Publication: Configuración constitucional de la jurisdicción penal militar en tiempo de paz. El caso de México
Loading...
Files
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2017-06-08
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
La sentencia pronunciada en el caso Radilla Pacheco por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, condenó a México por violaciones graves a los derechos humanos por hechos cometidos por el Ejército durante la “guerra sucia” en la década de 1970. La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, asumió el compromiso por parte del Estado mexicano de darle cumplimiento a la sentencia de la Corte de San José. Se ordenó la apertura del expediente varios 912/2010. Su contenido da inicio a un cambio sin precedentes en el ejercicio de la función jurisdiccional. Interpretó la Constitución en el sentido de que todos los jueces del país, sin importar su ámbito competencial, debían realizar un control ex oficio de convencionalidad y, por ende, de constitucionalidad. Los estándares internacionales establecen que los tribunales militares deben de cumplir con los mismos principios que rigen a los órganos comunes de administración de justicia. La independencia, imparcialidad y objetividad debían respetarse por parte de los tribunales castrenses. Además, su ámbito competencial debía restringirse a efecto de evitar que tanto la Procuraduría General de Justicia Militar y los jueces militares y, en su momento, los consejos de guerra, resolvieran casos en los que se hubiesen violado los derechos humanos de los civiles. La sentencia del caso Radilla establece claramente que el fuero militar no puede ser juez y parte, cuando los integrantes de las Fuerzas Armadas violan los derechos humanos de la población civil. La competencia de los órganos del fuero de guerra, debe ser restrictiva y abocarse al conocimiento de delitos de naturaleza estrictamente castrense. Cuando los jueces militares conozcan un asunto donde exista la posibilidad de que la conducta reprochada al justiciable produjo daños colaterales que afectaron derechos humanos de civiles, deben declinar la competencia en favor de la justicia federal o local, según corresponda...
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled the Case Radilla- Pacheco v. Mexico in November 23, 2009. The judgment stated that México is responsible for the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, acknowledged by the American Convention on Human Rights and by the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The backgrounds refer to the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla- Pacheco, which occurred since August 25, 1974, in the hands of members of the Army in the State of Guerrero, Mexico. The reason argued was because he composed "corridos", popular songs related to notorious events. He continues to be missing until today. The Mexican Authorities have not established the whereabouts of the victim nor have his remains been found. Mexico produced the answer to the complaint and challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, arguing that the death and torture of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco occurred prior to the date of ratification of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on 1998, since as of the date of his detention, on 1974; this argument did not prevail. Mexico also argued that military jurisdiction is legally acknowledged in Mexico and that the term “military jurisdiction” included in the Constitution does not imply a privilege or for the members of the armed forces, but a specialized jurisdiction that hears of the offenses and crimes against military discipline. In that sense, it indicated that Article 13 of the Constitution refers to the persons accused of a crime and not to the alleged victims, thus when a civilian is the victim of a crime committed by a soldier, the competent authority to prosecute the crime are the military courts. The response to the complaint was insufficient and the arguments did not comply with the international standards of military justice. Obviously the result was in disfavor of Mexico...
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled the Case Radilla- Pacheco v. Mexico in November 23, 2009. The judgment stated that México is responsible for the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, acknowledged by the American Convention on Human Rights and by the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The backgrounds refer to the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla- Pacheco, which occurred since August 25, 1974, in the hands of members of the Army in the State of Guerrero, Mexico. The reason argued was because he composed "corridos", popular songs related to notorious events. He continues to be missing until today. The Mexican Authorities have not established the whereabouts of the victim nor have his remains been found. Mexico produced the answer to the complaint and challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, arguing that the death and torture of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco occurred prior to the date of ratification of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on 1998, since as of the date of his detention, on 1974; this argument did not prevail. Mexico also argued that military jurisdiction is legally acknowledged in Mexico and that the term “military jurisdiction” included in the Constitution does not imply a privilege or for the members of the armed forces, but a specialized jurisdiction that hears of the offenses and crimes against military discipline. In that sense, it indicated that Article 13 of the Constitution refers to the persons accused of a crime and not to the alleged victims, thus when a civilian is the victim of a crime committed by a soldier, the competent authority to prosecute the crime are the military courts. The response to the complaint was insufficient and the arguments did not comply with the international standards of military justice. Obviously the result was in disfavor of Mexico...
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Derecho, leída el 19/01/2016