We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases Petitioner v. Procuraduria General de la Republica (Public Prosecutor)

Petitioner v. Procuraduria General de la Republica (Public Prosecutor)

last modified Mar 22, 2017 03:32 PM

Case number:
Date of decision:
30 March 2011
Court / Arbiter:
Information Commission (Instituto General de Acceso a la Informacion Publica, or IFAI) ( )


A government agency must disclose information ordered released in a previous case, yet Petitioner cannot make an appeal where an IFAI resolution has been issued in a previous case that involved substantially the same parties and subject matter

Court papers (including case files, court orders)
RTI law

Case details:


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).

The investigation was related to 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. FEMOSPP’s investigation led to, eventually unsuccessful, criminal charges being brought against former President Luis Echeverria and a number of public officials in September 2005 [p.29].

Petitioner’s initial request for information was denied by the PGR and subsequently appealed before IFAI under docket No. 1311/10. IFAI ultimately ordered disclosure and a copy of the documents was made available to Petitioner [pp. 6, 32].

In November 2010, Petitioner filed a second request, No. 0511/11, seeking to obtain a specific document included in the same preliminary investigation. Ignoring IFAI’s resolution in case No. 1311/10, the PGR refused disclosure once again on three grounds: (i) the PGR was not the competent authority to facilitate the information (the request should be directed to the competent court); (ii) the PGR did not have the documents (they were handed over to the court); (iii) even if it did, Article 16 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure (FCCP) imposed upon it a duty of secrecy, precluding it from disclosing information related to preliminary investigations once criminal action had been taken up by the Court (after which this could only be released to the parties involved in the proceedings) [pp.4-5, 9].

On administrative appeal, Petitioner relied on the provision in the last paragraph of Article 14 of the Mexican Transparency and Federal Transparency and Access to Public Governmental Information Law (RTI Law), providing for the disclosure of prima facie reserved documents, such as preliminary investigations, when they relate to grave violations of fundamental rights and crimes against humanity [p.31]. The PGR reiterated its arguments, relying heavily on FCCP Article 16, and noted that IFAI should not enforce the Article 14 provision (effectively an exception to the exception) pending an official interpretation of this provision by the Mexican Federal Supreme Court in parallel proceedings [p.29-31].



IFAI expressly rejected the PGR’s arguments. First, the fact that the Supreme Court was yet to decide on the application and interpretation of Article 14 in other proceedings was irrelevant, since IFAI’s administrative resolutions are final and as such must be complied with immediately [p.34]. Second, the PGR could not deny possessing documents that it had previously offered to disclose following IFAI’s orders in case No. 1311/10. Third, IFAI had already dismissed the PGR’s Article 16 defence when deciding that previous case [pp.33-34].

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.32-33].



IFAI administrative resolution