Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitters assert Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental laws by not properly processing their complaint against the companies Ecolimpio de Mexico, SA de CV and Transportes J. Guadalupe Jimenez, SA, and by not penalizing those companies. The Submitters claim that both companies operate in violation of the law, causing serious damage to the environment and their property. Furthermore, they assert that the companies are seriously endangering their health and physical well-being due to the improper management of hazardous waste.

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In its response, Mexico maintains that the submission should have been disallowed since the Submitters did not meet the requirements of clearly identifying themselves and including sufficient evidence. It asserts that the Submitters also failed to meet the requirement of pursuing the private remedies available to them under Mexico’s law and that the meaning of “private remedies available” includes all means available to private persons to combat failures of law enforcement. Mexico states that a contrary interpretation would be tantamount “to vitiating the jurisdictional institutions of the state parties to the NAAEC.” It further asserts that the power of attorney granted by the Submitters to their legal representative and the evidence presented in the submission should have conformed to the provisions of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Code of the State of Coahuila. Mexico states that, in contravention of NAAEC Article 14(1)(d), the submission seeks to harass two industrial establishments; in demonstration of this, it offers evidence in its response that the legal representative of the Submitters is a competitor of the companies in question. In addition, it asserts that the Submitters argue the failure to enforce the law by the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Profepa) despite having full knowledge and clear proof that Profepa took timely action. In demonstration of these assertions, Mexico provides evidence of the process followed and states that the Submission should have been dismissed since there are pending proceedings against the companies in question. Mexico states that matters regarding those pending proceedings must be kept confidential under its Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Governmental Information. In its response, Mexico asserts that the Secretariat lacks the power to interpret the provisions of NAAEC Articles 14 and 15 and the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters and that the Secretariat should not have requested a response to the submission.

Names and citations of the environmental laws in question:

General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecol¢gico y la Protecci¢n al Ambiente-LGEEPA) and its hazardous waste regulation

Submitter(s):

Genaro Meléndez Lugo y José Javier, José Genaro, Miguel Angel, Carlos Ariel, Juan Antonio, Iris Elidia y Cruz Adriana Meléndez Torres

represented by/representés par/representados por:

Francisco H. Garza Vara