Previous 69 / 115 Next

278 De manera particular, en el informe “Violencia contra las personas LGBTI” de la CIDH ha señalado que las obligaciones de los Estados no sólo se limitan a investigar, juzgar y sancionar crímenes en contra de las personas LGBTI, sino que además deben garantizar el acceso pleno a la justicia, la adopción de medidas legislativas para erradicar la discriminación, prevenir la violencia y garantizar su plena inclusión en la sociedad. 279 Como puede advertirse, las personas LGBTI enfrentan diversos obstáculos en el ejercicio de todo tipo de derechos: el acceso a la educación, al empleo, a la salud e incluso, respecto del mismo proceso de desarrollo de la identidad, encuentran barreras motivadas por prejuicios sociales u omisiones legales, que provienen de la valoración positiva que se da a la heterosexualidad; así como a la presunta congruencia que debería existir entre la identidad de género de una persona y el sexo asignado al nacer. 280 En la opinión consultiva OC-24/17, la CoIDH[70] reiteró su jurisprudencia en el sentido de que la orientación sexual y la identidad de género son categorías protegidas por la Convención Americana y que el cambio de nombre, la adecuación de la imagen, así como la rectificación a la mención de sexo o género, en los registros y documentos de identidad para que sean acordes con la identidad de género auto-percibida es un derecho protegido por la Convención.[71] 281 En efecto, la CoIDH ha reiterado que la identidad sexo-genérica se encuentra ligada al concepto de libertad y a la posibilidad de todo ser humano de autodeterminarse y escoger libremente las opciones y circunstancias que le dan sentido a su existencia, conforme a sus propias convicciones, así como al derecho a la protección de la vida privada[72]. 282 Así, partiendo de que la identidad sexo-genérica de las personas es una de las manifestaciones fundamentales de la libertad de conciencia, del derecho a la vida privada y del libre desarrollo de la personalidad, la tesis de la que parte esta Sala Superior es que la autoadscripción es el único elemento para determinar la identidad de las personas y el Estado no puede cuestionarla ni solicitar prueba alguna al respecto. Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mexico SUP JDC 304 2018

Judgment

Question Presented: The High Chamber of the confirmed the validity of the candidacy of two transgender people (muxes in the state of Oaxaca) to occupy public posts reserved for women and revoked the registration of 15 male candidates.

Alleged Acts: On April, 2018, the Institute for Elections and Citizen Participation of Oaxaca (IEEPCO) approved to register 19 people who were self-identified as muxes or transgender, as female candidates for legislative and municipal offices within the gender quotas for women . However, the muxe community of Oaxaca considered that, out of the 19 candidacies, 17 of them were fraudulent since they were only pretending to be transgender. Based on these arguments, members of the muxe community filed a complaint with IEEPCO, against these 17 candidacies. The IEEPCO analyzed the arguments of the claim and, after obtaining some evidence on the gender identity with which these 17 candidates conducted themselves socially, opted to cancel the registration, considering that there were irregularities and that, in its opinion, they were men who had self-identified as transgender women .

Summary: In the ruling SUP-JDC-304/2018 and accumulated dated June 21, 2018, the High Chamber defined two determinant issues: the requirements that the State can demand to any person in order to: 1) prove their gender identity and 2) to access to gender quotas in electoral matters and the measures that the authorities can (and should) adopt to verify the gender identity of a person in order to avoid the fraudulent use of gender quotas. The High Chamber ruled that it is enough to inform the respective authority the gender self-identification with a manifestation that clearly indicates the intent of the person in question. They reached this conclusion for two reasons: due to the application of the principle of progressiveness and to provide the principle of parity or substantive equality a useful and non-discriminatory effect. First, the High Chamber considered that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1st; 4th; 35th, section II; and, 41th, fourth paragraph of the Constitution, all authorities in Mexico, within the scope of their authority, have the obligation to protect and guarantee human rights, which include legal gender equality, the right to stand for election, and the prohibition of the discrimination of a person due to their gender.

Conclusion: The Electoral Tribunal realized that, as the muxe community had stated, 15 of those 17 candidates had tried to register first as men, but not getting the registration because the male gender quota was already covered, they decided to self-identify as transgender women. For this reason, the High Chamber considered that these 15 applications were contradictory with the second manifestation of self-identification arising from the request made by the IEEPCO. Therefore, independently of the express manifestation of these 15 people self-identifying to the transsexual gender, the High Chamber ordered the cancellation of the registration of these candidacies and ordered to replace them with 15 women.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Gender
Quotas

Region: Americas

Country: Mexico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 21, 2018

Geolocation

Latitude: 19.433186441267804

Longitude: -99.13401777615888

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Mexico- SUP-JDC-304-2018.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Mexico SUP JDC 304 2018

Primary Documents

Notifications