La Jornada: Alfredo Mendez
The recent criterion adopted by the majority of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), that any person accused of a crime must be advised by an attorney, and not just by a person they trust, from the moment they render their first statement to the authorities of the Public Ministry [investigative police], opened the door for thousands of convicted criminals to seek review of their convictions because many of these decisions were based on statements rendered to ministerial police without a lawyer present, said criminal lawyers Martin Alonso Millán, Alberto Guerrero Rojas and Rogelio Garza García.
Figures compiled by the Federal Judicial Council (CJF) reported that just between February and May of this year--before the Court established this criterion, but after the immediate release of French citizen Florence Cassez due to violations of due process--at least 3,500 offenders have filed amparo suits [appeals] alleging violations of their constitutional rights, their human rights and/or international treaties and conventions.
Although several of these plaintiffs acknowledge in their own suits that they aren't innocent of the crimes with which they were charged, the foundation of their arguments rests on alleged violations of due process, the right to a hearing, or to the fact that during their appearance before the investigative police or public prosecutor they were not accompanied by counsel.... Spanish original
MV Note: In 2008 the Mexican Constitution was amended to change the criminal trial system from an inquisitorial one--in which prosecution and defense submit evidentiary documents to a judge who decides, in private, on the accused's guilt or innocence--to an adversarial system of public, oral trials in which the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and in which prosecution and defense present their arguments and witnesses testify. There are no juries. Judges continue to decide cases. By law the adversarial system is to be implemented by 2016; to date, however, it has been implemented in fewer than half the states. The issue before the Supreme Court is how to handle cases tried after passage of the legal reform, but before its implementation.