In December 2009, Petitioner requested from the public prosecutor (Procuraduria General de la Republica, or PGR) a copy of preliminary investigation PGR/FEMOSPP/002/2002 initiated by the Special Prosecutor for Social & Political Movements of the Past (FEMOSPP) in 2002, in connection with the killing of student and other peaceful protesters by the Mexican military and paramilitary forces on October 2, 1968 at the Plaza de las Tres Culturas in Tlatelolco.
Petitioner’s initial request for information was denied by the PGR and subsequently appealed before IFAI under docket No. 1311/10. IFAI ultimately understood that the information was public, ordered disclosure and a copy of the documents was made available to Petitioner [pp. 23-24].
In April 2011, Petitioner filed two additional requests with the PGR, seeking two specific documents (“Determinaciones” and “Sentencia”) of preliminary investigation PGR/FEMOSPP/002/2002. The PGR refused disclosure relying on exemptions from disclosure that protect preliminary investigations - namely, Articles 14(I) and (III) of the Federal Transparency and Access to Public Governmental Information Law (RTI Law) - and explained that disclosure would violate its duty of secrecy under Article 16 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure (FCCP) [pp.1-4]. Petitioner appealed before IFAI and the individual information requests were assigned dockets nos. 2961/11 and 2962/11 [p. 5].
On appeal, the PGR relied on Articles 14 (I) and (III) of the RTI Law and Article 16 of the FCCP to argue that that information sought by Petitioner was reserved [pp. 6-19]. Specifically, it argued that Articles 14(I) and (III) of the RTI Law label “reserved information” as that which is so denominated by law and expressly include preliminary investigations in that category. In addition, FCCP Article 16 provides in turn that, once the Court took up criminal action, only the parties to the case can have access to the preliminary investigations produced in the proceedings and public authorities that disclose any such information are subject to administrative or criminal liability.
IFAI rejected the PGR’s position on the basis that the PGR could not unilaterally re-classify information that IFAI had already catalogued as public in its decision on previous case No.1311/10, and which the PGR was required to disclose accordingly [pp.23-26]. Having already addressed the PGR’s substantive defences in case No. 1311/10, IFAI did not revisit Article 14 and 16 defences.
Notwithstanding the former, IFAI ultimately discarded Petitioner’s appeal invoking articles 57(II) and 58(III) of the RTI Law, which jointly provide that an appeal shall be deemed inadmissible when it has already been brought before IFAI. IFAI noted that it had already issued a resolution ordering disclosure of the FEMOSPP preliminary investigations in case No. 1311/10, which involved the same parties and identical subject matter [pp.24-25].
IFAI administrative resolution