01/02/20 (written by kheinle) – The State of Querétaro appears to be the model in Mexico for implementing the Accusatorial Criminal Justice System (Sistema de Justicia Penal Acusatorial, SJPA), at least according to several research organizations and elected officials. When considering the state’s use of an inter-institutional collaboration system, as well as its efforts to reform its prison systems, Querétaro has been at the forefront.
México Evalúa
One of Mexico’s leading research institutes, México Evalúa, found that Querétaro was the top state for the third consecutive year in a row in terms of its criminal justice proceedings. The findings were published in its annual report, “Hallazgos 2019: Seguimiento y evaluación del sistema de justicia penal en México,” released in October 2020. The report looked at factors including the strength and integration of the SJPA, the technology used, and the state’s unique, institutional coordination. It specifically highlighted Querétaro’s use of the model known as “Cosmos,” or the Commission for the Evaluation of the Operation of the SJPA (Comisión para la Evaluación de la Operación del SJPA). The model focuses on inter-institutional collaboration, which, according to México Evaluá, has expedited the state’s consolidation of the criminal justice system since it went into effect just one year ago (Hallazgos, pg. 30).
Querétaro Governor Domínguez Servién
Querétaro’s governor, Francisco Domínguez Servién, similarly credits his state’s judicial success thanks in large part to the “strong inter-institutional coordination.” Speaking at the second Cosmos session in early December, Domínguez proclaimed that “with the participation of the people of Querétaro, [this state] will be the epicenter of justice in the country.”
Querétaro Governor Domínguez Servién speaking at the second session of Cosmos in December. Photo: El Heraldo de México.
The Governor also emphasized the state’s leading role in protecting human rights within the penitentiary system. “I come back to the fact that the Querétaro State Prison System (Sistema Estatal Penitenciario) has been at the top nationwide for two consecutive years, 2018 and 2019, in terms of respecting human rights, according to the National Commission of Human Rights (Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos,” said Governor Domínguez. The governor spoke at the XLVI Ordinary Session of the National Public Security Council (XLVI Sesión Ordinaria del Consejo Nacional de Seguirdad Pública) in mid-late December 2020.
First International Innovation of Justice Forum
Governor Domínguez’s comments came on the heels of the First International Innovation of Justice Forum (Primer Foro Internacional: La Innovación en la Justicia) held in late November. Mexico’s Secretary of Government, Juan Martín Granados Torres, spoke on two panels at the event: “Innovations in Prisons” and “Innovations, Justice, and Security.” Granados Torres, who is also involved in the coordination and operation of the Accusatorial Justice System, specifically highlighted Querétaro’s success with aligning its prison system with the new model. He focused on the state’s use of the restorative justice model – a key component in the alternative dispute resolution methods introduced in the SJPA. One critical element of the restorative practice is the focus on the offending party’s reinsertion into society in a dignified and structured manner that reduces recidivism. Although the social reintroduction takes time and capacity, noted Granados Torres, the outcomes are worth the efforts.
Secretary of Government Granados Torres speaking at the First International Innovation of Justice Forum in November. Photo: Querétaro Quadratín.
World Justice Project’s “Rule of Law Index”
Looking more broadly at the rule of law across Mexico, Querétaro ranks fifth out of the nation’s 32 state entities in the World Justice Project’s “Rule of Law Index 2019-2020.” It placed behind Yucatán at the top, followed by Aguascalientes, Zacatecas, and Campeche. It was one of only six state entities that did not see a change in their Rule of Law Index score from 2018-2019 to 2019-2020.
Of the World Justice Project’s eight factors taken into consideration to develop the Index, Querétaro scored the highest on Factor 4: Fundamental Rights. This indicator measures absence of discrimination, due process of law, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, right to privacy, freedom of association, and labor rights. It scored the lowest, however, on Factor 3: Open Government, which measures access to information and citizen participation.
To read World Justice Project’s full report, click here.
09/30/20 (written by lcalderon) – Justice in Mexico, a research-based program at the University of San Diego, released a working paper by Juan García Cruz entitled, “Antes y Después: Análisis comparativo de casos de sistema de justicia penal tradicional y del sistema acusatorio”. The study is a result of the #compara project that compiles a series of indicators curated by Justice in Mexico as part of the “Justicia en Marcha” initiative to measure the implementation and consolidation of the Accusatorial Criminal Justice System (Sistema de Justicia Penal Acusatorio, SJPA). Specifically, the paper compares and analyzes some of the main procedural differences between the Traditional Inquisitorial Criminal Justice System (Sistema de Justicia Penal Tradicional Inquisitorio) and the SJPA. To make this comparison possible, the author draws on three specific cases that share important similarities and were processed under the two different criminal justice systems. The results suggest that there is an apparent consolidation of the SJPA —at least from an analytical perspective— that allows several benefits that were not possible under the traditional system.
In order to select the cases to compare, García Cruz developed a methodology that consisted in finding cases from both criminal justice systems that were as similar as possible and allowed to highlight some of the key elements of each process. The main criteria evaluated were:
Type of crime
Number of defendants
Conclusion of the criminal proceeding (oral trial or ordinary process)
After describing the selection process, García Cruz analyzes the compiled information. For the traditional system, the author needed to conduct an exhaustive revision of all court records or each case. For the SJPA, the author conducted an extensive record analysis as well as reviewing court recordings for each case. Based on this analysis, García Cruz identified 7 main indicators that allowed comparing the different procedures for each system:
Evidence
System principles
Process duration
Victim treatment and the role of the complaining party
Volume (size of the court records)
New figures
Judges’ impartiality
The working paper examines the procedural differences in three crime types: kidnapping and organized crime; fuel theft; and crimes against public health.
Methodology for selecting the compared cases
Main Findings
Evidence
Most of the evidence presented under the SJPA consisted of testimonies. Documents and court records are not considered in the SJPA unless they are mentioned and properly incorporated by the appropriate party during direct examination.
Under the traditional system, most of the evidence consisted of written documents and statements. In addition, the evidence value of such statements was pre-determined under the Criminal Procedures Code (Código de Procedimientos Penales).
Presenting testimonies under the SJPA allowed for the participating parties to conduct direct and cross-examinations to the witness, a benefit that was not possible under the traditional system.
The total amount of evidence presented under the SJPA was significantly lower than in the traditional system. In addition, evidence under the traditional system was diverse and consisted of statements, testimonies, testimony complements and additions, court records and official documents, and ratifications, while under the SJPA most of the evidence consisted of testimonies.
Figura 1: Pruebas (Comparativo I)
Total amount of evidence under the traditional system and the SJPA for kidnapping and organized crime
Figura 2: Pruebas (Comparativo II)
Total amount of evidence under the traditional system and the SJPA for fuel theft
Figura 3: Pruebas (Comparativo III)
Total amount of evidence under the traditional system and the SJPA for crimes against public health
System principles
Cases analyzed under the SJPA emphasize the presence of main system principles such as: contradiction and immediacy.
While procedures under the traditional system were considered public, institutions often denied the presence of external people. Under the SJPA, the public is welcome to attend,including the defendant’s family and law students.
In cases under the SJPA it was also possible to identify the principles of consolidation and continuity.
Process duration
In the three comparisons, cases under the SJPA required less time than cases under the traditional system.
In terms of complementary investigations, all SJPA procedures were concluded before the legal six-months limit. This limit was not met on cases under the traditional system, resulting in significant delays in the process.
Victim treatment and the role of the complaining party
In the kidnapping and organized crime case under the SJPA, all victims intervened through their legal advisors throughout the process and had their image protected (blurred) during the oral trial, where they provided testimony from a different courtroom. Under the traditional system, however, victims were required to face their aggressors, allowing re-victimization.
The role of the legal advisor was key in cases under the SJPA, where they were able to be in all the proceedings, offer evidence, and examine witnesses, among other benefits that were not possible under the traditional system.
Volume (size of the court records)
The orality factor of the SJPA allowed for smaller court records, while the traditional system required all in writing, making up large volumes of court records.
In addition, cases under the SJPA have their court proceedings recorded on video, rather than paper.
Figura 7: Volumen (Comparativo I)
Total number of pages in court records for kidnapping and organized crime
Figura 8: Volumen (Comparativo II)
Total number of pages in court records for fuel theft
Figura 9: Volumen (Comparativo III)
Total number of pages in court records for crimes against public health
New Figures
Judges under the SJPA are required to ensure the right to adequate defense, giving them the authority to substitute the defense if they do not meet the standard. Under the traditional system, defendants could be represented by a trustee without requiring the legal certifications to provide an efficient defense.
In the case of crimes against public health, there was also the use of stipulations of facts under the SJPA. This allows the court to disregard incontrovertible facts and focus the debate to make the process faster.
Judges impartiality
In cases under the SJPA, judges were not involved in the previous stages of the oral trial, allowing them to resolve the matters based on facts presented during the proceeding. Under the traditional system, the same judge was in charge of preliminary proceedings and sentencing, making it complicated for the judge to stay unbiased and reconsider his rulings.
Final thoughts
Lastly, the author offers a series of final considerations, emphasizing the importance of studying and understanding the different nature of both systems in order to measure the consolidation of the SJPA and assess the benefits presented by the accusatorial system.
About the author: Juan García Cruz is a Mexican attorney. He graduated from the School of Law at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) where he also completed a graduate diploma on Criminal Law. Mr. García studied Criminalistics, and got a Masters of Criminal Procedural Law and Oral Trials by the Universidad Analítica Constructivista de Mexico (UNAC). He is a Research Associate at the University of San Diego’s Justice in Mexico Program. He has collaborated with non-governmental organizations dedicated to human rights training and analysis of the criminal justice system in Mexico. He has also actively collaborated at UNAM’s Human Rights Program. Currently Mr. García is an Auxiliar de Gestión Judicial at the Federal Criminal Justice Center Mexico City. His academic and professional interests include criminal justice, transitional justice and human rights.
El Magistrado Pablo Héctor González Villalobos, instructor en nuestro proyecto OASIS, comparte algunas reflexiones personales sobre el proyecto de iniciativa de reforma procesal penal en México.
Fuente: La Jornada Baja California
Pablo
Héctor González Villalobos.
Como se hizo
del conocimiento público a través de los medios de comunicación, el pasado 15
de enero de 2020 la Fiscalía General de la República estuvo a punto de
presentar la iniciativa de un paquete de reformas al sistema penal mexicano. Se
trata de un proyecto de honda envergadura que incide, fundamentalmente, en dos
aspectos: a) la estructura orgánica de la Fiscalía General de la República y
del Poder Judicial de la Federación (junto con algunas medidas destinadas a
controlar, desde una óptica de política criminal, el ejercicio de la función
judicial), y; b) el proceso penal.
En este breve
trabajo me ocuparé solamente de este último aspecto, en atención a que, aunque
ha sido menos comentado en medios de comunicación, tienen hondas consecuencias
de las que vale la pena prevenirnos. Además de que, por mi experiencia como
juzgador en el sistema penal mexicano, es el ámbito que mejor conozco y en el
que, por tanto, estas sucintas reflexiones pueden resultar de mayor utilidad.
Para tal
efecto, me ocuparé de dos temas: la problemática que la iniciativa genera en
relación con el principio de imparcialidad y la pérdida o vaciamiento de la
audiencia como el espacio natural de tutela del debido proceso penal.
A).- LA
PROBLEMÁTICA QUE LA INICIATIVA GENERA EN
RELACIÓN CON EL PRINCIPIO DE IMPARCIALIDAD.
Parece claro
que la iniciativa responde a la creencia de que su contenido hará más eficaz el
proceso penal como instrumento para abatir, o al menos disminuir, la impunidad.
Se trata, sin duda, de una finalidad que debe atenderse de manera urgente,
dados los altos índices de impunidad que existen en nuestro país. El problema,
por tanto, no es de fines, sino de medios que, a nuestro entender, no son los
adecuados para la consecución de aquéllos.
Dicho de
manera breve, el Estado debe, al mismo tiempo, respetar el debido proceso y ser
efectivo en la delicada tarea de castigar penalmente a quienes han atentado
seriamente en contra de la paz y la seguridad de los miembros de una
comunidad. Pero la iniciativa parece
caer en la trampa de establecer una disyuntiva entre ambas obligaciones. Lo
cual es un falso dilema, ya que sin debido proceso no hay justicia y sin
justicia no hay legítimo combate al delito y al delincuente. Esto último, no
solo porque sin las garantías del debido proceso no se sabe en realidad si,
quien aparece como culpable, efectivamente lo es, sino, además, y de manera
fundamental, porque sin debido proceso se pierde la superioridad moral que
legitima el uso del poder público del Estado en contra de los ciudadanos. En
efecto, sin debido proceso se difuma la diferencia entre una cárcel del Estado
y la casa de seguridad de una banda de secuestradores.
Ahora bien,
como es sabido, el debido proceso legal constituye un derecho fundamental
complejo que tiene su origen en el derecho anglosajón. Su antecedente más
remoto se ubica en el artículo 39 del texto original de la Carta Magna de Juan
Sin Tierra, signada, mediante coacción de los barones de la tierra ingleses, en
el año de 1215. Desde entonces, y con
los desarrollos posteriores de Coke y Blackstone, así como, fundamentalmente,
con su incorporación al derecho norteamericano, ha evolucionado de manera
significativa. Finalmente, se incorporó al derecho internacional de los
derechos humanos, con su formidable desarrollo durante la segunda mitad del
siglo XX.
En un lenguaje sencillo, se puede definir el debido proceso legal como el conjunto de condiciones que, cuando se cumplen, permiten calificar de justa la solución al conflicto. Dicho en una feliz expresión del maestro Miguel Sarre: “el debido proceso es lo que hace la diferencia entre la justicia y la venganza”.
En todo caso,
el principio de imparcialidad judicial (no así, por ejemplo, el de la
independencia de los jueces) es un componente del debido proceso desde sus
orígenes y hasta nuestros días. De manera que sin la posibilidad de acceder a
un tribunal imparcial para que resuelva el conflicto, no es posible calificar
de justa la solución al mismo. Y esto es precisamente lo que ocurre con la
iniciativa que se comenta, particularmente en dos aspectos, que son de suma
gravedad. A saber:
En primer
término, la idea de atribuir al juez penal el papel de director de la
investigación. Se trata de un concepto propio del inquisitivo medieval, que
supone renunciar, prácticamente de forma absoluta, a la idea de un juez
imparcial. En el inquisitivo, la confusión de funciones respondía a una
concepción ontológica de la Verdad (entendida así, con mayúscula), como un
concepto unitario, cuya realidad es independiente de que sea conocida o no, y
que, no obstante, es una Verdad dada y que está ahí para ser conocida. Cuando se concibe así, es lógico que el
descubrimiento de esa Verdad pueda ser encomendado a un único funcionario. Pues
una vez descubierta, esa Verdad permitirá hacer justicia.
Sin embargo,
en una concepción adversarial, y por lo tanto dialéctica, del proceso, existe
una correspondencia con la idea de que la verdad procesal (que sin embargo no
renuncia a ser un correlato con lo que ocurrió), no es una verdad dada y que
está ahí para ser descubierta, sino una verdad que se construye a partir de un
ejercicio dialéctico entre la tesis de la fiscalía y la antítesis de la
defensa. De manera que el hecho que el juez tiene por demostrado en su
sentencia, constituye la síntesis o conclusión.
En este orden
de ideas, la concepción ontológica de la Verdad, aunque sea un concepto que
tenga sentido en otros ámbitos de la razón humana, no puede seguir siendo la
finalidad del proceso penal. Porque, aunque esa Verdad sea inteligible, las
limitaciones del conocimiento humano en general, y de la actividad probatoria
en particular, no permiten plantear legítimamente la encomienda de la función
de investigación en el mismo funcionario que va a emitir el juicio sobre los
hechos, dado que ello supone un enorme y permanente riesgo de sesgos indebidos
y, por tanto, de sacrificio al principio de imparcialidad.
En segundo
lugar, el principio de imparcialidad también sufre un grave atentado con la
propuesta de la iniciativa de encomendar a un solo juez (que además es el
director de la investigación), el trámite tanto de las etapas preliminares como
del juicio en sentido estricto. La idea de separar las funciones de juez de
control y de juez de juicio, que surge entre nosotros a partir de la reforma
procesal penal que se incorporó a la Constitución de la República en 2008, fue
precisamente la de garantizar que el juez de juicio, por no tener ningún
conocimiento previo sobre los hechos materia del proceso, no tuviera prejuicio
alguno y, por lo tanto, estuviera garantizada su imparcialidad. Con ello
resulta claro que la eliminación de la distinción de que se trata, conduce a un
estado de cosas en el que el Juez que dirigió la investigación y tramitó las
etapas preliminares, difícilmente será un juzgador imparcial a la hora de
emitir sentencia.
B).- LA
PÉRDIDA O VACIAMIENTO DE LA AUDIENCIA COMO ESPACIO NATURAL DE TUTELA DEL DEBIDO
PROCESO.
Para
comprender mejor la idea a la que se refiere el subtítulo de este segundo y
último apartado, es conveniente tomar como punto de partida el concepto de
controles procesales. Se trata de un término poco habitual entre nosotros y que
hace referencia a los instrumentos que, en un proceso (en este caso) penal,
garantizan fundamentalmente dos cosas: a) que en el curso de una investigación
penal o en el trámite de un procedimiento penal, no se cometan violaciones a derechos
fundamentales, y; b) que sea fiable la información sobre cuya base un tribunal
finca un juicio de reproche.
Las
formalidades son una especie de controles procesales y son las únicas que
existen como tales cuando el procedimiento se tramita en un expediente.
Ocupémonos, para los fines de estas breves reflexiones, en aquéllas que
garantizan la fiabilidad de la información. Para entender correctamente esta
función, primero debe tenerse claro que, en una metodología del expediente, se
produce una confusión entre expediente, proceso, causa y juicio. Y, de manera
análoga, se confunde la prueba con el acta en la que se documenta la prueba.
Así, el testimonio de María deja de ser la testigo sentada en el estrado
declarando, para pasar a ser la declaración de María, tal como fue documentada
en el acta que se incorporó al expediente.
Suelo ilustrar
esta situación con una metáfora “rulfeana”. A mí me ocurrió, y seguramente esta
situación era habitual en mi generación (y quizá no sólo en la mía), que en la
clase de Español la maestra explicó que Pedro Páramo es una novela que trata de
un señor llamado Juan Preciado que fue a Comala porque le dijeron que ahí vivía
su padre, a reclamar la parte de la herencia que le correspondía. Agregó la
maestra que Preciado de pronto se dio cuenta de que estaba hablando con los
muertos. Pero en realidad esto es inexacto. Los muertos ya están muertos. Lo
que pasa es que nos dejaron sus voces. Con quien Juan hablaba es con las voces
que dejaron los muertos. De hecho, el título original de la novela era “Los
Murmullos”.
Ahora bien, lo
mismo ocurre en un expediente. Porque el expediente no es otra cosa que un
conjunto de “murmullos” documentados. Es decir, cuando un testigo declara y su
narración se documenta, el acta correspondiente se convierte en la prueba y es
lo único que queda, ya que la persona se “muere” procesalmente, es decir, se
torna irrelevante. Me explico: por virtud del principio de inmediatez (que no
inmediación) procesal, las primeras diligencias del procedimiento deben
prevalecer sobre las posteriores, en virtud de que, como decía la vieja
jurisprudencia de la Corte, no ha habido tiempo ni para el aleccionamiento ni
para la reflexión. Si el testigo comparece posteriormente y quiere cambiar su
versión, será él quien tenga la carga de la prueba para justificar por qué
debemos creerle a lo que viene a decir ahora, y no al “murmullo” que nos dejó
en su declaración inicial.
Siendo esto
así, es imperativo entonces cuidar las declaraciones tan pronto se documenten.
Son la columna vertebral del expediente. Por eso, se requieren controles,
llamados formalidades, destinados a garantizar dos cosas: a) que la información
sea auténtica, es decir, que si María declaró que vio a Hipólito disparar a Rosita,
efectivamente María haya dicho eso, y; b) que la declaración, una vez
documentada, permanezca inalterada durante la vida del expediente, dado que
este instrumento de metodología procesal se trabaja en ausencia de las partes y
no puede descartarse la existencia de incentivos para alterarlo (derivados,
lógicamente, de la confusión entre prueba y acta en la que se documenta la
prueba: si ésta última es lo único o casi lo único relevante, basta con tener
la posibilidad de manipularla para tener en nuestras manos la suerte del
proceso).
Las primeras,
es decir, las formalidades que garantizan la autenticidad de la información,
son aquéllas que exigen que: la declaración sea por escrito, firmada por el
testigo y por el funcionario que la recibe, ante un secretario o dos testigos
que den fe (precisamente de que la información es auténtica), etcétera.
Las segundas,
o sean las que garantizan que la información una vez documentada no sufra
alteraciones, son tales como: que las fojas que conforman el expediente sean
cosidas, foliadas y selladas; que al final de cada párrafo se tire una línea
hasta el final, de manera que el espacio en blanco no pueda ser reutilizado; y
que si se comete un error, se teste la parte correspondiente, de forma que el texto
original siga siendo legible, y se “salve” antes de cerrar el acta.
Ahora bien, he
decidido explicar lo anterior porque, en mi experiencia, uno de los aspectos
más difíciles de asumir en una transición desde una metodología del expediente
hacia una metodología de audiencias, es precisamente la comprensión del papel
que, en cada una de ellas, juegan los controles procesales, particularmente
aquéllos que garantizan que la información sea fiable. En efecto, en una
metodología de audiencias, la calidad de la información está garantizada, en lo
fundamental, por la audiencia misma. A ello es a lo que se refiere la feliz
expresión de Ferrajoli que afirma que “la audiencia es la garantía de las
garantías”. Es la audiencia, con sus principios rectores, el instrumento que
permite confiar en la información que se produce en la misma. ¿Qué sentido
tiene exigir formalidades para garantizar la autenticidad del testimonio de
María, si es María misma quien declara de viva voz, en público, en presencia
del juez y sujeta al contraexamen? ¿Qué sentido tiene pedir formalidades que
garanticen que la prueba no se altere, si el tribunal debe valorarla
inmediatamente, en la misma audiencia (principios de continuidad y
concentración)? Esto, y no otra cosa, es lo que significa el principio que
postula que, en una metodología de audiencias, la investigación es flexible y
desformalizada. Porque exigir formalidades en la investigación conduce a pre-constituir
prueba y, por tanto, a vaciar la audiencia, ya que entonces la información no se
produce durante su celebración, sino antes, y lo que es más grave, sin el
resguardo de la audiencia misma y de sus principios rectores.
Las
formalidades de las actuaciones policiacas y de ciertos actos de investigación
solo tienen la función de permitir el control de la calidad de la información
que se produce en la audiencia, que es la única valorable, pero no de
sustituirla. Por la sencilla razón de que solo tiene el carácter de prueba la
que se produce en la audiencia en presencia del tribunal (principio de
inmediación).
Con esto, me
parece, queda claro el segundo grave problema del proyecto de iniciativa de
reforma procesal penal al que he dedicado estas breves reflexiones. Me refiero
a que regresa a una investigación formalizada, que pre-constituye prueba y que
vacía la audiencia. Es decir que, al retomar la sustitución del testigo por su
“murmullo”, trastoca en uno de sus aspectos más relevantes, la lógica de un
sistema acusatorio, en el que, como se ha dicho con razón, la “audiencia es la
garantía de las garantías”. Si además el proyecto se adereza con un uso
extensivo de la prisión preventiva oficiosa y con la disminución de controles
preliminares, la mesa está servida para el desastre que el mismo implica para
el debido proceso. Me atrevería a decir que se trata de un retroceso, no de 20
años, sino de 200.
02/01/20 (written by kheinle) — Critics are fiercely pushing back against a package of proposed reforms to Mexico’s justice system made public in mid-January. Alejandro Gertz Manero, Mexico’s Attorney General (Fiscal General de la República, FGR), and Julio Scherer, the president’s chief legal adviser, prepared a draft of reforms that was leaked on January 15, 2020, causing immediate pushback from experts who argue it would fundamentally undermine the country’s criminal justice system and devalue human rights protections.
Background on Proposed Reforms
Mexico’s Supreme Court. Source: Supreme Corte de Justicia Nacional
The initiatives have been aptly referred to as contrarreforma, or counter reforms, giving reference to the overhaul of the judicial system in Mexico in 2008 through sweeping constitutional reforms. Critics argue that the draft reforms made public in January 2020 run counter to and undermine the 2008 reforms and subsequent implementation in 2016 of the Accusatorial Criminal Justice System (Sistema de Justicia Penal Acusatorio, SJPA).
Still, the bills seek to address Mexico’s record-breaking levels of crime and violence. In 2019 alone, there were 34,582 murders – an all-time high – according to data reported by Mexico’s Secretary General of National Public Security (Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública, SESNSP). The proposals would aim to reduce impunity and recidivism, writes Human Rights Watch, which is desperately needed in a country where only 2% of all crimes are resolved, according to a 2018 report by the United Nations. Attorney General Gertz added that they would also seek to address corruption and crime.
The bills are still in draft form, having not yet obtained the final approval from the Attorney General’s Office. They were expected to be presented in full to Congress in February, but there is no indication of when exactly that will be.
Main Concerns
Nevertheless, there are several key proposals put forth within the reforms that have created considerable pushback.
Arraigo
Justice in Mexico’s 2015 report, “Detention Without Charge.” Photo: Justice in Mexico.
Perhaps the most controversial change would be the expansion of the already fraught procedure of arraigo, a form of preventive detention. Under current Mexican law, suspects in organized crime cases can be held for up to 40 days without being charged while investigations unfold, and extend it to 80 days at the prosecutor’s request. In either case, prosecutors are required to obtain judicial authorization to detain a suspect under these conditions. The proposed reforms seek to expand upon this initial 40-day holding period by allowing “prosecutors to seek prolonged pre-charge detention for any crime, without bringing charges,” explains Human Rights Watch. This would also expand the current law that only allows arraigo in cases involving organized crime to now cover any crime.
Critics argue that this change would set the nation back in terms of
the judicial and social reforms enacted the past few decades, specifically with
the inauguration of the SJPA in 2016. Outspoken political analyst Denise
Dresser commented on the proposals in an OpEd
titled, “The Fourth Inquisition,” a play on President Andrés
Manuel López Obrador’s movement, the Fourth Transformation. “If the
authoritarian regression that he has in mind continues, the López Obrador government
will return to a judicial and criminal system built on incarcerating innocents,
manufacturing the guilty, and creating injustices,” she said. “The contrarreforma wants to do away with
control judges that today value the legality of detention and care for the
rights of the victims and the accused.”
A second change put forth would make it easier for evidence obtained through illicit (e.g., torture, wiretapping) means to be used in courtroom proceedings. If ratified, the Mexican Constitution would shift from barring evidence obtained through the “violation of human rights” to now allowing judges the final say in whether or not to admit such evidence. As Human Rights Watch precisely notes, this amendment would undermine and effectively undo all of the change made to protect individuals’ human rights as part of Mexico’s 2017 General Law on Torture. While recognizing the law has not been implemented as quickly as was hoped, the progress made would still effectively be undermined by the proposed changes by making evidence received through torture more viable and utile in the courtroom.
Emilio Álvarez, a Mexican Senator and a rights activist, spoke out
on the measure. “It is an extraordinarily regressive reform that seriously
threatens human rights and processes given as basic, such as presumption of
innocence.”
Mexico’s National Criminal Code and the New National Code of Criminal Procedures
Attorney General Alejandro Gertz Manero. Photo: Línea Directa.
The Constitutional Initiative (Iniciativa Constitucional) would amend 14 articles of the Mexican Constitution to allow for the changes expressed here (e.g., arraigo, admissibility of evidence, freedom of expression). It would also create a new National Criminal Code (Código Penal Nacional, CPN). Attorney General Gertz acknowledged the latter, announcing the proposal to create a uniform, singular criminal code, which would replace already-existing codes at the state and regional levels. Another part of the proposals would put in place a new National Criminal Procedural Code (Código Nacional Procesal Penal, CNPP).
In a January 2020 publication, “La Nuevo Iniciativa de Reforma Procesal Penal,” Michael Mandig, attorney at law in Arizona with extensive legal work in Latin America, cautioned against installing a new CNPP, the current version of which was entered into force in 2016. “Procedural changes of such proportions require cultural transformations, economic inversions, professional commitments, and societal acceptance; it cannot be implemented over night.” Mandig also commented on the proposal to eliminate the “intermediary stage” in criminal proceedings, thereby eliminating the division of responsibilities among judges and specifically that of the Control Judge (juez de control). This was a critical pillar in the creation of the SJPA, as Mexico moved towards a more accusatorial judicial system, as opposed to an inquisitorial model. By blending the judges’ roles together once again through the proposed CNPP reform, it will render the courts partial, argues Mandig.
Freedom of Expression
Another concern raised is the potential undermining of freedom of expression put forth in the reforms. According to Mexico’s Regional Director Leopoldo Maldonado of Artículo 19, an international human rights organization, the reforms would criminalize freedom of expression through charges of defamation, slander, and libel. “This is not only about journalism,” he said. “It is about any person’s right to exercise freedom of expression in this country, thereby running the risk of being charged with this type of crime.”
Next Steps
It is believed that President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s party, the National Regeneration Movement (Movimiento Regeneración Nacional, MORENA), backed the leaked reforms. The president, however, denied being involved in or knowing about the draft reforms during one of his daily addresses to the nation. “I have not seen [the law]; I do not know of it. Therefore,” he said, “it has nothing to do with us.”
The full package of finalized reforms is supposed to be released in February, at which point Mexico’s Congress will take up the review.
Mandig, Michael. “La
Nueva Iniciativa de Reforma Procesal Penal – ¿Solución a la Impunidad o Receta
para Desigualdad Procesal y Parcialidad Judicial?” No Volver al Sistema Inquisitorio. January 18, 2020.
There were 127 homicides reported on December 1, 2019 in Mexico, the deadliest day of the year. Source: Gobierno de México.
01/12/20 (written by kheinle) – Mexico’s New Criminal Justice System (Nuevo Sistema de Justicia Penal, NSJP) continues to garner mixed reactions from the public, government officials, judicial system operators, academics, and beyond, almost four years after it was implemented. In 2019, support and critiques were leveled throughout the year, some coming from higher-profile figures, as discussed below.
Background on the
NSJP
Former President Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-2018) rang in the
system’s official launch on June 18, 2016, in Mexico City. This ended the
judicial system’s eight-year implementation period stretching from 2008 to 2016
that was inaugurated by former President Felipe Calderón (2006-2012). Read more
about the NSJP in Justice in Mexico’s special report, “Criminal
Procedure Reform in Mexico, 2008-2016.”
The life of the NSJP has spanned multiple presidents’ sexenios. It has been more than 11 years since the launch of its implementation in 2008, and three and a half years since the end of the implementation period in 2016. Unprecedented amounts of resources (financial, capacity building, academic, infrastructure, etc.) have been poured into the NSJP’s development and significant progress has been made. States continue to implement and fine tune the NSJP despite the setbacks and challenges each face in doing so. As Mexico faces its deadliest year on record, and most recently its deadliest day of 2019, it is critical that the federal, state, and local governments continue to strengthen its adversarial criminal justice system.
Critics of the NSJP
Alejandro Martí
México SOS Director Alejandro Martí speaks at a conference. Photo: La Otra Opinión.
Human rights activist Alejandro Martí, head of the
organization México SOS, has been a critic of the overhauled justice system,
arguing that it plays a role in perpetuating impunity in Mexico. “The
fundamental problem of the [NSJP] is the corruption,” he
said in June 2019. “And corruption produces this terrible impunity, which I
have said for years. Impunity is a result of all the wrongs of Mexico.” A
recent study by México Evalúa found that more than 90% of crimes committed
in 31 of Mexico’s 32 states and federal entities were left unresolved. In seven
states, impunity rates top 99%.
Martí also called out elected officials – particularly
governors – and the police for the pervasiveness of corruption within their
systems. He reminded the media with which he spoke that “half of the group of
kidnappers who killed my son were police,” referencing his son’s murder in 2008
that led him to become an activist. Martí leveled his criticisms during a press
conference that was promoting Mexico’s 8th National Forum on
Security and Justice (“8° Foro Nacional de Seguridad y Justicia”) held June
7-8.
Elected Officials
Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum speaking at her swearing in ceremony in December 2018. Photo: STR/AFP.
Former Mayor of Mexico City (Ciudad de México, CDMX) Miguel
Ángel Mancera also voiced his concern that the New Criminal Justice System is
responsible for higher levels of insecurity in the nation’s capital. In an
interview with Ciro Gómez Leyva in June 2019, Mancera argued that the NSJP led
to the early release of nearly 15,000 formerly incarcerated individuals to the
streets of Mexico City in 2014 as part of the legal reforms. The NSJP is
therefore, he reasoned, partially to blame for the kidnappings and assaults
that now occur.
Mancera
did acknowledge that Mexico City has long dealt with challenges related to
drug trafficking and criminal activity, but that they were being addressed.
Mancera’s comments came in response to criticism from current Mexico City Mayor
Claudia Sheinbaum, who said the actions of former government administrations
are responsible for today’s crime.
Support for the NSJP
Supreme Court Justice
Arturo Zaldívar
A strong supporter of the New Criminal Justice System,
however, is the president of Mexico’s Supreme Court (Suprema Corte de Justicia
de la Nación, SCJN). Justice Arturo Zaldívar, who joined the bench in 2009,
came to the justice system’s defense.
“With the unfortunate situation our country encounters with high
levels of insecurity and impunity, there is no shortage of voices that claim
the new [justice] system is responsible for these ills,” said
Justice Zaldívar. “What is certain is that the new criminal justice system
is neither the cause nor the effect of that problems that we face. More likely,
it is the probable solution to them.” He continued, emphasizing that a strong
and effective criminal justice system is critical to achieving peace and
justice. “If we want a better country, if we want a country in which laws are
respected, if we want a country where we live in harmony with peace and
justice,” he
said, “we should advance on the path on which we’ve come, we should perfect
the accusatorial criminal system, [and] we should respect and value the
richness of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the right to
defense.”
His comments came as part of the bilateral conference, “Diálogos
sobre el Sistema de Justicia Penal con el Reino Unido,” held August 12-15,
2019, in Mexico City. It is an annual meeting between the United Kingdom and
Mexico that started in 2015. Each year, justices from both countries gather to
exchange experiences and best practices, host mock courtroom hearings, and
learn from one another, writes Excélsior. Despite operating
different styles of criminal justice systems, the conference offers an opportunity
for judges, public defenders, prosecutors, and law students to convene. This
year’s topic focused specifically on oral trials, a pillar of Mexico’s New
Criminal Justice System.
Roberto Hernández
Roberto Hernández of Presunto Culpable. Photo: Sopitas.
The co-director and co-producer of the popular documentary,
“Presunto Cupable,” Roberto Hernández, also voiced his support for the NSJP. As
reported by El Heraldo de Tabasco, Hernández commented
in December that the adversarial system has made positive changes over the
years, which were reinforced by the new system in place.
He drew his comments from a recent survey he helped conduct of
more than 58,000 people. It was done in collaboration with the World Justice
Project and Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Instituto
Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, INEGI). The results showed that people
thought the quality of justice in Mexico had advanced, in part due to the
implementation of oral trials. Additionally, the quality of evidence collection
and sentencing also improved. Still, Hernández acknowledged the additional work
that needs to be done to bring the NSJP to its full capacity. In particular, he
pointed to voids in police
reform and police training that need to be addressed, as well as a raise in
police salaries to help root out corruption.
These are but a few of the many examples of mixed support
leveled towards Mexico’s New Criminal Justice System and its role in crime, violence,
justice, and accountability nationwide. Justice in Mexico has explored both
these topics throughout the years, which can be read
about here.