by Tom Hansen, Sep 9, 1998

As you may know, I was expelled from Mexico in February as part of a campaign by the Mexican government to remove human rights workers from Chiapas and to hide rampant human rights abuses from the world. Ever since I have been challenging my expulsion in the Mexican court system. A preliminary decision on my request to overturn the expulsion is expected in the next few days.

Below is a letter addressed to the US State Department calling for an investigation of their conduct related to my expulsion. Please forward this letter to your Senators and Representatives. Thanks.

Patrick H. Hegarty
Acting Managing Director
Overseas Citizens Services
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Mr. Hegarty,

I write in hopes that United States citizens in the future will not have to suffer the same indignities that I have at the hands of the U.S. State Department, and to request in the strongest possible terms that the State Department or another appropriate body mount an official investigation of State Department policy regarding the Mexican government's treatment of U.S. citizens and respect for human rights.

As you know, on February 18, 1998, I was kidnapped by Mexican immigration officials in the state of Chiapas. Within minutes, they turned me over to four heavily armed men who refused to identify themselves. When I requested identification, they told me to shut up and threatened to transport me in a crate. Thus began a 24 hour ordeal in which I was subjected to a three hour interrogation with armed guards outside the door, then forced to sign the interrogation on threat of expulsion from the country. The document was written in Spanish quoting me using words that I don't understand in Spanish. U.S. Consular officials from Mexico City are aware of this because they called the office where the interrogation took place several times while I was being interrogated, but I was not allowed to talk to them.

I was then flown to Mexico City where I spent the night in a feces-covered prison cell. The next morning I was taken to the Mexico City airport. A short time before I was expelled I was finally allowed access to U.S. Consular officials. During the 24 hours I was in custody, I was not permitted use of a telephone, was not allowed legal council and was denied access to U.S. Embassy personnel. I was not told why I was being held until fifteen minutes before I was expelled from the country.

In my work as Director of Pastors for Peace and, more recently, as Director of the Chiapas Media Project, I led dozens of human rights delegations and humanitarian aid projects to help indigenous communities in Chiapas. My expulsion was part of a campaign against foreign human rights and humanitarian aid workers in Chiapas. The Mexican government is trying to hide widespread human rights abuses in Chiapas from the eyes of the world. And it appears that the State Department's handling of my case makes you complicit in this conspiracy.

Since February, I have been pursuing appropriate legal channels in Mexico to challenge the expulsion and my treatment while in custody. In early August I was assigned a court date for my first hearing in a Mexican court. I requested that the three U.S. Consular officials who dealt with my case during my 24 hours in custody testify on the facts of the case. I also requested that the State Department release a copy of a "Diplomatic Note" that was sent by the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City to their counterparts in the Mexican government. The note is an official U.S. government complaint about my treatment while in custody.

The State Department refused to release the note, and cited diplomatic immunity in refusing to allow the three Consular officers to testify. After receiving calls from Sen. Richard Durbin, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Rep. Lynn Rivers, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Rod Blagojevich, in addition to a number of calls from concerned U.S. citizens, the State Department agreed to provide "affidavits" from the subpoenaed Consular officials.

The eventual result was not affidavits from the subpoenaed officials, but rather a three page letter written by your office. Since the preparation of this letter was approved by your legal department, I'm sure that you are aware that it is useless for my case. The letter arrived at my house on the morning of my scheduled hearing. Mexican courts do not accept faxed copies. The letter was in English. Mexican courts accept only documents in Spanish. The letter was not in affidavit form but was written by a third party official with no direct knowledge of my case, making most of the letter hearsay and therefore inadmissible. Apparently you wrote the letter in an effort to placate the Congressional offices and concerned U.S. citizens, but without "damaging the reputation" of the Mexican government and without, in any way, assisting the needs of a U.S. citizen or defending compelling U.S. interests abroad.

The first page of your letter is dedicated to explaining why you won't allow U.S. Consular officials to testify in my case and why you won't release the "diplomatic note." You state that "Although we sometimes waive these immunities and permit consular officials and staff to testify before foreign tribunals, the cases most frequently involve one or more legal issues of critical U.S. national interest and not the private interests of an individual U.S. national.... Despite our concern about the manner in which Mexican authorities treated you, your current case in Mexican court is fundamentally a private matter in which the United States has no governmental interest."

If my case is not "of critical U.S. national interest," why did the U.S. government issue a formal "diplomatic note" complaining about my treatment while in custody? Isn't the abuse of human rights workers by foreign governments "of critical U.S. national interest"? Has the U.S. government decided to abrogate its commitment to human rights in order to defend the interests of a foreign government that has been sited by the United Nations as a major violator of human rights?

This is not "fundamentally a private matter." I was expelled as part of a political campaign by the Mexican government to remove human rights workers from Chiapas and thereby hide rampant human rights abuses. As you know, over 100 human rights workers have been expelled from Mexico since the beginning of this year, including at least six US citizens. In June of this year, your own Embassy personnel got a taste of the treatment that human rights workers regularly receive in Chiapas when two of them were kidnapped by local PRI officials and held against their will for five hours in the town of Acteal. You certainly didn't abandon those officials because their plight was "a private matter." The treatment of US citizens by foreign governments, especially when those US citizens are involved in matters of national interest such as human rights work, is not "a private matter."

One of the key issues in dispute in my case is the claim by Mexican authorities that I was never taken into custody, that I spent 24 hours with Mexican officials, including 9 hours in a jail cell, of my own free will. U.S. Consular personnel are the only independent witnesses that can counter this obvious lie. Would you then argue that this is a "personal matter," that the Mexican government should be allowed to kidnap U.S. citizens with impunity, that the U.S. has no "national interest" in preventing its citizens from being held against their will in foreign countries, that foreign governments can do whatever they like to U.S. citizens with the guarantee that the State Department will write it off as a "private matter"?

I was expelled from Mexico principally because of my role as a human rights worker. By its actions, the State Department is sending a message to the Mexican government that human rights are of no consequence, and that human rights observers from the U.S. can be abused in any way without fear of genuine censure from the U.S. Isn't human rights part of the "U.S. national interest," indeed shouldn't respect for human rights be a primary concern of the U.S.?

I spoke with State Department legal counsel in early August and was informed that it is not uncommon for the State Department to waive diplomatic immunity. I described my particular circumstances and the State Department lawyer could see no reason why diplomatic immunity would not be waived to permit testimony in my case. Clearly the decision in my case was made for political reasons, to protect the Mexican government, and at the expense of the interests of U.S. citizens and critical U.S. national interests.

Rather than defending the interests of U.S. citizens in Mexico, the State Department has gone out of its way to protect the Mexican government. I find it reprehensible that the State Department would sacrifice the interests of a U.S. citizen, as well as critical U.S. national interests, in order to save face for a government that has been condemned by the United Nations for human rights abuses and for treatment of foreign human rights observers. I request that your office, or whatever office may be appropriate, launch an official inquiry about this abuse of power by State Department officials. Please forward a response to this request to Tom Hansen, 4834 N. Springfield, Chicago, IL 60625.

Sincerely,

Tom Hansen
Citizen of the United States of America

cc:	Sen. Richard Durbin Sen. Patrick Leahy Rep. Luis Gutierrez Rep. Rod Blagojevich Rep. Nancy Pelosi Rep. Lynn Rivers Secretary of State Madeline Albright US Dept of State, Office of Mexican Affairs, Jim Davis Concerned United States citizens