Torture in Mexico

The federal law to prevent and penalize torture, enacted in 1986, was not effective in stopping and doing away with torture in Mexico. According to the author of this essay, this is due, among other reasons, to the fact that the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice considered that the initial statement of the accused should prevail over later, different statements. If this first statement was obtained under torture —something practically impossible to prove—, as in the case of psychological torture, the law was not doing its job; this is why it was repealed. The author states that, with the 1993 amendment to the Constitution, there is now a criminal process in which the accused has rights, like the fact that he cannot be made to declare; that all deprivation of communication, intimidation or torture are prohibited and penalized, and that confessions are only valid if they are made before the District Attorney’s Office or the judge, and with the assistance of defense counsel. In the author’s opinion, with the constitutional amendments and the establishment of human rights commissions (national or state), the defense of human rights in Mexico advances.