Title	Caso Orosmán Marcelino Cabrera Barnés v. Mexico
Publisher	Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
Publication Date	26 October 2017
Country	Mexico
Topics	Arbitrary arrest and detention
Cite as	Caso Orosmán Marcelino Cabrera Barnés v. Mexico, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), 26 October 2017, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,IACHR,60ccc6794.html [accessed 21 May 2023]
Comments	Mr. Orosmán Marcelino Cabrera Barnés alleges that on 7 February 2006 he escaped from Cuba for political reasons together with a contingent of people on a boat that, a few days later, broke down and was rescued by a cruise ship bound for Mexico. He adds that on 17 February of the same year, upon arriving in Mexican territory, he was arrested by the authorities of the National Institute of Migration (INM) at the Chetumal migrant holding centre in the state of Quintana Roo. He points out that these authorities interviewed him, told him that he would not be deported, that he could remain for a period of no more than 90 days as established by the law in force at the time of the events, and that they would give him an exit order to leave Mexican territory in a reasonable time. The petitioner maintains that he was then transferred to the "Siglo XXI" migrant holding center located in Tapachula (Chiapas), where he did not have a court-appointed lawyer. He states that he was subjected to adverse conditions of detention as he was confined 24 hours without being able to sunbathe and without being able to make telephone calls, that the food was of poor quality and that he could not bathe every day. According to the documentation provided by the alleged victim, on 21 April and 8 May 2006, he applied for refuge before the local delegation of the Mexican Commission for Aid to Refugees (COMAR), as the competent State agency for this procedure, where he was assured that for the duration of the process he would not be deported for the safety of his freedom and life. According to the file, the COMAR delegate in Chiapas brought both requests to the attention of the INM on 4 and 8 May 2006, respectively. In response to the State's allegations, it states that on no occasion was it abandoning those requests.
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.