Global Integrity Report

The Global Integrity Report (report.globalintegrity.org)

Mexico Home

Timeline

Notebook

Integrity Scorecard

2009 Assessment

Mexico: Integrity Indicators Scorecard

Mexico: Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Judicial Accountability
Indicators		Score
36	Are judges appointed fairly?	58
37	Can members of the judiciary be held accountable for their actions?	67
38	Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest for the national-level judiciary?	64
39	Can citizens access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary?	6

Indicator and sub-Indicator Details

Are judges appointed fairly?

36a: In law, there is a transparent procedure for selecting national-level judges.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: There is a competitive selection process for judges, as per articles 112-117 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial de la Federación.

36b: In practice, professional criteria are followed in selecting national-level judges.

Score:

100

Comments: It is very difficult to get around the legal procedures for selecting national-level judges. Favoritism is prevalent, but this only affects the decision between candidates who all formally comply with the legal requirements.

References: Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

36c: In law, there is a confirmation process for national-level judges (i.e. conducted by the legislature or an independent body).

Score:

YES

Comments: Only Supreme Court justices have to be approved by the Senate. Other judges have to be approved by the Consejo de la Judicatura, but this commission is not really independent since it is presided over by the president of the Supreme Court and a majority of its members are from the judiciary.

References: Article 81, fracc. VII of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial de la Federación and Article 76 fracc. II.

The Constitution, Article 97.

Peer Review Comments: There is no fracc. II in article 76 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial de la Federación.

Can members of the judiciary be held accountable for their actions?

37a: In law, members of the national-level judiciary are obliged to give reasons for their decisions.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Reasons for decisions must be given since all judicial decisions can be appealed to a higher level. The decisions can be consulted online or through a formal request.

37b: In practice, members of the national-level judiciary give reasons for their decisions.

Score:

100

Comments: Reasons for judicial decisions are always given, but there is a wide variety in the quality and the depth of them. Most of them can be viewed on the Internet.

References: Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

37c: In law, there is a disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) for the national-level judicial system.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Constitutional articles 94, 97, 99 and 100 (Consejo de la Judicatura Federal)

37d: In law, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is protected from political interference.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: The Consejo de la Judicatura is controlled by members of the judiciary itself, presided over by the president of the Supreme Court.

Constitution, Article 100.

Peer Review Comments: Although the Council of the Federal Judgeship (in Spanish, Consejo de la Judicatura Federal) is not independent from the Supreme Court, it is independent from executive ministries and legislative committees. The scoring criteria is confusing: Does it means independence only from the other branches of government? Or also from other bodies within the judiciary?

37e: In practice, when necessary, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) initiates investigations.

Score:

100

$Scoring Criteria :: 100 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) aggressively starts investigations -- or participates fully with cooperating agencies\' investigations -- into judicial misconduct. The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is fair in its application of this power. 50 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) will start or cooperate in investigations, but often relies on external pressure to set priorities, or has limited effectiveness when investigating. The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism), though limited in effectiveness, is still fair in its application of power. 0 Score Criteria: The judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) rarely investigates on its own or cooperates in other agencies\' investigations, or the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) is partisan in its application of this power.$

Comments: In Mexico, there have been several accusations of corruption regarding the judicial system; however, there have been very few convictions. The Council of the Federal Judgeship is ineffective in terms of initiating investigations.

References: Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, of the Mexican Judicial system.

Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

Peer Review Comments: The United Nations report was done in 2001. It might be outdated for a contemporary analysis.

37f: In practice, when necessary, the judicial disciplinary agency (or equivalent mechanism) imposes penalties on offenders.

Score:

100

Comments: In Mexico, there have been several accusations of corruption in the judicial system; however, the Council of Federal Judgeship has rarely imposed any penalty.

References: Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, of the Mexican Judicial system.

Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

Peer Review Comments: The United Nations report was done in 2001. It might be outdated for a contemporary analysis.

Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest for the national-level judiciary?

38a: In law, members of the national-level judiciary are required to file an asset disclosure form.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Ley Federal de Responsabilidades Administrativas de los Servidores Públicos, Article 36.

38b: In law, there are regulations governing gifts and hospitality offered to members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Ley Federal de Responsabilidades Admnistrativas de lso Servidores Públicos, Article 8.

38c: In law, there are requirements for the independent auditing of the asset disclosure forms of members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: Asset declarations are held by the internal comptroller, and no external audit is mandated.

38d: In law, there are restrictions for national-level judges entering the private sector after leaving the government.

Score:

YES

$Scoring Criteria :: YES: A YES score is earned if there are regulations restricting national-level judges\' ability to take positions in the private sector after leaving government that would present a conflict of interest, including positions that directly seek to influence their former government colleagues. NO: A NO score is earned if no such restrictions exist.$

Comments:

References: Ley Federal de Responsabilidades Administrativas de los Servidores Públicos, Articles 8 & 9.

38e: In practice, the regulations restricting post-government private sector employment for national-level judges are effective.

Score:

100

Comments: The career track for judges in the private sector is strong. The problem is not with their post-government employment, but corruption while they are in office.

References: Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

38f: In practice, the regulations governing gifts and hospitality offered to members of the national-level judiciary are effective.

Score:

100

Comments: There are endemic problems with corruption in the judiciary. Miguel Carbonell, in his report "Corruption in Mexico´s Judiciary 2007", clearly states that "Mexico's justice system reacts oddly when dealing with criminals involved in organised crime, especially drug trafficking. Since drug trafficking is a federal crime, it must be addressed by judges from the federal jurisdiction. This leaves the fight against drug trafficking in the hands of a very few people who are therefore more vulnerable to corruption."

In a more recent scandal, in September 22, 2009, the newspaper El Universal published an extensive report on corruption in the judicial system. The following is a summary of that report:

"Una investigación hecha por el Consejo de la Judicatura Federal, a raíz de una denuncia que promovió un ex trabajador, permitió demostrar que en juzgados y tribunales federales ubicados en Yucatán laboran familiares de todo nivel, de al menos siete magistrados y 3 juezas.

Se trata de un caso, que, en opinión de académicos y juristas, corrobora el dicho que ubica al Poder Judicial como la Gran Familia o la Familia Judicial; y que es tan sólo la muestra de lo que ocurre a nivel nacional en todos los juzgados y tribunales, en donde los hijos, las nueras, los yernos, los sobrinos, las esposas, y, claro, hasta los compadres de los impartidores de justicia abundan.

Pero en el que el Consejo de la Judicatura Federal considera que no es posible sancionar a los funcionarios judiciales porque no violaron ninguna norma, debido a que sus familiares fueron contratados y laboran en los juzgados y tribunales de sus compañeros, y no en los que ellos dirigen.

En otras palabras, en opinión del Consejo, lo que internamente es visto como un tráfico disfrazado de plazas, un trueque o un intercambio de lugares entre juzgadores, mediante el cual se burla la prohibición de contratar a familiares en sus propios tribunales, actualmente no puede ser sancionado.

Ante tal motivo, al conocer este mismo caso, la Comisión Nacional de Ética Judicial, un organismo de reciente creación que agrupa a todos los impartidores de justicia, locales y federales, emitió una recomendación en la que le pidió al Consejo de la Judicatura Federal prohibir y sancionar este tipo de prácticas.

Dicha comisión, que, de manera paradójica, es presidida por el propio presidente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y del Consejo, le solicitó a la Judicatura que incluya una norma que prohíba todo acuerdo o compromiso entre los magistrados de circuito o los jueces de distrito para nombrar recíprocamente, al cónyuge o familiares del otro en sus tribunales.

Los acuerdos entre impartidores de justicia para intercambiar plazas con salarios que van desde los 20 mil hasta los 80 mil pesos, es un secreto que todo mundo conoce en el Poder Judicial de la Federación, asegura un magistrado de circuito que pide el anonimato y que afirma que, incluso, quienes no se suman a esta práctica son mal vistos y aislados."

References: Miguel Carbonell, "Corruption in Mexico´s Judiciary," 2007 Transparency International Report, UN Cumaraswamy report.

Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

Peer Review Comments: The comments provided by the researcher deal with corruption in the judiciary as a whole, but barely touches the specific issue that the indicator is trying to assess. Besides, the example the researcher cites from the newspaper is in one state, therefore we are not necessarily dealing with members of the national-level judiciary.

I agree that there might not be an effective mechanism to monitor the enforcement of the the regulations governing gifts and hospitality offered to members of the national-level judiciary.

38g: In practice, national-level judiciary asset disclosures are audited.

Score:

100

Comments: No external review of national-level judiciary asset disclosures has been mandated or carried out. As I undestand, by "external review" we mean that the audit is performed by an independent entity of the Judicial branch. Therefore, the internal comptroller is not necessary an "independent" entity.

References: Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

Peer Review Comments: What is meant by external review? Does the the internal comptroller use generally accepted auditing practices when auditing the national-level judiciary asset disclosures?

Can citizens access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary?

39a: In law, citizens can access the asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary.

Score:

YES

Comments: Asset disclosure records of members of the national-level judiciary are only accessible when explicitly authorized by the public servant himself.

References: Ley Federal de Responsabilidades Administrativas de los Servidores Públicos, Article 40 .

Peer Review Comments: Also relevant are articles 3 fracc. XIV c) and e), and 13 fracc. IV of the Federal Access to Information and Transparency Law (Ley Federal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública Gubernamental). The latter article states that information that puts in jeopardy the safety or health of an individual will be considered reserved or confidential. This is the relevant article because it can be argued that public asset disclosures could be used by kidnappers to gather useful information and target civil servants.

39b: In practice, citizens can access judicial asset disclosure records within a reasonable time period.

Score:

100

Comments: Judicial asset disclosure records are only accessible when explicitly authorized by the public servant himself.

References: Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

39c: In practice, citizens can access judicial asset disclosure records at a reasonable cost.

Score:

100

Comments: The costs of accessing judicial asset disclosure records are prohibitive to most citizens, journalists, or CSOs.

References: Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

39d: In practice, the asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary are of high quality.

Score:

100

$Scoring Criteria :: 100 Score Criteria: The asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary are complete and detailed, providing the public with an accurate and updated accounting of the individuals\' sources of income, investments, and other financial interests. 50 Score Criteria: The asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary contain some useful information but may be lacking important details, including politically sensitive investment or other financial arrangements in which the individual has an interest. 0 Score Criteria: The asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary are overly general, lack any meaningful detail, and do not provide a clear accounting of the individuals\' sources of income, investments, and other financial assets.$

Comments: For all practical purposes, the asset disclosure records of the national-level judiciary are not available.

References: Interview with Alejandro Posadas, Professor and Researcher of the Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).

Interview with Leonardo Curzio, Political Analyst and Professor of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

Peer Review Comments: You can ask the dates on which the asset disclosures were submitted. This information is not completely useless. Therefore I think a score of 25 is warranted.

There is a case where an information request for the asset disclosures of several public servants was denied by the IFAI because of the confidentiality clause; however, the response does include a table showing the dates that the asset disclosures of these public servants were submitted, along with the types of disclosures. This 2006 IFAI resolution is available at [ LINK ].