Diaz v Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
| Jurisdicción | Guatemala |
| Fecha | 24 Noviembre 1960 |
| Emisor | Corte Suprema (Guatemala) |
Extradition — Conditions of — Extradition for common crime — Request for political asylum — Requirement of proof of political persecution — The law of Guatemala.
The Facts.—A constitutional appeal (amparo) was filed by the plaintiff, a Mexican citizen, requesting the Supreme Court of Guatemala to overrule the decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores), rejecting his petition for political asylum. The plaintiff had been arrested and held following receipt of a request from Mexico for extradition. The crimes listed in the Mexican request were the common crimes of murder of several Mexican nationals and one Spaniard during local elections in one of the Mexican States. The plaintiff had fled to Guatemala, and by fraud had obtained a Guatemalan identity card. Following his arrest in Guatemala he requested political asylum, stating that he was persecuted because of his politics. He claimed asylum as a right due to him under the Guatemalan Constitution, under the Law on Aliens and under treaties signed by Guatemala. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs submitted that “according to the Conventions on Asylum and Extradition and provisions of the Law on Aliens and the Constitution, it was not lawful to grant asylum to persons accused of or condemned for common crimes, and they could be compelled to leave the country; that the State had a right to grant asylum, but not an obligation to do so.…” The Office of the Attorney-General (Ministerio Publico) added that the appellant had failed to “respect the sovereignty and laws of the country by presenting himself first as a Mexican and later as a Guatemalan, following manifestly fraudulent procedures …”
Held: that the decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must be upheld. It had a right, but not an obligation, to grant or to deny asylum according to the circumstances. The constitutional precepts which established the right of asylum had not been infringed or restricted, because the evidence did not show that the appellant was persecuted on political grounds.
The Court said: “We have before us for decision an amparo appeal filed by Sergio de Jesús Orozco Diaz against the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the ground of denial of his petition for political asylum as set forth in a document dated the twenty-sixth of the current year [no month, sic.], following his arrest at the request of the Mexican authorities made to those of this Republic. He considers that this denial violates Article 48 of the Constitution. The Minister-appellee informed us that the appellant—Jesús Orozco Diaz, alias Sergio de Leon Reina—was arrested by the National Police at the request of the Municipal President (Mayor) of Tapachula, State of Chiapas, Republic of Mexico. In the files set up in the Ministry of Government and in those of the Office of the Chief Justice, information is to be found which establishes in detailed and comprehensive form the data which led to the arrest of the appellant, including the information that his arrest was due to criminal acts, committed on Mexican territory, as the principal in several assassinations of persons of Mexican nationality and one Spaniard, Francisco Aguirre Mentegui. By reason of this data the said Ministry, through Resolution No. 308 of September 13 of the current year, informed the plaintiff that political asylum would not be granted in his case. He again petitioned for asylum, introducing documents with which he sought to establish his innocence. This petition was denied in Resolution 1493 of October 14 of the current year, the Minister stating that the plaintiff had not proved that he was persecuted on political grounds. The report adds that, in accordance with the Conventions on Asylum and Extradition, the Law on Aliens, and the Constitution, ‘it is not legal’ to grant asylum to persons accused of or condemned for common crimes: they may be compelled by the Government ‘to leave the country’; and the State has the right to grant asylum but not ‘the duty’. The appellant attached some documents on his political affiliations and representations, which had been issued to him by the electoral offices and by municipal councils. This background information file contains transcripts of the main passages of a decision (Court File No. 65/960) of the Second Court of Criminal Law in the Judicial District of Soconusco, Chiapas, against Sergio de Leon Reyna and Arturo Vela Mazariegos, as presumptively liable for the crime of homicide of one Francisco Aguirre Amentegui, a writ for the formal arrest of Arturo Vela for the crime of homicide having been issued.
“The Office of the Attorney-General requested that in the decision of the case (in addition to not proving that he was politically persecuted), a declaration be made that the appeal is rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to respect the sovereignty and laws of the country by representing himself first as a Mexican and later as a Guatemalan, after manifestly fraudulent procedures, by reference to the identification card which he obtained in Malacatán.
“In the present case no constitutional precept has been violated or restricted which establishes the right of asylum, because with the documentation presented no proof is shown of the condition of the appellant as being ‘politically persecuted’. It is true that he had participated actively in civic and political activities, but that has no relation to the crime for which the authorities in the Republic of Mexico are prosecuting him. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that he took up permanent residence in this country in a clandestine manner and in this way obtained a citizen's identity card. For the above reasons, the appeal must be dismissed.”
