 |
| Mexico Chamber of Deputies Photo: Germán Canseco |
Proceso: Jesusa Cervantes
Translated by Alise Rule By a majority of votes, the Chamber of Deputies approved reducing the period of arraigo [detention without formal charges being filed] from 40 to 20 days and, when an extension is requested from the judicial authority, from 20 to 15 days.
The modifications were approved with 389 votes in favor, 32 against and 14 abstentions with the opposition of legislators of the Citizens' Movement (MC) and the Workers Party (PT), and some of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), who supported the definitive elimination of this procedure created during the six-year term of Felipe Calderón.
With this decision, Article 16 of the Constitution pertaining to arraigo will be changed. [A majority of state congresses will have to approve it.]
On the basis of the ruling, the president of the Commission on Constitutional Issues, Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) member Julio César Moreno Rivera said that the procedure has been useful for authorities to gather evidence of a crime.
PRI [Party of the Institutional Revolution] member, Héctor Gutiérrez de la Garza, said that, with the modifications, arraigo will only be granted when sufficient “evidence” exists.
Speaking in opposition, the vice-coordinator of the MC, Ricardo Mejía, asked his fellow deputies who was twisting their arms to keep the arraigo procedure: Was it President Enrique Peña Nieto or Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam, the official who, the legislator reminded them, at the start of the year had come out against arraigo?
The president of the commission, Moreno Rivera, reminded that human rights organizations have opposed this procedure, believing that it has generated arbitrary detentions, torture, violation of due process and of the presumption of innocence.
For this reason, he said, in order to safeguard personal liberty, a reduction is proposed from 80 days, as is currently stipulated, to a maximum of 35, in regards to organized crime, and in the case of serious crimes, arraigo would only last 20 days without extension, while currently the maximum is 40 days.
He also indicated that with the aim of advancing the elimination of this procedure, its length is being reduced and requirements are being imposed on its being sought from the courts, and its respective granting.
In addition, to strengthen protection of human rights, it is proposed that the Ministerial Police [investigative police], upon requesting the precautionary measure from the judge, will back it up with sufficient evidence that links the person with organized crime in a serious offense.
Then he pointed out that in order to request or grant arraigo it should be confirmed that, at least, it will permit the gathering of greater evidence in the investigation and will protect life, the integrity of persons and legal rights, and will prevent the suspect from avoiding legal action.
To avoid physical or psychological mistreatment or the violation of human rights, organizations protecting human rights provided for in the Constitution will be able to participate, at all times reviewing the implementation of arraigo at the request of the person subject to this preventative measure or his representative.
Regarding retention by the Ministerial Police, which is currently 48 hours, it is proposed that it may increase by 72 hours if related to organized crime, intentional homicide, rape, kidnapping, human trafficking, crimes committed with violent means, weapons and explosives, as well as serious crimes determined by law against the security of the nation, the free development of the person and of health.
Additionally, he emphasized that the extension of retention to 72 hours makes the subsequent arraigo request inappropriate, “as much as it is intended to move towards the elimination of this procedure.”
Specified in the ruling is the objective that the initial investigation be based on sufficient evidence, so that the exercise of the arraigo complies with the requirements for confirmation of the event designated as a crime and the probable responsibility of the suspect. Gradually, the aim is that the preventative measure of arraigo be eliminated.
Ricardo Monreal, of the Citizens' Movement (MC), who voted in opposition, said that reducing the time frame of the procedure
“does not resolve the serious violation of human rights of those who are submitted” to this measure.Legislator Manuel Huerta Ladrón de Guevara of the Workers Party (PT), maintained that he would vote against the ruling, since of the arraigos carried out since 2008, only 3.3% of suspects were held for trial, as opposed to 96.7% in whose cases there was never enough evidence to confirm their presumed responsibility.
“It is a legal instrument that is used inappropriately to make up for deficiencies in the investigation of crimes, based on the violation of human rights,” he criticized.Then he commented that this procedure should disappear from the Constitution, since it is contrary to its first Article and the international treaties on the subject of human rights endorsed by Mexico.
For the Green Party (PVEM), Ruth Zavaleta voted in opposition. In her speech, she said that “some of my colleagues will vote in favor, some will do it in abstention, and others like me will vote against it.”
In addition, she specified that the assembly should evaluate existing factors in opposition to perpetuating this legal procedure versus the need to maintain it as an indispensable tool for acquiring justice.
Member Catalino Duarte Ortuño of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) clarified that a main proposal on her legislative agenda is to promote the repeal of arraigo from the Constitution,
“and our position is and will be consistent on this subject. We should move towards its complete abolition.”
That's why, she added, “with strong foundations in principles and convictions we will vote to impose greater controls, conditions and requirements on this legal procedure.
“It's not the decision that we would have liked, nor is it the decision that fulfills and deals with the recommendations of international organizations on human rights, but it comes under the principle of progress regarding human rights, on the path to a quick and absolute repeal of arraigo in this country,” she affirmed.Later, National Action Party (PAN) member Consuelo Argüelles Loya assured that the current complexity of the concept of national security implies taking urgent measures that strengthen the rule of law to guarantee peace, justice, and the security of Mexicans.
She also highlighted that the need for the continuation of this measure deals with the alarming situation suffered in the country, due to attacks of organized crime, and
“because the institutions in charge of obtaining and imparting justice should have evidence that guarantees social well-being and public security, without violating respect for human rights.
“We hope that in the not-so-distant future we can work towards the elimination of these measures. So that the State recovers for Mexicans the peace and the security they deserve; so that we can assure that organized crime has yielded under the measures adopted, which gather strength from our legislative actions.”After settling on the stance of his parliamentary group, PRI [Party of the Institutional Revolution] member José Alberto Rodríguez Calderón announced his support for the ruling, since in the implementation of the arraigo procedure, he argued,
“all the interested actors will intervene in considering human rights as an essential condition for consolidating an authentic, democratic rule of law.”Spanish original