Section 20 provides that an amparo petition is not dismissed by the court, but is rather archived, if “it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of the petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats to their lives.” The archiving of the case, rather than dismissal, makes it easier for the victims to revive the petition when circumstances change. This legal mechanism could play an important role in the battle against impunity, and may be deemed as a warning on the perpetrators of human rights abuses that they may still be held to account in the future under a new president or once their ‘protectors’ in government are gone.

Return of the Writ

One of the issues in habeas corpus cases involves the lack of accountability by the military and public officials who issue blanket denial of custody of the victim of enforced disappearance. Human rights lawyers have long been demanding that a habeas corpus return must actually be a certification “under oath” by public officials who undertake that they conducted diligent search for the victim, inquired from the various units under their command and found that they have no custody of the victim. Should it be proven, after such certification, that the victim is in the custody of the government, then the respondents admit to either administrative or criminal liability for failing to conduct diligent search or for issuing a false certification. This phenomenon of ‘denial without accountability’ was resorted to by the military in Chile during Pinochet and was one of the major reasons for the setback of the writ in that country.

 Save as PDF