SCJN postpones until Thursday the debate on informal preventive detention

For the third time, the plenary session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) discussed -the resolution of the matter was postponed until next Thursday- the actions of unconstitutionality promoted by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) and senators on matters of informal pretrial detentionbased on a new project prepared by the rapporteur minister Luis María Aguilar Morales.

Of the four ministers who intervened in the debate, Jorge Pardo, Yasmín Esquivel and Alberto Pérez Dayán spoke out against the project in relation to interpreting the unofficial preventive detention, established in article 19 of the Constitution, as a non-automatic precautionary measure. .

Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá said he agreed with the interpretation of article 19 of the Constitution made by Minister Aguilar Morales and with declaring the invalidity of articles article 167, seventh paragraph, of the National Code of Criminal Proceduresand article 5, section XIII, of the National Security Lawfor misusing the category of “crimes that threaten national security”, in the case of tax crimes or the issuance, sale, purchase or acquisition of apocryphal or fictitious tax receipts, as an element to justify the imposition of a precautionary measure of informal pretrial detention.

Pardo considered it unnecessary to interpret Article 19 of the Constitution, which was not challenged by the complainants, he explained, in order to resolve the unconstitutionality of the referred articles of the contested secondary legislation, with which he agrees.

For Esquivel it is not necessary to interpret the article 19 of the Constitution for the resolution of the case, and he spoke out against the proposed interpretation because, from his point of view, informal preventive detention is not contrary to the presumption of innocence.

The draft judgment maintains that in order to reconcile and harmonize the human rights that are linked to informal preventive detention, it is necessary to interpret article 19 of the Constitution together with the rest of the fundamental rights, principles and constitutional guidelines, in order to maintain coherence in the Mexican legal system and, in this way, avoid the formation of antinomies and the restriction of human rights.

“In this way, informal preventive detention should be understood as a non-automatic precautionary measure. The informal nature of the precautionary measure only means that it is a modality in which the criminal judge must open the debate to determine if the imposition of preventive detention is justified, without the need for the Public Ministry to have requested the precautionary measure. ‘, date.

The discussion of the matter will continue this Thursday, November 24.

rolando.ramos@eleconomista.mx