SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RULE ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L MEXICO 002471

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/19/2019
TAGS: PREL PGOV PINR MX
SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RULE ON
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MILITARY JURISDICTION

REF: MX 1544

Classified By: Confidential by Political Minister Counselor Charles Bar
clay.
Reason: 1.4 (b),(d).


1. (SBU) On Monday August 10, Mexico's Supreme Court ruled
6-5 that Mexico's amparo law (which outlines the instances in
which citizens can challenge government actions and prior
court rulings) does not allow the wife of a victim shot at a
military checkpoint the right to contest military
jurisdiction. The ruling sidesteps the constitutional
questions over military jurisdiction, but for now, allows
military courts to continue trying charges of human rights
abuses against soldiers.


2. (SBU) In May 2009, a consortium of NGOs acting on behalf
of the wife of a victim of a 2008 military checkpoint
shooting in Santiago de los Caballeros, Sinaloa (reftel),
filed an amparo (a constitutional challenge of an act by an
authority) contesting the transfer of investigative authority
by civilian prosecutors to military jurisdiction. The NGOs
argued that under Mexico's constitution, military courts are
not competent to adjudicate human rights violations against
civilians. The organizations argued that Mexican law is
contradictory and that the military's assertion of
jurisdiction in crimes against civilians involving its
soldiers runs counter to international standards.


3. (C) Setting aside the broader constitutional question,
justices ruled that the circumstances of the case did not
fall within the guidelines allowed by Mexico's amparo laws,
which spell out the instances in which individuals can seek
injunctive remedy. Justices further ruled that the wife of
the victim of the shooting had no standing and that only the
accused soldiers have the right to contest the manner in
which they are tried. A representative from CentroPro, the
lead organization arguing the case before the court, told
Poloff her organization is disappointed in the Court's
decision, saying that it closes the possibility that victims
can mount further challenges to current practices. This
ruling, she said, removes one of the most effective tools
available in Mexican jurisprudence for challenging military
jurisdiction over human rights related crimes by soldiers.


4. (C) Comment: Mexico's government and military insist
that crimes committed by servicemembers in the performance of
their duties remain within the institution's legal
jurisdiction. They argue that transferring cases to civilian
jurisdiction would not improve accountability and would
undermine the morale and effectiveness of the military.
(Note: The U.S. military enforces a similar self policing
jurisdictional prerogative under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). End Note.) The human rights community will
continue to challenge this position in coming months. Miguel
Carbonell, a legal expert and journalist from UNAM's
Institute for Judicial Research, suggested that victims and
advocates could still bring cases contesting military
jurisdiction to lower courts and try to take the question
back to the Supreme Court to make a definitive ruling.
Carbonell also noted that a legislative track remains open;
several bills are currently before Congress to move
jurisdiction to civilian courts. The lack of a conclusive
decision this week by a divided high court will fuel further
debate. End Comment.
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American
Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap /

FEELEY