“My relative stayed 23 hours in his cell and spent one hour outside… to go to any area, for example during a visit, he had to move about with his feet and hands chained; the handcuffs leave marks on the wrists and ankles, making it difficult to walk, such that he would trip and fall, resulting in the guards making fun of him…These life conditions that my relative suffered through seem disproportionate to him and our family. He was kept in a maximum security prison which was constructed and operated by the private sector.”

(Testimony of a representative of Mothers and Sisters of Luis Pasteur Plaza)

•       Private investment in Mexican prisons has not led to changes in the conditions of isolation, mistreatment, health and food insecurity, poor services, black market transactions and lack of job options faced by persons deprived of liberty.

•       Problems regarding self-governance, corruption, violence and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment remain.

•       James L. Cavallaro, President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, has noted the lack of transparency in the government’s operation of prisons.

•       Watch this video for more information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA62XfoH2Lo

Civil society organizations Documenta (Document), Madres y Hermanas de la Plaza Luis Pasteur (Mothers and Sisters of the Luis Pasteur Plaza, association of relatives of persons deprived of liberty), Instituto de Justicia Procesal Penal (Criminal Justice Institute), Instituto de Derechos Humanos Ignacio Ellacuría SJ (Ignacio Ellacuría SJ Human Rights Institute),  México Evalúa (Evaluate Mexico, center for public policy analysis) and the Due Process of Law Foundation participated in a thematic hearing on April 7, 2016 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights during its 157th Ordinary Period of Sessions. The organizations requested the hearing to discuss the models of privatization and accreditation of jails being implemented by the federal government of Mexico.

Faced with serious problems affecting the penitentiary system, one response of the state has been to promote the privatization and “accreditation” of prisons. This measure, far from conforming to evidence-based and human rights-oriented public policies, has resulted in many decisions without transparency. This process began in 2010, utilizing a public-private partnership framework, intended (according to the official version) to improve penitentiary infrastructure and services, as well as to reduce costs.

In light of this situation, the petitioning organizations pointed out  that “since 2010, nine detention centers have been built under arrangements for a company to build and manage the center, then transfer it to the state in a period of 20 to 30 years. Eight contracts with the Interior Ministry were awarded directly, resulting in the absence of “clear criteria for evaluating the proposals. Furthermore, in the case of construction and management irregularities, the law states that the company will have no responsibility.”

Moreover, the petitioning organizations emphasized the lack of transparency of these contracting arrangements, as documented by the National Commission on Human Rights. They pointed out that “in various access to information requests presented between 2013 and 2015, the Interior Ministry declared the information from these contracts to be confidential on national security grounds, although the information sought was related to the terms of the contacts.”

The organizations also criticized the model of “accreditation” which has been promoted by the Mexican state with funds from the Merida Initiative, and which is managed by the American Correctional Association (ACA). The groups noted that this system promotes purely technical evaluations of detention centers, without encompassing a human rights perspective, and which generates a semblance of regularity which is not consistent with reality. For example, to obtain accreditation it is not necessary to conduct interviews with inmates to verify their actual conditions.

The organizations explained that 12 state, 5 federal, and 3 juvenile detention centers, along with the National Academy of Penitentiary Administration, have been accredited under this framework. In August of 2014 it was announced that ACA would open up an office and begin work in Mexico. The person named as President was Eduardo Guerrero Durán, former State prosecutor for sentence enforcement of State and the current Commissioner of the Administrative Body for Prevention and Social Rehabilitation; which raises a potential conflict of interest.

The organizations highlighted that this model has not solved the structural problems afflicting the penitentiary system in Mexico. Rather – in the case of centers accredited by the ACA – many problems remain, including human rights violations, deficient nutrition and health services, custody, and violence prevention, as well as self-governance challenges and corruption within the centers. This is because the applied standards are not appropriate for certifying prisons from a human rights perspective.

Finally, the petitioning organizations requested that the IACHR: 1) Produce a thematic report about the impact of privatization and accreditation on the human rights of persons deprived of liberty, both in Mexico and in the rest of Latin America, and 2) Take action on the request for precautionary measures presented in February 2015 regarding the transfer of female inmates to CEFERESO (federal prison) number 16, urging the State to comply with the measures. Additionally, they asked the IACHR to require the federal government to: 1) Make public and review existing public-private partnership contacts regarding prison accreditation; 2) Suspend prison privatization and accreditation processes, and investigate cases of violations of human rights of persons deprived of liberty; 3) Investigate the possible conflict of interest in relation to the public duties of Eduardo Guerrero; 4) Ensure independent oversight by civil society in the new National Criminal Enforcement Act (Ley Nacional de Ejecución Penal); 5) Allow petitioners to enter and interview the inmate population and the authorities of private and/or accredited centers; and 6) Ensure the security of, and refrain from any act of intimidation or threats against, persons deprived of liberty, their families, and human rights defenders in Mexico.

IACHR President James L. Cavallaro reflected on the importance of knowing precisely how much state institutions invest in every person deprived of liberty, referring to the lack of transparency in that “no one is demanding to know where all the exits are in the prisons, but rather that knowing how much is being spent on construction, and how much is being spent per month is a basic requirement for oversight and to understand what is happening.” Moreover, Commissioner Cavallaro mentioned that on two occasions over the past year, he requested that the Mexican government share the ACA list of 132 standards, but he has not received a response to date. Finally, he emphasized the importance of taking up visits to Mexico and expressed appreciation for the willingness of the Mexican state to facilitate the organization of previous visits.

The state responded that to meet the challenges of inmate capacity it is necessary “to promote a prison model based on contract services,” but this does not imply the privatization of the prison system, since the organization and administration of prisons in Mexico are inalienable responsibilities of the federal executive and state governments. However, the state described the “accreditation” by the ACA, as one of the platforms towards achieving a “true” national prison policy, because it standardizes the process of evaluating detention centers.