The National Association of Circuit Magistrates and District Judges of the Judicial Power of the Federation (Jufed) requested the immediate suspension of the unpublished judicial elections.
The organization made the petition based on the admission of a complaint filed before the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations Organization (UN), in which possible violations of human rights and judicial independence are noticed.
In a statement, Jufed reported that the International Committee accepted a communication presented in conjunction with the International Institute of Social Responsibility and Human Rights.
This request accuses the “Mexican State to promote a judicial reform that compromises the autonomy of the Judiciary through popular elections.”
“Jufed makes an energetic and firm call to the Mexican State to immediately suspend the judicial election process, as long as the case is substantiated before the UN Human Rights Committee,” reads the note.
Lee: PAN denounces CDMX officials for alleged manipulation of choice
In addition, he indicated that the Committee has asked the State to adopt protection measures in favor of magistrates and judges, “in order to avoid any form of intimidation or retaliation for its cooperation with the International Human Rights System.”
The judges ensure that this reform represents a deep affectation to judicial independence, one of the fundamental pillars of the rule of law.
According to Jufed, this request represents a recognition that the current context puts at risk those who make up the Mexican Judiciary.
In his exhort to the Federal Government, Jufed was emphatic in pointing out that continuing with the judicial electoral process ignoring the provisional measures of the UN would constitute “a flagrant violation of international obligations assumed by Mexico”.
The judicial election, unpublished in Mexico, has generated controversy because of its possible impact on the division of powers.
Lee: Mexico Historical Judicial Choice between misinformation and apathy
The process, promoted by the ruling party, contemplates that the positions of judges, magistrates and ministers of the Supreme Court are defined by popular vote, between 881 federal judicial positions, which has been questioned by academic sectors, international organizations and judicial associations.
Jufed concludes that the national and international community is closely observing this process and that its development could have serious repercussions on the country’s democratic institutionality
With Efe Information
Little text and great information in our X (formerly Twitter), follow us!
