdugos del sacerdote, se lavan las manos en el baño y presurosos se retiran del lugar llevándose una videograbadora, un modular, una cadena de oro con dije, además de una computadora y el auto del occiso y es donde se dan cuenta que era un sacerdote católico, por unos documentos que había en su interior.

Asustados por haber matado a un cura, emplean la mañana del viernes para deshacerse de los objetos sustraídos del domicilio, empeñándolos en un bazar denominado ?El Güero?, cuya ubicación no se dio a conocer.

De igual modo, pretenden vender el auto en ocho mil pesos, pero al no poder hacerlo, entonces Enrique Rentería Aguilar decide viajar a Monterrey, N.L., donde vive su mamá y ahí ofrecerlo al mejor postor.

Por tal motivo y a fin de salir el domingo muy temprano rumbo a la Sultana del Norte, lo deja en la pensión ?San José?, localizada en avenida Bravo y calle Niños Héroes (11).

La detención

Alertados sobre las características del vehículo desaparecido, propiedad de José Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela, los agentes de la Policía Ministerial a cargo de la investigación del homicidio, lo localizaron en dicha pensión y de ahí logran la captura de Enrique.

Una vez que este sujeto acepta su participación en el asesinato, les indica a los ministeriales el lugar donde pueden ubicar a Jesús Herrera Reyes, ?La Cotorra?, quien estaba en la vivienda de avenida Juárez No. 1062 oriente interior tres, donde pernoctaba con Gerardo Emilio Echeveste Delgado.

Durante su presentación ante el Ministerio Público, ambos confesaron haber asesinado al ministro de culto estando bajo los influjos de la droga, resaltando además que nunca se consumó el acto sexual.

Manifestaron que sólo hubo escarceos y cuando fueron a la recámara ya iban decididos a matarlo, pues luego los podría reconocer y acusarlos de haberlo robado.

En forma extraoficial trascendió que en el examen pericial de toxicología realizado por el médico legista de la PGJE, el sacerdote José Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela, resultó positivo a mariguana y anfetaminas.

Tanto Jesús Herrera Reyes como Enrique Rentería Aguilar, quedaron bajo arraigo en un hotel citadino, en tanto que se concluye con la integración de la averiguación previa a fin de solicitar al juez penal la correspondiente orden de aprehensión para ambos.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Un vecino del clérigo encontró el cuerpo

El padre Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela presentó una herida producida por instrumento punzo cortante

TORREÓN, COAH.- En extrañas circunstancias fue asesinado el padre Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela, cuyo cuerpo semidesnudo se encontró en el interior del domicilio ubicado en calle De los Puestos No. 1983 de la colonia Prados del Oriente. Presentó una herida producida por instrumento punzo cortante en el cuello; sus manos estaban atadas con cadenas. El móvil no ha sido establecido.

Se presume que el crimen se registró en las primeras horas del sábado (entre las 2:00 y las 04:00), de acuerdo al rigor mortis del cadáver que se encontró semidesnudo sobre la cama de una de las habitaciones del fondo, con la cabeza cubierta con una frazada llena de sangre.

El macabro hallazgo fue realizado por un vecino del lugar, Julio González Valenzuela, que vive por esa misma calle pero en la finca marcada con el No. 1972, ya que recibió un telefonema de Eugenio Rodríguez Montañés, propietario de la casa encargada al sacerdote, a fin de que le echara un vistazo para saber si todo estaba bien.

Al acercarse a la propiedad en mención, Julio observó que no estaba la cadena que siempre sujetaba las puertas de la reja de la cochera y éstas se hallaban entreabiertas, lo que se le hizo sumamente raro, por lo que al entrar giró el picaporte de la puerta principal y se abrió.

En el interior del domicilio, todo era desorden, cajones del trinchador fuera de su lugar, sillas y mesas volteadas, al igual que en la primera recámara que vio. Todo revuelto y por ningún lado.

Al llegar a la segunda habitación del fondo, su sorpresa fue enorme cuando notó que sobre la cama, boca-abajo, con una manta ensangrentada cubriéndole la cabeza, yacía el cuerpo sin vida de Rogelio Carrillo Valenzuela, sacerdote católico. El cadáver semidesnudo, sólo llevaba un short color gris y zapatos tenis.

Rápido regresó a su casa para llamar al Servicio de Emergencia 060, de donde se dispuso el traslado de una patrulla arribando minutos después al lugar la unidad 35346 de la Dirección de Seguridad Pública Municipal, a cargo de los agentes Raúl Antonio Escobar Zamarripa y Andrés Valenzuela Trujillo. Esto fue a las 09:30 horas.

Rápida movilización

En cuanto los uniformados corroboraron que la muerte de la persona fue violenta, de inmediato se dio aviso al Ministerio Público de Delitos contra la Vida y la Salud Personal, cuyo personal acudió hasta el lugar del crimen en esa populosa colonia.

Asimismo, agentes de la Policía Ministerial, encabezados por su comandante, Ricardo Carrillo Lucero hicieron acto de presencia en el domicilio, solicitando apoyo de otras unidades de la DSPM para que acordonaran el área mientras llegaba Servicio Periciales.

Fernando Ruiz Castañeda, agente investigador de la Mesa Dos, Coordinación “B” de Homicidios, apoyado por María del Socorro Ramírez García, secretaria abogada, se hicieron cargo de las indagatorias e impedir que nadie “contaminara” la escena del homicidio.

Los coordinadores de Homicidios “B”, Gerardo Villavicencio Valdés y de Asuntos Especiales, José Luis Ramírez Hernández, también llegaron hasta el retirado sector, donde ya estaba un nutrido grupo de curiosos que comentaban el descubrimiento del cadáver.

Cuidaba la propiedad

De acuerdo a los primeros datos recabados, al hoy occiso, de aproximadamente 45 años de edad, párroco en la iglesia de la Sagrada Familia, ubicada en la colonia Las Rosas de Gómez Palacio, Dgo., le fue encargada la vivienda de parte de la familia Rodríguez Morán, que se halla de vacaciones en Acapulco, Gro.

Al no tener contacto con el ministro católico desde el jueves anterior, Eugenio Rodríguez Montañés, se comunicó con uno de sus vecinos, Julio González Valenzuela, para que fuera a ver su casa y comprobar que todo estaba en orden.

Sangrienta escena

El cuerpo del padre Rogelio fue encontrado boca-abajo, con las manos atadas con cadenas y los tobillos con cinta adhesiva ahulada color gris. Su cabeza estaba cubierta con parte de una sábana ensangrentada. Estaba semidesnudo, sólo con un short gris y calzando tenis.

Bajo su tórax se hallaba un gran charco de sangre, que manó de la herida producida en el cuello, que presumiblemente le pudo haber destrozado la yugular, muriendo así desangrado.

El lavabo del baño mostraba huellas de sangre, al parecer donde el o los presuntos responsables del homicidio, se lavaron las manos luego de cometer el crimen.

Se estima que desde el momento de su muerte a la hora en que fue encontrado el cadáver, hayan transcurrido alrededor de seis u ocho horas. Es decir, posiblemente fue asesinado entre las dos y las cuatro de la madrugada del sábado.

Todo esto se dio de manera extraoficial, pues el Ministerio Público aún no giraba el cadáver del infortunado, cuyos familiares se hallaban en el exterior del domicilio, también en espera de lo que comunicaran las autoridades.

Desde el jueves desapareció

Según lo manifestado por Roberto Carrillo Valenzuela, de 52 años de edad, con casa en calle Duraznos No. 1306, de la colonia Ampliación Bella Vista, de Gómez Palacio Dgo., desde el jueves anterior por la noche no sabía nada de su hermano Rogelio.

Señaló que ese día, a eso de las 20:00 horas, estuvo platicando con Rogelio y después ya no supo nada de él, hasta ayer cuando le avisaron que lo encontraron sin vida.

De igual forma indicó que no se encontraba el vehículo propiedad del sacerdote, un auto Dodge Stratus, modelo 2001, color azul marino del cual no recordó las placas.

Hasta el momento de redactar la presente información no había sido establecido el posible móvil de este nuevo homicidio que estremece a la comunidad católica.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

* La Iglesia lo defenderá “como una madre”, dice obispo Aguascalientes, Ags – Mientras el obispo Ramón Godínez Flores afirmó que defenderá “como una madre” al sacerdote Alejandro Cervantes Gallardo, acusado de corrupción de menores, autoridades penitenciarias informaron recientemente que el prelado se encuentra ya recluido en un área especial El cura católico fue internado la semana pasada en un Centro de Readaptación Social del estado, luego de que se le dictó el auto de formal prisión, pero ante los temores de las autoridades penitenciarias de que se le pueda aplicar “la Ley del Talión” fue traspasado a un área en la que convive con internos acusados del mismo delito El año nuevo recibió a esta ciudad con la denuncia y detención en contra de un sacerdote, acusado de violar en tres ocasiones a un menor de 16 años, por lo cual se le dictó auto de formal prisión, en lo que avanzan las investigaciones correspondientes Se trata del sacerdote Alejandro Cervantes, de 31 años y párroco del Templo de la Santa Cruz, quien supuestamente había violado hasta en tres ocasiones al menor Daniel García Al ser entrevistado al respecto, el jerarca diocesano Ramón Godínez Flores no negó ni confirmó las denuncias en contra del sacerdote, subrayando que defenderá al prelado hasta que se compruebe su inocencia “Así como la madre defiende a su hijo, así debo yo defender al padre, hasta que se haga santo”, declaró Godínez Flores, quien aseguró que la detención del cura no fue por violación, sino por corrupción de menores El obispo de Aguascalientes indicó que en caso de ser liberado, Cervantes Gallardo podrá retornar a la parroquia donde prestaba sus servicios, “o alguna otra”, y que no será excomulgado Por su parte, el director del Centro de Rehabilitación Social para Varones de Aguascalientes, Víctor Manuel Muñoz Zavala, confirmó que el sacerdote Alejandro Cervantes Gallardo fue ubicado en un sitio denominado “área común”, junto con otras 31 personas, todas ellas también acusadas por delitos similares Aún cuando garantizó que en este penal no se han presentado casos similares, el funcionario reconoció que muchas veces en las cárceles a los sujetos acusados de violación se les aplica la “Ley del Talión” Muñoz Zavala enfatizó que el sacerdote católico no cuenta con ningún privilegio, por lo que recibe el mismo trato que los demás internos, además de que cumple con sus obligaciones dentro del centro penitenciario Reveló que, según los primeros estudios siquiátricos a que fue sometido, no se trata de un sujeto peligroso Al presbítero se le dictó auto de formal prisión por parte del juez quinto de lo Penal, Alfredo Quiroz García, quien abrió el expediente 371/2002 a finales del año pasado bajo el cargo de corrupción de menores

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

México, D F- El juez décimo de distrito en procesos penales federales aseguró que puede proceder la petición de extradición emitida por el gobierno de Italia contra un sacerdote mexicano acusado de pederastia El prelado Edgar Hidalgo Domínguez está acusado de acciones pederastas cuando estuvo al frente de la iglesia de San Casterese in Quarto, en Nápoles, Italia Debido a lo anterior el gobierno de ese país europeo solicitó la detención y extradición del presbítero, que fue detenido el 14 de septiembre por la Agencia Federal de Investigaciones (AFI) El 8 de noviembre de 1999, el juez de Investigaciones Preliminares del Tribunal de Nápoles, Italia, giró una orden de aprehensión contra el presbítero de 46 años, luego de que una de sus víctimas contó que cuando tenía 11 años Hidalgo la invitó a subir a su cuarto en donde abusó de ella sexualmente Al parecer, este no fue el único caso Después de la revelación, otros más denunciaron lo que les había sucedido 29/01/03

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Aguascalientes, Ags – Un supuesto caso de pederastia por parte de un sacerdote católico es investigado por autoridades judiciales del estado, aunque ya se dictó auto de formal prisión al acusado El nombre del cura es Alejandro Cervantes, párroco de la Iglesia de la Santa Cruz, ubicada en una de las zonas de menores recursos económicos de esta capital, la colonia Martínez Domínguez El representante eclesial habría violado cuando menos en tres ocasiones al niño Daniel García, actualmente de 16 años, cuando éste contaba con 14 Fue el Juez Quinto de lo Penal, Alfredo Quiroz García dictó auto de formal prisión al presbítero Esta acción de la ley quedó plasmada en el expediente 371/2002, decretado a finales del año pasado bajo el cargo de corrupción de menores En declaraciones al semanario local “Tribuna Libre”, la madre de Daniel, María Guadalupe García, reveló que el sacerdote Alejandro Cervantes era considerado amigo de la familia; por lo que demandó la acción de la justicia para castigar el presunto delito del párroco La señora informó que su hijo, quien padece ataques epilépticos, contó a su psicólogo sobre los ataques sexuales que padecía; éste a su vez informó a la madre del menor sobre lo que acontecía en la vida de su hijo La Dirección de Averiguaciones Previas ha dado seguimiento a la denuncia mediante la indagación AP 5008/2002 Asimismo, vecinos del fraccionamiento Martínez Domínguez recordaron que recientemente el sacerdote dejó la parroquia de manera sorpresiva Esto les causó extrañeza porque de acuerdo con algunos lugareños, el párroco ofrecía conferencias sobre supuestos mensajes satánicos en canciones de rock Por eso, si las autoridades estatales determinan declarar a Cervantes culpable de corrupción de menores, este sería el primer caso de acción penal contra un sacerdote por abuso sexual, en Aguascalientes

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Aguascalientes, Ags , (apro)- La Procuraduría de Aguascalientes (PGJE) giró orden de aprehensión contra el sacerdote Alejandro Cervantes Gallardo, párroco del templo de la Santa Cruz, ubicado en una de las colonias más pobres de la entidad, por haber sido acusado de violación en contra de un menor de 14 años; sin embargo, el proceso que se le sigue es bajo el delito de corrupción de menores El caso ha causado consternación e indignación entre la grey católica, pues mientras el sacerdote Alejandro Cervantes Gallardo se encuentra preso, la madre del menor violado exige el cese del obispo de la diócesis, Ramón Godínez Flores, y por su parte el prelado asegura que defenderá al inculpado “¡toda la vida, si es necesario, hasta que se haga santo!” La víctima, Daniel García, relató que hace dos años fue violado en tres ocasiones por el párroco Alfredo Cervantes Gallardo, y que lo amenazó para que no le contara nada a sus padres, quienes tiempo atrás ya le habían abierto las puertas de su hogar al representante eclesiástico, pues no sólo era su guía espiritual, sino también amigo de la familia Abundó que en el 2000 comenzó a acudir al templo de la Santa Cruz, ubicado en la colonia Martínez Domínguez, con el fin de participar en las tradicionales pláticas de Pascua “Y me pedía que me acercara más a la iglesia y me llevó a su casa, donde me violó” María Guadalupe García, madre del menor, señaló que su hijo sufre de ataques epilépticos y consume Rivotril para controlar el problema, por lo que se presume que el sacerdote utilizó las pastillas para drogarlo y aprovechar su inconciencia a fin de abusar sexualmente de él A pesar que hubo resistencia por parte de las autoridades judiciales para abrir la averiguación, el juez quinto penal, Alfredo Quiroz García, decretó formal prisión al presbítero Alfredo Cervantes, según consta en el expediente 371/2002; además se presume que violó a otros tres niños, sin embargo, el proceso se sigue bajo el delito de corrupción de menores, alegando que aún no hay elementos suficientes para demostrar la violación Sobre este asunto, el obispo Godínez Flores afirmó tajante que “apoyará” a Cervantes Gallardo, pues a pesar de ser un representante de Dios en la Tierra, “es un hombre y está expuesto a la tentación por tanta pornografía que hay” Aunque se mostró renuente para hablar sobre el caso, sostuvo que, independientemente de la resolución que emita el juez de la causa, Alfredo Cervantes “no dejará de ser sacerdote ni será excomulgado”, e hizo un llamado a los feligreses: “Hay que orar por todos los sacerdotes para que no caigan en las tentaciones, y con eso es suficiente” Cuestionado sobre las acusaciones de la madre del niño violado, en el sentido de que exigió su destitución por estar solapando a este sacerdote pederasta, respondió tajante: “¡Claro que lo tengo que proteger, como lo hace ella misma con su hijo Y toda la vida lo voy a proteger, si es necesario, hasta que se haga santo, porque todos somos pecadores!”

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

I vertici della Chiesa siciliana lo difendono, la Procura di Palermo è invece convinta della sua colpevolezza: padre Margarito Reyes Marchena, 59 anni, originario del Messico, è accusato di aver abusato di nove giovanissimi ospiti di una casa di accoglienza di Partinico, dove ha prestato servizio per circa sette anni. Nei giorni scorsi, il sostituto procuratore Sandra Recchione ha chiuso l’ indagine e si appresta a chiedere un processo per il sacerdote. è un caso giudiziario che ha diviso non poco quello di padre Reyes Marchena. I consulenti che la Procura aveva nominato per valutare l’ attendibilità di tre dei testi d’ accusa hanno finito per avanzare dubbi: due ragazzini non sarebbero del tutto sinceri, i consulenti sospettano che possano essere stati strumentalizzati da una persona adulta, quella che li ha accompagnati a presentare la denuncia. La Procura replica: non c’ è la prova di alcuna macchinazione, e poi il terzo degli accusatori è stato ritenuto attendibile. L’ avvocato Alberto Polizzi, che difende padre Margarito, ha preso comunque spunto dalla consulenza e ha ottenuto dal giudice delle indagini preliminari, nonostante l’ opposizione della Procura, la scarcerazione del sacerdote. Gli arresti domiciliari sono stati così trasformati in un semplice obbligo di dimora. Il caso nacque nel febbraio dell’ anno scorso, dopo le denunce alla Tenenza della Guardia di finanza di Partinico. Nell’ atto d’ accusa c’ era persino una cassetta registrata da uno dei minori-vittime con le presunte avances di padre Margarito. Scattò subito un fermo, il sacerdote fu bloccato dopo una celebrazione solenne nel duomo di Monreale. In tasca aveva un biglietto di sola andata, destinazione Messico. Per gli inquirenti, un ulteriore indizio della sua colpevolezza. Per la difesa, solo uno dei tanti viaggi che il sacerdote faceva nella sua terra. Le indagini sono state lunghe e difficili: ai tre minori che inizialmente avevano denunciato, si sono aggiunte le accuse di altri tre ragazzini. Padre Margarito ha sempre scelto di non rispondere ai giudici: la sua difesa ha però portato in tribunale le 1.500 firme raccolte nella diocesi di Monreale. E in difesa del prete indagato per pedofilia è scesa persino la Curia.s.p03 gennaio 2003 sez.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chis (apro)- La madre del sacerdote, Edgar Gaudencio Hidalgo Domínguez, acusado por presuntos actos de pederastia en Italia, pidió la intervención y apoyo jurídico del gobierno mexicano para su hijo Entrevistada vía telefónica en la localidad de Simojovel, Bartola Domínguez Meneses dijo que luego de escuchar la noticia de la captura de su hijo por agentes de la Policía Internacional (Interpol) se sintió sumamente angustiada por no poder estar a su lado para ayudarle en estos momentos difíciles que enfrenta el sacerdote de 46 años de edad El cura chiapaneco tiene una orden de aprehensión girada el 8 de noviembre de 1999 por el juez de Investigaciones Preliminares ante el Tribunal de Nápoles, Italia, por su presunta responsabilidad en la comisión de violencia sexual en perjuicio de menores Según el documento, estos hechos tuvieron lugar cuando era sacerdote de la sacristía de San Casterese in Quarto, en Nápoles La denuncia fue presentada por una de sus víctimas, la cual denunció que en 1997, cuando tenía 11 años, el sacerdote abusó de ella en varias ocasiones A esa acusación se sumaron otras, por lo que las autoridades italianas se encargaron del caso y solicitaron la colaboración de Interpol-Roma, que a su vez solicitó la cooperación de la AFI para localizar al sacerdote en nuestro país Ante esto, la madre del cura Bartola Domínguez, de 69, años pidió a la Coordinación de Atención Ciudadana de la Presidencia de la República y la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE) apoyen a su hijo de manera jurídica porque los delitos de los cuales es acusado podrían ser “orquestados” Aseguró que el pasado de su hijo “es de honestidad y responsabilidad, no de perversiones sexuales”, por lo que consideró que este desprestigio al que ha sido sometido tiene algunos “intereses oscuros” que desconoce hasta el momento Bartola, junto a su esposo José Hidalgo, de 74 años, dijo que el tercero de sus ocho hijos (tres hombres y cinco mujeres) nació en esa pequeña localidad, 160 kilómetros al norte de esta capital, donde la población es mayoritariamente indígena de la etnia tzotzil Estudió la secundaria en esa localidad y a los 16 años Edgar Gaudencio se fue a la ciudad de Cuernavaca, Morelos, con su hermano Román a estudiar la carrera de técnico bioquímico laboratorista, pero años después ingresó al seminario para convertirse en sacerdote y se ordenó en 1990 en el estado de Durango Edgar Gaudencio pertenece a la orden de la Asociación Cruzados de Cristo Rey, que dirige el padre José Peredo Crespo, con sede en el estado de Puebla La última vez que Bartola vio a su hijo fue cuando vino a visitarla por unos días, del 25 de julio al 8 de agosto pasados, desde esa ocasión el sacerdote regresó a la parroquia de Santa María de Guadalupe, ubicada en la delegación Iztapalapa, en el Distrito Federal El miércoles en la noche, al ver el noticiero de Joaquín López Dóriga dijo sentir “morirse” al conocer que fue capturado por agentes de la Interpol con fines de extradición, pero afortunadamente tiene otro hijo que le está ayudando, Guidar Wenceslao Hidalgo Domínguez, también es sacerdote en Chihuahua 19/09/02

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

México, D F- El sacerdote mexicano Edgar Gaudencio Hidalgo, a quien el gobierno de Italia acusa de haber sostenido relaciones sexuales con menores de edad, fue detenido con fines de extradición el pasado 14 de septiembre en la parroquia de Santa María de Guadalupe, ubicada en la delegación Iztapalapa, informó La Procuraduría General de la República Aunque se desconoce el número de denuncias que pesan en contra del sacerdote, de 46 años de edad, quien ya se encuentra en el Reclusorio Preventivo Oriente, la Procuraduría General de la República reveló que una de las víctimas que lo denunció contaba con tan sólo 11 años de edad Al dar una opinión sobre el caso en cuestión, José Manuel Villalpando, especialista en asuntos religiosos, se declaró en favor de la eliminación del fuero eclesiástico A decir del catedrático de la Escuela Libre de Derecho, dicha figura solamente da pie a que curas pederastas continúen llevando a cabo esos ilícitos impunemente José Luis Villalpando aseguró que la religión, independientemente de la que se profese, no puede proteger delincuentes, de ahí la exigencia de que se aplique todo el peso de la ley 18/09/02

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

CULIACAN / Sinaloa

Felipe Valenzuela Cervantes, el sacerdote arrestado el domingo bajo cargos de atentados al pudor contra tres menores de edad que ratificaron la denuncia, fue exonerado de culpa por el Juzgado Segundo de lo Penal de Los Mochis, Sinaloa.

Esta determinación provocó la inmediata inconformidad de la Procuraduría Estatal de Justicia, institución que inmediatamente apeló ante la siguiente instancia judicial.

“Simplemente no encontré elementos suficientes para dictar auto de formal prisión al señor sacerdote que se encontraba en calidad de indiciado”, expuso Jesús Enrique Orozco Chávez, juez del caso.

“Las pruebas presentadas por el Ministerio Público no fueron suficientes para acreditar la responsabilidad penal del indiciado, por lo que lo único que procedía era dictar el auto de libertad, o sea la exoneración de cargos en lo que se refiere a esta primera instancia”.

En octubre del 2001, cinco internos de la Casa Hogar Santa Eduviges, en Los Mochis, Sinaloa, demandaron por lesiones y atentados al pudor a Felipe Valenzuela Cervantes, entonces colaborador de dicha institución.

El caso fue revelado a la opinión pública hasta el 4 de julio del 2002 por Jaime Cinco Soto, presidente de la Comisión Estatal de los Derechos Humanos, quien criticó que haya sido archivado sin mayor investigación y exigió su reapertura.

La fiscalía estatal acató la recomendación, por lo que el 28 de agosto se consignó el expediente al Juzgado de Los Mochis, éste libra orden de aprehensión el 6 de septiembre del 2002, misma que fue cumplimentada el sábado pasado.

Melchor Cota Peñuelas, subprocurador estatal de Justicia, advirtió que ayer mismo impugnaron ante el Supremo Tribunal de Justicia la decisión del juzgador.

“Insistiremos en el ejercicio de la acción penal, habremos de esperar al recurso de apelación y esperemos que el Supremo Tribunal de Justicia revoque la decisión del juez de primera instancia”, dijo.

Exigen ahorradores su dinero

A casi dos años de que fueron defraudados por el sacerdote Gregorio Bautista Hernández, mil 500 personas, principalmente indígenas, de la Huasteca hidalguense exigieron que les sea regresado en su totalidad el dinero que habían depositado en la caja de ahorro “Regrece”.

Nicandro Rodríguez, a nombre de las personas defraudadas, destacó que la detención y sentencia del “Padre Goyo” no ha servido finalmente de nada, ya que el dinero se quedó en la nada y los afectados siguen en las mismas condiciones.

El Padre Gregorio Bautista Hernández ha insistido una y otra vez que actuó de buena fe, pero lo que sucedió fue que a los primeros ahorradores sí les pudo entregar su dinero junto con altos intereses, además de hacer préstamos a bajas tasas de interés que finalmente, al no ser liquidados, generaron una incapacidad de pago, de tal modo que rechazó haber robado un solo peso.

Con información de Javier Peralta

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

By ARTHUR JONES
Los Angeles

Clerical sex abuse is apparently about to cost the Los Angeles archdiocese dearly in payouts, legal expenses and appalling publicity. The Los Angeles Times reported Aug.18 that the archdiocese is facing a multi-million dollar class action sex abuse lawsuit and the indictments of possibly as many as “15 current and former priests on felony sex abuse charges.”

In a 20,000-word report resulting from more than 100 interviews to which the Times assigned three writers and two researchers, the newspaper account listed the local church’s evasions and errors, including the allegation that “since 1985 … the archdiocese … worked to keep a growing problem from the eyes of the public and out of the hands of the law.”

The paper then listed the names (often with photographs) of “at least” 33 priests and one deacon who allegedly sexually abused boys, young men or girls in the 17 years since Cardinal Roger Mahony became archbishop.

One of the cases, that of Fr. Michael Stephen Baker, has the potential of creating local financial and image problems for Mahony approaching the disastrous level faced by Cardinal Bernard Law and the Boston archdiocese for transfers of known abusive priests.

In the Baker case, the priest himself allegedly told Mahony he had abused some boys, but Mahony did not remove him (see accompanying story).

Throughout the almost four-page article the cardinal was periodically quoted defending or explaining his or the archdiocese’s actions or inaction. But of the Baker case, Mahony told the Times, “I have to be honest with you. There is absolutely nothing good about the Baker case. Just absolutely nothing.”

The Times reporting, by Glenn F. Bunting, Ralph Frammolino and Richard Winton, is punctuated with accounts of Mahony failing to dismiss or take other action against accused priests. He allowed two priests, already convicted of sex offences, to continue to reside on church property and did not dismiss them until last February, said the Times.

The Times further alleged that the archdiocese “routinely failed to report errant priests to authorities” until a 1997 California law compelled disclosure. The newspaper said that language requiring the removal of a priest found to have molested a minor was not added to archdiocesan policy until last February. “Mahony was forced to adopt a ‘zero tolerance’ policy as part of a $5.2 million settlement that the archdiocese and the diocese of Orange negotiated last year with one abuse victim, Ryan DiMaria,” the Times reported.

Seven priests were allegedly removed as a result. Out-of-court settlements in various parts of the archdiocese have totaled $9.2 million in the past 18 months, $3.7 million borne by the archdiocese itself, stated the Times.

Of the 33 priests accused since 1985, five fled abroad, one disappeared. Two of those six priests are fugitives, the Times reported.

The Los Angeles Times listed the following men and incidents:

• Seven priests were removed from office: Gerald B. Fessard, 56 (in 1987 pleaded no contest to soliciting lewd acts; served 36 months probation); Roderic Guerrini, 70 (denies allegations being pursued by Los Angeles Police Department of sexual misconduct with two teenage girls in the 1970s); James F. O’Grady (police are investigating the claim that O’Grady, retired in Ireland, molested altar girls); G. Neville Rucker, 81 (police are investigating two accusations of molestation involving six girls); Carl Sutphin, 70 (Los Angeles police and Ventura County sheriffs are investigating allegations of abuse of two pairs of brothers); Michael Wempe, 62 (police are investigating allegations he abused three boys); John Wishard, 70 (pleaded no contest in 1980 to “felony oral copulation charge involving a boy,” sentenced to probation, conviction later dismissed). 
• Six priests who served in the archdiocese were accused of abuse and later fled: Lynn Caffoe, 56 (“whereabouts unknown,” the Catholic high school counselor was accused of abuse by a student); Tilak Jayawardene, 58 (police are seeking his extradition from Sri Lanka on charges of oral copulation with a boy); Patrick Kelly, 71 (pleaded no contest from Ireland to charges of fondling a young girl, “promised to return to Los Angeles” but did not; received three years probation); Nicolas Agullar Rivera, 60 (police still investigating after Rivera “went to Mexico City following allegations that he sexually abused altar boys”; charges were dismissed in Mexico); Arulappan Savrianandam, 56 (accused of sexual touching by a teenage girl, he returned to India); Santiago Tamayo (fled to Philippines, after accusations “of having sex with underage girl in 1970, later apologized to victim”; died in 1996). 
• Three priests have been convicted: Richard Allen Henry, 49 (eight years, 1993, pleaded no contest to sex acts with four children in one family; is not a registered sex offender); John Anthony Salazar, 53 (six years, 1988, admitted abusing two boys; is now a registered sex offender); Deacon Arturo Ahumada, 46 (sentenced to one year in county jail, June 2002, provided pornographic material to two boys and committed sexual battery of a third). 
• Charges were dismissed against one priest because the case was not filed within the period allowed by the statute of limitations: Theodore Llanos (“38 counts of sexual abuse of minors,” filed in 1995; charges dismissed in 1996; committed suicide in 1997). 
• Seventeen priests are under investigation: Michael S. Baker (see accompanying story); Matthias Berumen, 41 (out of ministry, district attorney is investigating a 25-year-old male’s accusations of abuse in 1980s); Honesto Bismonte, 72 (on leave, pleaded not guilty to four counts of lewd acts with teenage girls); Patrick Cotter, 70 (retired, police are investigating a teenage girl’s accusation of molestation “about a decade ago”); John Dawson, 61 (out of ministry, removed in 1992 after allegations of molestation; police investigating other charges); Walter Fernando, 58 (denies allegations he fondled a teenage girl in the 1980s, police are investigating; he is on inactive leave); David Granadino, 46 (denies allegation of molesting a teenage boy, Los Angeles County sheriff is investigating; Granadino is on inactive leave); Stephen Hernandez, 68 (denies accusations of repeatedly fondling an incarcerated juvenile; Los Angeles Police Department is investigating, on inactive leave).
  
  Philip Kavanaugh, 56 (police are investigating accusations he molested a teenager in 1970s; he is on inactive leave); Christopher Kearney, 59 (accusations of molestations during impromptu wrestling matches with Catholic high school boys; he is on inactive leave); George Miller, 64 (denies allegations he molested boys in 1970s and 1980s, police are investigating; he is retired); Joseph Pina, 56 (accused of sexual abuse of 14-year-old-girl); Dominic Savino, 63 (accused of molesting minors, he is on inactive leave); John Santillan, 63 (denies allegation he sexually abused an altar boy in 1970s, police are investigating; he is now in Bolivia); Fidencio Silva, 54 (denies allegations of sexual abuse of boys; victims are suing the archdiocese and Silva; he resides in Mexico); Carl Tresler, 37 (investigation is proceeding into allegations he abused a 15-year-old boy; he was removed from ministry in Los Angeles; now serving as priest in Peru); Christian Van Llefde, 53 (police are investigating charges of abuse of a minor in 1974; now on inactive leave). 

Arthur Jones is NCR editor at large. His e-mail address is ajones96@aol.com

Copyright (c) 2002 
National Catholic Reporter 
115 E. Armour Blvd. 
Kansas City, MO 64111

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

La Iglesia, “secuestrada” por grupos de poder, dicen en libro

El gobierno del estado y el PRI defienden al prelado

Chihuahua, Chih., 15 de agosto. Dieciocho sacerdotes, de esta capital y Ciudad Juárez, critican en un libro al titular de la diócesis de Chihuahua, arzobispo José Fernández Arteaga, a quien acusan de “tener mucho amor por el dinero y el poder”, así como de estar “enfermo y obsesionado por la autoridad”. Igualmente, en la publicación se quejan de que el prelado ha orquestado “el secuestro de la Iglesia católica chihuahuense” en favor de grupos de poder político.

Los coautores del libro JFA, Chihuahua 2000, editado en coparticipación con la Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, cuya circulación ha impedido la diócesis capitalina desde marzo pasado, autorizaron la publicación de una síntesis del volumen en la prensa local. En el extracto se habla de diversas irregularidades en las que habría incurrido Fernández Arteaga a partir de su llegada al estado, en 1989, como obispo coadjutor; asimismo, se detalla el papel que tuvo la Iglesia católica en el movimiento poselectoral de 1986.

Los curas que participaron en la elaboración del libro, entre ellos Ildefonso Acosta Corrales, Martín Barraza Beltrán, Jorge Arturo Martínez García, Raúl Trevizo y Dizán Vázquez Loya, acusaron a José Fernández de someter la línea pastoral al poder de los grupos políticos y económicos de la entidad, por encima del interés general de la grey, sacerdotes y diáconos que conforman la comunidad eclesiástica.

En el libro se afirmó que al tomar posesión como arzobispo de Chihuahua, en 1991, Fernández Arteaga impuso un freno “a todas las actividades y a todo impulso de vida en la diócesis”, luego del dinamismo que llegó a tener en la década de 1980.

En aquella época, especialmente en el verano de 1986, cuando el ahora secretario de la Contraloría, Francisco Barrio Terrazas, encabezó un movimiento de resistencia civil por el supuesto fraude electoral que le impidió ocupar la gubernatura, lo apoyaron la Iglesia católica y los entonces arzobispos Manuel Talamás Camandari y Alberto Almeida y Merino, quienes inclusos cerraron templos en apoyo al panismo.

Como muestra de la represión interna que se desató contra los católicos de Chihuahua, los sacerdotes acusaron a Fernández Arteaga de obstaculizar el ordenamiento de clérigos identificados con la línea pastoral de sus predecesores, e imponer aranceles o cobros por servicios religiosos que pagaban de forma voluntaria los fieles, quienes actualmente deben cubrir cuotas de 400 pesos por una misa de 15 años, o mil pesos por matrimonios.

Además le imputaron dilapidar recursos “en gastos ostentosos” para la remodelación de su casa particular y sus oficinas, así como eliminar apoyos a asociaciones de asistencia dependientes de la Iglesia católica, como Cáritas o la Granja Hogar de los Niños.

Los prelados que firmaron el libro relataron también que en los últimos años sostuvieron reuniones con el ex nuncio apostólico Justo Müllor para que intercediera ante el Papa y presentara “la crisis interna” en la diócesis de Chihuahua, para cuya solución pidieron el relevo de Fernández Arteaga.

La existencia del libro y su contenido salieron a la luz pública cuatro días después de que se publicaron fotos del banderazo de arranque a las obras de la carretera Cuauhtémoc-Guerrero, en las que apareció el jerarca católico al lado del gobernador, Patricio Martínez, a pesar de la polémica que existe entre las administraciones federal y estatal, así como sectores económicos y sociales identificados con los partidos PRI y PAN por la realización de la autopista, lo que levantó duras críticas contea el arzobispo por su respaldo al mandatario local.

En defensa del prelado, avalando su “integridad moral, intelectual y vocación pastoral”, habló hoy en conferencia de prensa el secretario general de Gobierno, Sergio Martínez Garza, así como dirigentes del Partido Revolucionario Institucional, mientras que Acción Nacional no se pronunció al respecto.

En la arquidiócesis se negó el acceso a la prensa, que buscó una entrevista con Fernández Arteaga, quien no respondió las llamadas a sus teléfonos particulares o a su celular.

En cuanto a la publicación del extracto del libro, el sacerdote Dizán Vázquez aseguró que él y otros 17 clérigos solamente fueron avales de la edición, para que no apareciera sin firma. Explicó que el contenido del libro involucra a más de 100 personas, pues se trata de una recopilación de declaraciones, y desde ese punto de vista, “son autores todos los que rinden su testimonio”.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Descarta que se den manifestaciones de antiaparicionistas durante la visita del Papa

Minimiza Giuseppe Bertello casos de sacerdotes pederastas estadunidenses; sucedieron hace mucho

Pide la Iglesia católica de EU remover a un cura de Tijuana por conducta sexual inapropiada

La Iglesia católica de Estados Unidos pidió al obispo de Tijuana, Rafael Romo Muñoz, remover de su cargo en una parroquia local al sacerdote de origen mexicano Javier Gutiérrez Ramírez, acusado de conducta sexual inapropiada en un hecho ocurrido hace 16 años. Mientras, en Acapulco, Guerrero, el nuncio apostólico Giuseppe Bertello, expresó que el tema de la pederastia en la Iglesia estadunidense debe ser visto en su contexto histórico, “hay hechos que sucedieron hace mucho”, por lo que -sin justificar- pidió “pensar de acuerdo con la mentalidad de aquellos años para comprender la actitud que ha tenido la gente en ese entonces. Muchas veces nosotros queremos juzgar con nuestras ideas de hoy hechos que han pasado hace 30 años”.

Entrevistado después de oficiar misa en el buque escuela Amerigo Vespucci, que ayer arribó a este puerto, Bertello comentó que la visita del papa Juan Pablo II a México es “un momento de fe para todo el pueblo cristiano, y diría que para el pueblo en general, un momento de reflexión, de fiesta, porque llega el padre común”.

En conversación con la prensa el nuncio apostólico rechazó que durante la canonización de Juan Diego, la próxima semana en la Basílica de Guadalupe, se den manifestaciones de católicos antiaparicionistas: “No, el pueblo mexicano es un pueblo maduro”. 

Sobre la petición de los diputados federales para que el Vaticano levante la excomunión al cura Miguel Hidalgo, expresó que él ya transmitió la solicitud de los legisladores mexicanos. Sin embargo, opinó: “Me parece que este es un momento tan religioso y tan de fe que esto sería desviar un poco en el sentido político una ceremonia tan importante”.

Afirmó que espera que el conflicto de los ejidatarios de San Salvador Atenco se resuelva mediante el diálogo y rechazó que se den manifestaciones durante la visita papal.

A los oficios religiosos en el Amerigo Vespucci asistieron el embajador de Italia, Franco Tempesta, y miembros de la comunidad italiana en Acapulco por 150 familias. No asistió el arzobispo de Acapulco, Felipe Aguirre Franco.

“Malentendido cultural”

Mientras tanto, en Baja California, la Iglesia católica de Estados Unidos pidió al obispo de Tijuana, Rafael Romo Muñoz, remover de su cargo en una parroquia local al sacerdote de origen mexicano Javier Gutiérrez Ramírez, acusado de conducta sexual inapropiada por haber intentado besar contra su voluntad a una menor de 16 años de edad hace casi veinte años, cuando se desempeñaba como encargado de una iglesia en Alaska, Estados Unidos.

El obispo Michael W. Warfel de Juneau, Alaska, dijo al diario Union Tribune, de San Diego, California, que él siguió la recomendación de un nuevo comité examinador de la conducta sexual, aprobado por los obispos católicos, que prohibió a Javier Gutiérrez Ramírez desempeñarse como sacerdote. Sin embargo, Gutiérrez, de 50 años de edad, todavía se desempeña en la iglesia de Nuestra Señora de Lourdes, ubicada en esta frontera, y el obispado local deberá removerlo del cargo.

Warfel envió al obispo de Tijuana, Rafael Romo Muñoz un fax y una carta certificada el pasado jueves informando de la decisión del comité que analizó la denuncia de la mujer, quien alega que cuando tenía apenas 16 años fue obligada por el prelado a besarlo. Gutiérrez negó las acusaciones, aunque reconoce que “abrazó” a una muchacha de 16 años en una parroquia en Haines, Alaska. “Lo hice sin mala intención, fue un abrazo de cinco segundos que para nosotros los mexicanos no implica lo que allá se está interpretando”, expresó. 

Pero Warfel aseguró al rotativo estadunidense que el caso iba más allá del malentendido cultural. “No pienso así, pues he vivido en México y soy bastante familiar con la cultura”, agregó. Actualmente en la diócesis de Tijuana hay otro proceso legal pendiente que implica a un diácono acusado de “conducta sexual inapropiada” contra un adolescente.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Pese a los riesgos de las mafias locales, en La Merced hay un lugar para apoyar a las sexoservidoras

“Es gente a la que también tenemos que atender. También son hijas de Dios y nosotros no somos

nadie para juzgarlas”, dice el párroco de la iglesia de la Soledad, Saúl Tapia Godoy.

En la zona casi pleno corazón de La Merced se sabe que éste es el templo que gran número de

sexoservidoras han hecho suyo. Aquí acuden regularmente a confesarse, a escuchar misa, y a

“lavar sus culpas”.

Sin embargo, a decir del sacerdote Tapia, ninguna de ellas se atreve a trabajar recargadas en las

bardas que rodean la iglesia. Tampoco entran en ella con su vestimenta propia del oficio ni con

maquillaje chillante.

El jardín de la plaza de la Soledad, que sirve de antesala al recinto, está muy lejos de ser el del

paraíso: mujeres que venden sus “favores” por unos cuantos pesos, teporochos que han

encontrado entre los matorrales una casa y jóvenes y niños que deambulan como zombies

aturdidos por la droga, abundan en él.

La veneración de la Virgen de la Soledad por este sector de la población tiene razones específicas

que explica el párroco Saúl Tapia: “Con La Soledad pasa un fenómeno curioso. A ellas, a las

sexoservidoras, es una imagen que les llega mucho. Se identifican con la figura de la Virgen,

primero, porque son mujeres, también son madres y sufren mucho. La suya, además, es una

profesión de mucha soledad, como la virgen.”

Riesgos pastorales

“Estamos rodeados de prostíbulos, en el mismo jardín están trabajando, entonces es lógico que

acudan a esta iglesia”, dice.

Pese a ello, dice que no es fácil realizar el trabajo pastoral que estas mujeres merecen. La causa: la

prostitución es un negocio que envuelve muchos intereses económicos.

“Tratar de convertirlas al buen camino por iniciativa nuestra es sumamente peligroso. Es exponer

nuestra propia vida ante todas las mafias que las manejan”, dice Tapia Godoy. Y refiere un ejemplo:

“Al párroco de una iglesia del centro que quería ayudar a estas muchachas le sucedió algo muy

desagradable. Un buen día se metieron a su casa y lo sedaron. Fue tal la cantidad de medicina que

le metieron que lo dejaron mal de la cabeza”.

Por ello, asegura, es que, por órdenes superiores, el personal que labora en la iglesia de la Soledad

no busca “sacar del pecado” a estas mujeres. “Eso sí, cada vez que vienen las recibimos y

escuchamos. Entonces sí las aconsejamos y pedimos por ellas”, aclara.

Pero la religiosidad de las sexoservidoras de la zona no se expresa exclusivamente al interior de la

iglesia de la Soledad.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

CULIACÁN, Sin. El titular de la Comisión de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos estatal, Jaime

Cinco Soto, pidió a la Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado (PGJE) reabra el caso del

sacerdote Felipe Valenzuela Cervantes, a quien se le abrió un expediente por pedofilia por atentar

contra el pudor y lesionar a seis niñas que estaban bajo su tutoría.

El ombudsman apuntó que dada la premura con la que se integró el expediente del ex

administrador de la Casa-Hogar “Eduviges Santa”, ubicada en Los Mochis, se tienen dudas sobre la

actuación de los funcionarios de justicia y porque incurrieron en una serie de fallas y omisiones en

la averiguación previa, lo que impidió ejercer acción penal contra el religioso.

A pesar de que las personas que acusaron a Valenzuela Cervantes ya se retractaron y de que éste

fue reubicado en la iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, en Culiacán, el ombudsman estatal

expuso que remitió a la suprocuradora de Justicia del estado en la zona norte, Edna Aguirre, una

recomendación para reabrir la averiguación previa y establecer con precisión qué sucedió en

realidad en esa casa-hogar.

La procuradora de la Defensa del Menor y la Familia, María Luisa Zambada Gallardo, dio a conocer

que la agente tercera del Ministerio Público, Gertrudis Almeida Cota, únicamente le dio vista del

hecho sin solicitar su coadyuvancia, máxime que ésta resolvió que no procedía ninguna acción legal

contra el clérigo porque recibió el perdón de la parte acusadora.

Lo dispensó el presidente de la Casa-Hogar

Trascendió que el presidente del patronato de la Casa Hogar, Rafael Victoria Muñoz, otorgó el

perdón al cura por ser el tutor de las seis menores de edad que aducen haber sufrido actos contra

su pudor.

Sin embargo, Zambada Gallardo hizo notar que el presidente del patronato de la casa-hogar no está

facultado para otorgar el perdón al presbítero, ni de ejercer la patria potestad de las menores,

puesto que todas ellas cuentan con familiares, como son sus padres y abuelos.

También asentó que en ninguna parte del expediente abierto por pedofilia se hace constar que el

sacerdote Valenzuela Cervantes fue citado a declarar sobre los hechos que se le imputaban.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

El fundador y líder de los Legionarios de Cristo, Marcial Maciel, se deslindó nuevamente de las

acusaciones que, por abuso sexual contra jóvenes, pesan en su contra desde 1995.

En una carta fechada el 22 de abril y difundida este viernes por su sitio en Internet, el padre Maciel

afirma que, ante el escándalo de sacerdotes pederastas dentro del clero católico, se “han vuelto a

publicar acusaciones que un grupo de ex legionarios de Cristo hizo contra mí”, en torno a hechos

que, según las acusaciones, tuvieron lugar hace 40 o 50 años.

“Declaro categóricamente que estas acusaciones, que se hacen contra mí, son falsas”, señaló en su

primera declaración pública, luego de que se desató una ola de acusaciones contra prelados

abusadores de menores.

“Nunca ha tenido el tipo de comportamiento abominable del cual me acusan”, expuso el sacerdote,

declarado por el papa Juan Pablo II como “ejemplo para la juventud”.

Desde 1995, nueve ex integrantes de los Legionarios de Cristo (tres profesores universitarios, un

cura, un maestro, un ingeniero, un agricultor, un abogado y un hombre que retiró la demanda) han

afirmado que Maciel abusó de ellos cuando tenían alrededor de 12 años, en los seminarios de la

iglesia en España e Italia, y que esto ocurrió durante los años 40, 50 y 60.

Maciel aseguró tener en su poder cartas de sus acusadores, que datan de los años 60 y 70, en las

que le manifiestan su gratitud y amistad, “en términos muy cálidos y cordiales”. Entre quienes han

denunciado los abusos figuran Juan José Vaca, ex presidente de los Legionarios de Cristo en

Estados Unidos, hasta que abandonó la orden en 1976, y el tesorero de la organización, entre 1976

y 1981, Óscar Sánchez.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

La Arquidiócesis de Monterrey reconoció ayer la existencia aquí de casos de abusos sexuales por parte de sacerdotes católicos, pero aseguró que una de las medidas de actuación ante algunos de los “muy pocos casos” es retirar al presbítero de su labor ministerial.

En un comunicado, firmado por el Cardenal Adolfo Suárez Rivera, Arzobispo de Monterrey, la Arquidiócesis expresa por vez primera la postura de la jerarquía católica regiomontana en torno a la difusión de los casos de pederastas entre el presbiterio.

El texto de una cuartilla hace mención en general de los casos difundidos a través de los medios de comunicación, pero no entra en ningún detalle.

“Sin negar la veracidad de algunos de ellos -que nosotros condenamos de forma rotunda-, también reprobamos que se distorsionen y generalicen estas dolorosas situaciones como si se quisiera hacer pensar a nuestro pueblo que es un fenómeno común y frecuente”, señala Suárez Rivera en el segundo párrafo.

“En nuestra Arquidiócesis hemos actuado de inmediato en los muy pocos casos que se han presentado”, añade.

Aunque el comunicado no aclara qué medidas ha tomado la Iglesia católica local, Gerardo María Mayela González Farías, secretario canciller de la Curia Arzobispal, afirmó ayer en entrevista que el protocolo que se emplea ante las acusaciones de abuso sexual es que al sacerdote se le retira de su puesto.

Al referirse a la información difundida en los medios de comunicación, el secretario canciller recordó el caso del sacerdote Juan Carlos Moreno Loza, quien fue acusado de estupro en 1995, cuando era el párroco del municipio de Marín y que ahora oficia en una iglesia de León, Guanajuato.

“El caso que se ha mencionado del Padre Juan Carlos”, dijo. “Cuando se dieron aquellos momentos, que yo no supe y que ahora estoy leyendo en el periódico, a él se le retiró del ministerio y estuvo un tiempo en tratamiento y en estas cosas que se hacen.

“El estar fuera de Monterrey era para evitar cualquier escándalo”, agregó. “Su familia es de León y por eso estaba allá, pero esto no sé yo cómo se manejaría en ese entonces”.

González Farías no quiso señalar cuántos casos exactamente se han dado en la Arquidiócesis, sólo dijo que se contaban con los dedos de una mano “y sobran dedos”.

Difunden Caso Maciel en EU

El programa informativo “20/20”, de la cadena de televisión ABC de Estados Unidos, difundió anoche un reportaje especial sobre las denuncias en contra del Padre Marcial Maciel por abuso sexual.

El líder de los Legionarios de Cristo fue descrito en el reportaje como “el fiel aliado del Papa” y como “uno de los hombres más poderosos -pero también el más misterioso- de la Iglesia católica hoy”.

El periodista Brian Ross presentó a presuntas víctimas del sacerdote, entre ellos varios mexicanos viviendo ahora en Estados Unidos, quienes narraron sus versiones sobre lo ocurrido hace más de 50 años, cuando eran estudiantes del Colegio Legionario en Roma.

El reportero señaló que el Padre Maciel rechazó hablar para el programa, pero su vocero negó las acusaciones diciendo que son totalmente falsas.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Ciudad Victoria (apro) – El párroco David Martínez Reyna reveló que actualmente la Iglesia católica tamaulipeca registra un caso de pedofilia, que ya mereció la intervención de las autoridades y la detención de un sacerdote Precisó que el caso involucra al plesbítero Salomón David Sandoval, quien estaba asignado en la parroquia del municipio de Hidalgo y fue acusado de abusos sexuales contra menores Martínez Reyna indicó que por instrucciones del obispo Antonio González Sánchez, él se hizo cargo interinamente de la parroquia de Hidalgo, para que se investigue el caso y detecte la magnitud de los hechos El sacerdote Sandoval fue acusado penalmente de violación de un menor, lo que fue comprobado judicialmente, por lo que se procedió en su contra y fue detenido, reconoció “Son hechos que llenan de dolor y pena, porque la Iglesia es una institución para hacer el bien, para orientar, no para lesionar”, expresó el clérigo Dijo que el obispo ordenó la expulsión del pederasta, y que la Iglesia no pondrá ningún obstáculo para proteger al mal sacerdote, o evitar la acción de la justicia Lo más importante, indicó, es la protección de las víctimas de este tipo de abusos que dañan a personas, a familias y a la Iglesia como institución de fe Entre las medidas ordenadas por el obispo, señaló Martínez Reyna, está el hacer más selectiva la designación de los sacerdotes, para detectar “desviaciones” de este tipo antes que se les permita su ordenación 26/04/02

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Al menos 13 alumnos de un colegio dirigido por la congregación de los Legionarios de Cristo fueron víctimas de violación por parte del prefecto en los años 80. Éste implicó también a dos clérigos

El 7 de junio de 1985, Eduardo Villafuerte Casas Alatriste fue sentenciado a 18 años de prisión por

haber violado y abusado sexualmente de al menos 13 alumnos de primaria del Instituto Cumbres,

dirigido por la congregación religiosa de los Legionarios de Cristo; era el prefecto del colegio.

Junto con él, fue sentenciado el padre Eduardo Lucatero Álvarez, quien había sido director de esa

primaria cuando Villafuerte violó a los niños, y que ya en ese momento fungía como secretario

general de la Universidad Anáhuac del Sur. El titular del Juzgado 14, con sede en el Reclusorio

Norte, lo culpó de un cargo menor: encubrimiento.

“Al principio pensé que (las violaciones) eran un accidente, pero luego descubrí tres casos. Yo

sugerí que no se practicara ninguna investigación para evitar que resultaran afectados algunos

otros menores. No di aviso a las autoridades porque lo vi desde otro punto de vista: tranquilizar a

los padres (…) Yo no quería darle publicidad al caso, para que no se perjudicara al colegio”,

reconoció Lucatero, según su testimonio ante el juez, del cual EL UNIVERSAL tiene una copia.

Eso le valió al sacerdote de los Legionarios una condena de sólo ocho meses de prisión y pagar

una multa de 150 pesos. Eso, pese a que el violador confeso, un laico, declaró también ante el juez

que en el Instituto Cumbres él no era el único que cometió los abusos sexuales.

Y señaló directamente a dos sacerdotes: Eduardo Lucatero y Guillermo Romo Atilano.

De Lucatero declaró: “Que también sabe y vio en ocasiones al director, de nombre Eduardo

Lucatero, confesando a menores, los acariciaba soezmente. También se llevaba a las niñas,

hermanas de los alumnos, y les acariciaba sus partes nobles obscenamente, incluso a algunas las

besaba en la boca. Sí, niñas, van al colegio cuando hay preparativos para una primera comunión o

cursos de vacaciones.”

De Romo Atilano dijo: “Que a finales de 1981, Romo, los niños y el declarante (Villafuerte) fueron a

una hacienda en Hidalgo. Estuvieron de viernes a domingo. Que se repartieron en habitaciones a

los niños y que recuerda que Romo Atilano se llevó a uno de ellos. Que fue a esa habitación para

recoger el botiquín médico y se dio cuenta que en el cuarto se encontraba Romo Atilano con un

menor, quien lloraba y gritaba: `¡No, padre, no, ya no, por favor!`. Que quiso abrir la puerta, pero

estaba cerrada por dentro.”

En la calle de Rosedal 50, Lomas de Chapultepec, “pasaban más cosas”, declaraba Villafuerte

Casas Alatriste. Sólo él iría a parar a la cárcel. “Villafuerte Casas Alatriste fue el chivo expiatorio. Sí,

él abusó de los niños, hablaba que de unos 200 en 10 años, pero también los otros, Lucatero y

Romo. Sólo que como eran sacerdotes no les hicieron nada”, dice ahora Elsa H., madre de uno de

los únicos dos niños del Instituto Cumbres que decidieron llevar el caso ante un juez. “Los

encubrieron”.

* * *

Cuando los dos niños tenían siete años, El Güicho , como apodaban a Villafuerte Casas Alatriste,

los violó. Ese tipo delgaducho y de cabello lacio se valía de una simple tarjeta roja de cartón, que en

el Cumbres significa la expulsión del alumno. Les pegó, los amenazó con echarlos de la primaria si

hablaban de lo sucedido. Por eso, de 1981 a 1983, los chicos prefirieron mentirle a sus padres: que

esos golpes en la cara eran por riñas infantiles, o que no se explicaban ese sangrado en la orina.

Pero un día Villafuerte se fue del Instituto. En su declaración, él mismo diría por qué: “(Lucatero) me

aconsejó que abandonara el país porque iba a tener problemas”. Y Lucatero agregaría: “Me enteré

de tres violaciones y le pedí que se fuera”.

Así que ya afuera El Güicho , los dos niños decidieron contarle a la madre de uno ellos. Doña Elsa,

sería avisada por teléfono.

“Y tontamente lo primero que hice fue ir al Cumbres, quería una respuesta”, dice doña Elsa. “Ahí me

topé con el que era director, Patrick Donald Keefe, un irlandés. ¿Sabe qué me dijo cuando le

conté?: “Ay, señora, no le veo ningún problema. No es la primera vez que sucede”.

Ese mismo día, el 10 de junio de 1983, doña Elsa interpuso la denuncia en la mesa 4 de

Averiguaciones Previas. Los niños tenían ya 10 años de edad.

Uno de los dos psiquiatras que trataron a los niños, los doctores Marcia Morales y Fausto Trejo,

declararía: “No hay fantasía en lo que dice su hijo. En ninguna película pornográfica podríamos

encontrar escenas como las que describe”.

Los propios peritos de la Procuraduría capitalina dictaminaron que los dos niños tenían desgarres

antiguos en el recto.

Las autoridades detuvieron a El Güicho cuando salía de su casa, en la calle de Monte Everest en

las Lomas de Chapultepec. Un mecánico que había sido chofer del Cumbres y a sus 26 años de

edad ya era prefecto. Admitió las violaciones. Y no sólo de dos niños, al menos en la demanda

penal dio nombres de 13. Pero el juicio tardaría dos años. Dos años en los que doña Elsa vendió su

condominio en Tecamachalco para pagar abogados y psiquiatras “yo era una chica fresa de las

Lomas, y vea ahora, vivo de los 600 pesos que da Andrés Manuel López Obrador a la gente de la

tercera edad”, perdió su trabajo de un día para otro; su ex marido la creyó loca, su nueva pareja la

abandonó, sus amigas la dejaron sola, sufrió un problema de estrés que desde entonces le ha

hecho subir de peso.

“Y también me amenazaron comenta: `Un día me mandaron llamar, que fuera al Cumbres; fui.

Había cuatro sacerdotes, comandados por uno, Fernández Amenávar. Durante ocho horas platiqué

con ellos. Me dijeron que desistiera, que a mi hijo lo becarían, que estudiaría su carrera en Irlanda.

Los mandé al diablo. Cuando me despedí, uno de ellos me dijo: «Váyase con cuidado, no la vayan

a atropellar». Y desde entonces me siguió un Mustang`.”

Romo Atilano tuvo que ir a declarar; el juez “no encontró elementos” para su aprehensión y jamás

se le volvió a molestar.

¿Y usted qué pidió en ese tiempo? ¿Qué pide?

Nada, nada. Esto se trata sólo de una disculpa pública. Que vengan y digan: “Sí, nos portamos mal,

perdón”. Destrozaron mi vida y la de mi hijo. Y, sin embargo, yo sólo pido una disculpa pública.

Nada más.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

El 26 de agosto de 1998 un elegante hombre era presentado ante la prensa y autoridades educativas de Jalisco como el doctor egresado de Harvard que a partir de ese día sería director del Worldwide Teachers Institute of Guadalajara.

GUADALAJARA, Jalisco. Después de pagar más de 42 mil dólares para evitar una condena por

abuso sexual, Thomas A. Kane, sacerdote católico perteneciente a la diócesis de Worcester, en

Boston, decidió hacer de Guadalajara su lugar de exilio, hasta donde llegó para dirigir una academia

de inglés y trabar las complicidades necesarias que ahora impiden ubicarlo.

Durante varios años, al menos desde 1998, Thomas Kane dirigió el Worldwide Teachers Institute of

Guadalajara, sin que autoridades migratorias y educativas de México tuvieran conocimiento de que

el sacerdote, con antecedentes de pederastia, se hacía cargo de una institución de enseñanza a la

que acuden menores.

De igual forma, después de que Kane fue uno de los fundadores del instituto y lo tuvo a su cargo,

ahora la administración de esta escuela, registrada ante la Secretaría de Educación Pública, niega

conocer el paradero del sacerdote y trata de desvincularse de él.

Asimismo es presumible el hecho de que Kane se encuentre en México en calidad de

indocumentado, ya que las autoridades migratorias mexicanas no tenían conocimiento de la

estancia en el país del sacerdote. De igual forma, la Iglesia católica, en especial la Arquidiócesis de

Guadalajara, ignoraba la presencia del sacerdote en México.

El ?doctor Kane?

Durante su estancia en México, Thomas Kane se presentaba como un doctor egresado de la

Universidad de Harvard y casi nadie sabía que era un sacerdote católico.

En 1995, Kane dejó Boston, una vez que fue expulsado de la diócesis de Worcester, luego de que

tuvo que pagar 42 mil 500 dólares como parte de una arreglo extrajudicial por una demanda en la

que se le acusaba de abuso sexual en contra de Mark Barry.

Según la demanda, Barry fue molestado sexualmente por Thomas Kane cuando el sacerdote era

director de la Casa de Afirmación de Whitinsville, en Massachussetts, lugar destinado para el

tratamiento de sacerdotes que sufrían de pederastia y otros desórdenes.

El juicio de Barry contra Kane se inició en 1993, y el arreglo extrajudicial se produjo el 6 de octubre

de 1995.

Sin embargo, no es sino hasta tres años después, en 1998, cuando se puede encontrar un rastro de

la presencia de Kane en México.

El 26 de agosto de 1998 un hombre elegantemente vestido, de cabello y barba completamente

blancas, era presentado ante los medios de comunicación, autoridades educativas del estado de

Jalisco y sociedad de Guadalajara, como el “respetable” doctor egresado de la Universidad de

Harvard, Thomas A. Kane, quien a partir de ese día sería el director de educación del Worldwide

Teachers Institute of Guadalajara, que en esa fecha abría sus puertas en la capital de Jalisco.

Conexión Boston-Guadalajara

En una investigación realizada en las inmediaciones del Worldwide Teachers Institute en

Guadalajara, muchas de las personas entrevistadas coinciden en señalar a Thomas Kane como el

propietario de la escuela de inglés y afirman haberlo visto entrar y salir de esa academia todavía los

últimos días del año pasado y los primeros de 2002.

Sin embargo, según el acta constitutiva de la empresa Worldwide Teachers Institute of Gudalajara

SA de CV y las actas de las asambleas de accionistas de esta sociedad, cuyas copias están en

poder de este diario, la academia es propiedad de un iraní y de un tailandés, Babak Bagheral y

Tienchai Sriklinsuwan, respectivamente.

Sin embargo, al desarrollar la investigación se encuentran dos pistas recurrentes: la ciudad de

Boston, de donde provenía el sacerdote Thomas Kane y la Iglesia católica de Estados Unidos.

Al constituir la sociedad para crear en México el Worldwide Teachers Institute ni el iraní ni el

tailandés se presentaron en persona ante el notario público número 31 de la ciudad de Guadalajara;

todos los trámites fueron realizados por el entonces administrador y socio minoritario Antonio

Guzmán Muñoz, quien presentó ante el notario un poder especial otorgado por Babak Bagheral y

Tienchai Sriklinsuwan para constituir el Worldwide Institute en Guadalajara. El poder estaba avalado

por un notario público de Boston.

Al intentar localizar a Antonio Guzmán Muñoz en el domicilio que declaró ante el notario al constituir

el instituto el cual, dicho sea de paso, se ubica a una cuantas casas de la sede de la academia de

inglés en la calle de Madero, en el centro de Guadalajara se descubrió que se trataba del domicilio

de un padre católico estadounidense presuntamente conocido de Thomas Kane.

A las afueras de este domicilio se encuentra todos los días una media docena de jóvenes que se

dedica a lavar automóviles. Todos conocen bien al sacerdote que vive en esa casa, aunque

desconocen su nombre y lo identifican sólo como el padre Teodoro.

“No hay nadie, ahí vive un padre, pero ahorita no está en México”, dijo uno de los jóvenes al ver que

los reporteros tocaban con insistencia en la casa marcada con el número 807 de la calle de Madero.

¿Estás seguro de que es un cura el que vive aquí?, se le preguntó al adolescente.

Sí, aquí vive un padre, sólo que se fue a Los Ángeles a operarse respondió ¿Lo conoces bien?,

¿sabes cómo se llama? se insistió al lavador de autos.

Sí, todos los conocemos bien porque nos ayuda, nos da dinero, nos da trabajo, pero no sé cómo se

llama, sólo lo conozco como el padre. Pero mañana si quieren busquen al Bryan, él sí sabe cómo

se llama al padre y lo conoce muy bien porque vivió con él, respondió. Al día siguiente se logró

ubicar frente al domicilio del padre Teodoro al joven lavador de automóviles Bryan García, quien

confirmó haber vivido en la casa del padre Teodoro por seis años y que aseguró haber conocido al

padre Thomas.

Asimismo, Bryan señaló que Antonio Guzmán antiguo apoderado del Worldwide Teachers Institute

se encuentra en la ciudad de Nueva York y es sobrino del padre Teodoro.

¿Conoces al padre Teodoro, es cierto que viviste con él? se le preguntó a Bryan.

Sí, sí lo conozco, trabajé con él y viví en su casa… viví ahí como seis años contestó el joven, quien

no dejaba de lavar un automóvil.

¿Y vivieron muchos muchachos ahí en el tiempo que tu estabas? Sí, trabajaban ahí con él haciendo

el aseo en su casa, pero los corría porque le robaban.

¿Y nunca conociste a un padre que se llamaba Thomas?

Sí, pero creo que ya se murió ¿no?

En tanto, el nuevo administrador del Worldwide Teachers Institute, Fabián Eduardo Rodríguez,

asegura que Thomas Kane trabajó hasta el pasado mes de diciembre en el instituto.

Molesto, Rodríguez señaló que el escándalo sobre el pasado de Kane ha comenzado a afectar el

prestigio del instituto.

Rodríguez se negó a proporcionar algún dato sobre el actual paradero de Kane, y a decir si éste

tuvo algún problema con los alumnos del instituto mientras estuvo al frente de la parte educativa.

El administrador afirmó que Thomas Kane dejó el instituto el pasado mes de diciembre debido a

problemas de salud.

“Tenía problemas respiratorios, de bronconeumonía y del corazón”, afirmó Fabián Rodríguez.

El entrevistado admitió que un extranjero es el dueño del Worldwide Teachers Institute of

Guadalajara. Señaló que Babak Bagheral, de origen iraní es el propietario del instituto, al igual que

el director del Worldwide Teachers Development Institute, quien se encuentra en Boston.

Sin embargo, según la escritura pública, Bagheral es uno de los dos accionistas de la sociedad, ya

que posee 300 de las 500 acciones, las 200 aciones restantes pertenecen al tailandés Tienchai

Sriklinsuwan.

Así, a raíz de que medios de comunicación de Estados Unidos comenzaron a ventilar una serie de

escándalos sobre pederastia por parte de sacerdotes católicos, Thomas Kane decidió abandonar el

instituto, particularmente desde que el diario Boston Herald reveló que podría estar en Guadalajara.

Según informes, la Iglesia católica ha gastado millonarias cantidades de dinero para pagar

indemnizaciones o resolver de manera extrajudicial acusaciones de abuso sexual a menores por

parte de sacerdotes.

Ahora, Kane se encuentra sin ubicar por las autoridades mexicanas.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

De tres años tres meses a doce años y seis meses, las condenas

Aguascalientes, Ags., 5 de octubre. Un juez penal sentenció a varios años de prisión a la monja María Esther Guevara Pérez y a dos ex prefectos del hospicio La Ciudad de los Niños, regido por la diócesis local, luego de que se les comprobaron los delitos de corrupción de menores, atentados al pudor y violación equiparable en agravio de 13 infantes.

El juez Alfredo Quiroz García dictó condena de tres años y tres meses de prisión a la religiosa por su conducta en agravio de ocho menores y a Sergio Zapata Piña por habérsele comprobado el delito de corrupción de menores en agravio de un infante. 

El segundo ex prefecto, Jaime Gómez Urbina, tendrá 12 años y seis meses de prisión por el delito de violación equiparada y corrupción de menores en agravio de cuatro niños.

Además, los tres tendrán que pagar multas de mil 188 pesos y de 2 mil 79 pesos, respectivamente, que pasarán al Fondo para la Administración de la Justicia en el Estado.

En marzo del año pasado, la sicóloga Olivia Bernal López, quien prestaba sus servicios en el hospicio La Ciudad de los Niños, denunció ante el agente del Ministerio Público a los ahora sentenciados luego de detectar comportamientos raros en varios menores a los que les daba orientación. Tras las investigaciones, se detuvo a los inculpados y ahora se les dictó sentencia.

Detienen a prófugo de la justicia estadunidense

A solicitud de la Oficina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI) de Estados Unidos, la Policía Ministerial detuvo en Aguascalientes a Roberto Javier López Núñez, prófugo de la justicia en el país vecino, donde se le seguía un juicio por un homicidio cometido en Tennesse, California.

Víctor Hugo Mercader Jurado, director de la corporación, dijo que a través del consulado de Estados Unidos en Guadalajara, Jalisco, el FBI solicitó la colaboración de las autoridades estatales para la detención de este sujeto, quien gozaba de libertad provisional luego de depositar una fianza de 100 mil dólares. 

Sin embargo no esperó al desenlace de su caso y cruzó la frontera norte de nuestro país desde hace tres meses para instalarse en esta entidad.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

El falso sacerdote implicado en el supuesto tráfico de órganos que dio a conocer la televisión española fue sentenciado a seis años y 9 meses de prisión por la Juez 21 Penal del Reclusorio Oriente, Claudia Lilian Clavelina Tapia.

La titular del juzgado resolvió que Martín Rubio Murillo, alias Fray Martín, cometió el delito de asociación delictuosa por lo que también deberá pagar 5 mil 685 pesos por concepto de multa.

El 8 de mayo del 2000, periodistas de la cadena de televisión española Antena 3 y el diario El Mundo pusieron al descubierto una supuesta banda dedicada al tráfico de órganos, la cual estaba integrada por Rubio Murillo, el médico Arturo Gómez Muñoz, Amauri Pérez, entre otros.

Los españoles presentaron imágenes obtenidas con cámaras ocultas, en las que se mostraba la manera en que presuntamente operaba la organización delictiva.

Según los investigadores españoles, Fray Martín era el encargado de ofrecer los órganos y, en aquella ocasión, ponía a la venta un riñón por $900 mil dólares a los reporteros. Por su parte, el doctor Gómez Muñoz realizaba los trasplantes ilegales en los hospitales Santa Elena y Los Angeles.

Sin embargo, luego de que la Procuraduría General de la República solicitó un arraigo para integrar la averiguación previa, el MP Federal determinó que no se acreditaban los delitos de tráfico de órganos y violación a la Ley General de Salud supuestamente cometidos por Fray Martín.

A pesar de ello, el caso fue turnado a la Procuraduría capitalina donde se estableció la presunta responsabilidad del falso sacerdote y su cómplice Amauri Pérez en ilícitos como el robo de autos, la venta ilícita de placas para vehículos y trámites fraudulentos de vivienda, por lo que fueron consignados bajo el cargo de asociación delictuosa.

Tras un largo proceso penal, la impartidora de justicia resolvió dictar una sentencia condenatoria para el pseudosacerdote, en tanto, Amauri Pérez tiene pendiente la conclusión de su proceso penal, luego de que un juez federal le concedió un amparo.

De acuerdo al Código de Procedimientos Penales, la defensa y el MP tienen cinco días para apelar la sentencia y sean los Magistrados de la Tercera Sala Penal los que modifiquen, revoquen o confirmen la resolución de la juez.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

por ciento s de la seccion por cientos con fecha de liberacion por ciento s encuentra el formato de lugar o ciudad adecuado Revelan que el asesinado sacerdote Jesús Ernesto Contreras sería el autor. No hay nuevas evidencias: juez

Antonio Reynoso Cervantes aseguró que su hermano, el arzobispo de Morelos, Luis Reynoso

Cervantes, siempre estuvo convencido de que la muerte del cardenal Juan Jesús Posadas Ocampo

fue producto de una confusión entre bandas de narcotraficantes, aunque aclaró no tener elementos

para presumir que su consanguíneo fuera víctima de un complot para silenciarlo. En entrevista

radiofónica con el periodista José Cárdenas, de la cadena Radio Fórmula, Antonio Reynoso

Cervantes refutó la carta que presentó un medio de comunicación en la que presuntamente el

arzobispo de Morelos había cambiado su opinión y estaba convencido de que habían matado

deliberadamente al cardenal Posadas.

“Eso es falso. Es mentira. Jamás. La persona que escribió la carta en latín es una persona muy

cobarde porque no da su nombre ni aporta mayores datos. Mi hermano era persona de

convicciones firmes”, señaló.

Sobre la muerte de su hermano, Antonio Reynoso, aseguró que durante una operación de columna

le hirieron dos arterias muy importantes por lo que se desangró. “Es muy difícil tener pruebas para

afirmar que fue asesinado. Eso lo rechazamos”.

Colaboradores suyos han referido en versiones de prensa que sus lesiones no eran tan serias como

para causarle la muerte, por lo que sospechan de deliberados actos de negligencia médica para

provocar su fallecimiento y evitar que divulgara todo lo que conocía sobre el caso Posadas, empero,

esta versión fue rechazada por Antonio Reynoso.

En Cuernavaca, Morelos, el principal colaborador del extinto obispo Luis Reynoso Cervantes, Luis

Rodríguez Martín del Campo ?actual vicario general de esta diócesis? negó que la autoría de la

carta donde se aportan más datos para el esclarecimiento del homicidio de Juan Jesús Posadas

Ocampo haya sido escrita por un personaje cercano al fallecido prelado.

No obstante, Luis Rodríguez reveló que la misiva dirigida al arzobispo de Guadalajara, Juan

Sandoval Íñiguez, podría ser responsabilidad del padre Jesús Ernesto Contreras Sahagún, quien

fue encontrado muerto en el exterior de su capilla la madrugada del 26 de enero pasado en el

poblado de Parres, Jiutepec, en esta entidad.

Sin embargo, la mencionada carta ?publicada por un semanario de circulación nacional? cita que en

junio de 1999 el obispo Luis Reynoso habría comentado que el asesinato de Posadas Ocampo fue

“directo e intencional”. Está fechada el 25 de mayo de este mismo año, es decir, cuatro meses

después de la muerte de Contreras Sahagún.

Mientras tanto, en Guadalajara, Jalisco, el juez cuarto en Materia Penal, Jesús Salvador Ribera

Claro, manifestó que la Procuraduría de Justicia del estado no encontró nuevas evidencias sobre el

caso Posadas Ocampo, en la información que proporcionó el cardenal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez a la

fiscalía estatal; en tanto que el arzobispado tapatío insistió en que hay elementos nuevos para

esclarecer el crimen.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

El sacerdote de Tamazula de Gordiano, Leopoldo Romero Yáñez, fue detenido el jueves por intento de abuso sexual en contra de un menor de 13 años.

Alfredo Mendoza Torres, director de la Policía de Tamazula, dijo en entrevista telefónica que los hechos que motivaron la detención del sacerdote se registraron poco después de las 4:00 horas del jueves, cuando elementos de la corporación municipal recorrían el tramo carretero Tamazula-Mazamitla.

Al pasar la delegación de Contla, los elementos vieron a un costado del camino un auto Citation color rojizo con una pareja en su interior.

“Estaban dos personas, un menor estaba, al parecer, sentado en las piernas del señor, pero el joven estaba vestido y el otro tenía los pantalones abajo, (+) y el niño se trataba de zafar, pero cuando llegamos nosotros el señor se fajó y lo detuvimos”, expresó Mendoza Torres.

El hombre era Romero Yáñez, de 54 años, nacido en Tamazula y quien hace aproximadamente 5 años llegó como sacerdote de la Parroquia de la Virgen del Sagrario.

El menor, un integrante del coro de la iglesia, denunció que el padre lo citó cerca de la medianoche del miércoles para ir a dar a una serenata a la esposa de un señor conocido como “El Quilín” en el poblado llamado El Terrero.

“Ahí cantaron, el padre tomó y que el niño le tiraba las cubas para que no se fuera emborrachar porque temía que al regreso pudiera pasar algún incidente y que él (menor) se las tiraba y que él (sacerdote) se las volvía a servir.

“Como a las 4:00 horas salieron para este rumbo y de ahí lo que les acabo de manifestar, que cuando salió de la carretera el padre se le comenzó a insinuar y que el niño que no y él (sacerdote) que sí”, comentó Mendoza Torres.

Los agentes que detuvieron al sacerdote lo pusieron a disposición del agente del Ministerio Público adscrito a Tamazula y ante quien el menor ratificó su declaración, informó personal de la Procuraduría estatal.

Romero Yáñez declaró ante el fiscal que la situación en la que lo encontraron los policías fue con el consentimiento del menor y que nunca antes incurrió en una situación como aquella, señaló la fuente de la Procuraduría.

El padre fue consignado al Juzgado de Primera Instancia, donde la mañana de ayer rindió la declaración preparatoria por el delito de violación en grado de tentativa.

El Juez José de Jesús Sánchez Sánchez apuntó que Romero Yáñez se reservó su derecho a declarar y solamente pidió la ampliación del termino constitucional para tener oportunidad de presentar pruebas a su favor.

El sacerdote está preso en el Reclusorio Preventivo de Tamazula sin derecho a libertad bajo fianza.

El 25 de abril el juez determinará si hay los elementos para procesar a Romero y Yáñez, en cuyo caso dictaría auto de formal prisión o lo deja en libertad.

El proceso

Sin importar su investidura, un sacerdote fue sometido a proceso penal acusado de tratar de violar a un menor.

Leopoldo Romero Yáñez es sorprendido por policías municipales en el interior de un auto.

Los agentes acusan al hombre de intento de violación y lo ponen a disposición del fiscal.

El fiscal integra la averiguación y al determinar que hay elementos para acusar al sacerdote lo consigna al Juez

El Juez niega la libertad bajo fianza y lo envía a resguardo penitenciario en lo que determina si hay elementos para enjuiciar al sacerdote.

Mural – Guadalajara

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

Cuernavaca/Morelos

El párroco Ernesto Contreras Sahagún de aproximadamente 55 años de edad fue asesinado alrededor de la medianoche del jueves pasado, informó la Procuraduría General de Justicia (PGJ) de Morelos y la Dirección de Seguridad Pública del Municipio de Jiutepec, debido a que el homicidio se realizó en el poblado de Parres.

De acuerdo a los primeros indicios recabados en la investigación por elementos del Ministerio Público y del Servicio Médico Forense (Semefo), el ataque con un arma punzo-cortante en contra del sacerdote pudiera ser consecuencia de una diferencia personal; puesto que aparentemente el mismo sacerdote fue quien abrió la reja de la iglesia y casa-parroquial donde fue atacado.

La PGJ informó que el levantamiento del cadáver se realizó aproximadamente a la una con 30 minutos de la madrugada del viernes, luego de que fueran requeridos por elementos de la Policía Municipal de Jiutepec quienes acudieron a un llamado anónimo de auxilio por vía telefónica.

Contreras Sahagún era originario de Jalisco y oficiaba misa en la comunidad de Parres en el Municipio conurbado de Jiutepec, donde fue atacado recibiendo 15 puñaladas que le quitaran la vida lentamente.

Por su parte el director de Seguridad Pública de Jiutepec, Salvador Hernández, indicó que a través del número telefónico de emergencia 080 se recibió el reporte de que una persona se encontraba herido y tirado frente a la parroquia de Parres, por lo que se acudió al lugar de los hechos constatando que el sacerdote estaba herido de gravedad y murió en tanto se notificaba a los servicios de emergencia para trasladarlo.

Conforme a la revisión de los peritos que auxiliaron el levantamiento del cadáver y datos de la averiguación JT/1a./136/01-01 no se detectó que el o los atacantes del religioso hubieran robado o intentado robar artículos de la iglesia o la casa; no obstante que se observó que los candados de la reja sí fueron abiertos de manera voluntaria por el sacerdote.

Debido a las características del homicidio la PGJ mencionó que podría tratarse de un crimen pasional o venganza contra el religioso, por lo que se iniciaron investigaciones con diferentes vertientes.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

No se le comprobó tráfico de órganos; purgaría condena por asociación delictuosa

A pesar de que no se le comprobó ningún delito relacionado con el transplante de órganos, la

Procuraduría General de Justicia del Distrito Federal ejercitó acción penal por el delito de asociación

delictuosa, en contra de Martín Rubio Murillo, alias ?Fray Martín?, el supuesto sacerdote que fue

evidenciado en un reportaje de una cadena de televisión española de estar relacionado con el

tráfico de órganos en México.

En conferencia de prensa, Everardo Moreno Cruz, subprocurador de Procedimientos Penales ?A?,

de la Procuraduría General de la República reconoció que este hecho ?fue un incidente que lastimó

la imagen de México?, pero que ?no se podía hablar de que éstas personas (el sacerdote y el

médico) hubieren realizado un delito de los contemplados en la Ley General de Salud?.

El subprocurador dijo entonces que se había llegado a la conclusión de que sólo se le podía

consignar por el delito de asociación delictuosa, junto con el arquitecto Amauri Pérez, quien había

colaborado con él en las empresas ?Finantial Rental Car? y ?Autotransportes Huamantla, Tlaxcala

y Anexas?.

El funcionario explicó que a través de estas compañías tanto Martín Rubio como Amauri Pérez,

habían defraudado a varias personas, al realizar supuestos trámites para obtener placas, renovar el

parque vehicular y conceder créditos para la adquisición de vivienda.

Sin embargo, el subprocurador indicó que la denuncia por el delito de fraude aún sigue

investigándose, por lo tanto, sólo fueron consignados por el delito de asociación delictuosa.

Respecto a los reporteros españoles Fernando Quintela y Sebastián Ferrate, el subprocurador

indicó que éstos se han negado a declarar ante un representante del Ministerio Público Federal en

España.

?Se solicitó (su declaración) desde el 5 de junio, misma que no han querido rendir y han dicho, que

no obstante que primero habían afirmado que lo harían de manera voluntaria, han dicho ahora que

solamente lo harán por la vía judicial?, dijo Everardo Moreno.

Martín Rubio y Amauri Pérez fueron consignados al Juzgado 21 del Reclusorio Oriente, en donde

ya rindieron su declaración ministerial y en las próximas horas se les determinará su situación

jurídica, dijo el subprocurador. El pasado 8 de mayo de 2000, el canal de televisión español Antena

3 dio a conocer la existencia de una supuesta red de traficantes de órganos en nuestro país.

En ese entonces, los reporteros que trabajaron con visas de turistas- localizaron al supuesto fraile y

le plantearon su necesidad de conseguir un riñón.

El sacerdote les pidió a cambio de conseguir al donador y al médico Arturo Muñoz que realizaría la

cirugía, 900 mil dólares. Pero el trato, la operación y la transacción económica no se concretaron.

Respecto al papel que desempeñó en este asunto el médico Arturo Muñoz, el subprocurador indicó

que ni él, ni los hospitales que fueron mencionados en donde se presuntamente se realizaban

operaciones para extraer de manera ilícita los órganos resultaron responsables de algún tipo de

delito.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Estuvo relacionado con un supuesto tráfico de órganos, cargo que no se le pudo comprobar

Fue consignado al Reclusorio Norte, Martín Rubio, ?Fray Martín?, por su presunta responsabilidad

en el delito de fraude, luego de que un juez del Reclusorio Sur girara orden de aprehensión en su

contra.

Al cumplirse la orden de arraigo que la Procuraduría General de la República había solicitado en su

contra por 30 días hábiles, desde el pasado 2 de junio y que terminó el 14 del presente mes, el ?

sacerdote? ?quien estuvo involucrado en un presunto tráfico de órganos y que fue evidenciado a

través de un reportaje que reprodujo un canal de televisión española? ingresó al Reclusorio Norte

tras ser consignado por el Ministerio Público Federal.

?Fray Martín? es investigado por la PGR por un presunto fraude que cometió hace varios años en

agravio de Banamex, según se informó.

Sin embargo, a Martín Rubio no se le pudo acreditar ningún delito en el caso del tráfico de órganos,

porque ?como se explicó en su momento? no hubo parte afectada, ni se realizó la cirugía para

extraerle un riñón a un supuesto paciente, por el cual se pedían 900 mil dólares, como se indicaba

en el reportaje de la televisora española Antena 3.

Además se informó que Martín Rubio podría estar relacionado con una averiguación previa que es

investigada por la Procuraduría General de Justicia del Distrito Federal.

A principios del mes mayo del presente año, la cadena española transmitió un reportaje que se

realizó en nuestro país, sobre el supuesto tráfico de órganos en México.

En aquella ocasión, los reporteros españoles ?que trabajaron de manera encubierta? dieron con

una casa albergue en la que vivía ?Fray Martín? y que se ubicaba en calles del municipio de

Ecatepec, estado de México.

Con la cámara oculta los reporteros presentaron la supuesta operación financiera que se había

acordado, mediante la cual estarían dispuestos a pagar 900 mil dólares por un riñón que

necesitaban en España.

Además del fraile se involucró al médico Arturo Gómez Muñoz, quien aceptó realizar la cirugía en

un hospital privado de esta ciudad.

Después de que se hizo público el reportaje Martín Rubio se escondió, pero el doctor Gómez Muñoz

se presentó durante un programa nocturno de noticias de Televisión Azteca y ahí fue detenido por

agentes de la Interpol encabezados por su director Juan Miguel Ponce Edmonson.

Después de interrogarlo por varias horas fue dejado en libertad. A los pocos días, acompañado de

su abogado y con amparo en sus manos, Martín Rubio se presentó de manera voluntaria ante la

PGR, institución que lo puso a disposición de la Interpol, quien después de interrogarlo lo regresó a

la delegación metropolitana de la PGR, la cual solicitó a su vez, una orden de arraigo en su contra.

Este lunes en conferencia de prensa, el subprocurador de Procedimientos Penales ?A?, Everardo

Moreno Cruz, explicará los motivos de la consignación de ?Fray Martín?.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

EL NORTE/Coahuila

TORREON.- A seis meses de haberse registrado el asesinato del sacerdote Ignacio Flores Gaytán, su familia no sólo trata de reponerse del dolor causado por la ausencia del ser querido, sino que también está luchando por defender su integridad moral.

Y es que Benjamín Limones Mijares, albañil de 27 años, al tiempo de responsabilizarse de haber asesinado el 15 de enero al padre “Nacho”, ha afirmado ante las autoridades que tuvo relaciones con el occiso y que el móvil del crimen fue pasional.

“Cruel y arteramente asesinado en la soledad de su departamento, el padre “Nacho” ha pasado ya de la vida terrena a la vida eterna a través del filtro de la muerte, su cuerpo cremado sin la autorización de la familia ha sido pulverizado, ahora quieren pulverizar también su buena fama, su intachable trabajo como siervo y ministro de Dios, era la primera parte del plan”, afirma la familia Flores Gaytán.

En respuesta a las declaraciones que rindió Limones Mijares ante la autoridad, la familia del sacerdote emitió ayer un comunicado en el que defiende la integridad del sacerdote y cuestionan qué es lo que realmente hay detrás de las aseveraciones que ha hecho esta persona que además de dedicarse a la albañilería ejercía la prostitución.

El albañil se encuentra en el Cereso de Torreón desde el 8 de julio y actualmente enfrenta un proceso penal por su presunta responsabilidad en el homicidio del sacerdote católico, al igual que la contadora Rebeca Galindo Bautista, de 52 años de edad.

El sacerdote fue encontrado sin vida en su habitación, con signos de haber sido asfixiado con su propia camiseta, y en diferentes partes de su cuerpo se apreciaron 14 lesiones producidas con un cuchillo y un picahielo.

“Hoy, a raíz de las declaraciones de Benjamín Limones Mijares, todos los que conocimos al padre “Nacho” levantamos la mano para decir ëestamos presentes y ya bastaí”, exponen los familiares del occiso.

“Levantamos también la voz para protestar estricta y enérgicamente por las insidias, las injurias y las infames calumnias declaradas descaradamente ante las autoridades judiciales por parte de Benjamín Limones Mijares quien se ha expresado en contra de la integridad moral de un sacerdote, de un ser humano totalmente indefenso porque está muerto”.

En este documento que ayer distribuyeron Candelaria y Patricia Flores Gaytán se señala que el padre Ignacio fue un hombre en toda la extensión de la palabra, con cualidades inherentes a su sexo masculino y que jamás demostró tener inclinaciones homosexuales.

La familia de la víctima indica que el padre “Nacho” era una persona excepcionalmente inteligente y cita como ejemplo que conocía y practicaba diez idiomas.

También señalan los resultados de las necropsias que se le practicaron al sacerdote y que refieren que no sostuvo relaciones sexuales antes de ser asesinado, además que no se le encontró semen en su cuerpo.

La contadora

Para la familia del sacerdote, las declaraciones de Limones Mijares tienen como objeto desvirtuar las pruebas que indican Galindo Bautista estuvo en el lugar y momento en que se cometió el crimen.

“Por otra parte pretenden hacerla aparecer ante la sociedad como víctima inocente, gracias a la oportuna y espectacular aparición de Limones Mijares, sin embargo, no debe de olvidarse que Galindo Bautista María Isabel Rebeca cuenta con antecedentes penales por el delito de fraude en contra de una línea de transportes y la reciente denuncia hecha en su contra y publicada en los medios de comunicación”, apuntan.

De acuerdo con las investigaciones, en el departamento de la víctima se encontró una huella plantar, vello púbico y cabellos de la contadora, que constituyeron en los indicios graves que se tomaron en cuenta para consignarla por su presunta responsabilidad en este crimen.

A raíz de que Limones Mijares se declaró confeso del crimen del sacerdote, la defensa de Galindo Bautista promovió en el juzgado el incidente de libertad por desvanecimiento de pruebas, esperando que en breve se les resuelva a favor.

La familia del sacerdote, la Diócesis de Torreón y en general la sociedad lagunera hoy, al igual que desde hace seis meses, está en espera de que se esclarezca este asesinato que tanto consternó.

Levantan la voz

La familia Flores Gaytán argumentan que las declaraciones del presunto homicida tienen como objeto desvirtuar las pruebas que involucran a la contadora Rebeca Galindo en el asesinato del padre ‘Nacho’.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

METRO/ Redacción

Martín Rubio Murillo, el falso sacerdote involucrado en el caso de tráfico de órganos difundido por la televisión española, fue presentado ayer a declarar en calidad de testigo en las oficinas de la Interpol-México.

Desde el pasado nueve de mayo, un fiscal federal había ordenado la localización de Rubio, conocido como Fray Martín, para que compareciera en la investigación del caso, donde también participó el médico Arturo Gómez.

Ayer por la mañana, Rubio Murillo se presentó voluntariamente en las instalaciones de la Procuraduría General de la República, protegido por una suspensión provisional para prevenir una posible aprehensión, que concedió el juez séptimo de distrito en materia penal, Jesús Guadalupe Luna Altamirano.

Según la Procuraduría, la Policía Judicial Federal buscó a Rubio en doce domicilios de familiares hasta finalmente ser localizado.

De hecho, fue localizado en las oficinas de la dependencia.

Al cierre de esta edición, Rubio Murillo llevaba nueve horas declarando. Fuentes de la Procuraduría General de la República no descartaron que, a diferencia de Gómez, quien se encuentra libre de cargos, el falso sacerdote enfrente alguna acusación.

En todo caso, si durante la diligencia Rubio fue informado de que ahora se le considera presunto responsable de un delito, la Procuraduría General de la República podría retenerlo hasta mañana mientras decide qué hace con él.

Hace casi un mes, dos reporteros españoles se reunieron con Gómez y Rubio en el consultorio del primero para arreglar un supuesto transplante ilegal de órganos. La escena fue filmada y ampliamente difundida.

Sin embargo, la Procuraduría General de la República aclaró desde un principio que no habían elementos suficientes para perseguir un delito, salvo, probablemente, una tentativa de fraude para la que no existe denunciante alguno.

Además, la dependencia solicitó que se interrogue en España a los periodistas de la cadena Antena Tres.

El médico Arturo Gómez también se presentó voluntariamente pocos días después de que se hizo público el caso. Se entregó en las instalaciones de Televisión Azteca, fue llevado a la Interpol y salió libre después de declarar.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Los reporteros habrían incurrido en incitación al delito, según indagatorias. Rechaza doctor acusación; nunca he operado, asevera

Las primeras investigaciones en torno de una supuesta red de tráfico de órganos encabezada por el doctor Arturo Guzmán Muñoz y el supuesto sacerdote Martín Rubio Murillo, denunciada por la televisión española, indican que tal organización criminal no existe y que, en todo caso, se trató de un intento de fraude de los involucrados hacia los periodistas.

En tanto, las indagatorias sobre el caso revelan que los reporteros de la televisora, quienes pusieron al descubierto una supuesta red de tráfico de órganos, habrían incurrido en ?incitación al delito? y ?obstrucción de la justicia?, además de llevar hasta sus últimas consecuencias una investigación sin sustento real.

Por la noche, el doctor Arturo Guzmán Muñoz se comunicó vía telefónica con el periodista Joaquín López Dóriga para darle su versión de los hechos.

Nervioso, negó todo lo informado por la televisora española Antena 3 y le pidió al periodista protección para aparecer públicamente y aclarar lo sucedido.

?Mire ?explicó?, como médico general que soy desde hace 25 años nunca he practicado un trasplante de órganos a paciente alguno, por lo tanto no existe un caso que se me pueda atribuir…

?Créame que en mi carrera médica ha sido limpia; créame, tengo hijos, tengo gente a mi lado… Gracias a Dios no soy rico… siempre trabajado en bien de todos y se lo pueden decir muchos pacientes que me están oyendo en este momento, es gente que me quiere y yo le he ayudado muchísimo. Desgraciadamente han buscado una forma tendenciosa y mal intencionada para hacerme parecer diferente.?

De acuerdo con las imágenes de la televisora española, fue el doctor Gómez Muñoz quien fijó la cantidad de 900 mil dólares por un riñón.

Con un reportaje basado en conjeturas y contactos en prisiones de Estados Unidos, los reporteros de Antena 3 llevaron adelante su ?investigación? hasta darle forma a una supuesta organización criminal dedicada al comercio con órganos humanos, apuntan las primeras pesquisas de las autoridades.

Las investigaciones indican que los reporteros propiciaron poco a poco la integración de una supuesta red de traficantes de órganos que se fue completando con un sacerdote falso (Martín Rubio Murillo) conocido como ?El Padrecito?, quien desapareció antes de Semana Santa y quien medió entre los periodistas iberos y el doctor Muñoz.

En el ?equipo? de cirujanos del galeno figuraba también, según los reporteros, un segundo médico de apellido Espinoza, que completaría el enlace con los especialistas, los donantes y los receptores del órgano comprado.

El escenario estaba dispuesto: un médico supuestamente especializado en trasplantes, un equipo de cirujanos y anestesiólogos, dos posibles lugares para las operaciones; el Hospital Santa Fe y el Ángeles del Pedregal y lo principal: los donantes, personas de entre 2 y 25 años, hacinados en una casa de Ecatepec, según el reportaje.

Sin embargo, nunca hubo dinero de por medio, jamás se entregó un solo peso de anticipo al doctor Arturo Gómez Muñoz o a su supuesto equipo de cirujanos.

Por el contrario. Los enviados de Antena 3 regresaron a México hace dos meses y cámara en mano, uniformados y apoyados por otros dos reporteros, para desenmascarar a Gómez Muñoz, al ?Padrecito” Murillo y a sus supuestos cómplices.

Al doctor lo confrontaron en su consultorio de la colonia Pro-Hogar, en donde éste negó cualquier acusación.

Al sacerdote falso lo citaron frente a la Fiscalía antidrogas de la PGR, la FEADS, en donde le echaron en cara la negociación por el riñón.

Hasta ahora se desconoce el paradero de ambas personas. Mientras, la Secretaría de Salud clausuró ayer el consultorio del médico.

La casa en la que Martín Murillo ocultaba a los supuestos candidatos a trasplante está habitada desde hace tres meses por la señora Graciela Ortiz Sedeño.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

TORREÓN, Coah. Rebeca Galindo Bautista, de 54 años de edad, fue detenida por agentes de la

policía ministerial como presunta copartícipe en el homicidio del sacerdote José Ignacio Flores

Gaytán, ocurrido el sábado 15 del mes pasado.

En la delegación de la Procuraduría General de Justicia en el estado, se dijo que se habrá de

solicitar al juez cuarto de lo penal que atiende el caso, se decrete el arraigo de la inculpada, con el

fin de redoblar las investigaciones para determinar si fue ella la que sacrificó al sacerdote católico o

nada más participó en el asesinato.

El cuerpo del párroco fue encontrado el día antes mencionado con 13 heridas de arma blanca y

ahorcado, en el interior de su recámara parroquial de la iglesia de la Medalla Milagrosa, ubicada en

el fraccionamiento El Fresno, de esta ciudad.

Galindo Bautista sirvió como asistente del Padre Nacho por aproximadamente 14 años, a quien

auxiliaba en las distintas labores propias de la parroquia y aparentemente manejaba los

movimientos bancarios.

Aun cuando no se le ha declarado su culpabilidad en este hecho, algunos indicios hacen suponer

que fue quien sacrificó al sacerdote, debido a que algunas huellas de ella coinciden con las

encontradas ese día en el lugar de los hechos.

Por lo anterior, se pidió el arraigo domiciliario de Rebeca, mientras se llevan a cabo las

investigaciones, pues como ya se dijo en la Procuraduría de Justicia, todo hace suponer que ella lo

sacrificó, sin embargo, tampoco se puede descartar la posibilidad de que sólo haya sido copartícipe

del delito, mientras todo se aclare una vez que terminen las indagaciones.

De acuerdo con el archivo criminalístico, se establece que Galindo cuenta con antecedentes

penales, pues hace alrededor de seis años estuvo presa acusada de un fraude por 1 millón 400 mil

pesos en agravio de una empresa transportista.

Hasta ahora, quedó en claro que la inculpada sólo aparece como sospechosa, por lo que no se le

puede achacar ninguna responsabilidad, pero esto se definirá cuando se conozcan los resultados

de las investigaciones.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

[Via vLex] 

Ayer se llevó a cabo una audiencia en el juzgado 51 penal en donde se tramita un proceso penal en contra de un sacerdote que oficiaba en Iztapalapa, quien supuestamente abusó de una menor de 13 años de edad en el interior de la iglesia.

En la causa penal 111/99, se señalan los hechos en los que José Javier Salazar Hernández, párroco de la Iglesia San Gerardo Mallela, ubicada en Calle Manuel Pérez Romero, Colonia Ampliación Santa Marta Acatitla, Delegación Iztapalapa, es acusado por una menor de haber abusado sexualmente de ella.

El 11 de enero pasado Guadalupe llevó a sus hijos, una niña de 11 años y uno de 9, al centro religioso para que se confesaran porque su hija tenía problemas para dormir, pues le tenía miedo a la obscuridad.

La mujer y sus hijos iban en busca del padre Ricardo, quien también oficia en ese lugar, debido a que la niña ya había platicado y se había sentido mejor, pero esa ocasión el padre Ricardo no se encontraba, en su lugar se encontraba el padre José Javier, con quien la menor accedió hablar, pues fue él quien había confesado a la menor el día que hizo su primera comunión.

“Ella le tenía confianza por ese motivo”, indica la madre al declarar ante el Ministerio Público.

El clérigo llevó a la niña a un cuarto que estaba a un costado izquierdo del altar, narró la menor en su declaración, luego la subió al tercer piso y le dijo que se quitara el vestido, pero ella sólo se lo desabotonó.

Al ver esta acción, el mismo párroco fue quien le quitó el vestido y la acostó en una cama, para después terminar de desvestirla. Completamente desnuda le empezó a hacerle tocamientos durante aproximadamente 20 minutos.

La siguiente orden fue que se vistiera, la menor obedeció y posteriormente la sentó en sus piernas donde continuó acariciándola, después le indicó que se retirara y que regresara al día siguiente.

Al ver que la menor estaba muy nerviosa, su madre empezó a interrogarla sobre lo que había platicado con el clérigo, fue entonces cuando la niña le relató lo sucedido.

Guadalupe fue por un familiar y juntos llevaron a Karla con un médico para que le hiciera una valoración, el doctor les indicó que no había habido penetración, pero que tenía muy irritado el pubis.

En la audiencia de ayer el juez de la causa, Julio Sotomayor Galindo, determinó que una perito debía realizar exámenes en psicología a Karla para determinar el grado de afectación en su desarrollo psicosexual.

Debido a que el delito por el que se está procesando al cura no es considerado como grave por el Código Penal del DF, el párroco logró obtener su libertad bajo caución.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

MEXICO CITY (AP) _ A Spanish priest who saved hundreds of children from life in the gutter has died, Mexican news media reported Friday. He was 64.

Alejandro Garcia Duran, who was nicknamed Padre Chinchachoma _ “hairless head″ in street slang _ died of a heart attack while visiting Colombia.

Garcia was ordained as a priest in the Sculoe Pie order in 1962 and after working in his native Barcelona, came to Mexico in 1969, working as a teacher, schoolmaster and parish priest in several cities.

In 1975, he met a group of street children and was inspired to help them.

For three months, he lived on the streets of Mexico City, studying the homeless children who beg, steal, prostitute themselves and scramble for coins at street corners washing windshields or acting as clowns.

“The children and youths who have contact with drugs, who leave their homes and prostitute themselves are not guilty, but victims,″ he said.

By the time of his death, Garcia _ a colorful figure with a bushy gray beard _ had founded 26 shelter-schools caring for some 300 homeless youths.

Some 1,500 children had passed through those schools over the years and 90 percent managed to obtain jobs and families, according to Anunciacion, a public relations service for Mexican charities.

Garcia also wrote 10 books of poetry, theology and social analysis.

He died Thursday afternoon in Bogota, Colombia, after giving training courses for workers in similar schools in that country.

Church officials said it was not clear when his body would return to Mexico due to official paperwork.

Funeral services have not yet been set.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

REPORT Nº 49/99
CASE 11.610
LOREN LAROYE RIEBE STAR, JORGE ALBERTO BARÓN GUTTLEIN 
AND RODOLFO IZAL ELORZ
MEXICO
April 13, 1999

1. On March 4, 1996, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition presented by Robert W. Benson and other lawyers (hereinafter “the petitioners”), on behalf of Father Loren Laroye Riebe Star, a North American Catholic priest, and the beneficiaries of six educational, economic, and charitable projects in the State of Chiapas, Mexico. The petition alleges violation by the State of Mexico (hereinafter “the State”; “the Mexican State”, or “Mexico”) of the following victims’ rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”): right to humane treatment (Article 5); right to personal liberty (Article 7); right to a fair trial (Article 8); right to privacy (Article 11); freedom of conscience and religion (Article 12); freedom of thought and expression (Article 13); freedom of association (Article 16); right to property (Article 21); freedom of movement and residence (Article 22); right to equal protection (Article 24); and right to judicial protection (Article 25).

2. The petition was amplified later by the University Human Rights Workshop and the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “TUDH” and “CEJIL” [their Spanish acronyms], respectively, or, generically, “the petitioners”), which alleged almost identical rights violations against two foreign Catholic priests from the San Cristóbal de las Casas diocese, Chiapas: Father Jorge Alberto Barón Guttlein, an Argentinean, and Father Rodolfo Izal Elorz, of Spanish nationality.

I.    CONTEXT

3. The State of Chiapas, on Mexico’s southern border, with a 30% indigenous population, is extremely under-developed: 94 of the State’s 110 municipalities are considered both remote and deprived, making it the poorest State in Mexico. Since the emergence of the armed dissident movement known as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in January 1994, there has been a steady increase in social upheaval and violent conflicts. At the same time, the constantly growing military presence in this area has gone hand in hand with complaints of grave violations of human rights, mainly perpetrated by paramilitary groups with the acquiescence, and, in some cases, active participation, of State agents.1

4. Since 1995, numerous foreigners acting as observers or defenders of human rights in Chiapas have been expelled from Mexico. It should also be noted that shortly after the EZLN uprising a peace process got under way, with the participation of representatives of the Catholic diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas, to which Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz belonged. The President of the National Intermediation Commission (CONAI) set up as part of that peace process, was Samuel Ruiz García, the local bishop, a recognized defender of the human rights of the indigenous population.2 The clearest indication that the talks had broken down was the dissolution of the CONAI in June 1998, followed by an armed clash a few days later in El Bosque, Chiapas, in which seven rural workers and a policeman were killed.

5. The IACHR has received numerous petitions regarding harassment of human rights activists, including Catholic priests and social workers, in Chiapas.3 At the same time, problems associated with the exodus of the indigenous population from their communities for fear of repression and attacks by paramilitary groups have continued and increased.

II.    ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

6. The petition alleges that on the afternoon or evening of June 22, 1995, Father Riebe was induced under false pretenses to leave his rectory and then held abruptly at gunpoint by police. The policemen, who refused to identify themselves and had no arrest warrant, took Father Riebe to the Chiapas State Judicial Police station in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, the capital of the State of Chiapas. There Father Riebe was stripped and subjected to a medical examination. For several hours he was not allowed to go to the bathroom and at no point was he informed of the reasons for his detention. Later on, Father Riebe was taken to the Tuxtla Gutiérrez airport.
7. According to the additions to the petition lodged regarding Father Barón Guttlein, on June 22, 1995, men on an open pick-up truck forced the car he was driving to a halt at the El Carmelito crossroads, Chiapas. Four men got out and, without any warrant or written official order of any kind, forced him to get out, blindfolded him, and covered his face with a jacket. In those conditions they drove him on the floor of the truck for approximately three hours. At that point his captors removed his blindfold and he was able to see that he was in Tuxtla Gutiérrez. The unidentified persons who were holding him captive forced him to strip for a medical examination by another unidentified person. After that, he was taken to the city airport.
8. As regards Father Izal Elorz, the additions to the petition indicate that on June 22, 1995, he was driving his own car when he was intercepted by several armed individuals, who did not say who they were. They took away his car and forced him in to the front seat of an open pick-up truck, where he was guarded by two armed men and driven to an unknown destination. The petition adds that when they got to Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Father Elorz was taken to the Judicial Police station and stripped in front of his captors to check for any bodily harm they might have caused him. The petitioners also allege that Father Izal Elorz was subjected to an intense interrogation consisting mainly of direct charges that he had participated in alleged illicit acts; at no point was he allowed to consult a lawyer. Later, he was taken to the city airport.
9. The three priests taken to the Tuxtla Gutiérrez airport were then flown in a Government plane to Mexico City airport, where they were subjected to a political interrogation by Mexican immigration officers. At that point there were representatives of the U.S., Spanish, and Argentinean Consulates and a lawyer from the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH). However, the petitioners state that those representatives were not allowed to attend or take part in the interrogations, which dealt with political parties, indigenous political groups, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), and land invasions.
10. The petition also stated that the Mexican authorities involved in the above procedures told the priests that they were not entitled to: assistance from a lawyer; to be informed of the charges leveled against them, the evidence adduced, or the names of their accusers; or to any form of defense. Finally, the authorities said that the three priests would be expelled “for engaging in activities not permitted under the terms of their visas.”
11. The three priests were escorted by six immigration officers to an American Airlines plane which took off at 8:40 a.m. on June 23, 1995 for Miami, USA. There they received a notification from the Mexican Ministry of the Interior, explaining why they had been deported and the charges leveled against them by the Mexican immigration authorities. According to the petition, the priests were informed of the warrants issued against them after they had left Mexican soil, even though they were dated June 21, 1995.

III.    PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION

12. On April 16, 1996, the Commission requested information from the Mexican State regarding the petition, to which it assigned Nº 11.610. The State replied on July 17, 1996, requesting that the petition be declared inadmissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. The Commission informed the petitioners of this response.

13. The petitioners submitted their observations regarding the State’s reply in a message dated September 14, 1996. The Commission forwarded those comments to the State, which replied with the respective information on November 7, 1996.

14. On July 29, 1997, the IACHR received two communications from TUDH, alleging the same violations and including Father Barón Guttlein as one of the victims. The IACHR incorporated the information into the file on this case and including TUDH and CEJIL as petitioners.

15. On August 18, 1997, TUDH lodged a petition concerning Father Izal Elorz. Pursuant to Article 40(2) of its Regulations, the Commission decided to combine the petitions regarding Fathers Izal Elorz and Barón Guttlein with those in the file of this case. The pertinent parts of the petition regarding the former were forwarded to the State on August 25,1997; those concerning Father Barón Guttlein were sent on November 18, 1997.

16. The State replied to the petition regarding Father Izal Elorz on September 23, 1997; the petitioners submitted their comments on that reply on November 3, 1997.

17. The State responded to the additions to the petition concerning Father Barón Guttlein on December 9, 1997 and the petitioners’ observations regarding that response were received on January 26, 1998. The State commented on those observations on February 27, 1998.

18. During its 97th session, the Commission held a hearing on this case, which was attended by Father Riebe, and by representatives of the petitioners and the Mexican State. The Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to initiate a friendly settlement procedure, and established a period of 30 days for the parties to express their position on this matter. On March 24, 1998 the State expressed that it could not accept the proposal if the petitioners pretended to allow the reentry of the priests to Mexico, as that matter was not negotiable before the authorities. The petitioners responded on March 25, 1998 saying that they agreed to the procedure, as long as the State guaranteed the return of the priests to Mexico, under an immigration status appropriate to their religious duties. Since the condition set forth by the petitioners was not possible, the IACHR considered that such a procedural stage was not viable

19. On May 5, 1998, during its 99th special session, the IACHR approved Report Nº 34/98, thereby declaring the instant case admissible.

IV.    POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A.    The petitioners

20. According to their various communications, the petitioners consider that the authorities who arrested Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz violated their right to personal liberty. The petition argues that depriving the priests of their liberty violated Mexican law and the American Convention. Indeed, in all three cases, the petitioners allege that the arrests were carried out without any verification of in flagranti illicit acts, by heavily armed individuals who neither identified themselves nor showed the respective arrest or detention warrants. They go on to state that during the entire time that the three priests were being held by the authorities in Chiapas, up to the time they were interrogated at Mexico City airport, they were not told why they had been deprived of their liberty nor were they informed of the charges brought against them. They were not allowed access to a lawyer of their choice, nor were they permitted to see a court authority to determine the lawfulness of their arrest or detention, except via their representatives after they had been deported. For all these reasons, the petitioners allege violation of Article 7 of the American Convention (paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).

21. With regard to the procedures employed to deport the priests from Mexican soil, the petitioners allege violation of the right to a hearing contemplated under Mexican law as well as the right to due process established in the American Convention. According to the petition, such violations occurred because the priests were not allowed to defend themselves against the charges brought against them, nor to be advised by lawyers or persons they trusted. Furthermore, the petition states that the priests were forced to make a statement based on an interrogation about crimes they had not committed, as well as about the social teachings of the Catholic Church; although they requested it, they were not given a copy of their statement. The petitioners say the priests never saw any document, from which the charges against them were supposedly read out, nor any other communiqué or document written by a competent authority justifying their deportation.

22. The petition refers to the indirect protection injunction (juicios de amparo indirecto) filed on behalf of the three priests, and points out that they were rejected by the competent judge without examination of the substance of the matter, a verdict that was upheld on appeal. According to the petitioners, that decision by the Mexican legal authorities constitutes a violation of the right to judicial protection guaranteed under Article 25 of the American Convention.

23. Furthermore, the petitioners complain that the deportation procedure was arbitrary and contrary to Mexico’s own laws. They say this violates the rights of Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz guaranteed under Article 22(6) of the American Convention. They also consider that the three priests were discriminated against, in violation of Article 24 of the same international treaty.

24. The first petition presented on behalf of Father Riebe Star also complains of violation of the right to have one’s honor respected and dignity recognized (Article 11 of the American Convention: Right to Privacy); of Article 12 (freedom of conscience and religion); and Article 16 (freedom of association).

B.    The State

25. The Mexican State maintains that the priests were arrested because they were carrying out activities for which they had no authorization (“proselytism on behalf of organizations that carry out unlawful acts, inducing farm workers and indigenous people to act against the authorities and individuals”). That information was supposedly culled from complaints filed by farm workers in the region and, according to the State, confirmed by immigration officers who witnessed the violation by the priests of several provisions of the General Law on Population. Consequently, the State says, the authorities proceeded to “locate and detain” the priests in accordance with the Regulations of that law.

26. Mexico states that on June 22, 1995, the National Migration Institute drew up a formal complaint against the foreign priests, who pleaded their own case; that their human rights were respected at all times; that members of the consulates of the United States, Spain, and Argentina were present, along with representatives of the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH).

27. The State adds that it is false to say that no evidence was produced against the priests, and refers to a denunciation by someone called César Augusto Arévalo to the Assistant Delegate of the National Migration Institute in Chiapas, concerning the above-mentioned unlawful acts. Mexico also states that there is no persecution campaign against the Catholic Church in Chiapas and that, on the contrary, there is full respect for the freedom of belief enshrined in Article 24 of the Mexican Constitution.

28. In view of the above, the State maintains that there was no violation of the American Convention, because the priests were “deprived of their liberty in compliance with an order given by a competent authority”; they were informed of the reasons for their detention and of the charges brought against them; they were tried within a reasonable lapse of time; that their physical, psychic, and moral integrity was respected as evidenced by the medical certificate issued to that effect; that at all times the priests’ honor was respected and their dignity recognized; that the protection suit was an effective remedy to protect their legal rights; and that there was no discrimination against them. In light of all that, the Mexican State requested that the Commission declare the case inadmissible since it did not involve any violations of the American Convention.

V.    ANALYSIS

29. In its statement admitting the case, the Commission found that the requirements established under Article 46 of the American Convention had been met. Likewise, the Commission concluded that the facts contained in the petition tend to constitute a possible violation of rights protected under that Convention; that the friendly settlement procedure was not viable; and that it was therefore up to the Commission to proceed with analysis of the substance of the petition.

30. The Commission deems it appropriate to start by saying that it recognizes the right of each State to define its immigration policies and laws, and hence to decide on the entry, stay, and expulsion of foreigners from its territory. Nevertheless, the Commission must also point out that Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes the obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein. The Mexican State upon ratifying the above international instrument has freely assumed that obligation. Consequently, the exercise of that sovereignty by a State can in no way justify violation of human rights, as the American Convention imposes certain limitation on the exercise of public power by member states.

31. The IACHR will first analyze what happened in terms of the right to personal liberty, then with reference to the rights to due process and effective legal protection. The other allegations will be dealt with afterwards, since the Commission considers that the key issues in the present case have to do with the above-mentioned rights.

A.    Right to Personal Liberty (Article 7)

32. Article 7 of the American Convention guarantees every person the right to personal liberty and security in the following provisions: 

… 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.

3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.

4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.

5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings…

6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful…

33. It is pertinent to refer to Mexican laws applicable to the deprivation of the liberty of Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz. Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution States:

No one may be molested as a person, family, home, papers or possessions except by virtue of a written order from a competent authority that explains and substantiates the legal basis for such procedure…

34. For its part, the Regulations of the General Law on Population state that the migration authorities are entitled to exercise inspection and surveillance powers over aliens in Mexico and, if need be, to apply the sanctions contemplated in the law, “showing at all times respect for human rights and keeping strictly to the appropriate legal procedures” (Article 140). The next Article in the regulations establishes the requirements for carrying out a migration inspection:

I. The person carrying out the inspection should have a written mandate, stating the purpose of the inspection, the place in which it is to be carried out, and, if available, the name of the person to whom it is directed, the date, the legal basis for the inspection, along with the name, signature, and position of the civil servant issuing the order and of the officer who will be carrying it out.

II. The inspector or officer commissioned for this purpose shall identify himself to the alien or person being inspected by showing his I.D. as a civil servant working for the Office of the Director General of Migration Services in the Ministry of the Interior (“Secretaría de Gobernación”).

35. The Migration Authorities must analyze the results of the inspection in order to decide whether the alien should be summonsed; if so, the summons must be sent out indicating when he should appear. At that point minutes of the meeting must be drawn up in front of witnesses and a copy given to the interested party (Article 142 of the above-mentioned Regulations). The Regulations also provide that the Ministry of the Interior should assess whether a violation of applicable law exists, and, if so, that institution should consider the nature and gravity of the offense in order to determine the appropriate sanction “always bearing in mind the circumstances that might have played a role, the proofs submitted by the offender, and his statements regarding what happened.” Article 144 of the Regulations establishes that “if a crime has been committed, the offender shall be placed at the disposal of the appropriate authority, in accordance with Article 143 of the Law.”

36. The Commission considers that there is no controverting the fact that on June 22, 1995 Fathers Loren Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz were detained in the State of Chiapas by armed members of the security forces, in three separate operations (see paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 above). Likewise, no one has denied the fact that none of the priests detained was in the process of committing a crime, so there was nothing in flagranti.

37. As for the other circumstances surrounding the deprivation of liberty, the petitioners claim that the State agents who detained the priests refused to identify themselves; that they did not produce any written order issued by a competent authority; and that they were not notified of the reasons for their detention.

38. For its part, the State initially claimed that the Migration Authorities took into account background information showing violations by the priests of the General Law on Population, which is why they proceeded to “locate and detain” them, pursuant to Articles 140 to 143 of the Regulations (cited above). However, in reference to Father Riebe Star, the Mexican State itself declared that “he was notified of the charges against him during the action taken against him under administrative law.” The “administrative” proceedings to which the State refers were the interrogation to which the three priests were subjected at Mexico City airport, in the early hours of June 23, 1995, shortly before the were expelled from the country. None of Mexico’s later statements to the Commission provide evidence contradicting the petitioners’ version of the circumstances under which the three priests were deprived of their liberty.

39. Based on the above facts, the Commission establishes that on June 22, 1995, Fathers Loren Riebe Star, Jorge Alberto Barón Guttlein, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz were arrested by armed members of the security forces, who did not identify themselves, had no written warrant from a competent authority. Nor were the priests notified of the reasons why they were deprived of their liberty, or of the charges brought against them. Each of the priests was taken overland to State installations in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, after which all three were flown to Mexico City airport, where the authorities informed them of the reasons for their detention and proceeded to interrogate them.

40. Thus Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz were also denied the right of recourse to a competent court, in order for that court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of their detention. Indeed, the facts show irrefutably that they did not even have access to a lawyer, which might have allowed them to present a judicial remedy to end their arbitrary detention and prevent their summary expulsion. This issue will be examined below, under right to due process and effective judicial protection.

41. The Commission concludes that the Mexican State violated the right to personal liberty–guaranteed under Article 7 of the American Convention–of Father Loren Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz.

B.    Right to a fair trial (Article 8) and to judicial protection (Article 25)

42. The American Convention guarantees everyone the right of recourse to the tribunals, to state their case within a framework of due process, and the right to obtain a ruling from the competent tribunal. Thus, Article 8(1) of the American convention stipulates that:

Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 

43. The right to effective judicial protection is enshrined in Article 25 of the above-mentioned international instrument, the first paragraph of which reads as follows:

Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the State concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.

44. In the instant case, the petition states that Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz were denied a hearing, since they had no access to a competent authority to determine, first of all, the lawfulness of their detention; secondly, to examine the validity of the evidence compiled against them by the Migration Authorities and to present evidence countering those charges; and, thirdly, to allow them to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy under domestic law that could have enabled them to impugn the decision to deport them from Mexico. As for judicial protection, the petitioners claim that the protection of civil rights appeal (recurso de amparo) turned out to be neither effective, simple, or prompt in protecting Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz against the acts that they consider violated their rights, particularly the decision to expel them from Mexico on the basis of evidence they were not allowed to challenge.

45. The Mexican State maintains that the rights reviewed in this report were respected at all times in the case of the three foreign priests, because the procedure applied “contains all the basic elements required for the legality of the administrative procedure”, according to the pertinent law. Hence, the State alleges that when the officials at the National Migration Institute drew up the minutes, the priests were able to argue their own case; that the respective consuls and representatives of the CNDH were present at that time; that the authorities had sufficient evidence of violation by the priests of the laws governing migration; and that the priests’ lawyers were able to challenge the decision of the administrative authorities when they filed an appeal.

i.    Right to due process: prerequisites for the guarantee of a hearing

46. The above-mentioned provisions guaranteeing the right to due process are applicable to administrative as well as judicial procedures. This emerges from the text of Article 8(1), which refers to “…the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature”.4 Here reference should be made to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has established that the provisions of the American Convention “must be interpreted in the light of the concepts and provisions of instruments of a universal character.”5The Inter-American Court has also stipulated that “a balanced interpretation is obtained by adopting the position most favorable to the recipient of international protection”.6

47. The Commission must first determine whether the guarantees of due process enshrined in the American Convention were respected in the administrative procedure applied to verify the denunciation concerning the alleged illicit activities of the foreign priests. 

48. In that regard, the IACHR notes that Article 50 of the Law of Administrative Procedures applied in the instant case stipulates that in such procedures “…any kind of proof will be admitted, except the authorities’ replies to interrogatories”. That provision was invoked by the Mexican State to justify using denunciations made by private individuals against Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz. However the State provides no substantiation whatsoever for the authorities’ decision not to accept replies by the accused to the charges leveled against them, which would have allowed them a minimal right of defense.

49. The petitioners stress that the above mentioned authorities opted to carry out the investigations over a very short period of time, and consequently the action taken against the foreign priests is both arbitrary and disproportionate. The petition states that, in fact, the procedure was adopted merely in order to give a certain air of legality to a decision taken beforehand by the Mexican authorities: namely to accuse the foreign priests of having committed serious offenses, to arrest them, and to deport them summarily without having proved the accusations in criminal proceedings.

50. The petitioners also invoke Articles 140 and 141 of the Regulations to the General Law on Population, which the IACHR cited above in its analysis of the right to personal liberty and they state that the inspection warrant contemplated in those regulations was never shown to them by the Office of the Director General of Migration Services.

51. The Mexican authorities have stated their case regarding the essential requisites for an administrative procedure, which they describe as “those that guarantee an appropriate and timely defense prior to the privative act”. Specifically they have established that:

The guarantee of a hearing established by Article 14 of the Constitution consists of granting citizens the opportunity to defend their case prior to any act depriving them of liberty, property, possessions, or rights, and due respect for that guarantee obliges the authorities, among other things, to “comply with the formal prerequisites inherent in the procedure”. That means the formalities required to guarantee adequate defense prior to the privative act, in other words basically the following requirements: 1) notification of when the procedure begins and its consequences; 2) the opportunity to present and expound evidence supporting their case; 3) the opportunity to argue their case; 4) a verdict settling the issues raised. Failure to fulfill these requisites constitutes failure to comply with the purpose of the right to a hearing, which is to avoid leaving an affected party defenseless.7

52. As regards the scope of the guarantee of a hearing, the Mexican courts have issued similar rulings:

In order to comply with the essential formalities of any procedure, be it administrative or judicial, it is not enough just to allow the person charged a hearing. It is also essential that he be permitted to produce evidence in his favor; because to deny him this right arbitrarily would render the granting of a hearing meaningless. Thus, failure to take legally proffered evidence into account constitutes failure to observe an essential procedural requirement, a negation of the right of defense, and a violation of a fundamental aspect of the guarantee of a hearing enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.8

53. It is also worth mentioning another legal precedent applicable to the case of the foreign priests, regarding administrative procedures concerning witnesses. Here, the Mexican courts ruled that when the authorities take statements from witnesses without giving the accused “unrestricted opportunity to be present and to question the witnesses, it should be considered a violation of the guarantee of a hearing”.9 The Commission has reviewed numerous similar quotations in Mexican jurisprudence, all of them agreeing as to the prerequisites for fulfillment of the guarantee of a hearing contemplated in the Mexican Constitution.

54. The IACHR considers that the interpretation of the legal precedents under domestic law is applicable to the case of Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz, given that it is compatible with the provisions of the American Convention which guarantee the right to due process. In order to establish a broader and more complete legal framework, within the scope of interpretation permitted under Article 29 of the American Convention, we shall now proceed to cite legal precedents in other human rights systems, as well as jurisprudence within the Inter-American system itself.10

55. For reference purposes, the Commission notes that Protocol VII of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) prohibits the arbitrary expulsion of an alien legally residing in a particular State. Article 1 of Protocol VII stipulates that a foreigner has the right to present arguments against his being expelled, to obtain a revision of his case, and to be represented to that end before the competent authority. The right to submit arguments against deportation is even prior to the right to have a decision revised; for that reason, the person concerned must be given a chance to cull evidence or other material with which to substantiate his case before the authority that deprived him of his liberty, or at the start of the proceedings.

56. As for Inter-American jurisprudence on this subject, the IACHR previously ruled on a case filed against Canada by Mrs. Cheryl Monica Joseph, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago.11 The petitioner had lived in Canada for several years and requested permanent residence as a refugee; the Government denied that she had that status and ordered her deportation. The Commission studied the case and decided to declare it inadmissible, because the deportation order did not violate the human rights of the petitioner, who had had the opportunity to process her request before the Canadian authorities and to appeal in the courts against the decision taken by those authorities. Although the IACHR did not in that case expressly establish the minimum procedural requirements needed to avoid a deportation being assessed as arbitrary, it did stress the fact that the petitioner had had several opportunities to go to court in Canada, at various stages of the respective procedure, before the final deportation order was carried out.

57. Especially relevant to this case is the recent report approved and published by the IACHR on the situation of human rights in Mexico, prepared on the basis of information received before, during and after the on-site visit to that country in July, 1996. In the chapter on the right to freedom of expression, the Commission recommended the following to the Mexican State:

To review claims of arbitrary expulsion of foreigners who reside legally in Mexican territory, so as to strictly conform such decisions to rules of due process set forth in internal and international law.12

58. The Commission also considers it appropriate to cite the following precedent in the doctrine of the Inter-American system:

As regards all kinds of trials, the elements considered to constitute the right to defense are: the right to be present during the proceedings, to be able to submit evidence, and to contradict those presented by the opposing party.13

59. Within the legal framework outlined above, the IACHR will proceed to analyze the way in which domestic Mexican law was applied to the foreign priests. The facts of the instant case show that the administrative proceedings against them consisted in the procedures applied in a matter of hours at Mexico City airport. Indeed, it should be borne in mind that the priests were arrested in the afternoon or evening of June 22, 1995, taken to the capital of the State of Chiapas, and then to the national capital. By 8:30 a.m. the next day they had already been expelled from the country and to this day they have not been allowed to return. In order to evoke the circumstances surrounding those proceedings, the IACHR draws on the account by Father Riebe Star:

During the night, the immigration officers interrogated us and typed out statements for us to sign. My interrogation began around 2 a.m. Two individuals, who said they were from the Immigration Department, asked the questions and told a clerk what he should write down and when he should do so. A fourth individual identified himself as a lawyer with the Mexican National Human Rights Commission. None of these individuals showed me credentials proving their identity or position. Nobody explained why the lawyer from the National Human Rights Commission was present. He said nothing while I was in the room with the interrogators…14

60. As mentioned earlier, the statements made by Fathers Jorge Barón Guttlein and Rodolfo Izal Elorz were taken under the same circumstances. It is quite clear that the three priests were not given the opportunity to prepare their defense, formulate their claims and submit evidence, taking into consideration the unreasonably short time in which the government’s decision was carried out and the distance between where they were and their place of permanent residence in the State of Chiapas, where the witnesses or documents they might have produced in their defense were located. 

61. In that regard, the order for the deportation of Rev. Riebe Star mentions the “analysis and evaluation of the evidence in the record…especially the claim submitted by Mr. César Augusto Gómez Arévalo, who made direct accusations against the foreigner as well as the report of the immigration officers charged with the investigation of the claims of the aforementioned person”. These elements were used by the immigration authorities to conclude “with complete certainty” that Rev. Riebe Star had engaged in the following:

Organizing the indigenous peoples to steal cattle, to invade small plots of land, using to that end a non determined amount of catechists, inviting the faithful to join organizations that engage in illegal activities while threatening their lives if they did not accept, inciting them to act against the government and small landowners, arguing that the latter are “those who exploit the indians”, as well as leading them into crime and to gather arms distributed among the indians who sympathize with them, also causing damage to property and to those persons who choose not to join their cause. He has also used his sermons to incite the population to invade lands using violence against small landowners and ranchers, as well as the Government…

62. The three priests were charged with engaging in the same events, and it is clear from the record that they did not have the opportunity to challenge the “analysis and evaluation of the evidence” carried out by the immigration authorities to establish that those events really took place. On the other hand, the Commission deems it necessary to further consider the legal grounds for the expulsion of priests Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein and Izal Elorz. The acts mentioned in the preceding paragraph are describe by the State as “activities different to those authorized by the immigration status” of the foreign priests. Actually, they are very grave accusations, especially taking into account the context of the armed conflict in Chiapas. Obviously, no legislation would consider such acts to be “authorized activities” for immigrants or for anyone else.

63. Based on the aforementioned analysis, the IACHR considers that in those proceedings, the authorities did not comply with the explicit requirements of Mexican law, the jurisprudence established by that country’s legal authorities and the American Convention, to protect the right to a hearing enshrined in Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution, which is compatible with Article 8 of the American Convention and with other international human rights instruments.

64. As regards the right to representation, the petition alleges that the priests did not have access to an attorney during the administrative proceedings. For its part, the State pointed out that in the amparo proceedings regarding this case, the criminal judge established that the administrative proceedings “do not provide for the possibility that the foreigner must be assisted by an attorney to advise him”. The judge clarified that even though it is an individual guarantee under Article 20 of the Constitution, such provision alludes to criminal procedure, but is not applicable to administrative proceedings such as that carried out against the foreign priests.

65. The text of Article 8(2) of the American Convention refers to the rights of “every person accused of a criminal offense”, including “the right to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing”. The Commission notes that the scope of the right to a fair trial has been defined by the Inter-American Court in these words:

For cases which concern the determination of a person’s rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature, Article 8 does not specify any minimum guarantees similar to those provided in Article 8(2) for criminal proceedings. It does, however, provide for due guarantees; consequently, the individual here also has the right to the fair hearing provided for in criminal cases.15

66. The European Commission on Human Rights has established, in general, that the rights to a fair trial and to defense are applicable to administrative proceedings and investigations.16

67. The Commission has reviewed the jurisprudence of various States on this subject. With regard to the expulsion of foreigners, the Constitutional Tribunal of Spain has decided that in order to safeguard important values that might be at risk, it is fundamental that the foreigner potentially subjected to the measure of expulsion be given a hearing, and it is necessary to determine whether or not the foreigner had an adequate opportunity to present his reasons in favor or against the expulsion.17 As regards the extent of the guarantees of due legal process to be observed in administrative proceedings, the Commission notes a consensus in the jurisprudence of several countries. For example, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has established that “any administrative act shall be the result of a proceeding in which the person had an opportunity to express his opinions and present any evidence in support of his rights, and which fully observes all procedural requirements.”18

68. Similarly, several authors, including specialists in criminal procedural law, regard the right to a defense as an essential component of due process, not restricted to criminal matters. For example, Prof. Julio B.J. Maier maintains that: 

Even if we observe the guarantee from the perspective of criminal proceedings, it does not refer exclusively to the State’s authority in criminal matters. To the contrary, the term is broad and also includes civil, labor, and administrative proceedings, since it protects all attributes of the person (life, liberty, property, etc.), or rights that he or she might have which are susceptible to being abridged or infringed by a decision of the State …19

69. No less interesting is jurist Agustín Gordillo’s view on this matter:

The principle of hearing the interested party prior to deciding anything that may affect him is not only a principle of justice but also a principle of efficacy, because it undoubtedly ensures a better understanding of the facts and therefore contributes to better administration, as well as to a more just decision.20

70. The circumstances of the present case show that the State should have determined the fundamental rights of the accused priests, and that the consequences of an adverse decision–such as that which ultimately resulted-warrant a reasonable interpretation, as broad as possible, of the right to due process. Therefore, bearing in mind the standards for interpretation of the American Convention,21 the IACHR considers that this right should have included the opportunity to be assisted by a lawyer if the accused parties had so wished, or by a representative in whom they had confidence, during the administrative proceeding that was held on the night of June 22, 1995, and in the early hours of the following day at Mexico City airport. This specific aspect will be dealt with in greater detail under the analysis of the right to effective judicial protection.

71. The Commission establishes that the Mexican State denied Fathers Loren Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz the right to a hearing in order to determine their rights. This guarantee should have included the right to be assisted during the administrative sanction proceedings; to practice their right of defense, with enough time to ascertain the charges against them and hence to refute them; to have a reasonable time in which to prepare and formalize their statements; and to seek and adduce the corresponding evidence. Thus the IACHR concludes that the aforementioned State violated said persons’ right to judicial protection, in breach of Article 8 of the American Convention.

ii.    Effective judicial protection: amparo proceedings

72. In the admissibility report approved in the instant case, it was established that:

The IACHR considers that there was no dispute about the amparo recourse being the most suitable remedy available in Mexico to correct the alleged violations. Nor did the State question the petitioners’ statement that the judgment passed by the circuit court of appeals, which confirmed the amparo resolution issued in the case of the three priests, exhausted remedies under domestic law.22

73. Nevertheless, the parties disagree as to the correctness of the timing of presentation of that legal recourse. On the one hand, the State claims that the indirect protection [amparo] suits presented on July 14, 1995, on behalf of each of the foreign priests, gave them an opportunity to claim their rights, with a chance of succeeding. The petitioners, on the other hand, consider that the recourse lacked effectiveness inasmuch as it was impossible to file it before the decision to expel the priests from Mexico was carried out; and because later the courts confirmed the arbitrary decision of the migration authorities.

74. The Commission concluded above that the Mexican State should have guaranteed the petitioners’ right to be represented during the administrative proceedings. That conclusion is based not just on the right to a hearing in the context of the instant case, but also from the point of view of effective judicial protection. For that reason, the IACHR in no way agrees with the terms of the judgment that dismissed the amparo filed, as regards Father Izal Elorz.

The truth is that if he lacked counsel to advise him during these proceedings, that was because he never asked for one, a circumstance that on its own is not enough to prove that he was left defenseless…

75. The lack of a lawyer the priests could trust is relevant when it comes to analyzing judicial protection, because a professional of that kind could have counseled his clients regarding their right to file a writ of amparo immediately, in order to preempt consummation of the violations set forth above. The Commission sees no grounds for the State’s argument that the presence of the respective consuls and of assistant inspectors from the National Human Rights Commission constituted sufficient representation to ensure the defense of the priests’ rights. That is evident when one bears in mind that neither the diplomats nor the CNDH inspectors could represent them in the administrative proceedings.

76. In the case of the consuls, the petitioners allege that the former were unable to do so because they were foreigners and lacked a degree in law accredited in accordance with Mexican domestic law for the exercise of that profession. 23 This assertion was not disputed by the Mexican State. For their part, the National Committee inspectors are expressly prohibited by the law that created their institution from intervening as lawyers on behalf of any of the parties. Moreover, from the evidence in the file of the appeal [amparo], during which the administrative proceedings were challenged, it clearly merges that the acts undertaken by the supposed representatives of the priests had absolutely no effect on those proceedings. On the contrary, they restricted themselves to observing and in no way queried the evident irregularities being committed by the Mexican authorities. Such a passive approach would have been unthinkable in a genuine legal representative of the accused.

77. The IACHR has given its opinion on the right to effective legal counsel in the following terms:

The right to judicial recourse expressed in Article 25 of the American Convention is a fundamental tool for the protection of individual rights within the framework of the American Convention’s object and purpose. It is so important that the Inter-American Court has concluded that not even the imposition of states of emergency—which did not exist in Argentina at the time when the petitioners judicial recourse was denied —can “entail the suppression or ineffectiveness of the judicial guarantees that the Convention requires States Parties to establish, for the protection of the rights not subject to derogation or suspension by the state of emergency, or to control the legality of measures adopted by the executive body due to the state of emergency.24

78. For its part, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated the following: 

Article 25(1) upholds the principle, recognized in international human rights law, of the effectiveness of the instruments or procedural means designed to safeguard such rights…In accordance with this principle, the nonexistence of an effective recourse against violation of the rights recognized under the Convention constitutes a transgression of that Convention by the State Party where such circumstances obtain. Here it is worth underscoring that, for such a recourse to exist, it is not enough for it to be contemplated in the Constitution or the law or to be formally admissible; it has also to be really suited to establishing whether a violation of human rights has occurred and capable of remedying it. Recourses that, whether because of the overall state of the country or even for specific reasons in a given case, are evidently pure illusions cannot be considered effective.25

79. In the instant case, the IACHR has already established that the foreign priests, Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz were arrested arbitrarily, violating Mexican laws and the American Convention which protect the right to personal liberty. It was also determined above that the administrative proceedings to which the victims were subjected at Mexico City airport failed to comply with the right to a hearing to which they were entitled under the above-mentioned provisions. Among other things, because the presence of consular agents from the United States of America, Argentina, and Spain, and visitors from the CNDH at Mexico City airport in the early morning hours of June 23, 1995, did not constitute observance of the right to representation that the Mexican State is obliged to guarantee for the priests from the three countries mentioned.

80. The practically identical judgments passed on July 9, 1996 by the circuit court resolving the priests’ appeal [amparo] resulted in the dismissal of charges against all the civil servants accused of violating the claimants’ rights. The operative part of those judgments establishes, in the second paragraph, that “the Justice of the Union neither shields nor protects” the priests against the acts carried out by those officials. For its part, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Criminal Matters of the Federal District upheld that verdict in its entirety. The interested parties were notified on January 30, 1997.

81. The simplicity, promptness, and effectiveness of the writ of amparo in the cases of the priests must be measured on the basis of the possibility of verifying the existence of such violations; of remedying them; of making reparation for the damage done; and of punishing those responsible. It is clear that the legal remedy did not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. On the contrary, the final decision of the Mexican courts found, without sufficient legal grounds, that government officials had acted legally. Thus, that decision consolidated the violations of the human rights of the complainants and allowed the violators to go unpunished. In other words, the priests were denied the protection of Mexican justice against transgressions of their fundamental rights, in violation of the right to judicial guarantees.

82. On the basis of all the above, the Commission concludes that the Mexican State violated the right to judicial protection established in Article 25 of the American Convention in the case of Fathers Loren Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz.

C.    Right to humane treatment (Article 5)

83. The petitioners have alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of the foreign priests, on account of the way they were treated at the time of their arrest and while they were deprived of their liberty and held at the disposal of the Mexican authorities in Chiapas and at Mexico City airport. The pertinent paragraphs of Article 5 of the American Convention read as follows:

1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.

2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

84. The petitioners point out that Father Riebe was arrested when he was in the rectory of his church abruptly and by armed men who did not identify themselves. He himself described the circumstances under which he was transferred to the State capital in the following terms:

Several uniformed men from the State Judicial Police forced me to get into the vehicle. They refused to tell me why they had arrested me or where they were taking me…we drove for approximately 10 miles until we passed a flatbed van. Later I found out that it belonged to the State Security Police. Father Rodolfo was in front. I was forced to get into the back part of the van along with four armed guards. In the hours that followed it got dark, and very cold, and there was wind and drizzle. I was not wearing either a jacket or a sweater. I just had a shirt. Nobody would tell me where we were going nor why. I was frightened. I needed to go to the bathroom and asked them to stop the van. The answer was “No”. The journey lasted five hours…After the medical examination… they photographed our faces… they took us to a dark corridor. There for the first time we saw Father Jorge Barón, an Argentine priest who had been working in the town of Carranza. When I began to say something to Father Barón, they told me that prisoners were not allowed to speak. That was the first time the police had referred to us as prisoners. I still did not know what I was accused of. They led us carefully guarded to the back of the building and handed us over to the State police. Finally, they let us speak. I saw some policemen handing Father Barón his glasses. Then, Father Barón told us that they had taken his glasses off, blindfolded him, and thrown him in the back of a van. He did not even know we were in Tuxtla until I told him…All the time, every time they changed guards or a new officer arrived, I asked why they were detaining me, what had happened, and where they were taking me. I must have asked six or seven times. They never replied…26

85. For his part, Father Barón Guttlein described what happened as follows:

When we got to the El Carmelito crossing, around 4.40 p.m., I was forced by a van to pull up. Four men got down from the van and forced me, without showing any kind of written order or warrant of a competent authority, to get out of my car and covered my face with a sheepskin jacket. Blindfolded, I was able to perceive that I was taken towards my captors’ van. I was thrown onto the floor of the van and covered with a sheepskin jacket or blanket. In that State I was driven for I don’t know how long, but certainly for more than three hours…When we stopped, I was taken down from the van and my captors took off the blindfold…In the installations where we were I was forced to strip in front of my captors and given a medical examination by someone whose name I don’t know because he refused to tell me when I asked…27

86. The Mexican State chose not to comment on the circumstances denounced by the priests during the proceedings. In its reply to the complaint lodged by Father Riebe Star, it limited itself to the following statement:

The Government of Mexico did not violate Father Loren L. Riebe’s right to humane treatment, given that during the administrative proceedings the Mexican authorities respected his physical, mental, and moral integrity, as proved by the medical certificate issued by the coroner on June 22, 1995, which states that the complainant showed no signs of recent external injuries and was physically and clinically well.

87. When he refers to degrading treatment, European Human Rights Commission expert Nigel Rodley says it includes any kind of act “that causes severe mental or physical suffering which, under those particular circumstances, turns out to be unjustifiable.”28 For its part the United Nations has stated:

The term “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” has not been defined by the General Assembly, but it should be interpreted in such a way as to provide the broadest possible protection against abuse, be it physical or mental.29

88. The Commission has to analyze the complaints within the context of the situation prevailing in Chiapas at that time. As we mentioned at the beginning of this report, Chiapas has been subject to serious social unrest, exacerbated by the presence of the dissident armed group known as the EZLN and of paramilitary groups. International public opinion is familiar with that situation indicating the atmosphere of fear surrounding those who work with indigenous groups, especially human rights activists, because both groups are exposed to all kinds of harassment by paramilitary groups, including forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions. We also mentioned above that, in some cases, State security personnel turn a blind eye to crimes committed by the paramilitary, while in others they even play an active part. Here, it is worth recalling the “Ejido Morelia” case, which occurred in the State of Chiapas in early 1994. It was established in that case that three brothers–Severiano, Sebastián, and Hermelindo Santiz Gómez–all of whom were members of an indigenous group and supposedly members of the EZLN, were arbitrarily detained by Mexican army personnel, who tortured and killed them.30

89. In that context, the Commission considers that the fear felt by the three priests was both real and legitimate, given the improper manner in which they were arrested. Indeed, this report has clearly established that they were deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary and illegal fashion, with an unnecessary display of firearms. It should not be forgotten that Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz were well known and respected for their work in support of human rights, and that all three practiced the priesthood in a predominantly indigenous area, with a strong Zapatista presence. If we add to that the fact that those who detained them did not identify themselves at any point and held them for about ten hours as they were transferred by heavily armed guards from one place to another, there were real grounds for them to fear for their lives and physical integrity.

90. That fear was compounded by the humiliating and inhuman treatment they received from their captors. Particularly serious is the fact that Father Barón Guttlein was kept blindfolded during a journey of approximately four hours, especially not knowing who had captured him, why, or where they were taking him. The IACHR considers no less degrading the fact that Rev. Riebe Star was transferred in the same state of uncertainty and fear as we have just described, and then denied the right to go to the bathroom for a considerable period of time. Furthermore, the three priests were deprived of rest and sleep throughout the time they were held by the Mexican authorities. In this regard, human rights doctrine has the following to say about torture and ill treatment:

More sophisticated, because they leave little physical evidence, are psychological techniques: being deprived of light (or darkness), sound, or sleep, and general disorientation…31

91. The right to personal integrity protected under the American Convention and by other international human rights instruments encompasses far more than a ban on beatings, physical torture or other forms of treatment that leave traces or visible marks on the victim. For that reason, the Commission dismisses out of hand the Mexican State’s argument that the medical examination of the victims proves there was no violation of this right in the instant case.

92. The Commission concludes that the Mexican State did not respect the personal integrity of Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz, since it subjected them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; and that it failed to treat them, while they were deprived of their liberty, with the respect due to the inherent dignity of the human person. Consequently, the Mexican State has transgressed Article 5 of the American Convention in respect of the victims in the instant case.

D.    Right to privacy (Article 11)

93. Article 11 of the American Convention states:

1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized.

2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.

3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

94. The above facts in the instant case show improper conduct on the part of government officials in the detention and expulsion of the three priests. The State itself told the Commission that those authorities had ascertained that the priests were “promoting the organization of armed groups, organizing and leading local inhabitants to invade farms belonging to private individuals, and sundry unlawful acts”. Instead of investigating these grave charges in accordance with the pertinent laws, before the courts and in the framework of due process of law, the State opted to violate explicit constitutional and legal provisions and arrest and summarily deport the foreign priests. They did so despite the fact that the priests had spent many years practicing their priesthood in the region and the file on the case has no record of any previous criminal behavior, nor of problems with the authorities, nor of any immigration irregularities.

95. The result was that the priests were presented to Mexican and international public opinion as dangerous delinquents; nevertheless, because of the government’s maneuver, consisting in summary deportation without initiating criminal proceedings, they never had a chance to defend themselves from the serious criminal charges leveled against them. The petitioners have presented numerous publications and official documents discrediting the priests. The IACHR deems it appropriate at this point to refer to the press release issued by the Ministry of the Interior on June 23, 1995, the date of the summary expulsion. That document points to a number of activities carried out by the Mexican State such as “major efforts to ensure just, dignified, and lasting peace” in Chiapas, in order to “combat those who have taken advantage of the situation to cover up illicit activities outside the area of conflict:”

4th)…Thus it was ascertained that the three above-mentioned persons were carrying out proselytizing activities with a clear and marked participation in internal political affairs. Those denouncing these activities pointed to the responsibility of the aliens who have now been deported from the country in creating an atmosphere which exacerbates and radicalizes disputes between communities in Chiapas, by promoting land invasions, threats, and stirring up conflicts between different indigenous groups.

Taken together, the activities referred to contributed to a disturbance of the atmosphere of order, friendliness, and concord required in order to make progress towards a solution of the problems in Chiapas. 

96. In addition to the harm done to the priests by deporting them summarily–without even giving them time to collect their personal belongings, much less to defend themselves–is the campaign to discredit them orchestrated by the State. In effect, the evidence cited above is enough to show that they were presented to public opinion as hardened criminals and as a threat for peace in Chiapas, without producing any evidence at all to substantiate these charges. The petitioners consider that one of the objectives of that campaign was to provide political justification–the IACHR considers a legal justification impossible–for the decision to deport the priests and forbid their return to Mexico, despite the fact that they had resided there legally for many years.

97. In analyzing above the priests’ right to judicial protection, we noted the Mexican courts’ reaction to the government’s behavior: denying civil rights [amparo] and Federal protection to the complainants and exonerating all the government officials accused. In light of the preceding analysis, the Commission concludes that the Mexican State violated the right–guaranteed under Article 11 of the American Convention–to protection of the honor and dignity of Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz.

E.    Right to freedom of conscience and religion (Article 12) and right to freedom of
        association (Article 16)

98. Article 12 of the American Convention protects the right to freedom of conscience and religion, which includes the right of every person to uphold their religion or beliefs and the freedom to practice and preach them both public and privately. To that end, no one can be subjected to restrictive measures that affect such liberty, “subject only to the limitations prescribed by law that are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the rights or freedoms of others.” For its part, Article 16 establishes that “everyone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes.”

99. In the instant case, the petitioners allege that the improper conduct by the authorities forms part of a government campaign against the Catholic Church in Chiapas. To substantiate that claim, they cite various incidents of treatment meted out to priests, missionaries, social workers, human rights activists, and Catholics. The petitioners state that:

The persecution has consisted, among other things, in closing down churches and bans on religious meetings by local authorities; the expulsion from Mexico of several foreign priests, including Father Riebe; the lack of government protection for the church, priests, and nuns against attempts to murder them; rape, attacks, and threats; failure to investigate such incidents or to charge those who perpetrated such criminal offenses; the illegal arrest of church workers and raiding of churches, along with attacks and slander in the press, falsely stating that bishop Ruiz and the priests in Chiapas supply arms to the EZLN, encourage violent uprisings and land invasions, and take part in criminal activities.

100. For its part, the State maintains that the events described by the petitioners are “isolated” cases, with no bearing on the present case. It considers that such events “lack any connection or rationality that could bear directly or indirectly” on this case. The State adds that there is no religious intolerance on the part of the authorities and that in Mexico there is respect for the freedom of belief established in Article 24 of the country’s Constitution. Finally, it says that there is no persecution campaign since “… there is no record of any such claim by Mexican church authorities”.

101. The IACHR does not consider it necessary in this report to pronounce on the existence of a campaign against the Catholic Church in Chiapas, although it has referred in a general way to the issue in the context of the situation in that State. On the other hand, the file on the case states that the priests were known for their religious activity and for their work in defense of the human rights of the people in the localities where they practiced their ministry. The manner in which they chose to profess and disseminate their religion and beliefs is protected by the American Convention. Moreover, it was never demonstrated in a proceeding that met the standards of due process that the priests had violated any Mexican laws that govern such activities.

102. It is worth pointing out one fact not disputed by the Mexican State: the three priests were interrogated by the migration authorities at Mexico City airport about the social teachings of the Catholic Church. It should be added, moreover, that the three priests were deprived of their freedom that same day, in virtually identical operations just a few hours apart, and submitted to the same summary proceeding of expulsion in an action organized by the authorities in advance. In this context, the Commission understands that the conduct of the authorities who interrogated the foreign priests about their religious preference points to a tie between that religious preference and the treatment they received from said authorities: namely, arrest and summary expulsion from Mexico, added to which they were forbidden to return to Mexico under any migration category whatsoever.32

103. Based on these facts, the Commission establishes that the priests Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz were punished because of their religious activity. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the Mexican State violated the right to freedom of conscience and religion that it was obliged to guarantee in the case of the three foreign Catholic priests.

104. The file on the case also shows that over their long years of legal residence in Mexico, the priests had established strong ties with various private organizations in the State of Chiapas. Indeed, the initial petition of Father Riebe Star contains a list of entities that also present themselves as victims of his expulsion: Casa María, a residence for indigenous children; Rancho Santiago, a residence for indigenous children; the medical clinic, the seamstresses’ cooperative, the consumers cooperative, and the library, all of them in the town of Yajalón. The petitioners point out that all these projects provide direct economic and social benefits to many of the indigenous Mayan people of the region, and it is therefore considered that the expulsion of the priests was designed “to intimidate the indigenous people, depriving them of their leaders, and undermining the success of self-help organizations.”

105. Taking into account what has been established above in regard to the religious preference of the priests, the Commission considers that the decision to summarily expel them was also a violation of the right to associate freely for religious purposes, since it radically and definitively cut them off from contact with their parishioners in Chiapas.

F.    Freedom of movement and residence (Article 22)

106. Article 22(6) of the American Convention establishes:

An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to this Convention may be expelled from it only pursuant to a decision reached in accordance with law.

107. As stated in this report, there is no dispute concerning the fact that Fathers Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz were legal residents of Mexico and that they were authorized by the migration laws of that State to practice their priesthood. Furthermore, the Commission has established above that the decision by Mexico’s migration authorities that led to their expulsion was taken in violation of their human rights to due process and effective judicial counsel. Therefore the IACHR concludes that the Mexican State violated the right protected under Article 22(6) of the American Convention in the case of these three persons.

G.    Right to equal protection (Article 24)

108. The American Convention establishes that:

All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.

109. In the instant case, the petitioners invoked in all their communications violation of the priests’ right to equal protection before the law; however, the Commission notes that they did not substantiate this point and for that reason the State did not mention it either.

110. Article 46(1) of the Regulations of the IACHR regarding the preparation of reports stipulates that: “… the Commission shall examine the evidence provided by the government in question and the petitioner, evidence taken from witnesses to the facts or that obtained from documents, records, official publications, or through an on-site investigation”.

111. The IACHR lacks the wherewithal to analyze the issue of violation of Article 24 of the American Convention in this case and therefore refrains from pronouncing on this aspect.

VI.    ACTIONS AFTER REPORT Nº 41/98

112. On September 29, 1998, the IACHR adopted Report Nº 41/98, on this case, pursuant to Article 50, and transmitted it to the Mexican State with the pertinent recommendations. The State forwarded its observations on December 2, 1998.

113. In those observations, the State made reference to the amendments to the General Law on Population of Mexico, which have been in force since November 8, 1996, when they were published in the Diario Oficial. They included a new Article 154, which “establishes the judicial guarantees applicable in this administrative proceeding,” which include the obligation to give prior notice to the non-national, in writing, and with acknowledgement of receipt, to inform him of the reason for the appearance, the place, the facts alleged, and the right to offer evidence and arguments to refute the allegations. According to the Mexican State, the amendments to the General Law on Population are continuing, and are to be published in the first half of 1999. One of the planned articles provides for the possibility of foreigners being advised by counsel or a person of their confidence, with which the non-national “will have the right to argue against the possible expulsion and even file a motion for administrative review as a means of defense, before the possible expulsion is carried out, and has the opportunity to gather evidence or other materials to make his or her case before the immigration authorities, from the outset of the proceeding.”

114. The State expressed that those provisions came after the date on which priests Riebe Star, Barón Guttlein, and Izal Elorz were arrested and expelled from Mexico, and that therefore the judges who reviewed the administrative proceeding “acted pursuant to the legislation in force on the date the events in question took place.” The State concluded that the Commission “simply calls into question the actions of the federal judges merely because they ruled in favor of the competent authorities,” and that there is a contradiction in the statement by the IACHR to the effect that the writ of amparo was the suitable remedy for solving the violation and that the violations were found because the ruling went against the petitioners.

115 As regards the other violations established in Report 41/98, the State argued:

Taking account of these considerations, it does not make sense to derive alleged violations of the rights to humane treatment, to privacy, as well as to the freedom of conscience and religion, the right to association, and, finally, the right to freedom of residence and movement, based on non-logical arguments.

116. The State added that “the writ of amparo has simple, prompt, and effective procedural rules to determine the legality of a detention,” and that the action could have been brought by any person, by any means, at any time of the day or night, before any judge. Therefore, it considered that the reference to the requirement to possess the title of attorney to file it revealed the “lack of knowledge of the situation.” In addition, the State indicated that “in the specific case, the petitioners limited the request for amparo solely to the right to be assisted by counsel, consequently the judicial body did not take cognizance of alleged violations of other rights.”

117. The State also set forth its analysis of the value of the international instruments cited and applied by the Commission in this report, which it defined as being “merely persuasive, as it corresponds to other jurisdictions” and it was of the view that in this case they “lack interpretive force” by virtue of the case law of the Inter-American Court cited at paragraph 67 supra.

118. Finally, the State reiterated that the immigration authorities acted “abiding strictly by the legislation in force in Mexico at the time of the events” and summarized the matter of the legislative reforms, which would make it possible “to achieve the levels of protection suggested by the Inter-American Commission.” The State, based on its arguments, requested that the IACHR “close the case and declare it concluded.”

119. With respect to the observations summarized above, the Commission must first specify that the right to a fair trial cannot be “established” in Mexico by virtue of a law, since it is one of the human rights that Mexico has undertaken to make effective, respect, and guarantee by ratifying the American Convention.

120. As regards the State’s argument on the proper application of the Mexican law in force at that time by the administrative authorities and by the judicial bodies, the IACHR refers to Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” In this case, an effort is made to elude compliance with the recommendations of the Commission, the principal organ of the OAS responsible for applying the American Convention, which the Mexican State has undertaken to respect and guarantee, based on a regulatory provision of domestic law.

121. The decision to fail to perform that can be gleaned from the State’s response to Report Nº 41/98 is also reflected in other expressions used by the State, such as “the levels of protection suggested by the Commission” (emphasis added); that “one cannot accept the conclusion of the IACHR” [with respect to the violation of the right to judicial protection]; and that “it makes no sense to derive violations … relying on non-logical arguments” [with respect to the IACHR’s analysis in this report]. In this regard, one should recall what the Inter-American Court has established:

[I]n accordance with the principle of good faith, embodied in aforesaid Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, if a State signs and ratifies an international treaty, especially one concerning human rights, such as the American Convention, it has the obligation to make every effort to apply the recommendations of a protection organ such as the Inter-American Commission, which is, indeed, one of the principal organs of the Organization of American States whose function is “to promote the observance and defense of human rights” in the Hemisphere.33

122. In addition, the Commission has expressed on numerous occasions that it does not, in principle, have the authority to review the judgments of the judicial organs of the OAS member states, unless a violation of one of the rights protected by the American Convention has been committed. The analysis in this case is not aimed, as the State argues, at determining whether the Mexican judges made sure their decisions were in line with domestic law, for which the IACHR has no authority; in contrast, the Commission is fully authorized to determine whether the decisions of the judicial organs–or any act of authority–constitute a violation of rights protected by the American Convention. The violations have been established in this case based on the information provided by the parties, analyzed in light of that Convention, and interpreted in their proper context with other international human rights instruments, the case law, and doctrine (see paragraphs 46 and 54 supra). In addition, the IACHR has dismissed the allegations of violations of several rights invoked by the petitioners in this case, as it found the factual and legal elements required for that purpose to be lacking.

123. As to another important issue in this case, the reading of paragraph 77 of this report shows that the reason for the presence of an attorney in the hearing is the legal counsel such professional could have been able to provide his or her clients, in the face of the imminence of a decision that was going to affect their fundamental rights. For example, an attorney who is a person of confidence could have explained to the priests the “simplicity and rapidity” of the rules on amparo described by the State in its response to Report Nº 41/98, which would have enabled them to file it before the situation of violations described in this report had been consummated. If that had been the case, and the judges had ruled definitively as they did here and confirmed the violations, the Commission would also have found a violation of the right to judicial protection. That is because it would have to submit the writ of amparo to the same requirements set forth in paragraph 83 above: the possibility of establishing the violations, of providing a remedy for them, as well as reparation for the damages caused, and making it possible to punish the responsible party. In any event, the IACHR views favorably the State’s recognition, looking to the future, of the importance of non-nationals having an attorney of confidence during the administrative procedure for expulsion, as it is a core violation–though certainly not the only one–in this case.

VII.    CONCLUSIONS

124. The IACHR highlights, first, its satisfaction with the advance achieved by the reforms to the General Law on Population of Mexico. In effect, the protection for the right to due process in administrative procedures to expel non-nationals, which will include their right to be represented by counsel of their choice, is a very important stride forward towards consolidating judicial guarantees in Mexico.

125. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commission observes that such reforms have not been applied to the case of the foreign priests, which is the reason for this report, and that no recommendations of those put forth in its Report 41/98 have been adopted. Consequently, the conclusions of the following paragraphs are reiterated, with the corresponding recommendations.

126. The Commission concludes that Fathers Loren Riebe Star, of the United States, Jorge Barón Guttlein, of Argentina, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz, of Spain,–all three legal residents of Mexico–were arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and expelled in summary fashion from that country, without being granted a hearing and in violation of their freedom of movement and residence. The injunction [juicio de amparo] filed later by representatives of the deported priests lacked effectiveness as protection against the violations referred to. Likewise, the IACHR concludes that the arrest and expulsion were carried out in violation of the priests’ physical integrity, as well as in violation of their right to protection of their honor and dignity. As a result of these arbitrary proceedings by the authorities, the Mexican State is also responsible for violating freedom of conscience and religion, as well as the freedom of association to which the above-mentioned persons were entitled.

127. The Commission concludes that the Mexican State has violated to the detriment of Loren Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein and Rodolfo Izal Elorz, the human rights provided in Articles 5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 22, and 25 of the American Convention, all of which bear on Article 1(1) of that international instrument. Therefore, the State is duty-bound to make reparation for the consequences of those violations.VII.    RECOMMENDATIONS

128. By virtue of the foregoing analysis and conclusions,  

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
REITERATES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MEXICAN STATE:

1. To take appropriate steps to revise the validity of the administrative proceedings applied to the victims of the instant case.

2. To investigate the responsibilities of the government officials involved in the violations determined in the preceding chapter, and apply the respective sanctions.

3. To reinstitute the juridical situation in which the victims in the present case were deprived of the enjoyment and exercise of their human rights.

4. To make adequate reparation for the human rights violations suffered by the victims in this case.VIII.    PUBLICATION

129. On March 8, 1999, the Commission sent Report Nº 4/99–the text of which is above–to the Mexican State and to the petitioners, in keeping with Article 51(2) of the American Convention; and it set a deadline of one month for the State to comply with the foregoing recommendations. On April 8, 1999, the State sent a communication in which it reiterated the information presented in response to Report Nº 41/98, pertaining to this case, which has already been evaluated supra. In accordance with Article 51(2), the Commission, in this phase of the process, shall confine itself to assessing the measures taken by the Mexican State to comply with the recommendations and to remedy the situation under review.

130. The communication of April 8, 1999, contains no information on any measures taken to comply with the recommendations issued by the Commission in Report Nº 4/99.

131. Accordingly, and pursuant to Articles 51(3) of the American Convention and 48 of the Commission’s Regulations, the Commission decides: to reiterate the conclusions contained in Chapters VI and VII supra; to publish this report; and to include it in the Commission’s Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. Pursuant to the provisions contained in the instruments governing its mandate, the IACHR will continue to evaluate the measures taken by the Mexican State with respect to those five recommendations, until the State has fully complied with them.

Approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the city of Washington, D.C. on the 13 day of the month of April, 1999. (Signed): Robert K. Goldman Chairman; Hélio Bicudo First Vice Chairman; Claudio Grossman, Second Vice Chairman; Commissioners Alvaro Tirado Mejía and Jean Joseph Exumé.

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]^{1 In this regard, Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, described in a press release the situation in the state as “a grim picture of an atmosphere of fear among the indigenous people of Chiapas caught between government forces supported by officially funded militias on one side and armed resistance groups on the other…” Mrs. Robinson added that “…a reduction in the military presence in the region could be an important first step in restoring confidence that a peaceful solution might be found. This would also contribute to improving the current climate of fear.” United Nations, HR/98/38, 12 June 1998, High Commissioner for Human Rights expresses mounting concern about situation in Chiapas, Mexico.2 Bishop Ruiz has stated that there is “constant and growing aggression” against the San Cristóbal de las Casas diocese, dating back to January 1994. He said:It is a systematic persecution that has manifested itself in numerous acts such as the expulsion of seven priests on the basis of false accusations; negation in practice of residence permits for foreign pastors; imprisonment of four priests on trumped-up charges and in clear violation of their human rights; the closure of nearly 40 temples, some of which were occupied by the Mexican army; arrest warrants against numerous priests, nuns, and missionaries, and pressure on farm workers to declare that the diocese provides them with arms.”La Jornada” newspaper. Conai dissolved as a result of “official war strategy”, Internet edition of June 8, 1998.3 The IACHR is processing case 11.886 regarding Michel Chanteau, a French Catholic priest practicing in the San Cristóbal de las Casas diocese, who was detained by the police on February 26, 1998 and expelled from the country. It has also received requests for precautionary measures on behalf of foreign Catholic workers in Chiapas. Pursuant to Article 34(3) of its Regulations, the IACHR does not prejudge the admissibility of the respective petitions.4 See, on this aspect, the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, Guide to the Application of International Law in Domestic Law, “Guarantees regarding Administration of Justice in international human rights norms”, San José de Costa Rica, 1996, page 56.5 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. “Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism”, Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No.5, paragraph 51.6 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Sistematización de la jurisprudencia contenciosa de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1981-1991, Viviana Gallardo and others, decision of November 13, 1981, paragraph 16, page 115.7 Direct amparo under review 296-90, Optica Devlyn del Norte S.A., March 12, 1992. Unanimity of 19 votes, Semanario Judicial de la Federación, Volume II, December 1995, Thesis P.J. 4795, page 133.8 Amparo under review 3456-81, Albertina Domínguez, widow of García and joint agents, October 20, 1983, Unanimity of 4 votes, Semanario Judicial de la Federación, Volume 175-180 Third Part, page 65.10 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes the requisites for the deportation of foreigners that are lawfully in a country, as well as the right to due process. The relevant provisions of the Covenant are the following:Article 13 – An alien lawfully within the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority. Article 14(1) – All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge brought against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law…The Mexican State ratified the Covenant with a reservation to Article 13, in view of Article 33 of the Constitution of that country; however, Mexico formulated no reservations to the pertinent articles of the American Convention. The U.N. Human Rights Committee has interpreted the above provisions in the following sense:if the legality of an alien’s entry or stay is in dispute, any decision on this point leading to his expulsion or deportation ought to be taken in accordance with Article 13. It is for the competent authorities of the State party, in good faith and in the exercise of their powers, to apply and interpret the domestic law, observing, however, such requirements under the Covenant as equality before the law…Article 13 directly regulates only the procedure and not the substantive grounds for expulsion. However, by allowing only those carried out “in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law”, its purpose is clearly to prevent arbitrary expulsions…This understanding, in the opinion of the Committee, is confirmed by further provisions concerning the right to submit reasons against expulsion and to have the decision reviewed by and to be represented before the competent authority or someone designate by it. An alien must be given full facilities for pursuing his remedy against expulsion so that this right will in all the circumstances of his case be an effective one. (emphasis added)United Nations, Compilation of general comments and general recommendations adopted by human rights treaty bodies, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.3, 15 August 1997, pars. 9 and 10, p. 21. 11 IACHR, Annual Report 1993, OEA/Ser.L/II.85, Doc. 8 rev., Report Nº 27/93, Case 11.092 – Canada, February 11, 1994.12 IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights in Mexico, OEA/Ser. L/V/II.100, Doc. 7 rev. 1, September 24, 1998, para. 672. That report, available on the Commission’s internet home page (www.iachr.org) has a reference to this case at para. 665.13 IIDH, op.cit., page 61.14 Affidavit of Father Loren Riebe Star, taken on April 4, 1996 in Phoenix, Arizona, USA, before a notary public, and added to appeal file 979/94, paragraph 22.15 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “Exceptions to Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Articles 46.1, 46.2.a), and 46.2.b): American Convention on Human Rights,” Advisosry Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A, No. 11, par. 28.16 European Commission of Human Rights, Huber v. Austria, 1975 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 1976, pars. 69 to 71. In the same sense, the European Court of Human Rights has considered that the principles of due process are applicable, mutatis mutandis, to disciplinary sanctions of an administrative nature. European Court, Case of Albert and Le Compte,Decision of 10 February 1983, Series A Vol. 58, Council of Europe, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, par. 39.17 Spain, Constitutional Tribunal, STC 242/1994, FJ6, cited in: Francisco Rubio Llorente, Derechos fundamentales y principios constitucionales (Doctrina jurisprudencial) [Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Principles (Doctrine of Jurisprudence), Ed. Ariel, S.A., Barcelona, 1995, pp.192-193. The U.S. Supreme Court, for its part, has contended that deportation implies a loss of freedom, and that therefore the right to due process should be guaranteed before taking such a measure (Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 1953; Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 1950). The U.S. Supreme Court also found that individuals who find themselves facing possible deportation have the right to a hearing and the right to be represented in the hearing by a lawyer Casteneda-Delgado v. INS, 525 F.2d. 1295, 7th Cir., 1975), and similarly, that there should be “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence prior to deportation Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285, 1966).18 Colombia, Constitutional Court, Fourth Court of Review, Judgment T-251 of September 19, 1992, Presiding Judge: Alejandro Martínez Caballero, cited in: Comisión Andina de Juristas, Derechos fundamentales e interpretación constitucional [Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Interpretation], Series “Lecturas sobre temas constitucionales” [Readings on Constitutional Themes], vol. 13, Lima Peru, 1997, p.484. It is also appropriate to cite the Supreme Court in Venezuela, which has interpreted that the state administration should inform interested parties of the opening of an administrative procedure before giving its opinion, so that the parties can have access to the corresponding file and contribute their opinions:The right to a defense should be considered not only an opportunity for the accused citizen or alleged law-breaker to hear the allegations but also the right to demand that the State, prior to the imposition of any punishment, carry out a set of acts designed to enable him to hear the exact charges and the legal provisions that are applicable thereto, to make timely statements in his own defense, and to seek and adduce any evidence there may be in his favor.Venezuela, Supreme Court, Judgment of November 17, 1993, cited in Rafael Chavero, La participación ciudadana en la elaboración de actos generales [Citizen Participation in the Elaboration of General Acts], Revista de Derecho Público No. 59-60, Ed. Jurídica Venezolana, Caracas, 1997.19 Julio B.J. Maier, Derecho procesal penal [Criminal procedural law[ vol. 1: Fundamentos [Fundamentals], Ed. del Puerto S.R.L., Buenos Aires, 1996, 2d ed., p. 541.20 Agustín Gordillo, Problemas del control de la Administración Pública en America Latina [Problems of Public Administration Control in Latin America] Cuadernos Civitas, Madrid, 1981. Other authors emphasize the importance of the right to a defense among the special rights related to administrative procedure, including as a component thereof the right to be heard. For example, Brewer-Carías says that “it is not possible even to speak of a defense unless the person concerned is present and heard. It is a matter of the right of any interested party to be heard, that is a positive enactment of the principle of jurisprudence known as audi alteram parti –in other words, the right to hear the other party .” The same author includes, in addition, as part of the right to a defense, the right to be notified when “subjective rights and legitimate personal interests can be directly affected by the proceeding,” as well as the right of the accused to have access to the file on the case, because “this is the basis for the defense.” Another right that is included is the right “not only to state reasons but also to present evidence.” Allan Brewer-Carías, Derechos y garantías constitucionales [Constitutional Rights and Guarantees] vol. 4, “Instituciones políticas y constitucionales” [Political and Constitutional Institutions, Universidad Católica del Táchira, Ed. Jurídica Venezolana, Caracas 1996, pp. 227 – 233.21 Article 29 of the American Convention establishes that none of its provisions shall be interpreted as “suppress[ing] the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein.”22 IACHR, Report No. 34/98, Case 11.610, Mexico, May 5, 1998, paragraph 23.23 The State of Mexico is a party to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. That instrument establishes as follows in Article 33 (“Communication and contact with nationals of the sending State”):1.c. Consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and to correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulation of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.24 IACHR, Annual Report 1997, Report Nº 30/97 (Case 10.087 – Gustavo Carranza), Argentina, OEA/ser.L/V/II.98 Doc.6 rev., April 13, 1998, par. 80, p. 269.25 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987 “Judicial Guarantees under States of Emergency” (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), paragraph 24.26 Affidavit of Father Loren Riebe Star cited above, paragraphs 11 to 18.27 Writ of relief (amparo) presented by the representatives of Father Barón Guttlein before the District Judge of the Federal District for Criminal Matters, paragraphs 3 and 4.28 Nigel S. Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, Oxford University Press, Unesco 1987, pages 73 and 74.29 Nigel S. Rodley, op.cit., page 95.30 IACHR, Annual Report 1997, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98 Doc. 6 rev., Report No. 48/97 – Case 11.411 Severiano and Hermelindo Santiz Gómez (“Ejido Morelia”), Mexico, February 18, 1998, pages 655 to 680.31 Nigel S. Rodley, op.cit, page 10.32 The Commission has pronounced on violation of the rights to freedom of conscience and religion and the right to associate freely in cases dealing with treatment of priests and nuns by agents of the State. On this, see IACHR, Annual Report, 1996, OEA/Ser.L/VII.95 Doc. 7 rev., Report Nº 31/96, Case 10.526, Guatemala, October 16, 1996, par. 119, p. 363. 33 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Loayza Tamayo, Judgment of September 17, 1997, para. 80.}

9 Amparo under review 103-90, Tittinger Compagnie Comerciale et Viticole Champenise S.A. March 20, 1990, Unanimity of votes, Semanario Judicial de la Federación, volume V, Second Part, page 224.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

EXTRACTO de la solicitud de registro constitutivo presentada por Parroquia de la Virgencita de las Tres Ave Marí­as en San Luis de la Paz, Gto., entidad de organización autónoma dentro de la Diócesis de Celaya, A.R., como Asociación Religiosa.

Al margen un sello con el Escudo Nacional, que dice: Estados Unidos Mexicanos.- Secretaría de Gobernación.

EXTRACTO DE LA SOLICITUD DE REGISTRO CONSTITUTIVO PRESENTADA POR PARROQUIA DE LA VIRGENCITA DE LAS TRES AVE MARIAS EN SAN LUIS DE LA PAZ, GTO., ENTIDAD DE ORGANIZACION AUTONOMA DENTRO DE LA DIOCESIS DE CELAYA, A.R.

Con fundamento en lo dispuesto por el último párrafo del artículo 7o. de la Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público, se publica el extracto de la solicitud de registro que presentó PARROQUIA DE LA VIRGENCITA DE LAS TRES AVE MARIAS EN SAN LUIS DE LA PAZ, GTO., para constituirse en asociación religiosa; solicitud complementada en la Dirección General de Asociaciones Religiosas, con fecha 30 de junio de 1998.

1.- Representante:       EUSEBIO PANTOJA SEGURA.

2.- Asociados:               J. JESUS HUMBERTO VELAZQUEZ GARAY y EUSEBIO PANTOJA SEGURA.

3.- Ministro de

culto:                                EUSEBIO PANTOJA SEGURA.

4.- Domicilio legal:        CALLE BRAVO Y MORALES S/N, SAN LUIS DE LA PAZ, GTO.

5.- Objeto:                       PROPAGACION DE LA VERDAD EVANGELICA EN TODO SU TERRITORIO.

6.- Inmueble para cumplir con su objeto:

a)      Uno señalado como bien federal, sin acreditarlo.

Asimismo, exhiben el convenio propuesto a la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, para dar cumplimiento a la fracción I del artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

En términos del artículo 84 de la Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo, de aplicación supletoria conforme al artículo 2 del propio ordenamiento, se notifica lo anterior a todas las personas físicas, asociaciones religiosas y agrupaciones religiosas o iglesias que pudieran sentir afectada su esfera jurídica, a fin de que dentro del término de sesenta días naturales, contados a partir del día siguiente de esta publicación, presenten su oposición ante esta Dirección General. Asimismo, se comunica que el expediente de la solicitud de referencia estará a la vista de los interesados para su consulta, solamente durante el término señalado.

Atentamente

México, D.F., a 25 de noviembre de 1998.- El Director General de Asociaciones Religiosas, Guillermo Fonseca Alvarez.- Rúbrica.

En el documento que usted está visualizando puede haber texto, caracteres u objetos que no se muestren correctamente debido a la conversión a formato HTML, por lo que le recomendamos tomar siempre como referencia la imagen digitalizada del DOF o el archivo PDF de la edición.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

He is a priest exiled from his parish, a man abruptly separated from almost two decades of fulfilling work, arrested at a police roadblock, forced into a truck in the rain and sent packing, without time to gather possessions, brief successors or bid farewells.

The exile has caused a deep hurt for Father Loren L. Riebe, a Los Angeles native, the gnawing sense that he may never be allowed to return home. But his greatest preoccupation, he says, is the fate of the predominantly Indian parishioners left behind in a place called Yajalon, in the mountainous, verdant country of eastern Chiapas, a state in the south of Mexico.

“While I was in the back of that truck, I kept thinking: ‘If they can do this to me, a U.S. citizen, a priest, in broad daylight, what’s going to happen to the people?’ ” recounted the portly, soft-spoken Riebe. “This is all some kind of craziness.”

On Tuesday, protesters marched outside the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles, condemning the government’s expulsion of Riebe, 52, in June. Two other foreign Roman Catholic parish priests working in embattled Chiapas–Jorge Alberto Baron, 54, of Argentina and Rodolfo Izal Elorz, 35, of Spain–were exiled with Riebe. The government accused the three of inciting violence and encouraging peasant takeovers of land–trumped-up charges, according to church authorities and human rights activists.

“The other priests and myself were not doing anything except what we were supposed to be doing: pastoral work,” said Riebe, 52, based temporarily at St. Anne’s parish in Santa Monica. Riebe was posted at St. Anne’s a quarter-century ago, fresh from the seminary and a world away from the region that would later shape his life.

The priests’ expulsions emerged as another obstacle in peace talks between government and Zapatista rebel negotiators in Chiapas, who have been enveloped in conflict for more than 18 months. The expulsions, critics charge, underscore President Ernesto Zedillo’s dismissal of demands for land redistribution, social justice and other changes in one of Mexico’s poorest and most backward regions.

Zedillo has insisted that his government is committed to peace and justice in Chiapas.

The government move against the priests vividly illustrates the contentious role of the church in Chiapas, a region of stark contrasts between the privileges of a small elite and the desperate lot of the mostly Indian peasantry.

Wealthy landowners and ranchers, long aligned with the ruling party in Mexico City, have accused the church of fomenting rebellion among the Indians. The landed gentry has demanded the removal of Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia of San Cristobal de las Casas, a longtime agitator for Indian rights. “Don Samuel” also serves as the peace talks’ mediator and is the direct superior of the three expelled priests.

The landowners “certainly feel that the solution is to turn the army loose on the Zapatistas, and the church is in the way,” said Riebe, born in North Hollywood to a working-class couple–a Mexican American mother and German American father. “The landowners aren’t bad people, but for them the Indians are lazy and drunkards and ignorantes .”

Today, instead of ministering to parish affairs, Riebe is fighting a public relations battle.

*

With church encouragement, he speaks publicly about his experiences and has organized letter-writing campaigns to Washington and Mexico City. The hope, however faint, is that Mexican officials will permit him to return to isolated Yajalon. Since 1976, Riebe had been the only priest for about 30,000 parishioners, mostly Tzeltal-speaking Indians, descendants of the Maya.

Riebe is uncomfortable in his new role. Speaking out, while shedding light on events in Chiapas, is likely to further upset Mexican officials sensitive about international criticism.

“I don’t want to be a crusader. . . . I want to go home and continue my work. Nothing else made much more sense after a while. You get caught between Zapatistas on the one hand and racist landowners on the other.”

Jose Angel Pescador Osuna, the Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, said he hoped to meet with Riebe soon and help facilitate the priest’s formal application to return to Mexico. The expulsions, Pescador said, illustrate the sometimes blurred distinctions between political and religious work, particularly in an inflamed atmosphere such as that in Chiapas.

“I don’t think the church should mix in politics,” said Pescador, who called the expulsions legal. “But when religious workers, complying with their evangelical duties, defend the poor against other interests and help them confront exploitation, is that religious or political?”

At the parish church of St. James the Apostle in Yajalon, Riebe concentrated on preparation of Indian lay volunteers, or catechists, who play a vital role in spreading Catholic teaching in a rural area chronically short of priests. But the catechists’ activities have come under intense fire: Many affluent residents view them as Zapatista recruiters.

In Chiapas, Riebe has emphasized education. He speaks proudly of Indian youths granted church scholarships–funded with U.S. donations–to study at colleges in Mexico City and elsewhere. Many have come home, empowered, to implement their newfound expertise and promote a sense of self-worth.

More than 100 Indian high school pupils from Yajalon now receive scholarships from U.S. sponsors who pay $25 a month, said Riebe, who professes little interest in politics. He applauds the rebels’ goals, including land reform and improved roads, education and health care. But he says he cannot condone their violent methods.

Yajalon has been relatively quiet since the rebellion began, despite its proximity to rebel strongholds. The priest’s dealings with area landowners–Yajalon is home to families of wealthy coffee growers–have generally been cordial, Riebe said. But relations began to deteriorate in February, when emboldened campesionos in nearby villages “invaded” large private tracts.

*

Since his arrest, Riebe has been in almost daily contact with lay workers and friends in Yajalon. The news is unsettling. Army movements and police roadblocks have mounted. Church leaders report feeling threatened and harassed. Rumors of worse times ahead abound.

From his secure but frustrating perch in Santa Monica, Riebe worries about the safety of his parishioners and the fate of his pastoral projects, especially a planned dormitory for 50 students financed with U.S. donations. Townsfolk, including the mayor, scion of a wealthy family, have sent letters to Zedillo urging him to permit the cleric’s return.

“We are not afraid, and we are ready to die if we must to recognize the truth,” a group of women seamstresses wrote to the president on the priest’s behalf. “The truth is that his only sin was to help the poor and the rich alike.”

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

About the ArchiveThis is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

Three Roman Catholic priests, including an American parish priest from Los Angeles, have been expelled from Mexico by Government authorities who accused them of inciting violence in the troubled southern state of Chiapas, where talks to end a 17-month old Indian insurrection are scheduled to resume on July 4.

By asserting that the priests had been deported because their presence threatened the peace effort, Government officials repeated allegations of the Church’s role in the Chiapas conflict that have made since fighting there broke out on Jan. 1, 1994.

But church officials from the diocese of San Cristobal de las Casas in Chiapas, where all three priests worked, said the charges against the three priests were manufactured and that the expulsions will create even more tension in Chiapas.

“The local people are going to take this as a slap against the guys who were trying to mediate peace,” said the deported American priest, Father Loren Riebe, in a telephone interview from Miami, where he was taken by Mexican immigration officials. “It becoming clear that what the Government really wants is more conflict.”

Father Riebe, 52, has worked in Chiapas for more than two decades. For the last 18 years he has been assigned to St. James parish in Yajalon, a town of about 9,000 about 30 miles from the area where the Zapatista National Liberation Army has its greatest support.

The other priests are Jorge Alberto Baron, 54, of Argentina, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz, 35, of Spain. Father Baron has worked in Chiapas for over a decade, while Father Izal Elorz has collaborated with the diocese of San Cristobal since arriving in Chiapas in 1990.

Federal agents arrested the three priests on Thursday afternoon. They were taken to Mexico City where they met Friday morning with representatives of their respective embassies before being put on an American Airlines flight to Miami. Mexican officials escorted the other two priests to their home countries.

Father Riebe said he was grabbed at a roadblock on the road leading out of Yajalon after he heard that one of the other priests had been detained. “I had no idea what they were going to do with us,” he said. “If I had been alone this would have been terrifying. I was just waiting for them to stop or take a side road somewhere.”

The three priests were interrogated at the Mexico City airport, but Father Riebe said it was never clear what they were being charged with. He said he assumed that he had been deported because of problems with his immigration papers. Since the Zapatista uprising began, he said, the Government has refused to renew the immigration papers of foreign priests in Chiapas.

At a news conference on Friday, Government officials said that in the last few weeks they had received 16 complaints from local residents that the three priests were encouraging peasants to stage violent takeovers of privately owned farm land.

The Government accused the foreign priests of “creating a climate that deepens and accentuates the differences among communities.” Deporting the priests, the Government said, was necessary to guarantee the rule of law in Chiapas, where peace talks are to resume next month.

Peace talks last year failed, and a new round that started in March has accomplished little beyond preventing a resumption of fighting.

The bishop of San Cristobal, Samuel Ruiz Garcia, who has been acting as a mediator in the talks, has been accused of encouraging the Zapatista rebels to launch their uprising.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

Dieciséis denuncias anónimas fundamentaron, según sostiene el Gobierno mexicano, la detención e inmediata deportación, ayer, de tres sacerdotes, de la diócesis de San Cristóbal de las Casas, en el sureño Estado mexicano de Chiapas: el español Rodolfo Izal Elorz, el estadounidense Loren Riebe y el argentino Jorge Barón. A los tres se les ha acusado de “participar en diversas actividades ilícitas” de carácter político. En medios diplomáticos españoles se ha acogido,”con disgusto” la medida, para la que la Secretaría de Gobernación no ha aportado mayores pruebas.

Los delitos imputados a los tres sacerdotes son el de proselitismo, participación en asuntos de la política nacional (que la Constitución de este país reserva exclusivamente a los mexicanos), e incitación al enfrentamiento, que “contribuyeron a enrarecer en ambiente de orden y concordia” en Chiapas, Estado sacudido por el levan tamiento del Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN) en enero de 1994.El subsecretario de Gobernación, Arturo Nuñez, afirmó ayer que las denuncias fueron hechas “en las últimas semanas”por 16 personas a las que se garantizó el anonimato por motivos de seguridad. Con una retó rica ambigua, Nuñez evitó relacionar a los sacerdotes con la guerrilla. “Promovían medidas ilegales para resolver la situación de los indígenas”, dijo.Tras “constatar la validez”. de las acusaciones, por un procedimiento que no se explicó, Gobernación detuvo y deportó a los religiosos en menos de 24 horas, aunque se les dio la oportunidad, aseguró Nuñez, de que expresaran su opinión. En medios diplomáticos españoles no se ha ocultado el disgusto por esta medida, “excesivamente expeditiva” y “sin pruebas constatables”.

Si Gobernación cuenta con otros elementos para sustentar la decisión, es algo que no ha querido dar a conocer. El propio subsecretario aseguró, que desconocía si los nombres de los religiosos figuraban en una lista de los servicios de inteligencia sobre personas vinculadas al EZLN.

Las detenciones le produjeron en Chiapas en la tarde del Jueves. Izal, de origen navarro, Riebe y Barón fueron trasladados inmediatamente a la capital federal y deportados en la mañana de ayer. Izal, que estuvo siempre acompañado por el cónsul español, Gerardo Zaldívar, tiene previsto llegar hoy a primera hora a Madrid.

Las detenciones, dos semanas antes del comienzo de la tercera ronda del diálogo de paz entre el Gobierno mexicano y el EZLN, se produjeron en ausencia del responsable diocesano, el obispo Samuel Ruiz, mediador en el conflicto, que se encontraba en Europa buscando apoyo a su candidatura al premio Nobel de la Paz.

Hace unos meses, Rodolfo Izal, párroco de Sabanilla desde hacía cinco años, comentaba el acoso que sufría por parte de ciertos sectores de su parroquia, indignados por su actividad pastoral.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

EXTRACTO de las solicitudes de registro constitutivo presentadas por doce entidades de organización autónoma dentro de la Diócesis de Celaya, A.R., como Asociaciones Religiosas.

EXTRACTO DE LAS SOLICITUDES DE REGISTRO CONSTITUTIVO PRESENTADA POR DOCE ENTIDADES DE ORGANIZACION AUTONOMA DENTRO DE LA DIOCESIS DE CELAYA, A.R.

Extracto de las solicitudes de registro constitutivo como Asociaciones Religiosas de las Entidades cuya denominación se señala a continuación, presentadas a la Dirección General de Asuntos Religiosos, en los términos de los artículos 6o. y 7o. de la Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público.

  Fecha de recepción de la solicitud:         24 de junio de 1994.

Agrupaciones:

Parroquia de Nuestra Señora de San                  Pbro. Manuel Romero y Ortega.

Juan de los Lagos de Roque, Gto.

Parroquia de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe     Pbro. Rafael Paz.

de Teneria del Santuario, Gto

Parroquia de San Miguel Arcángel                        Pbro. José Raymundo Ramón Gallardo.

de San Miguel Octopan, Gto.

Parroquia de Santiago Apóstol                              Pbro. Anastacio Muñiz Mendieta.

de Neutla, Gto.

Parroquia de San Juan Bautista                            Pbro. Froilán González Paredes.

de San Juan de la Vega, Gto.

Parroquia de María Auxiliadora                              Pbro. Eusebio Pantoja Segura.

de Empalme Escobedo, Gto.

Parroquia de San Francisco

                                                                                            Pbro. Salvador Barroso Guzmán y Obispo 

       de Asís en Comonfort, Gto.

                                                                Jesús Humberto Velázquez Garay.

Parroquia de San Diego de Alcalá                        Pbro. Miguel Angel Lino.

de San Diego de la Unión, Gto.

Parroquia de San Antonio de Padua                    Pbro. J. Eugenio Vera Acosta.

de Dolores Hidalgo, Gto.

Parroquia de Nuestra Señora de los                    Pbro. Antonio Torres Ramírez.

Dolores de Dolores Hidalgo, Gto.

Parroquia de la Asunción                                        Pbro. Rosalío Nache Terrones.

de Dolores Hidalgo, Gto.

Parroquia de San Marcos                                       Pbro. José Alfredo Picón Rodríguez.

  de San Marcos, Gto.

  Domicilio Legal: Es el señalado en la solicitud de registro de cada una de las entidades enlistadas.

Estatutos y otros requisitos: Con la solicitud se exhiben diversos documentos en los que se contienen las bases fundamentales de su doctrina, determinan a sus asociados, ministros de culto, a sus representantes, acreditan ser entidades de la Diócesis de Celaya, A. R. y se detallan los demás datos necesarios para cumplir con los requisitos previstos en la Ley de la materia.

Bienes que aportan para cumplir con su objeto: En los respectivos anexos exhiben el listado de los bienes propiedad de la Nación destinados al culto público que están bajo su custodia.

Exhiben por separado el convenio propuesto a la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores para dar cumplimiento a la fracción I del artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

Atentamente

México, D.F., a 18 de julio de 1994.- El Director General de Asuntos Religiosos, Javier Urbina Soria.- Rúbrica.

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

808 S.W.2d 76 (1991)

Donald Leroy STAVINOHA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 567-89.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

February 13, 1991.

*77 Stanley G. Schneider, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and J. Harvey Hudson, James Buchanan and Jon Munier, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

Before the court en banc.OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled guilty before the jury of the offense of aggravated sexual assault, and his punishment was assessed at nine years, nine months confinement, and a $10,000.00 fine. See Article 26.14, V.A.C.C.P. During this unitary proceeding the State was allowed to admit testimony relating to mental trauma experienced by both appellant’s nine year old victim, and the victim’s mother, as fallout from the offense. In several points of error appellant contended on appeal that the trial court erred to admit this evidence over his objection. The First Court of Appeals disagreed, and affirmed appellant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion. Stavinoha v. State, 1989 WL 19230 (Tex.App.Houston [1st], No. 0188-00063-CR, delivered March 9, 1989). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review in order to examine the court of appeals’ conclusion that “evidence of the emotional effect on complainant and his mother is relevant to the issue of appellant’s punishment.” Slip op. at 8. Tex.R. App.Pro., Rule 200(c)(2).

Appellant is a Catholic priest who was discovered by a Houston police officer performing fellatio upon a nine year old parishioner in the back of a church van in a darkened public parking lot at about 11:00 p.m., on the night of April 30, 1986. Complainant’s mother, a single parent, was allowed to testify that since this offense she and her son had changed residence, complainant had been placed in a new school, and they had quit attending church. She also testified she was getting psychological counseling and had made arrangements for her son to receive such counseling as well. In addition, a psychologist who had examined both mother and son, Dr. Michael Cox, was permitted to testify as follows:”A. What I have seen are first, I think, depression, guilt, a compromise, damaged self-image, and an inability to trust, particularly authority figures, fears of males, fears of the church, social withdrawal symptoms including night errors [terrors], bedwetting, increase in sleep disturbance. Q: Are these some of the type of personality manifestations that work themselves into a syndrome that provides the individual so afflicted with problems that might manifest themselves in later years as sexual offenses? A: That’s correct. * * * * * * A: The mother suffers from moderate to occasionally severe depression that’s beset by serious feelings of guilt. Her sense of herself as a parent, as a mother, has been impaired as well. She is prone to excessive tension, worry, anxiety as a result of all that. Q: Is there an interacting cycle between the mother’s depression and anxieties and child’s behavior? *78 A: Yes, there is, to the extent the mother feels bad, feels worse, the child will also feel worse. Conversely, when this child experiences nightmares, social withdrawal problems in school and so on, that makes the mother feel more guilty therefore depressed. You get his kind of spiraling cycle.”

The court of appeals held this testimony was admissible on the strength of the Sixth Court of Appeals’ holding in Killebrew v. State, 746 S.W.2d 245, at 247-48 (Tex.App. Texarkana 1987, pet. ref’d).[1] Appellant now contends that this holding is irreconcilable with this Court’s decision in Brown v. State, 757 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). We disagree.

Brown involved a prosecution for rape. The accused did not contest that the complainant had been raped, but presented evidence of alibi. The State proved that since the assault the complainant had twice attempted suicide, and had suffered “weight gain, job loss, fear of being outside and loss of confidencef.]” Id., at 740. This Court held that, consent not being an issue, such evidence was not relevant at the guilt phase of trial under Tex.R.Cr.Evid., Rule 401. Unlike Brown, however, the instant cause presents the question of “relevance,” vel non, of post-assault trauma evidence at the punishment phase of trial. We agree with the court of appeals’ conclusion that our decision in Brown is inapposite.

Disposition of this cause is instead controlled by our recent holding in Miller-El v. State, 782 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990). There, the State proffered evidence that as a result of an attempted capital murder the victim had been rendered a paraplegic. The State was allowed to present testimony as to future hardship that would befall the victim on account of his disability. We held that this latter testimony was inadmissible at the guilt phase of the trial as having no tendency to make more or less probable the existence of any fact of consequence at that stage of the proceedings. Rule 401, supra. Nevertheless, we held the testimony admissible at the punishment phase of trial as a “circumstance of the offense” within the compass of Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.2d 44, at 63 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (Plurality opinion on State’s motion for rehearing). We explained:

“In Murphy a plurality of the Court noted that admissibility of evidence at the punishment phase of a non-capital felony offense is a function of policy rather than relevancy. This is so because by and large there are no discreet [sic: discrete] factual issues at the punishment stage, [footnote omitted] There are simply no distinct `fact[s] … of consequence’ that proffered evidence can be said to make more or less likely to exist. Rule 401, supra. Rather, `[d]eciding what punishment to assess is a normative process, not intrinsically factbound.’ Murphy, supra, at 63. What evidence should be admitted to inform that normative decision is not a question of logical relevance, but of policy. Apart from Article 37.07, § 3(a), V.A.C.C.P., however, the Legislature has not set a coherent policy to guide courts in discerning what evidence is appropriate to the punishment deliberation. Moving to fill the policy void, this Court has declared that, subject to limitations imposed by Article 37.07, § 3(a), supra, evidence of `the circumstances of the offense itself or … the defendant himself will be admissible at the punishment phase. Murphy, supra, at 63, quoting Stiehl v. State, 585 S.W.2d 716, 718 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).”

Miller-El v. State, supra, at 895-96.[2] We went on to observe that victim impact evidence *79 may be admissible as a circumstance of the offense, even in a capital prosecution, so long as that evidence “has some bearing on the defendant’s `personal responsibility and moral guilt.'” Id., at 896, quoting Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, at 502, 107 S. Ct. 2529, at 2533, 96 L. Ed. 2d 440, at 448 (1987), which quotes in turn Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801, 102 S. Ct. 3368, 3378, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1140, 1154 (1982). A fortiori, such evidence would be admissible in a non-capital case.

Turning to the factual scenario at hand in Miller-El, supra, we concluded that the evidence of the complainant’s paralysis and the future hardship it would cause:”did not outrun [Miller-El’s] moral culpabilityshe either intended or should have anticipated [complainant’s] death. In either event she is `blameworthy,’ even in contemplation of Booth v. Maryland, supra. Under these circumstances we deem it appropriate, in absence of legislative authority to the contrary, to allow the sentencing jury to consider the full extent of the damage done, even as to likely future pain and suffering. Unless we are to hold that retribution is not a permissible component of a jury’s otherwise unfettered discretion to assess whatever punishment it sees fit given the circumstances of the offender and the offense, we must conclude this jury was entitled to hear and consider [victim impact testimony] to inform that discretion.”

Id., at 897.

Likewise, we believe a jury could rationally hold appellant morally accountable for the psychological trauma to both complainant and his mother, and for the consequences of that trauma. There was evidence that appellant was in charge of youth activities in his parish, and in that capacity he had cultivated a particular relationship of trust with complainant’s mother over a period of several years, bringing her gifts of prayer candles and taking her son to church, to the movies and to play video games. Appellant knew these parishioners well, and preyed upon their vulnerabilities as single parent and child, respectively. He could easily have anticipated the impact his betrayal of trust would have on both mother and child. Given this background, the psychological damage described by Dr. Cox, and the manifestations of that damage as related by complainant’s mother, can readily be attributed to appellant’s conduct. We conclude that the evidence had a bearing on appellant’s personal responsibility and his moral guilt, and we therefore hold it was admissible. Miller-El v. State, supra.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

TEAGUE, J., dissents.

MALONEY, J., not participating.

BAIRD, Judge, concurring.

This petition for discretionary review was granted to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that “testimony concerning the effect of a sexual assault is relevant and admissible in evidence at the punishment phase of a trial in contravention of the dictates of Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 37.07.” This ground is controlled by our opinion in Miller-El v. State, 782 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), wherein this Court held that evidence of the circumstances of the offense itself, or the defendant himself, will be admissible at the punishment phase. Id., at 896. Specifically, Miller-El stands for the proposition that the long lasting effects suffered by a victim are admissible at the punishment phase of a trial. Id. Pursuant to MillerEl, evidence in the instant case of the childvictim’s ongoing and possible future psychological trauma was undoubtedly admissible at the punishment phase of appellant’s trial. Because Miller-El is so clearly *80 dispositive of this cause, I consider this petition for discretionary review to have been improvidently granted.

While victim impact evidence is clearly admissible, I do not, however, endorse the broad language expressed by the majority concerning the admissibility of evidence of psychological trauma experienced by the victim’s mother, Stavinoka, slip op. at 4-5, because such evidence typically falls beyond the scope of “circumstances of the offense.” Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44, 63 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (opinion on reh’g); Stiehl v. State, 585 S.W.2d 716, 718 (Tex. Cr.App.1979).[1] In the instant case, however, I construe the evidence of the mother’s trauma admissible due to the psychological testimony concerning the “interacting cycle” or “spiraling cycle” between the victim’s emotions and those of his mother’s. Stavinoha, slip op. at 2.

This case was tried before the 1989 amendment to art. 37.07 § 3(a), which now permits evidence to be admitted at the punishment phase “as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing.” See Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 785, p. 3492, § 4.04, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. However, the law in effect at the time of appellant’s trial permitted only introduction of the defendant’s prior criminal record, his general reputation and his character. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 37.07. Accordingly, I feel the majority opinion should not be construed as a comment on art. 37.07 as amended.

With these comments, I concur in the result reached by the majority.NOTES

[1] In Killebrew, supra, the victim of an aggravated assault was permitted to testify at the punishment phase of trial:

“that she was afraid to be home alone or to drive alone, that she was scared every time someone looked at her, that she gets real nervous, that she thinks about the crime every day even though eight months have since elapsed, and that after the assault she had to pay the part of her medical bills not covered by insurance.”

746 S.W.2d at 247. The court of appeals held “that facts such as those are legitimate considerations in assessing punishment where the crime is a violent assault on a person.” Id., at 248.

[2] Both Miller-El and the instant cause were tried before the effective date of the 1989 amendment to Article 37.07, § 3(a). In that amendment the Legislature provided that evidence may be admitted at the punishment phase of trial “as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including” those matters previously made expressly admissible under the statute, viz: the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation and his character. See Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 785, p. 3492, § 4.04, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Query what the Legislature means by “relevance” in this context. See Murphy v. State, supra, at 62-63.

[1] The United States Supreme Court has prohibited the introduction of evidence of impact on the victim’s family in the punishment phase of capital trials. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S. Ct. 2529, 96 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1987).

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

808 S.W.2d 76 (1991)

Donald Leroy STAVINOHA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 567-89.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

February 13, 1991.

*77 Stanley G. Schneider, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and J. Harvey Hudson, James Buchanan and Jon Munier, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

Before the court en banc.OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pled guilty before the jury of the offense of aggravated sexual assault, and his punishment was assessed at nine years, nine months confinement, and a $10,000.00 fine. See Article 26.14, V.A.C.C.P. During this unitary proceeding the State was allowed to admit testimony relating to mental trauma experienced by both appellant’s nine year old victim, and the victim’s mother, as fallout from the offense. In several points of error appellant contended on appeal that the trial court erred to admit this evidence over his objection. The First Court of Appeals disagreed, and affirmed appellant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion. Stavinoha v. State, 1989 WL 19230 (Tex.App.Houston [1st], No. 0188-00063-CR, delivered March 9, 1989). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review in order to examine the court of appeals’ conclusion that “evidence of the emotional effect on complainant and his mother is relevant to the issue of appellant’s punishment.” Slip op. at 8. Tex.R. App.Pro., Rule 200(c)(2).

Appellant is a Catholic priest who was discovered by a Houston police officer performing fellatio upon a nine year old parishioner in the back of a church van in a darkened public parking lot at about 11:00 p.m., on the night of April 30, 1986. Complainant’s mother, a single parent, was allowed to testify that since this offense she and her son had changed residence, complainant had been placed in a new school, and they had quit attending church. She also testified she was getting psychological counseling and had made arrangements for her son to receive such counseling as well. In addition, a psychologist who had examined both mother and son, Dr. Michael Cox, was permitted to testify as follows:”A. What I have seen are first, I think, depression, guilt, a compromise, damaged self-image, and an inability to trust, particularly authority figures, fears of males, fears of the church, social withdrawal symptoms including night errors [terrors], bedwetting, increase in sleep disturbance. Q: Are these some of the type of personality manifestations that work themselves into a syndrome that provides the individual so afflicted with problems that might manifest themselves in later years as sexual offenses? A: That’s correct. * * * * * * A: The mother suffers from moderate to occasionally severe depression that’s beset by serious feelings of guilt. Her sense of herself as a parent, as a mother, has been impaired as well. She is prone to excessive tension, worry, anxiety as a result of all that. Q: Is there an interacting cycle between the mother’s depression and anxieties and child’s behavior? *78 A: Yes, there is, to the extent the mother feels bad, feels worse, the child will also feel worse. Conversely, when this child experiences nightmares, social withdrawal problems in school and so on, that makes the mother feel more guilty therefore depressed. You get his kind of spiraling cycle.”

The court of appeals held this testimony was admissible on the strength of the Sixth Court of Appeals’ holding in Killebrew v. State, 746 S.W.2d 245, at 247-48 (Tex.App. Texarkana 1987, pet. ref’d).[1] Appellant now contends that this holding is irreconcilable with this Court’s decision in Brown v. State, 757 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). We disagree.

Brown involved a prosecution for rape. The accused did not contest that the complainant had been raped, but presented evidence of alibi. The State proved that since the assault the complainant had twice attempted suicide, and had suffered “weight gain, job loss, fear of being outside and loss of confidencef.]” Id., at 740. This Court held that, consent not being an issue, such evidence was not relevant at the guilt phase of trial under Tex.R.Cr.Evid., Rule 401. Unlike Brown, however, the instant cause presents the question of “relevance,” vel non, of post-assault trauma evidence at the punishment phase of trial. We agree with the court of appeals’ conclusion that our decision in Brown is inapposite.

Disposition of this cause is instead controlled by our recent holding in Miller-El v. State, 782 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990). There, the State proffered evidence that as a result of an attempted capital murder the victim had been rendered a paraplegic. The State was allowed to present testimony as to future hardship that would befall the victim on account of his disability. We held that this latter testimony was inadmissible at the guilt phase of the trial as having no tendency to make more or less probable the existence of any fact of consequence at that stage of the proceedings. Rule 401, supra. Nevertheless, we held the testimony admissible at the punishment phase of trial as a “circumstance of the offense” within the compass of Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.2d 44, at 63 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (Plurality opinion on State’s motion for rehearing). We explained:

“In Murphy a plurality of the Court noted that admissibility of evidence at the punishment phase of a non-capital felony offense is a function of policy rather than relevancy. This is so because by and large there are no discreet [sic: discrete] factual issues at the punishment stage, [footnote omitted] There are simply no distinct `fact[s] … of consequence’ that proffered evidence can be said to make more or less likely to exist. Rule 401, supra. Rather, `[d]eciding what punishment to assess is a normative process, not intrinsically factbound.’ Murphy, supra, at 63. What evidence should be admitted to inform that normative decision is not a question of logical relevance, but of policy. Apart from Article 37.07, § 3(a), V.A.C.C.P., however, the Legislature has not set a coherent policy to guide courts in discerning what evidence is appropriate to the punishment deliberation. Moving to fill the policy void, this Court has declared that, subject to limitations imposed by Article 37.07, § 3(a), supra, evidence of `the circumstances of the offense itself or … the defendant himself will be admissible at the punishment phase. Murphy, supra, at 63, quoting Stiehl v. State, 585 S.W.2d 716, 718 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).”

Miller-El v. State, supra, at 895-96.[2] We went on to observe that victim impact evidence *79 may be admissible as a circumstance of the offense, even in a capital prosecution, so long as that evidence “has some bearing on the defendant’s `personal responsibility and moral guilt.'” Id., at 896, quoting Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, at 502, 107 S. Ct. 2529, at 2533, 96 L. Ed. 2d 440, at 448 (1987), which quotes in turn Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801, 102 S. Ct. 3368, 3378, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1140, 1154 (1982). A fortiori, such evidence would be admissible in a non-capital case.

Turning to the factual scenario at hand in Miller-El, supra, we concluded that the evidence of the complainant’s paralysis and the future hardship it would cause:”did not outrun [Miller-El’s] moral culpabilityshe either intended or should have anticipated [complainant’s] death. In either event she is `blameworthy,’ even in contemplation of Booth v. Maryland, supra. Under these circumstances we deem it appropriate, in absence of legislative authority to the contrary, to allow the sentencing jury to consider the full extent of the damage done, even as to likely future pain and suffering. Unless we are to hold that retribution is not a permissible component of a jury’s otherwise unfettered discretion to assess whatever punishment it sees fit given the circumstances of the offender and the offense, we must conclude this jury was entitled to hear and consider [victim impact testimony] to inform that discretion.”

Id., at 897.

Likewise, we believe a jury could rationally hold appellant morally accountable for the psychological trauma to both complainant and his mother, and for the consequences of that trauma. There was evidence that appellant was in charge of youth activities in his parish, and in that capacity he had cultivated a particular relationship of trust with complainant’s mother over a period of several years, bringing her gifts of prayer candles and taking her son to church, to the movies and to play video games. Appellant knew these parishioners well, and preyed upon their vulnerabilities as single parent and child, respectively. He could easily have anticipated the impact his betrayal of trust would have on both mother and child. Given this background, the psychological damage described by Dr. Cox, and the manifestations of that damage as related by complainant’s mother, can readily be attributed to appellant’s conduct. We conclude that the evidence had a bearing on appellant’s personal responsibility and his moral guilt, and we therefore hold it was admissible. Miller-El v. State, supra.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

TEAGUE, J., dissents.

MALONEY, J., not participating.

BAIRD, Judge, concurring.

This petition for discretionary review was granted to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that “testimony concerning the effect of a sexual assault is relevant and admissible in evidence at the punishment phase of a trial in contravention of the dictates of Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 37.07.” This ground is controlled by our opinion in Miller-El v. State, 782 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), wherein this Court held that evidence of the circumstances of the offense itself, or the defendant himself, will be admissible at the punishment phase. Id., at 896. Specifically, Miller-El stands for the proposition that the long lasting effects suffered by a victim are admissible at the punishment phase of a trial. Id. Pursuant to MillerEl, evidence in the instant case of the childvictim’s ongoing and possible future psychological trauma was undoubtedly admissible at the punishment phase of appellant’s trial. Because Miller-El is so clearly *80 dispositive of this cause, I consider this petition for discretionary review to have been improvidently granted.

While victim impact evidence is clearly admissible, I do not, however, endorse the broad language expressed by the majority concerning the admissibility of evidence of psychological trauma experienced by the victim’s mother, Stavinoka, slip op. at 4-5, because such evidence typically falls beyond the scope of “circumstances of the offense.” Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44, 63 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (opinion on reh’g); Stiehl v. State, 585 S.W.2d 716, 718 (Tex. Cr.App.1979).[1] In the instant case, however, I construe the evidence of the mother’s trauma admissible due to the psychological testimony concerning the “interacting cycle” or “spiraling cycle” between the victim’s emotions and those of his mother’s. Stavinoha, slip op. at 2.

This case was tried before the 1989 amendment to art. 37.07 § 3(a), which now permits evidence to be admitted at the punishment phase “as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing.” See Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 785, p. 3492, § 4.04, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. However, the law in effect at the time of appellant’s trial permitted only introduction of the defendant’s prior criminal record, his general reputation and his character. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 37.07. Accordingly, I feel the majority opinion should not be construed as a comment on art. 37.07 as amended.

With these comments, I concur in the result reached by the majority.NOTES

[1] In Killebrew, supra, the victim of an aggravated assault was permitted to testify at the punishment phase of trial:

“that she was afraid to be home alone or to drive alone, that she was scared every time someone looked at her, that she gets real nervous, that she thinks about the crime every day even though eight months have since elapsed, and that after the assault she had to pay the part of her medical bills not covered by insurance.”

746 S.W.2d at 247. The court of appeals held “that facts such as those are legitimate considerations in assessing punishment where the crime is a violent assault on a person.” Id., at 248.

[2] Both Miller-El and the instant cause were tried before the effective date of the 1989 amendment to Article 37.07, § 3(a). In that amendment the Legislature provided that evidence may be admitted at the punishment phase of trial “as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including” those matters previously made expressly admissible under the statute, viz: the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation and his character. See Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 785, p. 3492, § 4.04, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Query what the Legislature means by “relevance” in this context. See Murphy v. State, supra, at 62-63.

[1] The United States Supreme Court has prohibited the introduction of evidence of impact on the victim’s family in the punishment phase of capital trials. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S. Ct. 2529, 96 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1987).

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.

On Saturday, May 6, at 7 p.m. Rev. Mr. Gustavo Benson will ‘be ordained into the priesthood by his Excellency Bishop Leo C. Maher at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in Calexico. Father Gustavo will say his First Mass the next day, Sunday, May 7 at 1 p.m. at Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament Church, Orange and Marl-, borne I , i. Sail Diego, While borh’ m Voga’les, Art-‘ zona, he came to Calexico with his parents, ‘Mr, and Mrs. Gustavo and Amalia Sotomayer de Benson, in 1953. He attended local schools and graduated from Calexico High School in 1964. He attended the University of San Francisco in 1968 with a Bachelor of Arts degree. He entered St. Patrick’s Seminary for the Priesthood in 1968, and in June 107 1 he was ordain ed to the Disconate in ceremonies at St. Joseph’s Cathedral in San Diego.. ■During July and August, 1871, he worked on a summer project in Findley, Ohio, doing pastoral work in the parish with the migrant Spanish specking families. Since Sept. 1971 he has been officiating as Deacon under Father Mooney at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart in San Diego. “UNA FELICITACION” Al joven Gustavo Benson v familia Siento un orgullo muv grande que llena mi corazon, por lo que estaba diciendo monsenor en un sermon. De que aqui en ésta parroquia el seis de Mayo de este ano se va a ordenar sacerdote un joven que aqui fue crcado.

Con m uyprofundas palabras clijo mojisenor Balderas, que ésta ceremonia aqui se va a eftctuar por vez prim era. Su nonihre es Gustavo Benson yo se que es hi jo modelo para que sea sacerdote El fué escogido del cielo! Que Dios lo ilumine siempre eon su gran sabidun’a, v el estar en su servicio le traiga paz v alegrla, Yo por mi parte le pido que avude a la juventud con carino v con consejos y le ofrezco gratitud. Y le doy gracias a Dios que con mi humilde poesia puedo aqui felicitarlo y exoresarle mi alegria. También les dijo a sus padres con todo mi corazön cine merecen de este pueblo ‘Ung Felicitacion”. por Blanca Guerrero Diaz.

REV. MR- BENSON

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.