Previous 60 / 101 Next

SX-JE-3/2021 Y ACUMULADOS conductas prohibidas por tales tratados. Por ejemplo, la Convención Interamericana para Prevenir y Sancionar la Tortura y la Convención Interamericana para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar la Violencia contra la Mujer “Convención de Belém do Pará”. Así, este Tribunal ha establecido que los Estados tienen “el deber de garantizar el derecho de acceso a la justicia […] conforme a las obligaciones específicas que le imponen las Convenciones especializadas […] en materia de prevención y sanción de la tortura y de la violencia contra la mujer. [D]ichas disposiciones […] especifican y complementan las obligaciones que tiene el Estado con respecto al cumplimiento de los derechos consagrados en la Convención Americana”, así como “el corpus juris internacional en materia de protección de la integridad personal”.” 162. Los alcances del deber de debida diligencia son determinadas por la Corte Interamericana 35, conforme a lo siguiente. “293. La Corte considera que el deber de investigar efectivamente, siguiendo los estándares establecidos por el Tribunal […] tiene alcances adicionales cuando se trata de una mujer que sufre una muerte, maltrato o afectación a su libertad personal en el marco de un contexto general de violencia contra las mujeres. En similar sentido, la Corte Europea ha dicho que cuando un ataque es motivado por razones de raza, es particularmente importante que la investigación sea realizada con vigor e imparcialidad, teniendo en cuenta la necesidad de reiterar continuamente la condena de racismo por parte de la sociedad y para mantener la confianza de las minorías en la habilidad de las autoridades de protegerlas de la amenaza de violencia racial. El criterio anterior es totalmente aplicable al analizarse los alcances del deber de debida diligencia en la investigación de casos de violencia por razón de género.” Cfr. Caso González y otras (“Campo Algodonero”) Vs. México. Excepción Preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 16 de noviembre de 2009. 35 60

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

(Mexico) SX JE 0003 2021

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether there were procedural irregularities in the lower court’s decision based on the timeliness of the complaint and lack of notice by the court. Whether evidence from Facebook and WhatsApp demonstrating gender based political violence were illegally obtained and possess the truth and veracity it asserts.

Alleged Acts: Misogynistic behaviors were expressed through Facebook and WhatsApp by partisan state officials, which violated the human rights of the general secretary of a political party. Plaintiffs raise multiple procedural irregularities with the lower court’s decision. First, it is argued that the complaint was not filed within the four days provided for in the state electoral legislation and, therefore, should have been considered inadmissible because the act was consented to. Second, plaintiffs state that it was not notified of the summons in a personal way; rather, they were notified through social media channels such as Facebook. Third, plaintiffs argue it held an evidentiary hearing without notifying the parties. Finally, plaintiffs assert that the evidence taken into consideration by the local court was obtained unlawfully, violating plaintiff’s right to privacy, in addition to the fact that the proper chain of custody was not kept, nor the technical details of the mobile phone from which they were extracted.

Procedural history: Plaintiff contests the judgment issued by the Electoral Tribunal of the State of Campeche in the trials TEEC/JDC/15/2020 and its accumulated TEEC/JDC/18/2020, which among other issues, determined that members of the State Council of MORENA in Campeche exercised constitutive acts of political violence based on gender against the General Secretary of the party and consequently issued various measures of integral reparation; among them, the registration of the actors in the register of people sanctioned in matters of political violence against women on the basis of gender. Multiple appeals from members of the State Council of Campeche were joined due to each appeal focusing on the same controversy. The Federal Judiciary subsequently upheld the lower court’s ruling.

Summary: This Regional Chamber affirmed the contested sentence because the procedural irregularities alleged by the actors related to the timeliness of the lawsuit, the investigation of the local trial, and the legality of the evidence were unfounded and inoperative. The evidence from Facebook and WhatsApp was not obtained illegally because it was provided by one of the parties involved in the messages. Therefore, there was no constitutional violation to the right of privacy. Similarly, the statements related to the evidentiary value of the messages are unfounded because the principle of reversion—where the burden of proof falls on defendants to disprove the alleged human rights violations—was followed. Moreover, the reprehensible conducts were aimed at affecting the political and electoral rights of the victim due to her status as a woman.

Conclusion: Defendant’s claims were unfounded and inoperative

Legal Issue(s)

Gender

Applicable Law(s): Articles 755-758 of the Law of Institutions and Electoral Procedures for the State of Campeche

Region: Americas

Country: Mexico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: Local

Date of decision: Jan 21, 2021

Geolocation

Latitude: 19.43318644

Longitude: -99.13401778

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

SX-JE-0003-2021.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

(Mexico) SX JE 0003 2021

Primary Documents

Notifications