The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has ruled against Mexico for violating the human rights of two indigenous women who were raped by Mexican soldiers in 2002. The decision analyzed the constitutionality of article 57 of Mexico’s Military Code. Now, however, the Mexican Supreme Court, in plenary session, has decided not to evaluate either the constitutionality of the provision or its compliance with the American Convention on Human Rights.
As amended last year, article 57 provides that military courts have jurisdiction over ordinary crimes, but that cases involving the violation of the rights of a civilian by the military must be brought in the civilian courts. Given the provision's new wording, its constitutionality and compliance with decisions of the IACHR is in dispute.
The majority decided that the Supreme Court should only analyze the obligations of the Judicial Power of the Federation in order to comply with the decision of the IACHR, but not to go beyond its powers. However, the Court has resolved to attract legal actions filed in the military courts against the constitutionality of the country’s military justice system.
The dissenting judges argued that the full court, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, should have decided whether last year's revision of article 57 complies with the IACHR's decision.
You can read more on this here.
As amended last year, article 57 provides that military courts have jurisdiction over ordinary crimes, but that cases involving the violation of the rights of a civilian by the military must be brought in the civilian courts. Given the provision's new wording, its constitutionality and compliance with decisions of the IACHR is in dispute.
The majority decided that the Supreme Court should only analyze the obligations of the Judicial Power of the Federation in order to comply with the decision of the IACHR, but not to go beyond its powers. However, the Court has resolved to attract legal actions filed in the military courts against the constitutionality of the country’s military justice system.
The dissenting judges argued that the full court, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, should have decided whether last year's revision of article 57 complies with the IACHR's decision.
You can read more on this here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).