Mexico United Against Crime (MUCD) considered that the authorities should impose clear limits on military jurisdiction and prevent the Army from calling civilians as witnesses or experts in military jurisdiction trials; request interventions in private communications and classify investigative information as confidential, among other actions.
In a statement, MUCD warned that, after the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation will begin on March 14 to discuss the action of unconstitutionality 46/2016, filed by the National Human Rights Commission, the seriousness of the issue would increase if what was discussed is approved, since military justice would violate the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
The organization considered that civilians should not be involved in military trials, since Army regulations are only in charge of monitoring compliance with these and not providing justice to victims.
Differences between jurisdictions
Cristina Reyes, MUCD’s director of strategic litigation, stated that the objective of military judges is always to safeguard order and military discipline.
While civil justice has the objective of “judging impartially, maintaining independence, the principles of true justice and protection of Human Rights.”
Due to this, it considered that the intervention of civilian judges is necessary to guarantee that fundamental guarantees are protected, even to assess that the participation of civilians is necessary in a case that concerns military jurisdiction.
He argued that, if it were human rights violations, the case should be brought to the ordinary courts, due to the seriousness of the crime.
