 Welcome back to Latin American Directions. My name is Nicola Susman, and today we have our guest, Jimena Medellin, a lecturer and researcher from SIDE in Mexico to talk about a very interesting, sensitive, and important issue, a very current issue, the case of Ayotzinapa, a situation that took place actually eight years ago on the 26th and 27th of September in Mexico. And well, let's have Jimena tell us about the case. Jimena, welcome. It's great to have you here and to get your insights from this case. Hello, Nicolas. Thank you very much for the invitation. It's a pleasure to be here to talk about, as you said, this very sensitive, sad, but relevant case in Mexico. Yes. So Jimena, I think let's start by providing some context to our audience if you could just briefly tell us what happened on the 26th and 27th of September, 2014, in this Ayotzinapa case. Exactly, when we talk about the Ayotzinapa case, we are actually referring to tax carried out, especially by local police forces, or starting with local police forces. Again, several people, it's not only the 43 students that we normally concentrate in, but there were so many other victims. So this happened during the night and the early hours of the 27th, the 26th and the 27th of September of 2014, as you said. And it was followed by the disappearance of these 43 students. The case of the facts actually took place in Iguala, which is a city of the southern state of Guerrero in Mexico. But we call it Ayotzinapa because the students, the 43 students were actually doing their training program to become teacher professionals, professionals or teachers for elementary school in Ayotzinapa, which is one of the small towns in Guerrero. So that is what we mean when we said Ayotzinapa. Again, we concentrate a lot on the disappearance of the 43 students, but there are more victims and that is always important to remember. Right, so let's talk about the students first and then how the events evolved after that. So as you say, the main victims after the attention has been directed to these 43 students, they were trying to get to Mexico if I understood correctly to participate in some demonstrations and then they had some clash with local authorities in collaboration perhaps or related to some illegal armed groups and what happened during this situation. Well, that's part of what is complicated around the case because we don't really know what happened. I mean, we know certain things as a fact. We know that they disappeared. We know, as you said, that they were in Iguala, that they took some buses, that they were trying to get somewhere using those trucks, but it's not perfectly clear where they were going or what they wanted. There are different versions of what happened or what were their intentions, but they took these buses, it was an illegal taking, let's just say, and part of the theories or one of the theories is that one of those buses had drugs inside of it and it was part of a network of drug trafficking towards the United States. That's at least one of the theories that had been put forward to try to explain the case or the violence that these students suffered, but they were distributed in five different buses and all of these transports were attacked by the local police, as you said, and some of the students, those that were not killed or badly harmed during the attack, were detained, illegally detained, and then everything points to them being hand over to one of the criminal groups, local criminal groups, and after that, everything gets more complicated because the first theory that the government put forward was that they were executed and then that their bodies were born in the Cajula dumping site, and after that theory was questioned by one of an independent group of international experts, that theory started to crumble and everything pointed out that the students were not really, the bodies of the students were not really burned in that specific site. So then the question became, so where are they? Are they still alive? What happened to their bodies if they were not burned in that specific site? And that has been part of the whole saga that we are still trying to discover, not we as a society, but especially their families. Right, right. And then my question would be, why did this become such an important case, not only for the society, I think it is shocking enough to become of social concern, but for the government, and don't take me wrong in this, but coming from countries that undergo severe violence, these cases are not uncommon, right? So why this one was so concerning for the government? It's great that you point that out because we need to remember that in Mexico, we have at this point, more than 100,000 people who are considered dispute. Either, I mean, not found, that's the phrase that the government wants to use because it's not clear if all of those people have been victims of a forced disappearance, or if they just left, and no one knows they were about, or if they were victims of any other crime. So we are only talking about people who are missing or are not really, or haven't been found, but we have over 100,000 people in that situation. So exactly, I mean, what you point is, it's a very, it's a breaking point, I would say in the public debate around the violence in Mexico. Up to that point, the government had to be very skillful, I would say, to say that all the victims of the violence that we have been experiencing, especially since 2007, were part of normal violence among criminal groups. So they had created this narrative that as long as you were a good citizen, that you behave well, that you were not involved in drug trafficking, no one will, nothing will happen to you, or would happen to you. And Ayotzinapa, it's a breaking point for that narrative. Ayotzinapa, it was very, very early, it became clear that these students have nothing to do with drug trafficking. I mean, in the very, very early stages, like I would say the next day, the government tried to start leaking that idea in the society, but the families and the NGOs that were embracing the families very quickly, were very skillful to dismount or to reverse that narrative. So the government very quickly had to accept that the students had nothing to do with the drug trafficking, that they were really victims of a senseless attack and the public pressure grew very fast. So within a couple of days, we had people on the streets demanding justice and demanding more explanation and that just grew within the next months. And that put a lot of pressure in the Mexican government. So the Mexican government wanted an answer and wanted it very fast to try to bring down all the protest and not to let these grow out of control. Right, right. And just to set the record clear, I know you don't have the answer and I know there are many hypotheses. So we mentioned one hypothesis is that they got caught up in this drug dealing scheme and one of the bosses was involved and they were in the crossfire, but there's also, I know a hypothesis that they were becoming uncomfortable for the local government, right? Because they were demonstrating, they were calling about things that were not properly done at the local level and perhaps that is one of the other reasons why they were disappeared. What do you think about that? Do you think it's believable? Do you think it's a combination of everything? I mean, it's truly, truly difficult at this point to say one way or another. Yeah, there was some part of the one, some of the explanations that were given at some point is that they were gonna go to protest against, especially the wife of the local official, the Presidente Municipal, the head of the county, let's just say, that she was gonna give a speech and explain about some of the achievements of the government that they wanted to protest against it. It sounds more and more unlikely that that is the main explanation. And that became more and more unlikely once we came to realize the extent of the number of, not only people that participated in this attack, but the level, the involvement of different corporations, either federal, state or local corporations, police forces, and even the military, which was one of the biggest red flags that not very early, but at some point came into the light. Just protesting against the local official, not even the official himself, but the wife of a local official turns very difficult to explain why the military would get involved in this, in attacking or covering up the attack of the students, because that is also, I mean, at this point, in the last couple of weeks, we have learned some new information that the new government, that the President Andres Manuel López Abrador Administration has been bringing to light. And now there is this possibility that the military was very much involved since the disappearance, since the very early hours, and actually that part of the students, some of the students were under the control of the military since the beginning, and that those students actually survived for a few days, that they were not killed in the first day as the rest of them were. And again, just the idea of some students, a group of students protesting against some local authorities, do not explain the level of involvement of so many different corporations, institutions, and bodies. Right, right, and that's a perfect segue for my next question, right? We know Mexico is a federal state, and it operates in the federal and the local level, the state level, the municipal level. At what points does this become an issue of interest for the federal government and for federal authorities? I know there's recent information that changes everything that has been discussed over the last years, but for me, it's interesting. For me, the question is, this is something that seems local, and all of a sudden it becomes a national case, a federal case with involvement from federal actors, from all nature, right, the military, but also the prosecution, the attorney general, the national government even. So before moving on to the role of these authorities, when does this become a national, a federal issue, and not just a local or state or state situation? That happened very early in the case. It was actually, I think, two or three weeks after the facts that the federal prosecutor, the general attorney, actually took over the case. Again, that happened very fast, and it was basically due to, or at least that's what we believe, or that's what it's been assumed, that that happened because of the public pressure that was building up and the presidency wanted it to end as fast as they could. So the federal prosecution takes over the case, basically takes it from the hands of the local prosecution, the state prosecutor, the Guerrero prosecutor, and a few months after that, the general attorney comes out on this press conference to announce the historical truth of the Ayochi Napa case, which has become almost like a slogan for the fight against impunity in Mexico. La verdad histórica has become like a breaking point where basically the general attorney at that point says, this is the real truth, this is what we accept as truth, this is what happens, and there is nothing else to discuss. And that's it. And again, at that point, we already had the representatives of the families have already requested some cautionary measures from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. And because of those, of that request, the Mexican government had to accept the creation of the international group of expert, independent experts. I'm sorry, I was thinking about the name in Spanish. Jai, that's how it became to be known in Mexico. So Jai had already been agreed, the creation of Jai had already been agreed. The specific people that at the end was part of Jai, I think were not appointed yet, but once the names were revealed, that was actually a great day, I think for many of the people that work in human rights in Mexico, because once we saw the people who were actually gonna be part of Jai, we recovered the hope. We said, okay, there is some hope to actually find the truth because there were people with persons with a lot of great reputation, with a lot of fantastic backgrounds in fights against immunity in different countries. And once Jai started to actually investigate the case, a lot of doubts started to come out. And that's where this historical truth started to be questioned left and right, and the families became very, very suspicious about everything that the government was putting forward. Right, so this is very interesting, right? So we have some sort of labeling by the prosecution say, this is the truth, right? Even using a very strong legal term called historical truth that actually is like a closing reparations term for victims, just to say, this is what happened and we will be over with this case, we already solved it, right? But then the pressure- Let me say even worse, it's probably something that lawyers have trained to never said. We are always trained to say, this is the legal truth, but never talk about historical truth because you can never guarantee that with the evidence that you have. You can actually, you can say that that is what has been proven, but you are never to absolutely assure that that is the truth and the full truth of nothing but the truth. Absolutely, absolutely. And then we have the family saying, no, this isn't happened, no, the citizenship also, this isn't happening. So I want to stop for a minute and rewind our movie a bit and ask you what happened with the families, with the civil society since the beginning because I believe it's the key to unraveling this case, right? And not allowing it to stay as the government initially want. So in the aftermath of the situation, what happened and how did civil society and the families organize themselves? Well, first to call for the HEA establishment and then to move the case and keep it alive eight years later, right? Another part of the case which has somehow been, I would say a little bit controversial. Let me say that because both the group of families and probably or especially the NGOs who have been representing the families have created this very tight group that is almost impossible to penetrate. They have been very jealous about not allowing, and I mean, not allowing many people to get their hands on the case. There are different opinions about this strategy as it normally happens with such a public case and such a public atrocity. Some people say that there have been extremely cautions and that they should be more willing to cooperate with other NGOs and with other organizations and movements in Mexico to try to put forward a more comprehensive agenda of fight against impunity because obviously they have almost become one of the most known or recognizable cases and faces that signifies the process of violence in Mexico. So for many people, if the families and their representatives agree to join forces with other movements and with other cases that would mean a lot for the fight against impunity and that will strengthen a more common agenda. Right. I mean, I'm not one, no one to judge either way. I think that's something that really belongs to the victims and how they want to organize the way that they explain their cases, the way that they communicate with society, the legal strategies. But at some point, I would say that I have to, at least I understand what they have done it because many cases, it's had been the experience that many cases go from one hand to another and they changed so many strategies and they become so politicized that the true goals and the interest of the victims evaporate through all these process, even with the best intentions of different organizations that get involved in the case. Right. So they have kept this very, very tight again group with a very clear strategy, I think, they have been very willing to cooperate with the government, which is another thing that has been criticized. Some different actors have expressed the opinion that they should be more demanding towards the government that they should not agree to everything, especially with this new administration that is a different one from the one that was in power when the attacks happened. I think there was a lot of trust that this new administration will have a different take on the case and that there was real political will to advance the investigations and to find the truth. So for example, they agreed to participate in a presidential commission that was tasked with investigating the case. And at the same time, there was an special prosecutor appointed to carry out the criminal investigations. What has happened in the last couple of days and we are really talking in the last couple of days, actually today we had the breaking news that the special prosecutor just resigned from his post was that the president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, decided to basically trust more on what the presidential commission has done and not the special prosecutor. And that is a very complicated scenario because the special prosecutor had created a very, very well, I would say well and carefully with the families. There was a lot of trust between the special prosecutor and the families. There was obviously trust between the commission and the families, but the families have recognized that the special prosecutor was finally taking clear steps to not only find the truth, but find those responsible for the attacks and not only those that had materially carried out the attacks, but those who were in other positions of powers that could be involved or have participated in different ways in these attacks and the follow-up disappearance, which is a crucial part of it as well. But apparently there is some disagreement between the presidential commission and the special prosecutor or who should actually be responsible or named responsible for or accused to carry out these attacks. And especially some members of the army was part of the apparently big disagreement between the presidential commission and the, which is more sort of an inquiry commission or a truth commission, but is not a prosecutor. Right, right. Yeah, and I think you did have a really good summary of the current situation, right? So I would say that it's despite how bad the case is, it has been a bittersweet experience, right? A very bad experience at the beginning, right? With the government trying to set up a cover-up that was clearly discredited by the HEA and then supported by the other investigations, but also new breakthroughs with the inquiry commission and then with the special prosecutor. But then again at this moment, just in the last days, we see a drawback, right? With the resignation of the special prosecutor, who is the one, as you say, that eventually could lead into convictions, right? Which is perhaps one of just the families of the victims want. So maybe my last question and it would be, what is your anticipation of what could happen? And maybe a short takeaway, just to close the show, I could ask you questions for hours about this case. But just to keep our audience with a takeaway, so they keep an eye on this case and we see how it develops because it has been eight years, it has been an active case during eight years, which is surprising to some degree for what we see in our region. And also, yeah, just to keep it around, I think it's very important for the community, both in Mexico and the rest of the region, to keep an eye on it so we can have some justice for this sort of violations. I mean, I think we will keep seeing or keep witnessing these attempts to continue or move forward with the criminal cases. I don't think the criminal cases are over, but at the same time, I think they're losing, the general attorney, the office of the general attorney is losing a key element of that was gonna, if not guaranteed, but to improve the odds of success in the actual trials. I think the resignation of the special prosecutor really puts everything at risk, everything that has been gained through the criminal investigation, it's my opinion that it's seriously at risk and we might see everything crumble again. We can still have the presidential commission, but again, that is more of a fact-finding condition. It's not criminal investigation, but now the office of the general attorney is gonna basically try to support everything in the criminal trial based on the work of the presidential commission. And I think that's gonna lead to a lot of problems, a few process and probably illegality on some of the, or questioning the legality of some of the evidence and so on and so forth. So I think everything is gonna get more complicated. And all of this new entanglement has basically happened because our president, Andres Manuel López Obrador, I would still want to believe with the best intentions is trying to move forward the case, but with very little respect of the process and the institutions that should be in charge of these type of cases. He wants to be in control. He wants his commission, the presidential commission to be the leading voice on all of this process. And we need to understand that that is not the place of a fact-finding commission. A fact-finding commission has a place and it can be very important to unveil some of the truth, to unveil some of the facts that might not come to life in a criminal process. But the criminal process has specific rules and we need to observe and respect the process if we really want to create a new scenario of justice in Mexico. And again, as you said, Nicolas, this is one case, this is 43 people that are absolutely important as every human being is, but we have over 100,000 people who are still missing in Mexico. If every single investigation is gonna take us more than eight years, we're never gonna find the truth and we're never gonna find justice. We need to move forward to create, to establish new bodies, probably extraordinary bodies. Probably we need to start talking about transitional justice teams to really, really respond to the level and the amount of atrocities that have been committed in Mexico during the past 10, 15 years. Absolutely, absolutely. Well, we'll keep an eye on the case. Kim and Amadeen, thank you so much. And to our audience, thank you for viewing us. This was Latin American Directions. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.