Rosendo Radilla v. Mexico: Inter-American Court and Military Jurisdiction

Introduction

Rosendo Radilla v. Mexico (2009) was a landmark judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that addressed Mexico’s international responsibility for the forced disappearance of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco by military personnel. The case had far-reaching implications for the scope of military jurisdiction, the duty to investigate human rights violations, and the domestic legal effect of Inter-American Court judgments in Mexico.

The Inter-American Court’s Findings

The Inter-American Court found Mexico responsible for multiple violations of the American Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life (Article 4), the right to humane treatment (Article 5), the right to personal liberty (Article 7), judicial protection (Article 25), and due process (Article 8), all in connection with the obligation to respect rights (Article 1.1) and the duty to adopt domestic laws (Article 2). The Court specifically found that Mexico’s military justice system was not competent to investigate and prosecute human rights violations.

Military Jurisdiction Restriction

The Court held that military courts may only try military personnel for crimes that affect the legal interests of the military establishment (intereses jurídicos castrenses). Human rights violations, including forced disappearance, torture, and extrajudicial executions, must be investigated and prosecuted in ordinary civilian courts. This requirement reflects the Inter-American Court’s consistent jurisprudence that military jurisdiction must be exceptional and limited in scope.

Reparations Ordered

The Court ordered Mexico to: conduct a genuine and effective investigation into the disappearance; identify and punish those responsible; establish a national mechanism to search for disappeared persons; adopt legislative reforms to restrict military jurisdiction; provide medical and psychological care to the victims’ families; publish excerpts of the judgment; and pay monetary compensation.

Implementation in Mexico

The SCJN’s compliance ruling in Expediente Varios 912/2010 established that Inter-American Court judgments are binding and directly enforceable in Mexico. The ruling required all Mexican judges to exercise control de convencionalidad — reviewing domestic law for consistency with the American Convention on Human Rights. This has become a cornerstone of Mexican human rights adjudication.

Conclusion

Rosendo Radilla v. Mexico is a foundational case for the relationship between international human rights law and Mexican domestic law. It curtailed military jurisdiction over human rights violations, established the binding effect of Inter-American Court judgments, and embedded conventionality control in Mexican judicial practice.