CCPR/C/123/D/2767/2016 2.15 On 2 December 2014, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Offences Committed against the Freedom of Expression launched a new preliminary investigation and brought criminal proceedings against the two Puebla State judicial police officers. On 9 December 2014, the Second District Court of the State of Quintana Roo issued an arrest warrant for the two officers. On 11 December 2014, one of the officers was arrested; the second is currently a fugitive from justice. On 17 December 2014, a detention order was issued against the arrested officer, who was remanded in custody. Criminal proceedings initiated by the author in relation to threats received after her release 2.16 Following the author’s release, she was provided with protection by the federal authorities, including escorts when travelling. Nevertheless, on 7 May 2007, the author was the victim of an attack when the tyres of the vehicle that was to take her from the airport to her home were punctured, causing the driver of the vehicle to lose control shortly after setting off. In addition, between February and May 2009 and July 2012, the author received several death threats by email and telephone and on her blog. The author filed several complaints of threats and intimidation with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, which resulted in the opening of four preliminary investigations. However, the investigations did not lead to criminal proceedings being brought. Request for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights11 2.17 On 19 June 2009, the author submitted a request for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. On 10 August 2009, the Inter-American Commission granted precautionary measures to safeguard the life and physical integrity of the author, her family and colleagues at the Centro Integral de Atención a la Mujer. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that she is the victim of a violation of her right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the Covenant, since she was arrested and charged with defamation and calumny for publishing her book. The author submits that, although the Committee has recommended that the State party repeal the offences of defamation and calumny throughout the country,12 they remain offences in 16 of the 33 criminal codes in existence in the State party. These offences are broadly and ambiguously defined and unduly restrict freedom of expression, since they do not meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality and are intended to have a censorship effect. The custodial penalty provided for these offences is disproportionate to any harm that may be caused. 3.2 The author submits that in the State party each federative entity has considerable latitude in determining what conduct is criminalized and that this amounts to unequal treatment of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the State party based on their state of residence. Thus, while people are able to exercise their right to freedom of expression in some states, they may be criminally prosecuted for defamation, calumny and vilification in other states. In the author’s case, the judicial authorities of the State of Puebla charged her with the offences of defamation and calumny, while the judicial authorities of Mexico City dismissed charges for the same acts on the grounds that the offences did not exist in that jurisdiction. 3.3 The author further claims that she is a victim of a violation of article 15 (1) of the Covenant, since the offences of defamation and calumny continue to exist in 16 states of Mexico, without being clearly defined in the criminal codes of those states. The author maintains that such a situation impedes legal predictability and allows for the extraterritorial application of those offences in other jurisdictions where they do not exist. 11 12 GE.18-14178 Although the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights adopted precautionary measures in respect of the author’s case, it was not registered as an individual case, which is an option available under article 25 of the Commission’s rules of procedure. See CCPR/C/MEX/CO/5, para. 20. 5