Analysis of limits in military court trials postponed

The plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared the invalidity of a paragraph of article 10 and five of the 43 Military Code of Criminal Procedures.

This, when beginning the analysis of the unconstitutionality action 46/2016 promoted by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) for which it demands the invalidity of the Decree that reforms, adds and repeals various provisions of the Code of Military Justice and the Military Code of Criminal Procedures is issued, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on May 16, 2016 under the presentation of Minister Luis María Aguilar Morales.

When exposing his draft sentence, the rapporteur proposed the invalidity of articles 10 and 43, in its first, second, third and fourth paragraphs, of the Military Code of Criminal Procedures, considering that there was no prior consultation.

“This determination is based on the fact that, although the plaintiff commission does not mention it in its concepts of invalidity, it is noted that the legislative process that culminated in the promulgation of the contested ordinance and, specifically with respect to the aforementioned precepts, exclusively in the normative portions contested, did not have a specific consultation”, he argued.

The second paragraph of article 10, which was declared invalid by nine votes out of eleven, establishes that “the authorities will ensure that whoever intervenes in criminal proceedings is guaranteed equality on the basis of equity in the exercise of their rights. In the case of people with limited capacities, reasonable adjustments to the procedure must be provided when required.

invalid portions

The first and second paragraphs of article 43, declared invalid by nine votes, specify:

“The procedural acts must be carried out in Spanish.

“When people do not speak or do not understand the Spanish language, a translator or interpreter must be provided, and they will be allowed to use their own language or language, as well as people who have some impediment to make themselves understood. The defendant may appoint a translator or interpreter of his trust, at his own expense.

The third and fourth, invalidated by 11 votes, order:

“If it is a person with some type of limited capacity, they have the right to be provided with an interpreter or those technological means that allow them to obtain the requested information in an understandable way or, in the absence of these, someone who knows how to communicate with them. she. In the acts of communication, the military courts must be certain that the person with limited capacity has been informed of the judicial decisions that they should know about and that they understand their scope. For this, the means that, depending on the case, guarantee that such understanding exists must be used.

“When at the well-founded request of the person with a disability, or in the opinion of the competent authority, it is necessary to adopt other measures to safeguard their right to be duly assisted, the person with a disability may receive assistance in terms of projected stenography, under the terms of the law of the matter, by a sign language interpreter or through any other means that allows a full understanding of each and every one of the actions.”

And the sixth, eliminated by ten votes, quotes:

“In the case of members of indigenous peoples or communities, they will be appointed an interpreter who has knowledge of their language and culture, even when they speak Spanish, if they so request.”

Earrings

The discussion on the matter will continue on the 27th. Some of the pending issues that remain to be discussed is the power for the military prosecutor’s office to issue orders for civilians to testify in military court trials.

And it is that, at the beginning, the project of Minister Aguilar considered delimiting that civilians cannot participate in military trials.

However, at least four ministers spoke out against said resolution, so Aguilar asked his peers for time to rebuild the project with the opinion of his plenary colleagues. (With editorial information)

rolando.ramos@eleconomista.mx