CNDH: There are no elements of violation of human rights of a collaborator of the director of Profeco

The National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) concluded last June that there was no evidence to prove human rights violations committed by a former employee of the head of the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (Profeco), David Aguilar Romero.

However, the commission gave notice to the Internal Control Body (OIC) of Profeco to investigate the possible administrative violations related to this case and recommended that the complainant continue with the criminal complaint process that she initiated before the Attorney General’s Office and the SFP, “and provide the relevant evidence.”

Since June 28, the Sixth General Inspectorate notified the former collaborator of the closure of the case because, derived from “the analysis of the document and the evidence obtained, it was noted that there are no elements that prove human rights violations” and reminded her that she did not accept expert evidence in psychology before the CNDH.

The commission noted that the purpose of the test was “to be able to continue with the present investigation and be able to obtain sufficient evidence and evaluate it as a whole.”

Official document V6/04487 was issued on that date in June and received a month later, on July 23, by the Legal Subprosecutor’s Office at Profeco.

In the document, the CNDH also highlighted that “there is no previous record of her having filed any complaint before the Ethics Committee or the Internal Control Body of Profeco, by which it is noted that its personnel have failed to address her complaint in accordance with the Protocol for the prevention, attention and punishment of sexual harassment and sexual harassment of January 3, 2020.”

The CNDH stressed that the victim did not communicate again by phone or in writing after refusing the psychological analysis, which prevented the investigation from continuing.

In the document, the CNDH included a review of the text communications between the head of Profeco and the complainant, as well as the official’s version, and notified her of the report on May 22 through a call from an assistant inspector.

“Reiterating that the file was at her disposal for her detailed consultation; on which occasion she stated that the attorney is a sexual harasser, that she was threatened with death for a year, but since she ‘felt free’ she went to file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office and the Secretariat of Public Function, where her complaints are being processed, however, she does not trust that Mexican institutions will administer justice to her, without providing further evidence or the file numbers of the aforementioned complaints.”

In her complaint dated April 4, the former Profeco employee claimed that she was the victim of sexual harassment and threats by the then general coordinator of education and outreach, currently the federal prosecutor, and that she did not file a complaint with the Ethics Committee because this body is chaired by Aguilar Romero.