The CED announced that since it began monitoring the situation in 2012 it had received “well-founded indications that enforced disappearances in Mexico have been and continue to be committed as crimes against humanity.” The findings included the ongoing discovery of clandestine graves, with an estimated 4,500 graves found, containing over 6,200 bodies and 4,600 sets of human remains. This contributes to a total of approximately 72,000 unidentified human remains found by authorities or self-organized citizen search committees.

The CED stressed that it did not find evidence of a government policy to commit enforced disappearances. Even if many disappearances are committed by criminal groups, however, the committee found substantiated information suggesting direct participation or acquiescence by public officials in many cases. In response to Mexico’s assertion that such incidents should not be classified as enforced disappearances in the absence of state policy, CED chair Juan Albán-Alencastro stated: “International law does not require crimes against humanity to occur nationwide or be orchestrated at the highest levels of government. What matters is the scale, the pattern of the attacks, and the targeting of civilians.”

The current figures on the Mexican government registry indicate that at least 132,828 people are currently missing, although this figure may be incomplete. Regardless, the CED found that “the magnitude of the registered cases underscores the gravity of the situation.” The committee added that the situation has not substantially improved since the committee visited Mexico in 2021.

The CED request invoked Article 34 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This provision enables the committee to bring the matter to the attention of the UN General Assembly when they have well-founded indications of systemic enforced disappearance. Albán-Alencastro expressed hope that this will result in substantive change, stating:

The Committee reaffirms its commitment to continue cooperating with Mexico through its different procedures. The procedure of article 34 is intended to facilitate timely cooperation and support so that the State Party can strengthen its response, protect victims and families, and prevent the situation from deteriorating further.

The Mexican government rejected the CED’s report as “biased and dismissive” of institutional advances in recent years.

The International Federation for Human Rights, which submitted evidence to the CED, welcomed the report, however. The organization expressed hope that the Mexican government’s rejection “will evolve into a dialogue with victims’ groups and civil society.”

Enforced disappearance occurs when an individual is taken by state officials or others acting on behalf of the state, who then deny knowledge of the individual’s whereabouts. This practice often targets human rights defenders, witnesses and lawyers, to repress political opposition. Rights groups have consistently issued warnings related to the enforced disappearance crisis in Mexico, including Amnesty International’s recent report on violence against women searching for their disappeared loved ones.

Media voices have also criticized Mexico’s “war on drugs” as contributing to the current situation, saying that militarized enforcement has enhanced collaboration between criminal groups and the government, and “ignited an explosion of human rights abuses linked to state forces and criminals—particularly disappearances.”

From JURIST, April 4. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our last report on Mexico’s human rights crisis.

Photo via Twitter

Did Delcy capitulate?
Meanwhile in Washington, White House officials were briefing members of Congress, who were not notified beforehand of the Jan. 3 military operation in which Maduro was captured.

And in Venezuela, Maduro’s groomed successor, newly inaugurated acting president Delcy Rodríguez, showed signs of capitulating to the pressure from Washington. After the Pentagon raid in which Maduro was taken (which also claimed the lives of at least 60 people, including civilians and several members of a Cuban security detail), Rodriguez defiantly stated in a televised address: “There is only one president in Venezuela, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”

But the next day, she struck a conciliatory tone, writing on social media: “We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence.”

Bellicose mid-flight press conference
Rodríguez is under explicit threat from Trump, who told reporters on a Dec. 4 flight from Florida to DC that if she doesn’t cooperate “she will face a situation probably worse than Maduro.” When asked about his boast that he will “run” Venezuela, Trump responded: “We’re dealing with the people. We’re dealing with the people that just got sworn in. And don’t ask me who’s in charge, because I will give you an answer and it’ll be very controversial.” When the reporter took this bait and asked him what that meant, he replied: “It means we’re in charge.”

Trump was similarly lacking subtlety in his claim to Venezuela’s oil: “The oil companies are ready to go. They’re going to go in. They’re going to rebuild the infrastructure. You know, we built it to start off with many years ago. They took it away. You can’t do that.”

Apparently refering to Venezuelan efforts to extend state control over the country’s oil resources following US investment in the sector over a century ago, he added: “It was the greatest theft in the history of America. Nobody has ever stolen our property like they have. They took our oil away from us. They took the infrastructure away and all that infrastructure is rotted and decayed, and the oil companies are going to go in and rebuild it.”

And indeed, shares of Chevron, the last US oil company that was authorized to operate in Venezuela, soared as much as 10% in pre-market trading after Trump’s comment. Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips shares also rose around 4%.

Queried about his supposed isolationism and antipathy to “nation-building,” Trump explicitly invoked the notion of Latin America as a US influence sphere, which was articulated in his recent National Security Strategy. He said of Venezuela: “This isn’t a country that’s on the other side of the world. This isn’t a country like we have to travel 24 hours in an airplane. This is Venezuela. It’s in our area, the Donroe Doctrine.”

Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, Greenland
He went on to directly threaten Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro: “He has cocaine mills, cocaine factories. He’s not going to be doing it very long.” So there will be another military operation?, the reporter asked. Trump: “It sounds good to me.”

Mexico was next. Invoking the flow of migrants across the US southern border, Trump reiterated his recent threat of military intervention: “Mexico has to get their act together, because they’re pouring through Mexico, and we’re going to have to do something.”

And even Greenland: “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. And Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you. You know what Denmark did recently to boost up security in Greenland? They added one more dogsled. It’s true.”

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen prompty responded: “This is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.”

And Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said in a statement: “It is necessary to reaffirm that in Mexico the people are in charge and that we are a free, independent and sovereign country. Cooperation, yes. Subordination and intervention, no.”

But Secretary of State Marco Rubio meanwhile warned that Cuba could be next, responding to a reporter’s question at a DC press conference: “Yeah, look, if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned.” (PBS NewsHour, FreedomNews.tv, CNN, The Hill, Politico, NDTV, NBC News)

Photo: US Navy via Latin America Reports

Manzo’s assassin, who was killed by police on the scene, has been identified as a 17-year-old methamphetamine addict. Authorities are said to believe he was paid by the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, whose suspected local plaza chief in Uruapan—identified as René N, or “El Rhino”—was arrested by city police in August.

This was the second prominent assassination in Michoacán in as many weeks. On Oct. 20, the body of Bernardo Bravo, president of the Apatzingan Valley Citrus Producers Association, was found in his vehicle on a rural road. He had been campaigning in recent months against the extortion demands of the cartels on local lime growers, and their cooptation of agriculture in the state to launder illicit activities.

Specter of US intervention
In a Twitter post after Manzo’s assassination, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau (who served as ambassador to Mexico during Donald Trump’s first term) wrote: “The US stands ready to deepen security cooperation with Mexico to wipe out organized crime on both sides of the border.”

But this comes as the specter of unilateral US military intervention has been raised. NBC News reported Nov. 3 that the Trump White House has started planning a “potential mission” involving US troops and intelligence officers to target the cartels on Mexican soil. Citing anonymous sources in the administration, NBC said that training has already begun for the mission, which could include drone strikes as well as ground operations inside Mexico. President Sheinbaum firmly rejected any possibility of US military intervention, stating that Mexicans are “united against any interference.”

In February, the State Department designated six Mexican drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations”—the Sinaloa Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, the New Familia Michoacana, the Gulf Cartel, the Northeast Cartel, and the United Cartels. Simultaenously, the State Department conferred FTO designation on Central America’s MS-13 and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. (MND, MND, CBC, CNN, PRI, Milenio, CBS, NBC)

Photo: Juan José Estrada Serafín/Cuartoscuro.com via Mexico News Daily

“The initial 14 [deportees] were brought to Ghana on Sept. 6,” lead lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor explained to media outlets. “Three were deported [from Ghana] that night. Eleven were held in military detention. Out of that 11, 10 were deported with the matter in court, and eight of them are in Togo.”

The deportations arose from a “third country deportation” agreement between the US and Ghana earlier this year. Ghana’s parliamentary minority bloc has now called for its suspension, as leaders claim the government entered into the agreement without proper legislative approval. Samuel Abu Jinapor, a ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Ghana’s Parliament, argued:

The government’s conduct in operationalizing the agreement with the United States without parliamentary ratification is a direct constitutional violation of Article 75 and an affront to the authority of the [Ghanan] Supreme Court. It is therefore deeply concerning that the government continues to operationalize the agreement despite this flagrant operational breach.

Ghana’s Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa told local media that the decision to enter into the agreement was not a signal of support for the US administration, but rather a decision “grounded purely on humanitarian principle and Pan-African empathy.” However, reports have claimed that Ablakwa and President John Mahama may also be motivated by the hope that the White House will lift travel restrictions on Ghanaians entering the US as consideration for the agreement.

After initial pushback from federal courts, in July the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to enter into third-country deportation agreements with multiple nations, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda. International organizations have warned that the policy risks great harm to individuals, and skirts government accountability.

The West African deportees also filed a lawsuit in the US courts last month, asserting that they were taken from an immigration facility, shackled, placed in straitjackets, and flown to Ghana in a cargo plane without meaningful notice or hearing.

From JURIST, Oct. 7. Used with permission.

Photo: Venezuelan deportees in Honduras. Credit: ICE via Wikimedia Commons

The struggle pitted Los Chapitos, the sons of imprisoned kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, against Los Mayos, followers of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada. It was sparked by the arrest of El Mayo by US agents immediately after a plane carrying him touched down in El Paso, Texas, on July 25, 2024. El Mayo claimed he had been abducted by Los Chapitos and forced onto the Texas-bound plane.

The initial explosion of violence in the second week of that September, some 30 were killed, causing residents to observe a self-imposed curfew. But the bloodletting has continued since then, with bodies often left on streets or other public places as a warning. The death toll in Sinaloa over the past year is said to exceed 1,800, with local activists counting another 2,800 disappeared. (Animal Politico, Mexico News Daily, MND, NYT, NYT, CBS, News Nation, Reuters, BBC News)

El Mayo pleaded guilty to trafficking and conspiracy charges in a US federal court in Brooklyn this Aug. 25 to avoid the death penalty. Attorney General Pam Bondi flew to New York for the plea, and boasted that Zambada “will die in a US federal prison.” Fellow septuagenarian kingpin Rafael Caro Quintero was apparently also included in the deal, and will likewise avoid execution. Joaquín Guzmán López, a son of El Chapo, arrested on the same flight as El Mayo last year, has plead not guilty in federal court in Chicago. (AP, NewsHour, Latin Times)

The outbreak of violence in Sinaloa last year also saw bloody escalations elsewhere around Mexico. The remains of Mayor Alejandro Arcos of Chilpancingo, capital of Guerrero state, were found in a pickup truck on Oct. 6, 2024, with his severed head on the roof. Four mayoral candidates were killed in the state of Guanajuato that June. The assassinations caused several mayors around the country to request protection from Mexican federal authorities. (AP)

See our last report on Mexico’s human rights crisis.

Photo: Trasciende Noticias via Facebook

In southern Mexico, where US and Mexican deterrence policies caused a major humanitarian crisis last year, local residents say crossings from Guatemala to the border state of Chiapas have significantly decreased. At the US southern border, numbers apprehended by US Border Patrol dropped from around 61,500 in January to 11,709 last month. And in the Darién Gap—the treacherous jungle migration route connecting South and Central America—crossings have also decreased dramatically, from 25,111 last September to just 408 in February.

But the stifling effect of Trump policies on the movement of people heading north is creating new challenges. People on the move are now stranded in precarious living conditions across Mexico, more exposed to potential abuses and violence, and deeply affected by the uncertainty of further policy changes ahead.

“Even though the number of people on the move may have fluctuated, we still have thousands of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers in Mexico who have urgent, unmet needs,” said Michelle Van Akin, associate director for humanitarian programs for Plan International USA.

Trump administration funding cuts to foreign aid have forced a reduction in services and are making it harder for humanitarian organisations to provide assistance, according to Van Akin. “The needs are staggering,” she added.

“The main problem is that migrants are stranded with no information about whether they will be able to apply for asylum [in the US] again or if there will be new norms allowing them to transit to the United States,” said Reinaldo Ortuño, Mexico and Central America medical coordinator at Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

Mounting needs
About 270,000 people were waiting to get an appointment to seek asylum in the United States through US Customs and Border Protection’s controversial CBP One cellphone application when Trump shut it down on January 20, the day he re-entered office.

People relying on the application for an opportunity to enter the US were left stranded along Mexico’s southern and northern borders, in Mexico City, and in more remote areas with fewer resources. Since it was launched in 2023, nearly one million people had been able to enter the US legally using CBP One. But people often had to wait for extended periods of time, living in precarious and often dangerous conditions before they were able to secure an appointment.

Aid groups say that many asylum seekers—having fled gang violence, political repression, and other crises throughout Latin America and the Caribbean—have not given up on the idea of crossing to the US and are waiting for new opportunities, hoping the policies will change.

In Mexico City, they have been setting up unsafe, makeshift camps, and thousands are also living in dire conditions in northern and southern Mexico.

“The main needs that we’ve identified include legal assistance to regularise immigration status, urgent medical care, including mental health support, and access to reliable information as well as basic needs like food, shelter, hygiene materials,” said Van Akin.

Enrique López, field coordinator for Doctors of the World in Tapachula, a city in the state of Chiapas along Mexico’s southern border where many asylum seekers and migrants first arrive from Guatemala, said that although the number of migrants crossing the border dropped in February, people continue to arrive.

Those still entering Mexico are mostly from Cuba, Honduras, and Haiti, and are still hoping to eventually reach the US, according to López. Others are coming to Tapachula from other states in Mexico, trying to return to their home countries, while many already in Tapachula are searching for work to support themselves and planning to request asylum in Mexico.

“They don’t do it by choice, but rather because transiting through Mexico has become more complicated and there are no ways to access the United States, if not irregularly,” López said. “The cases we see are more complex as migrants take more dangerous routes, are exposed to more risks, and don’t have the possibility to travel in large groups [to protect themselves] anymore,” he told The New Humanitarian.

Acute respiratory infections, skin diseases, and gastrointestinal problems are some of the most common health issues. Rape and sexual violence also remain major issues.

“We do case management for survivors of [gender-based violence], and the same number of cases continue to come in,” said López. “There are more risks, less services, and less funding to assist.”

Growing exposure to abuse
Organizations such as MSF have warned that sexual violence against migrants on the route between Colombia and Mexico is on the rise. In 2024 alone, the organisation assisted more than 700 survivors of sexual violence in Mexico and hundreds more in Central American countries—far more than the 232 they assisted in 2023.

For the many migrants escaping violence—and who have been subjected to violence while on the move—the prospect of having to return to their home countries and potentially relive the same abuses is particularly dreadful.

According to a poll led by the Danish Refugee Council, 26% of the migrants interviewed between October and December 2024 in the Mexican cities of Matamoros, Reynosa, and Tapachula said the reasons for leaving their country were threats, violence, and intimidation. Another 21% mentioned insecurity and general violence, and 12.7% persecution.

“It means a huge emotional burden, frustration, and anxiety, because by returning to the places they escaped they put their health and physical integrity at risk,” said MSF’s Ortuño.

A legal limbo
Some efforts have been made to help migrants who want to return to their country of origin. In early February, the UN’s migration agency, IOM, announced it was expanding its Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) program in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama to facilitate safe returns. In January and February, IOM received nearly 2,900 requests—three times more than during the same period last year.

But the Trump-induced crisis in Mexico is being compounded by shortcomings in migration policies across Latin America. There has been no coordinated response to address the situation by scaling up consular services to facilitate returns or by fostering integration initiatives in their respective countries: Migrants are often pushed to leave because of xenophobia and lack of opportunities.

An agreement between Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s administration and the Mexican government reportedly allowed more than 500 nationals to be repatriated. But for many, returning safely to their home countries—or to a country where they will feel safe—is not an easy prospect.

For migrants from other parts of the world—Indians, Afghans, Chinese, and others—stranded in Mexico, the hurdles are even higher. Local humanitarian workers say discrimination is common and language barriers compound other vulnerabilities. The Mexican Commission for Refugee Aid (COMAR), which handles asylum claims, and other institutions providing assistance to migrants often don’t have translators or the ability to understand the specific needs of people from all over the world.

Dwindling aid
As humanitarian needs mount, the Trump administration’s decision to massively cut funding for foreign aid makes it all the more difficult for aid groups to respond.

“We [at MSF] still have the capacity to provide support on the health front, but we notice the absence of other actors who play an important role in protection and other services,” said Ortuño.

The Adventist Development & Relief Agency International—a faith-based NGO that provides legal counsel, medical services, and internet access across Chiapas—was forced to reduce its assistance due to funding cuts, and Plan International had to shut down its child protection programs in Tapachula.

The New Humanitarian contacted several other organizations and agencies to find out whether they had to suspend some of their activities, but they refused to comment.

“That decision [to suspend foreign aid] is limiting us a lot, and we will have to see where to diversify funds,” a staff member at one affected organisation told The New Humanitarian, on condition of anonymity, adding: “Now, the salaries will be taken out of an emergency fund.”

The reduced presence of aid groups impacts other factors too, Van Akin said: “It makes it very difficult to have an accurate idea of how migration dynamics are changing because of the suspension of funding. It’s hard for us to be able to paint an accurate picture.”

— Daniela Díaz for The New Humanitarian, March 26 (condensed; some internal links added)

Reporting for this article was supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism. The New Humanitarian used transportation provided by Médecins Sans Frontières to secure access to migrants and staff in the organization’s mobile clinics in Tapachula and Suchiate. Additional reporting by Daniela Mohor and by Eric Reidy. Edited by Andrew Gully.

Photo of Tapachula migrant camp: Daniela Díaz for The New Humanitarian

According to the report, a local collective called the Jalisco Search Warriors on March 5 uncovered uncovered the site on an isolated ranch, where they found “bone fragments…hundreds of shoes, clothing items, charred human remains, and three underground ovens…”  The discovery was made while attempting to locate missing individuals or their remains, with local citizens organizing the effort in the absence of a sufficient response by the authorities.

The discovery raised concerns among family members about apparent mass killings tied to criminal cartels, drawing international attention to the ongoing crisis of disappearances in Mexico and the government’s failure to meaningfully respond.

Speaking of the discovery at Izaguirre Ranch in the municipality of Teuchitlan, HRW Americas director Juanita Goebertus stated: “President Claudia Sheinbaum should see this as a signal to undertake an urgent, nationwide effort to professionalize the investigation of crimes by state prosecutors’ offices.” Amnesty International has echoed this call, urging authorities to act expeditiously and open a comprehensive forensic investigation. Along with HRW, Amnesty emphasized that the Mexican government’s slowness to investigate or prosecute forced disappearances creates an atmosphere of “total impunity,” endangering family members of the disappeared.

The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) reported a staggering 111,521 persons missing in Mexico as of September 2023. The organization noted that under-reporting may indicate that actual numbers of missing persons are much higher. Jalisco, Tamaulipas and Estado de Mexico have the highest numbers of missing persons across Mexico, while 75% of missing persons throughout the country are men, and 25% are women.

HRW also condemned Mexican authorities in a 2023 report on the government’s failure to investigate homicides due to systemic problems such as high workloads, limited resources and lack of coordination in official search efforts.

From JURIST, March 20. Used with permission.

See our last reports on Mexico’s human rights crisis, and the body count.

Photo: Mtenaespinoza via Wikimedia Commons

Within 30 days of the date of the order, the US Secretary of Interior is to take “all appropriate actions” to rename the gulf, defined as the area “bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba.”

The decision, which immediately raised tensions between the US and Mexico, prompted Sheinbaum to write her letter to Google, arguing that the US did not have the right to rename the whole Gulf unilaterally.

Sheinbaum stated that Trump’s executive order to rename the Gulf must cover only the portion of the body of water under US jurisdiction. She told reporters: “What Google is doing here is changing the name of the continental shelf of Mexico and Cuba, which has nothing to do with Trump’s decree, which applied only to the US continental shelf.”

Sheinbaum noted that Mexico would wait for Google’s response before proceeding with legal actions.

From JURIST, Jan. 19. Use with permission.

Image: Google

Trump signed executive orders Feb. 1 to impose 25% import tariffs on Mexico and Canada, and a 10% tariff on China. The tariffs, which include a carve-out of a lower 10% levy on Canadian energy exports, were imposed under a “national emergency” exemption to the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), citing a crisis of illegal migration and drugs. The tariffs on China remain in place, and are being challenged by Beijing before the World Trade Organization (WTO). (LatinVex, Atlantic Council, Jurist)

Photo: SEDENA via Peninsula360

A trade dispute panel convened under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) ruled Dec. 20 that Mexico’s import restrictions on US genetically modified corn violates the accord. The conflict stems from a presidential decree published by Mexico in February 2023. The decree established an immediate ban on the use of genetically modified corn in dough and tortillas, and instructed Mexican government agencies to gradually end its use in animal feed and other products. The panel evaluating the restrictions determined that they were not based on science, and contravened the market access required under the USMCA.

US Trade Representative Katherine Tai announced the United States victory, saying it “underscores the importance of science-based trade policies that allow American farmers and agricultural producers to compete fairly.” US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack added: “This decision ensures that U.S. producers and exporters will continue to have full and fair access to the Mexican market…”

Mexico’s stated purpose for the 2023 decree was to “protect the rights to health and a healthy environment,” and “to ensure a nutritious, sufficient and quality diet.” The US has maintained its stance that Mexico’s biotechnology policies are not based on scientific data.

However, advocacy groups such as Greenpeace are proponents of the corn decree and implored the US to respect Mexico’s sovereignty, arguing that the market dominance of patented GMO varieties leads to the decline of indigenous strains and threatens food security.

From JURIST, Dec. 22. Used with permission.

See our last reports on the GMO corn ban, the campesino struggle that led to it, and the political imperative behind it.

See our feature “Mexico: Corporate Bio-colonialism Advances” by Carmelo Ruiz Marrero

Listen to our podcast, “Mexico and the struggle for the genetic commons”

Photo of indigenous Mexican corn varieties: Feria de Productores via Earth@Home