MEXICO CITY (EFE).— The National Association of Circuit Magistrates and District Judges (Jufed) denounced that the Mexican judicial reform “compromises” the Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada (T-MEC) and violates the Economic Association Agreement with the European Community.
In a statement, the organization said that the reform, which dictates the election of judges through voting starting in 2025, represents a “serious democratic and legal setback.”
He pointed out that the reform, eliminate judicial independence, “seriously” compromises compliance with the international treaties signed by Mexico such as the T-MEC and the Economic Partnership Agreement, Political Concertation and Cooperation with the European Community and Member States.
The Jufed He specified that the reform, enacted on September 15, has “several worrying impacts,” among them, that does not respect specialization and competence of current courts in areas critical to trade agreements, such as tecommunications, intellectual property and environment.
This, he warnedmay affect Mexico’s ability to comply with its obligations under the T-MEC, which will be reviewed in 2026.
Furthermore, he pointed out that the independence and impartiality of the courts is at risk, which is a fundamental requirement of chapter 23 of the treaty.
“The lack of a reliable judicial system could erode investor confidence and discourage investment in the country,” he warned.
He recalled that the labor reform, approved in 2019, had represented progress towards the autonomous and specialized labor justice system, but judicial reform “destroys those achievements” by weakening the professionalization and specialization of judges.
Given this, they made a called “urgent” to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) to fulfill its “historical” responsibility to defend judicial independence.
Likewise, they urged the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to condemn this “democratic regression” for Mexico.
Related
#Judicial #Reform #Mexico #endangers #TMEC #warns #Jufed
Interview with Dr. Laura Chavez, Legal Expert and Commentator on International Treaties
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Chavez. The recent statement from the National Association of Circuit Magistrates and District Judges, known as Jufed, has caused quite a stir. Can you elaborate on their concerns regarding the Mexican judicial reform?
Dr. Chavez: Thank you for having me. Jufed raised significant alarms about the upcoming judicial reform, particularly its impact on the nomination and election of judges. They argue that allowing judges to be elected by popular vote, starting in 2025, undermines judicial independence, which is vital for maintaining a balanced legal system.
Editor: What do they mean when they say the reform compromises international treaties like T-MEC?
Dr. Chavez: The concern is that the reform could jeopardize compliance with international commitments like the T-MEC and the Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Community. These agreements are built on the premise of a stable and impartial judicial system. If judges are elected, this could lead to political pressures that compromise their ability to uphold the law fairly and without bias, consequently affecting Mexico’s credibility on the international stage.
Editor: Jufed described this reform as a “serious democratic and legal setback.” Why do you think they chose such strong language?
Dr. Chavez: Such language reflects their deep concern over the implications for democracy and the rule of law in Mexico. By removing the independence of the judiciary, they fear the country could slide toward a more politicized and less equitable legal process. Their assertion highlights not just the potential consequences for the legal framework but also the broader impacts on Mexican democracy.
Editor: What are the potential consequences if these reforms go ahead?
Dr. Chavez: If the reforms are enacted, we might see an erosion of public trust in the legal system. There’s also the risk of increased corruption, as judges may feel compelled to cater to political interests rather than serve justice. This could ultimately ripple out, affecting economic relationships and investments as foreign entities may be hesitant to engage with a less stable legal environment.
Editor: What do you think is the next step from here for Jufed and the Mexican government?
Dr. Chavez: Jufed will likely increase advocacy efforts to appeal to both the public and lawmakers about these concerns. They may seek to influence the legislative process or push for amendments that protect judicial independence. The Mexican government, on the other hand, must weigh the potential backlash of international partners against their domestic reform objectives. It’s a crucial moment for the country’s legal and democratic framework.
Editor: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Chavez. It seems like an important topic that will continue to evolve.
Dr. Chavez: Thank you for having me. It’s certainly a pivotal issue for Mexico and its international relations.
Potential impacts of this reform on investment and economic stability in Mexico?
Dr. Chavez: The implications are quite severe. A reliable and independent judicial system is crucial for instilling investor confidence. If investors perceive the courts as being compromised or susceptible to political influence, they may hesitate to invest in Mexico. This could lead to decreased foreign direct investment, which would have a ripple effect on economic growth and job creation. Furthermore, consistent and fair adjudication is essential for businesses to operate effectively. If the judicial system lacks credibility, it undermines the overall business environment in the country.
Editor: Jufed has made an urgent call to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. What role do you see the Supreme Court playing in this situation?
Dr. Chavez: The Supreme Court is tasked with upholding judicial independence and ensuring the rule of law. Their role is critical in safeguarding the judiciary against potential encroachments by other branches of government. Jufed’s appeal emphasizes the historical responsibility of the Supreme Court to protect judicial standards and independence. Any ruling or stance taken by the Court could significantly influence the trajectory of the reform process and the public’s trust in the judiciary.
Editor: Lastly, what do you think the international community’s response to this situation should be?
Dr. Chavez: The international community, particularly organizations like the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, must closely monitor these developments. They should vocalize their concerns and advocate for the protection of democratic norms and judicial independence in Mexico. Issuing statements condemning any actions that threaten these principles can serve as a reminder to the Mexican government of its international obligations and the significance of maintaining a robust judicial system. Their involvement can also provide additional pressure to ensure that reforms do not undermine the foundational principles of democracy and justice.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Chavez, for shedding light on this critical issue facing Mexico’s judiciary and its implications for international relations and investor confidence. We appreciate your insights.
Dr. Chavez: Thank you for having me. It’s a crucial topic, and I hope for a resolution that strengthens rather than weakens Mexico’s legal framework.
