IACHR publishes merits report on the case of Anastasio Hernández Rojas (United States
Washington, DC—The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published Admissibility and Merits Report No. 60/25 on Case 14.042 concerning the United States of America's international responsibility for violating Anastasio Hernández Roja's rights to life, personal integrity, and access to justice.
Anastasio Hernández Rojas, a Mexican migrant, died in 2010 after being detained by US Customs and Border Protection agents. According to the petition filed with the IACHR in 2016, he was arrested, brutally beaten, electrocuted with a taser-type weapon, tied up, and held down by multiple agents despite being unarmed and injured.
The report acknowledges that the incident occurred in a broader context of discrimination against people in situations of human mobility, particularly those of Latin American origin. This discrimination has been reflected in the disproportionate use of force by state border security agents and in the subsequent failure to investigate or sanction those responsible for such actions.
The IACHR found that the use of force in this case was unnecessary and disproportionate, given that Mr. Hernández Rojas was unarmed, restrained, and posed no threat. It also emphasized that the treatment he received—especially the use of tasers in stun mode—amounted to acts of torture. The IACHR also observed that Mr. Hernández Rojas was denied appropriate medical care. It argued that the State has an obligation to ensure the right to health for individuals being deprived of their freedom and concluded that his death was a direct result of violence perpetrated by state agents.
The IACHR also found that US laws governing the use of force lacked the clear parameters and limits necessary to effectively safeguard human rights. Specifically, the legislation allowed the use of force—including lethal force—based on each agent's "reasonable belief" that such force was necessary to defend themselves or others against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The IACHR found that this discretionary standard can lead to violations of rights. Furthermore, the IACHR observed that the regulation in question failed to require an assessment of proportionality, did not clearly distinguish between general and lethal force, and allowed arbitrary use of taser-type weapons.
Washington, DC—The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published Admissibility and Merits Report No. 60/25 on Case 14.042 concerning the United States of America's international responsibility for violating Anastasio Hernández Roja's rights to life, personal integrity, and access to justice.
Anastasio Hernández Rojas, a Mexican migrant, died in 2010 after being detained by US Customs and Border Protection agents. According to the petition filed with the IACHR in 2016, he was arrested, brutally beaten, electrocuted with a taser-type weapon, tied up, and held down by multiple agents despite being unarmed and injured.
The report acknowledges that the incident occurred in a broader context of discrimination against people in situations of human mobility, particularly those of Latin American origin. This discrimination has been reflected in the disproportionate use of force by state border security agents and in the subsequent failure to investigate or sanction those responsible for such actions.
The IACHR found that the use of force in this case was unnecessary and disproportionate, given that Mr. Hernández Rojas was unarmed, restrained, and posed no threat. It also emphasized that the treatment he received—especially the use of tasers in stun mode—amounted to acts of torture. The IACHR also observed that Mr. Hernández Rojas was denied appropriate medical care. It argued that the State has an obligation to ensure the right to health for individuals being deprived of their freedom and concluded that his death was a direct result of violence perpetrated by state agents.
The IACHR also found that US laws governing the use of force lacked the clear parameters and limits necessary to effectively safeguard human rights. Specifically, the legislation allowed the use of force—including lethal force—based on each agent's "reasonable belief" that such force was necessary to defend themselves or others against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The IACHR found that this discretionary standard can lead to violations of rights. Furthermore, the IACHR observed that the regulation in question failed to require an assessment of proportionality, did not clearly distinguish between general and lethal force, and allowed arbitrary use of taser-type weapons.
