1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 5 The technocratic turn of the Mexican human rights movement From administration of justice to management of suffering Ariadna Estévez Introduction In 2006 Mexico’s then-president Felipe Calderón declared war on drug trafick- ing. By 2012 militarization was widespread, and so was death. Shootouts in the street, people shot in the crossire, decapitations and car bombings involving government authorities and rival gangs were rife, while kidnappings, extortion, forced disappearances and executions involving civilians became daily occur- rences. Between December 2006 and August 2015 the death toll in this war was 151,233 killings (Oicina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos 2015), with another 26,000 forcibly disappeared (Amnistía Internacional 2013). It is therefore undeniable that Mexico is facing a major human rights crisis, with a list of victims similar to that of the Southern Cone dictatorships of the 1970s and superior to Mexico’s own “dirty war,” 1 also in the 1970s. This article critically examines how Human Rights Non-Governmental Organizations (HRNGOs) have responded to this crisis. By HRNGOs the chapter refers to formal, non-proit, value-concern organizations focused on par- ticular issues, generally institutional and professional, not necessarily linked to social movements. Most tend to carry out litigation, advocacy and lobbying work, and only a few are service providers or engage in direct action; 2 HRNGOs are based in Mexico’s capital and receive signiicant inancing (Frey 2015). While current literature on Mexican HRNGOs focuses on their success in con- tentious politics and articulation (Ansolabehere 2015; Cordero 2014; Estévez 2008a, 2008b; Hincapié Jiménez 2015; Ron et al. 2013; Saltalamacchia 2015; Vázquez and Estévez 2015), this chapter relies on literature designed to offer a constructive critique (Anaya 2015; Allen 2013; Estévez 2013b; Frey 2015; López Pacheco 2015; Vázquez and Estévez 2015), particularly with respect to their “movement work” (Álvarez 2009). Revisiting her critique of the “NGO-ization” of the feminist movement, Álvarez (2009) has argued these organizations may be bureaucratic but they also carry out “movement work,” that is, they produce feminist knowledge and dis- seminate feminist ideas and discourses among other movements. Following this idea, the chapter argues that in recent times HRNGOs tend to focus exclusively 656_05_Understanding Southern.indd 70 7/12/15 08:54:51