State policy and human rights in Mexico City: The case of Mexico City’s Human
Rights Assessment and Programme
Table of contents 1. General background 2. Mexico City’s Human Rights Assessment 3. Mexico City’s Human Rights Programme 2
1. General background
3
Situated in the center of Mexico, the Federal District (DF - Mexico City) is the capital city and concentrates 8.4% of the national population (8.8 million, 52% females and 48% males).[1] It produces 21.5% of the national Gross Domestic Product. C u r r e n t l y, t h e D F a n d i t s metropolitan area concentrate approximately 18% of the national population.[2] [1] INEGI, http://www.inegi.org.mx [2] CONAPO, Evolución demográfica y potencial de desarrollo de las ciudades de México, http:// www.conapo.gob.mx/publicaciones/sdm2006/sdm06_13.pdf
4
If 29 municipalities from the state of Hidalgo were added, shortly, it could become the largest conurbated area in the world. In this case, the population would rise to 22 million people, therefore exceeding the populations in Yokohama, Japan and New York, USA. [1] It also is the largest city in Latin America.[2]
[1] SEDEMET, Secretaría de Desarrollo Metropolitano, state of Mexico, El Sol de México, 21st of April 2008 [2] Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal, available at: http:// www.sma.df.gob.mx/sma/links/download/archivos/ infmeteorologia2006/05_capitulo1_2006.pdf 5
2. Mexico City’s Human Rights Assessment
6
Background UN: 2nd World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna (1993) recognizes as State obligations to assess and plan UNHCHR: Agreement 2000 (M. Robinson)-2007 (L. Arbour) Synergy UNHCHR/ Mexican State Strengthening the democratic transition Background in Mexico Diagnosis of the Situation of Human Rights in Mexico (2003)
7
Process 2 0 0 4 : N a t i o n a l H u m a n R i g h t s Agreement between the Ministry of the Interior and the states; commitment to carry out state programmes. 2006: Dialogue between CDHDF and the government, judiciary and legislative powers to develop the project. Collaboration proposal by UNHCHR to elaborate assessments by state. 2007-2008: Elaboration of Mexico City’s Human Rights Assessment.
8
3rd of May 2007: the Coordination Committee for the elaboration of the Assessment was established by a Commitment Letter . The Coordination Committee is integrated by: UNHCHR
TSJDF Judiciary
Civil society
Human rights
ALDF Legislative
GDF Executive
CDHDF Ombudsman
Academics
9
Committee members: Public bodies: Mexico City Government (GDF) High Superior Court of Mexico City (TSJDF) Mexico City Legislative Assembly (ALDF) Mexico City Human Rights Commission (CDHDF) Three Civil Society Organizations: Information Group on Reproductive Choice, A. C. (GIRE) FUNDAR, Center for Analysis and Research, A. C. Network for the Child Rights in Mexico (REDIM); Two academic institutions: Universidad Panamericana (UP) Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) UNHCHR: Permanent observer
10
Presented in May 2008. Focus: Analysis of the fulfillment status of human rights obligations by the authorities in Mexico City. Obstacle identification (structural, institutional, programmatic, budgetary, legal, cultural)
11
Recommendations in the Assessment The assessment contains general and specific conclusions per chapter, as well as 16 general recommendations. Some of these that should be highlighted are: To create a Human Rights Programme Legislative harmonisation and the issuing of a Human Rights Law for Mexico City Public policymaking and budgeting with a human rights perspective To guarantee the participation of civil society organisations 12
3. Mexico City’s Human Rights Programme
13
Objectives of the Programme Generate public policies, actions and proposals for the three branches of government, governmental bodies, civil society organisations and academia, in order to overcome the obstacles impeding the enjoyment of human rights by Mexico City’s inhabitants and passer-bys. To establish per action: – Institutions in charge for its execution – Timing for execution – Fulfilment indicators – Budget 14
The Programme pretends to be a State programme, not only a governmental programme, with the objective to transcend specific interests, particular styles and governmental periods. The actions have to be implemented on short, medium and long terms 2010, 2012 and 2020 In order to achieve this a series of actions (public policy, programmatic, budgetary, legislative, judicial, etc.) will have to be implemented.
15
15
Methodology Participative methodology and the search of consensus through working groups: More than 150 meetings. Participation of 400 experts representing the civil society, the academia and the public sector.
Programme’s Contents I. Three problematic nucleus containing 15 different rights: Human Security Right to a healthy environment Right to water Right to adequate housing
Democracy and Human Rights Right of nondiscrimination
Justice System Right to personal integrity, freedom and security Right to access to justice
Right to freedom of expression
Right to due process
Right to health
Right to access to information
Prisoners’ Rights
Sexual and reproductive rights
Political rights
Right to work Right to education
17
Programme’s Contents II. 10 vulnerable population groups : Women Children Youth Indigenous peoples and communities Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, transvestite, transsexual and intersex (LGBTTTI) Street populations Older Adults Disable people Migrants and refugees Victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation 18
Programme’s contents 1.  Conceptual framework 2. Objectives, strategies and actions 3. Legislative agenda
4. Follow-up and Evaluation Mechanism 19
The programme was presented in August 2009. Simultaneously, the Coordination Committee renewed its Commitment Letter in order to establish a follow-up and assessment body by January 2010. Follow-up activities on the implementation of the Programme have already begun in relation to the planning and budgeting tasks for next year.
Conclusions The process was successful because there was: A budget for the elaboration of the Assessment and the Programme. The political will from public institutions. A high level of civil society participation in the elaboration and decision making process. Improvements to the public management via programming and budgeting. International co-operation (unique experience worldwide).
21
What’s next? For the Coordination Committee: Establish and integrate the new follow-up and assessment body. Secure funds for follow-up and assessment body. For the State institutions: To implement the programme. To secure the civil society participation in the whole process.
22
Thank you for your attention www.derechoshumanosdf.org.mx 23