Former Mexican Senate. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

05/15/13 – Juan Silva Meza, Chief Justice of the Mexican Supreme Court (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, SCJN), urged for the creation of unified criminal and procedural codes, meaning single legislation throughout Mexico. During a forum organized by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, UNAM) on May 14, Silva expressed that there are several discrepancies and contradictions within the 78 penal legislations currently valid nationwide. He argued that the large number of laws in Mexico had caused many of the problems within Mexico’s criminal justice system and has led to its negative perception among civilians, adding that the consolidation of unified legislation would homogenize penalties and would avoid regional political interests.

The unified legislation should establish common penalties for serious crimes, commented Armando Maitret, president of the Mexican Association of Imparters of Justice (Asociación Mexicana de Impartidores de Justicia, AMIJ). The current diversity of legislation has produced different penalties for the same crimes in different regions, and in some cases serious crimes in one state are not considered as such in others. According to Layda Negrete, producer of the film “Presumed Guilty” (Presunto Culpable) and member of the Trans-Border Institute’s Advisory Council at the University of San Diego, the unified legislation would create opportunity for successful implentation of the new criminal justice system.

Accordingly, the Mexican Senate approved the reform to Article 73 of the Mexican Constitution (Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, CPEUM) in late April that would allow for the creation of unified penal legislation throughout the country. Although the reform has not yet been approved by the Chamber of Deputies (Cámara de Diputados), the Senate began working on the preliminary version of the new code, which was drafted by several experts and civil society organizations. The Senate explained that it wants to start work on the code’s draft to expedite the process. As the CPEUM mandates, after the Senate approves the constitutional reform, it passes through the Chamber of Deputies, and finally has to be approved by a supermajority of the 32 Mexican state congresses. Therefore, the Senate cannot even proceed to vote on the new code until the reform to Article 73 of the CPEUM is enacted.

The unified legislation has been supported by many experts, policy makers, and civil society organizations, and even Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto included it under the terms of his Pact for Mexico. Although its approval still faces strong opposition from those who support the sovereignty of the states in a federal system, some states have nevertheless recognized the advantages that the implementation of the common legislation would bring. One such advocate, Veracruz Attorney General Felipe Amadeo Flores Espinosa, argues that this would be a new expression of federalism where the harmonization of legislation leads to the establishment of a better justice system.

The Senate expects that once the constitutional reform is enacted, the new code could be ready for implementation by early September 2013.

Sources:

Robles de la Rosa, Leticia. “Senado aprueba bases para crear Código Único de Procedimientos Penales.” Excélsior. April 30, 2013.

Notimex. “Ven en Código Penal único oportunidad de reforma penal.” El Diario de Yucatán. May 9, 2013.

Martínez Carballo, Nurit. “Demanda president de Corte código penal único.” El Universal. May 14, 2013.

Abundis, Aristeo. “Solicita PGJ en Veracruz código único de procedimientos penales.” Milenio. May 15, 2013.

“Código Procesal Único deberá contemplar penas comunes: AMIJ. Con Oscar M Beteta.” Grúpo Fórmula. May 15, 2013.

Flores, Claudia. “Senado inicia trabajos para el Código Penal único.” Noticieros Televisa. May 15, 2013.

Carlos Humberto Toledo Moreno, inspector general of the CNS. Photo: Octavio Hoyos, Milenio Diario

05/10/13 – The long-awaited Mexican National Gendarmerie will be ready and operational by September 2013, reported the National Commission of Public Security (Comisión Nacional de Seguridad, CNS) of the Ministry of the Interior (Secretaría de Gobernación, SEGOB). Carlos Humberto Toledo Moreno, the inspector general of the CNS, which is the former Ministry of Public Security (Secretaría de Seguridad Pública, SSP), announced that the Gendarmerie would be publicly presented on September 16 at the Military Parade commemorating Mexico’s national independence, although it will begin operations a few months before.

According to Toledo, the CNS-controlled Gendarmerie—which security expert Alejandro Hope describes as an intermediate force between the military and the police—, will start with roughly 10,000 members, 85% of which come from the Ministry of Defense (Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional, SEDENA) and the remaining 15% from the Ministry of the Navy (Secretaría de Marina, SEMAR). By the end of the Peña Nieto administration (2012-2018), it is expected to grow to 50,000 units. The members of the military that will become part of the Gendarmerie, explained Toledo, are under training to shift from their military mindsets to become proximity police officers. They expect that in the future, with enough time for training, civilians could also become part of the new force. According to Toledo, the Gendarmerie will operate in strategic regions, assisting the Army’s and Navy’s operations against organized crime and filling in spaces where Federal Police (Policía Federal, PF) presence is lacking. At least initially, the new force will only assist the PF in their duties without interfering in their functions.

Ever since President Enrique Peña Nieto announced his proposed creation of the Gendarmerie during his presidential campaign, there has been a growing debate on the role that the force will play in its collaboration with the Federal Police, an institution that grew exponentially under the command of Genaro García Luna to 40,000 members during the Calderón administration (2006-2012), and that has faced serious allegations of corruption. The CNS houses the PF and acknowledged the police force’s corruption, but argued that it has been stretched in its duties and will eventually return to its original purpose—to patrol roads and support the citizenry. According to Alejandro Hope, the PF has an annual budget of 35 billion pesos (more than $2.5 billion USD), whereas the Gendarmerie will have an initial annual budget of 1.5 billion pesos (about $125 million USD) and will request 3.5 billion more (about $290 million USD).

There have also been some concerns among different organizations throughout Mexico about the lack of public information regarding the Gendarmerie. María Elena Morera, president of the civil society organization Common Cause (Causa en Común), called for a public discussion about the force’s creation to see “if this is the kind of police we want, or we do not want it, or which other options are there [sic].” Morera did acknowledge that the head of SEGOB, Minister Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong, expressed his willingness to open up the discussion on the new security force to the public. Members of civil society expect the Gendarmerie to be legislated by Congress, thus legitimizing the force and grounding it in a certain legal framework.

Sources:

Redacción. “Segob, dispuesta a abrir debate sobre la gendarmería: Morera.” Milenio. April 22, 2013.

Baranda, Antonio. “Prevén la Gendarmería en septiembre.” Reforma. May 8, 2013.

Otero, Silvia. “Segob: Gendarmería Nacional marchará el 16 de septiembre.” El Universal. May 8, 2013.

Redacción. “Presentarán Gendarmería el 16 de septiembre.” El Economista. May 8, 2013.

Mosso, Rubén. “Gendarmería estará lista en septiembre.” Milenio. May 9, 2013.

Pro-Gay Celebration in Oaxaca (December 2012). Photo: Jorge A. Pérez Alfonso, La Jornada.

04/19/13 – (by kheinle) The first gay marriage in the state of Oaxaca was celebrated recently when three same-sex couples were married in late March 2013. The ceremonies were allowed after Mexico’s Supreme Court (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, SCJN) unanimously ruled in December 2012 that Oaxaca’s definition of marriage in its Civil Code (Código Civil) was unconstitutional. The wording previously read that “one of the purposes of marriage is the perpetuation of the species,” which the Supreme Court found violates the principle of equality. The case was brought forth by the three couples who were married only three months after the Court’s ruling.

Of the 32 states and districts in Mexico, only three others have allowed same-sex marriages to occur− the Federal District (Distrito Federal, DF), Quintana Roo, and Colima−although most other states recognize gay marriages, but do not administer them. The nation’s capital broke ground on this with its first gay marriage performed in March 2010. One notable difference between Oaxaca’s recent marriages and those in the DF is that Oaxaca’s change stemmed from the federal Supreme Court and addressed the state’s civil code, whereas the DF’s came through its own district’s legislation (Asamblea Legislativa, ALDF) when it approved the same-sex marriage law in December 2009 that still stands. The DF’s law explicitly allowing gay marriage is the only one of its kind in the nation; all other states that have approved gay marriage ceremonies are due to officials’ interpretations of the state’s Constitution and Civil Code. Those states neither have a law that explicitly approves gay marriage, nor one that denies it. The the Supreme Court’s recent ruling may have far reaching effects outside of Oaxaca if other states’ codes are similarly called into question. CNN México reports that some states−specifically Guanajuato, Nuevo León, Puebla, and the State of Mexico (Estado de México, Edomex) −have already seen cases starting to spring up since December.

Quintana Roo followed the Federal District’s steps when officials in the municipality of Lázaro Cárdenas approved the marriage of same-sex couples in December 2011. The mayor, Trinidad García Argüelles, argued that the state’s Civil Code does not specify that a marriage needs to be strictly between a man and woman. The first gay marriage in Quintana Roo was approved when the same-sex couple met all other Civil Code requirements for a marriage to move forward.  The request “was started and opened in my municipality,” said Mayor García, “and we didn’t have to stop them or tell the couple ‘no’ as long as they were in compliance with the requirements the law establishes.” She continued, “We did what was right, and we are not trying to sidestep the law.” Despite the steps taken under Mayor García, other Quintana Roo municipalities have interpreted the state’s Civil Code differently, thus denying gay marriages to occur in the rest of the state.

For its part, Colima saw its first same-sex marriage in February 2013 after authorities in the municipality of Cuauhtémoc began approving gay marriage applications. State authorities allowed the first of such marriages on the basis of upholding the constitutional principle of “no discrimination.” As explained by CNN México, Colima’s state Constitution explicitly states that “marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman.” However, officials pointed to the fact that article 1 in the Constitution simultaneously prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their “sexual preferences.” Cuauhtémoc Mayor Indira Vizcaíno Silva said that municipal officials did not want to break both the state and federal constitutions’ anti-discrimination clauses. “We chose not to discriminate, and rather to comply with the obligations we have as municipal authorities not to deny any public service on the basis of sexual orientation,” she said. “We support our decision based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in other cases, like Oaxaca.”

The steps towards marriage equality are significant in Mexico, and more generally in Latin America, given the country’s conservative nature and strong Catholic presence. The Federal District’s 2009 legislative reform on this matter made it the first place in Latin America to allow marriages between same-sex partners. Argentina is the only other country who has followed suit, although Uruguay is about to join once Uruguayan President José Mujica signs the legislation legalizing gay marriage, which already was approved by the nation’s Congress earlier this month, into effect.

Sources:

Cabrera, Rafael. “Vota ALDF mañana los matrimonios gay.” Reforma. December 17, 2009.

“DF celebra primera boda gay en AL.” El Economista. March 11, 2010.

Muñoz, Brisa. “Dos matrimonios homosexuals se casaron en un municipio conservador.” CNN México. December 2, 2011.

Associated Press. “Mexico’s Supreme Court Declares Anti-Gay Marriage Law Unconstitutional.” Huffington Post. December 5, 2012.

Zapata, Belén. “Alcaldesa aprueba matrimonio gay en Colima amparada en la Constitución.” CNN México. March 22, 2013.

“México: Celebran la primera boda gay en Oaxaca.” Perú21. March 29, 2013.

Pew Research Center. “Gay Marriage Around the World.” The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. April 17, 2013.

Image from obeygiant.com. Print designed by Shepard Fairey and Ernesto Yerena.

04/22/13 – (by gomeznathalie) On Tuesday, April 16, a bipartisan framework for immigration reform was introduced in the U.S. Senate, a long awaited immigration reform bill that may serve as an opening for what could become a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented migrants living in the United States. According to Reuters, “under the proposal, undocumented immigrants who came to the United States before December 31, 2011, and [who] had stayed in the country continuously could apply for “provisional” legal status as soon as six months after the bill is signed by the president.” The preliminary bill that has yet to pass through the legislative process was outlined by the so-called Gang of Eight, which is composed of four Democratic senators­−Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet of Colorado−and four Republicans−John McCain of Arizona, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Marco Rubio of Florida. However, the proposal stops short of proving to be anything close to an amnesty, as under the bill, immigrants would have to wait a minimum of 13 years to attain permanent citizenship entitling them to federal benefits.

The bill, which looks to appease both platforms, aims to expand access to low and high skilled labor for U.S. businesses by easing the application process for undocumented migrants−both educated and uneducated, skilled and unskilled−to obtain visas, although the bill discourages “companies from hiring cheap foreign labor or filling jobs with immigrants when U.S. workers are available.” It also imposes “new pay requirements designed to keep the hiring from depressing wages for U.S. technology workers,” as reported by Reuters.

Under the bill, applicants can work within the country legally once they have paid the appropriate penalty fees and back taxes, and have proven that they have not committed any serious crimes. Full benefits can be attained after ten years, at which time an undocumented applicant can apply separately for a green card or seek permanent residency in the United States. The proposal calls this process an “expanded merit-based immigration system,” which dictates that in addition to the ten-year wait, an additional three year-wait is required. The processing comes at the cost of about $2,000 (USD) per applicant in total penalties assessed (not including application fees).

On the subject of border security, ABC News reports that, among its many provisions, the bill has also proposed to enhance border security, especially in ‘high risk’ areas like Arizona, with up to $4.5 billion (USD) in spending allocated toward drones, sensors, and border patrol agents. Further, “the bill sets a goal of stopping 90% of illegal crossings at the riskiest sections of the southern border with Mexico, either by catching people or forcing them to go back to their country,” reports Reuters.

Despite the bill’s advances and strong support nationwide, New York Daily News highlights the major criticisms of the proposal, pointing out that the hundreds of thousands of individuals who migrated to the United States after the cutoff date of December 31, 2011, would be excluded if the bill were to pass as is. The report also adds that aside from its $7 billion (USD) cost to implement, “the fact that this bill contains the toughest border immigration enforcement measures in the history of the U.S. at a time when border crossings are at a historic low doesn’t seem to make much sense,” a point for which Senator John McCain has been largely criticized. In his report titled “Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Enforcement,” the Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Edward Alden, confirms this reality: “The number of apprehensions at the southwest border with Mexico has dropped dramatically over the past decade, from more than 1.65 million in the FY2000 to a low of 340,252 in FY2011. The number rose slightly last year, in FY2012, to 356,873, levels that are lower than any years since the early 1970s.” Alden attributes the falling rate of border crossings to the suffering economy. “The main driver of falling apprehension numbers is certainly the weaker U.S. economy and higher unemployment, coupled with a somewhat stronger Mexican economy and violence on the Mexican side of the border that has made transit more dangerous,” he said, adding that “U.S. border enforcement has likely discouraged illegal entry as well.”

Another flaw critics have noted is that the bill does not directly address the issue of visa overstays, though the provision of ‘continuous illegal residency’ may signal coming changes to the status quo in that overstays can gain provisional status via the bill provided they meet the cutoff date. On the issue of visa overstays, Alden reports that “the commonly accepted estimate is that more than 40% of the unauthorized migrants currently residing in the United States did not cross the borders illegally. Instead, they arrived in the United States on a lawful tourist, student, business, or other visa and then violated the terms of that visa by remaining in the United States.” The issue of visa overstays has been largely ignored within comprehensive immigration reform initiatives, even though it is a seriously important issue considering the vast amount of unauthorized migrants from all over the world who reside in the United States without proper paperwork now, although they initially entered the country with such. The bill in question, however, may begin to change that.

Sources:

“A Bill: To provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.” Senate of the United States: 113th Congress 1st Session. 2013.

Alden, Edward. “Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Enforcement.” Council on Foreign Relations. March 14, 2013.

Silverleib, Alan, Crowley, Candy and Acosta, Jim. “With Deal in Hand, Senators to Roll out Immigration Plan.” CNN. April 15, 2013.

Cowan, Richard, and Rachelle Younglai. “Senators Unveil Immigration Reform Bill.” Reuters. April 16, 2013.

Gomez, Alan. “Senate ‘Gang of Eight’ Releases Immigration Bill.” USA Today. April 17, 2013.

Avila, Jim, and Serena Marshall. “Bipartisan Senators Roll Out Historic Immigration Bill.” ABC News Network. April 18, 2013.

Ruiz, Albor. “Albor Ruiz: Introduction of the Senate’s Immigration reform Bill Is the First Step in What Will Be a Long Battle  .” NY Daily News. April 21, 2013.

Protocolo de actuación para quienes imparten justicia en casos que involucren derechos de personas, comunidades y pueblos indígenas. Photo: SCJN (Cropped).

04/18/13 – The Judicial Branch of Mexico (Poder Judicial de la Federación, PJF) presented a protocol aimed at guiding Mexican judges on how to try cases involving indigenous peoples. The Protocol of Action for those Whom Deliver Justice in Cases Involving Rights of Indigenous Individuals, Communities, and Peoples (Protocolo de actuación para quienes imparten justicia en casos que involucren derechos de personas, comunidades y pueblos indígenas) was presented at the Supreme Court (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, SCJN) by Justice President Juan Silva Meza on April 15. Silva Meza stated that it is the SCJN’s intention to comply and respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and though this protocol is a way to do so, yet it does not displace Mexican constitutional rules, nor intends to become a format for cases, rather a tool to help judges bring justice for indigenous peoples.

The Protocol on Indigenous Peoples establishes guidelines for any criminal case involving indigenous populations. This encompasses, among other things, ensuring the aid of suitable interpreters, more flexibility for presentation and analysis of evidence, admitting indigenous jurisdiction in the resolution of internal conflicts, protecting the land and natural resources of indigenous peoples, and ensuring that indigenous groups are consulted when taking any legal action that might affect them. The principles that shall always be observed, as set forth by the new protocol, are: non-discrimination; self-identification as a member of an indigenous population; the right to maintain, develop and control their own institutions; recognition of specific cultural traits; special protection to their territories and natural resources; and participation, consultation and consent to any action that affects them. It will be a supporting tool for the daily work of judges throughout the country that contains also SCJN decisions, cases of courts in other countries, and jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, all of which are to be applied.

Members of the PJF were joined at the presentation of the Protocol on Indigenous Peoples by experts in indigenous human rights, such as Jaime Anaya, the current U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, and Rodolfo Stevehagen, the former Special Rapporteur. Anaya praised the protocol through a video message saying that Mexico has established an important precedent in the world, and will serve as an example for the administration of justice in other countries. Stavenhagen stated that this protocol is an important step in the consolidation of a culture of human rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico.

The Protocol on Indigenous Peoples is the second of such documents by the PJF that offers guidelines to judges on how to proceed with cases involving special populations. The first protocol was presented in 2012 and dealt with minors. Silva Meza announced that the new protocol will be open for outside input and comments from indigenous peoples until the end of July.

Sources:

Redacción. “Dan a jueces protocolo sobre indígenas.” Reforma. April 15, 2013.

Méndez, Alfredo. “Orientará protocolo en litigios de pueblos indígenas: Silva Meza.” La Jornada. April 15, 2013.

Reyes, Juan Pablo. “Dan línea a jueces en trato a indígenas.” Excélsior. April 16, 2013.