Previous 10 / 115 Next

31 Durante la sustanciación de los presentes juicios ciudadanos, se recibió en esta Sala Superior, el escrito amicus curiae signado por Amaranta Gómez Regalado, quien se identifica como integrante de la comunidad muxe en Oaxaca, con la finalidad de hacer diversas manifestaciones que coadyuven con la resolución del presente asunto. 32 El amicus curiae es una figura jurídica que tiene su origen en el derecho romano, que ha sido adoptada por ciertos tribunales internacionales, como el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, la Corte Constitucional de la República Sudafricana y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. 33 La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos ha dado entrada a escritos de amicus curiae presentados por personas físicas y jurídicas en relación con los asuntos de su conocimiento[5] y, de manera particular se reconoce a la referida figura jurídica como la persona o institución ajena al litigio y al proceso, que presenta a la Corte razonamientos en torno a los hechos contenidos en el sometimiento del caso o formula consideraciones jurídicas sobre la materia del proceso, a través de un documento o de un alegato en audiencia a favor de una mejor administración de justicia.[6] 34 Por su parte, esta Sala Superior ha señalado en la tesis de jurisprudencia 8/2018 de rubro: “AMICUS CURIAE. ES ADMISIBLE EN LOS MEDIOS DE IMPUGNACIÓN EN MATERIA ELECTORAL”[7] que los escritos de amicus curiae son admisibles en los medios de impugnación en materia electoral para allegar legislación o jurisprudencia foránea o nacional, doctrina jurídica o del contexto, y coadyuvar a generar argumentos en sentencias relacionadas con el respeto, protección y garantía de derechos fundamentales o temas jurídicamente relevantes y que los argumentos planteados no son vinculantes, pero implican una herramienta de participación en un estado democrático de derecho, para allegar de conocimientos especializados a los órganos jurisdiccionales sobre aspectos de interés y trascendencia en la vida política y jurídica de una Nación. 35 Además, ha establecido que su admisión será procedente, siempre que el escrito: a. Sea presentado antes de la resolución del asunto; 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