The abolition of the death penalty is a gradual and heterogeneous process. This happened in the following States on the dates indicated: The circumstances in which the femicides of Ingrid Escamilla and the child ± were committed in Mexico City led some senators to analyze the advantages ©and disadvantages of the use of the death penalty in the country. During the open debate, it was stated that the death penalty could not be reintroduced into Mexican law in view of the absolute prohibitions set forth in article 4, paragraph 3, of the American Convention on Human Rights of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. on the abolition of the death penalty, and the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. all signed and ratified by Mexico. The National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), in accordance with the recognition of the privileges enshrined in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, monitors the cases of Mexicans sentenced to death abroad and helps to prevent their use and invokes the right to commutation of sentence. enshrined in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Later, the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1917 reinstated Article 23 of its predecessor and made it number 22 with slight barely noticeable changes. “The death penalty for political offences is also prohibited”, the text in question prohibits and immediately introduces the corresponding reservations, “and as far as others are concerned, it can be imposed on the traitor to the fatherland only in a foreign war, against the parricide, against the murderer with treason, intent and advantage, against the arsonist, against the plagiarist, against the highwayman, against the highwayman and against others only against the traitor to the fatherland in a foreign war.
Pirates and persons convicted of serious military crimes.” [6] Although states have generally banned the death penalty since 1975, former President Vicente Fox did not abolish the death penalty and all forms of torture in Mexico until 2005. Thus, in a context of pain and natural social demand, two political parties that identify with left-wing ideologies have abused their political power in an abusive and dubious way to promote opportunistic initiatives that, under the guise of a false will to fight against impunity and violence, appeal to the sense of urgency of justice to present the death penalty as a necessary solution to put an end to our ills. On December 9, 2005, President Vicente Fox abolished the death penalty and sent the following message to the nation: In this proposal, the death penalty was also©envisaged for drug traffickers, femicides, kidnappers and rapists. The pact was signed by the country in 1969 (but approved by the Senate until 1980) and establishes restrictions on the death penalty in countries that have signed it. In the spring of 1764, Cesare Bonesana, better known as the noble Marquis of Beccaria, published the treatise on crimes and punishments. “The death penalty is not useful,” says paragraph XXVIII, “because of the example it sets for men of atrocities. If passions or the necessity of war have learned to shed human blood, laws which moderate the behavior of men themselves should not exalt this ferocious document, which is all the more fatal, when legal death occurs with quiet study and formality. 1 Therefore, the death penalty, understood as the reserved capacity of a sovereign State to deprive a person of life, has led to a long race to its own extinction. In 1657, the new Magna Carta abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Article 77 provides that “the death penalty shall not be imposed in the State for an offence within its jurisdiction”. In recent days, deputies from the parliamentary groups of the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico (PAEM) and MORENA have presented a constitutional reform initiative aimed at “removing constitutional obstacles to the introduction of the death penalty in Mexico and adapting the provisions relating to its application”.
Proposals have also been put forward in various local parliaments and interventions have been made along the same lines. In this context, it should be noted that this is not an unprecedented situation, as similar reform initiatives have been promoted in the recent past. Given this scenario, it is worth making some initial reflections on the legislative nonsense that is being promoted. Ricardo Monreal, coordinator of Senators Morena, spoke out against the measure, calling the death penalty “barbaric.” In Mexico, far from what is often assumed, the death penalty was abolished only in 2005 with a reform of article 22 of the Constitution. Thus, it appeared, with certain nuances, in the constitutions (federal or centralist) and in the penal codes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Typically, its mere presence has led to a heated debate among the country`s most prominent philosophers and intellectuals for nearly two centuries. contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1929, however, the death penalty reappeared in the political constitution of the United Mexican States. However, the criminal sanction was abolished and its application at the federal level, including in the then Federal District, now Mexico City, was excluded.
Subsequently, each of the States gradually abolished the death penalty. The same scenario could be repeated if the Inter-American Court or the Commission on Human Rights were to ask Mexico not to apply the provision authorizing the death penalty because it violates its obligations under the American Convention and its Protocol, as interpreted by the CSJN in Miscellaneous 1396/2011. In this way, challenging the death penalty by fighting the act of application seems unlikely to succeed, even in the scenario where an Inter-American Court verdict is rendered.3 Despite legislative issues, the death penalty was retained in many cases because there was no international pressure. The last official executions in Mexico took place in 1961 in the state of Coahuila. The convict was a soldier named José Isaías Constante Laureano, accused of insubordination and murder of superiors. International bans are not a guarantee. It is therefore important to immediately and rigorously pursue any attempt to initiate the next steps in the legislative process to enshrine the death penalty in our Constitution. The intention to reinstate the death penalty is hate speech and a form of incitement to violence, as it is a call for destruction by the state. We cannot allow this to happen. As a decorative element of civil justice,11 the death penalty has thus been abolished in practice rather than in statutory law.
The signing of various multilateral treaties (e.g. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and the intense consular activity in favour of pardon for nationals convicted abroad have made Mexico, by insisting on it, an unconditional promoter of abolitionism and at the same time a determined enemy of detention in the West. to create absolute silence on the possible return of its territory and to further prohibit the inclusion of this issue on the agenda of the open debate. EP The Penal Code for the Federal District and the Territory of Baja California on common law crimes and for the whole Republic on crimes against the Federation, whose authorship is generally attributed to the Sonoran jurist Antonio Martínez de Castro and whose decree dates from 7 December 1871, was extinguished by article 144, for women and men over the age of seventy. Although he was freed from any unnecessary force, he kept him in the rest of the hypothetical horizon if the violation warranted it.
Comments are closed.