Frayba
Antonio González Méndez Case before the IACHR: One Year After the Ruling, State Actions Lack Diligence and Effectiveness
San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
December 12, 2025
Press Release No. 11
Antonio González Méndez Case before the IACHR: One Year After the Historic Ruling
Neither the investigations nor the search efforts have been diligent or effective
The enforcement of the ruling has not been properly prioritized by the Mexican State.
On December 12, 2024, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) notified its ruling condemning the Mexican State for the forced disappearance of Antonio González Méndez, an EZLN Support Base, who was disappeared on January 18, 1999, in the municipality of Sabanilla, Chiapas, by members of the paramilitary group “Organization for Development, Peace, and Justice” in the context of the counterinsurgency violence triggered by the implementation of the Chiapas Campaign Plan 94.
The ruling reaffirmed that forced disappearances committed within the context of the Internal Armed Conflict, which began on January 1, 1994, are not subject to statute of limitations and obliges the Mexican State to be held accountable. This represents a historic precedent for other victims of severe human rights violations.
As the 27th anniversary of his disappearance approaches, the Mexican State continues with mere administrative procedures, superficial efforts aimed at conducting an unfruitful investigation. Both the search and the investigations have not been diligent or effective in locating Antonio González Méndez. What the State Prosecutor’s Office considers the hypothesis of his disappearance at the hands of a paramilitary group reveals a case that remains unresolved. The IACHR ruling, which takes this hypothesis as a fact and holds the Mexican State responsible for supporting paramilitary groups in the region, continues to be disregarded, raising doubts about the seriousness of the State’s commitment. It is essential to fully clarify what happened and to identify, prosecute, and, if applicable, sanction all intellectual and material authors of this crime against humanity.
The obligation of the Mexican government must not be reduced to symbolic actions or mere paperwork; the investigation should include clear lines of action to identify those responsible, both material and intellectual, and prosecute them in accordance with human rights standards.
The persistent impunity and partial non-compliance with the IACHR ruling highlight the enormous challenges in translating an international ruling into real and tangible changes. The central issue remains the location of Antonio González Méndez and the carrying out of a professional, scientific, and independent investigation that guarantees justice and truth. This case not only reflects the pending debt to his family but also starkly exposes the structural crisis of human rights, justice, and impunity that Mexico is facing.
The Mexican State is obligated to implement the structural reforms ordered by the IACHR: a national and up-to-date registry of missing persons, effective prevention programs, specialized training to investigate state crimes, and public policies that recognize the collective rights of indigenous peoples through a comprehensive human rights approach. It is not just about complying with a ruling, but about transforming institutions so that these violations are never repeated.
At Frayba, alongside the family of Antonio González Méndez, we will continue to insist that justice be fully served. We will persist in the search for the truth and the demand for justice, because only in this way can we honor Antonio’s memory and pave the way for a Mexico where impunity is the exception, not the rule. This struggle is also the struggle for all the disappeared persons and for the dignity of the peoples who demand truth, justice, and non-repetition.
Preliminary Report Questions the Security Strategy in Chiapas
On December 8, 2024, a new government for Chiapas took office and announced the implementation of a “new” security strategy in response to the violence stemming from territorial and social disputes among organized crime groups. With a major communication campaign and under the narrative of a “recovered peace,” it has promoted in 2025 a partial decrease in some crime indicators and has deployed various security operations. From the Border Region Working Group, we ask ourselves whether the security strategy implemented by the government of the state of Chiapas seeks peace or pacification. Rather than achieving peace, pacification seeks to impose social control through the use of force. In the Sierra–Border Region of Chiapas, along the border with Guatemala, this strategy has not succeeded in curbing the violence crisis. On the contrary, throughout this year the situation is different: an increase in cases of families in forced displacement — both internal and toward the neighboring country — and in forced disappearances. These acts of violence, along with ongoing territorial disputes and the active presence of armed groups, reveal a far more complex panorama than that portrayed in official statements.






