Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:
The Submitter asserts that the alleged extraction activities have had a negative environmental impact and that Diamond Golf Internacional did not obtain the permits and authorizations required to carry out the mining activities. The Submitter claims it filed a citizen complaint (Denuncia Popular) with Mexico’s Federal Agency for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente, PROFEPA) and that PROFEPA has taken action against the operator of the extraction activities but not against Diamond Golf Internacional. The Submitter also asserts that corrective measures ordered by PROFEPA have not been carried out. The Submitter asserts that, under Mexican law, the Mexican government should hold accountable Diamond Golf Internacional for restoration or compensation in connection with the environmental damage from the extraction activities.

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In the first part of its response, Mexico presents arguments as to why it believes that the submission should be dismissed. As to the content of the submission, Mexico asserts that it acted diligently and enforced its law in relation to its handling of the complaint filed by the Submitter on 27 May 2003, and the ensuing inspection procedure, which led to the opening of an administrative file that is now closed. Mexico states that, according to the information in its possession, it did enforce the provisions governing its actions in those proceedings. However, it states that the Submitter did not supply information that would have been relevant in determining the legal nature of the real property mentioned in the complaint and in the citizen submission, and asserts that it became aware of this information only because it was appended to the submission. Mexico requested that the response be kept confidential, with the exception of certain sections of its response covering preliminary matters. However, it provided a summary of these confidential sections, which is public.

The Secretariat acknowledged receipt of a submission and began a preliminary analysis of it under the guidelines.

Submission — Submission authored by Submitter(s) on 29/12/2004

Acknowledgement — Communication to Submitter(s) authored by Secretariat on 14/01/2005

The Secretariat determined that the submission met the criteria of Article 14(1) and requested a response from the concerned government Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

Determination — Secretariat Determination under Article 14 (1) and 14 (2) authored by Secretariat on 16/02/2005

The Secretariat received a response from the concerned government Party and began considering whether to recommend a factual record.

Party Response — Response from the Party under Article 14 (3) authored by Mexico on 12/05/2005

The Secretariat determined not to recommend the preparation of a factual record. Under guideline 9.6, the process was terminated.

Determination — Secretariat Determination under Article 15 (1) authored by Secretariat on 24/10/2005