Political negotiation over recommendations. The case of the State Commission for Human Rights of Sonora, 1992-2012

Abstract

This article studies the process by which public authorities of Sonora State fulfilled the recommendations issued by the State Commission for Human Rights of Sonora during the period 1992-2012. In this period two ways of appointing an ombudsman are distinguished: firstly, in 1992-2004, when the ombudsmen were appointed by the state governor, and secondly, in 2005-2012, when they were designated by the State Congress. Data show that in the first period public authorities tended to fulfill more recommendations of the “completely fulfilled” type, and in the second period they were mainly “partially fulfilled”. The evidence found revealed that both public authorities and the Commission negotiated politically recommendations, simulating they were completely fulfilled. In the four cases selected of completely fulfilled recommendations the rights of the victims were not fully restored, despite this being the main objective of resolutions.

En este artículo se estudia el proceso por el cual las autoridades públicas de Sonora cumplieron las recomendaciones emitidas por la Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos, de 1992 a 2012. En este lapso se distinguen dos formas de nombrar al ombudsman: por el gobernador, en el periodo de 1992 a 2004, y por el Congreso, en el de 2005 a 2012. Los datos muestran que en el primero la tendencia se inclinó más a que las recomendaciones tuvieran el estado de “totalmente cumplidas”, y en el segundo el de “cumplidas parcialmente”. La evidencia hallada reveló que las autoridades públicas y las de la Comisión negocian políticamente las recomendaciones, al simular que se cumplen en su totalidad, cuando en realidad no es así. En los cuatro casos seleccionados, con el estatus de cumplidas, no se logró restituir los derechos vulnerados de las víctimas, a pesar de que era el objetivo principal de las resoluciones.