Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Introduction
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Law
International Law

The pro personae principle and its application by Mexican courts

Profile image of Hayde Rodarte BerberaHayde Rodarte Berbera

2017, Queen Mary Human Rights Law Review

Abstract

This article investigates the development and application of the pro personae principle – also known as the pro homine principle – both internationally and in the context of Mexico. It argues that the principle is a potential tool for advancing the realisation of human rights but that in the context of Mexico its application is still fraught with problems. Since the incorporation of the pro personae principle into the Mexican constitution did not modify the supreme clause of the land, nor change the distribution of legal powers among the judiciary, Mexican judges are unable to utilise the principle as broadly and consistently as it has been used in the international arena. This article concludes that the pro personae principle has neither resolved the debate about the hierarchy of human rights treaties in Mexico nor commanded the direct execution of human rights treaties by the judiciary. Rather, the principle represents an urgent calling for Mexican judges to become acquainted with the norms and institutions of international human rights law and to utilise them as much as their legal powers permit.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the implications of the pro personae principle in Mexican courts' jurisprudence?add

The pro personae principle has been adopted as a methodology to enhance human rights protections, increasing the interpretative flexibility of legal norms in Mexican judiciary decisions since its 2011 constitutional incorporation.

How did the incorporation of the pro personae principle change international law applicability in Mexico?add

The constitutional amendment of June 2011 aimed to render human rights treaties part of Mexico's legal framework, allowing judges to prioritize human rights norms over conflicting national laws.

Why do some Mexican courts show resistance to fully applying the pro personae principle?add

Many courts face institutional barriers such as the supremacy clause, limiting their ability to override domestic law in favor of international human rights treaties despite the pro personae principle.

What challenges did the Supreme Court of Mexico state regarding the pro personae principle?add

The SCJN acknowledged conflicting interpretations of the pro personae principle and the supremacy clause, highlighting judges' limitations in performing control of constitutionality and conventionality.

In what ways has the pro personae principle expanded the interpretation of human rights norms?add

The SCJN has used the pro personae principle to extend rights such as collective property among indigenous peoples and the right to change one's name, aligning with a broader understanding of human rights.

Related papers

Resenha de "Provisional Measures in the Case Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, de Clara Burbano Herrera
Michael F Mohallem

Human Rights Law Review, vol. 17, no. 2, 2011

View PDFchevron_right
GRAVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE CASE OF MEXICO
Dorothy Estrada-Tanck

Ciencia Jurídica, Universidad de Guanajuato, División de Derecho, Política y Gobierno, Departamento de Derecho (Mexico), 2019

The UN international legal framework on grave human rights violations and crimes against humanity has developed in recent years, to the degree of an initiative for an autonomous treaty on crimes against humanity. Mexico has undergone several Constitutional and legal reforms accepting the priority and legal supremacy of international human rights instruments but confronting one of the worst humanitarian crises of its history. This article reviews the relationship between international law in this area and the specific factual, legal and methodological problems and efforts undergone by different actors in Mexico and proposes ways to step closer to fulfilling victims’ internationally recognized rights to truth, justice and reparations.

View PDFchevron_right
MAZZUOLI, Valerio de Oliveira; RIBEIRO, Dilton. The Japanese legal system and the "pro homine" principle in human rights treaties. In: Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, vol. XV (2015), p. 239-282.
Valerio Mazzuoli, Dilton Ribeiro

The objective and purpose of international human rights is the protection of the human person. Individuals are the primary concern and addressees of human rights norms and principles. Accordingly, all human rights instruments seek the best possible protection for the human person. This theory, which underpins the entire human rights system, is called the 'pro homine' principle. In our view, this 'pro homine' framework of international law was fully accepted by the Japanese Constitution through its Article 11. It forbids restrictive interpretation of rights – limitation of rights must be restrictively interpreted – and it can be a guideline to analyze omissions in human rights norms. Accordingly, Article 11 fits all the criteria of the pro homine principle by crystalizing a true public order which prioritizes the human person setting the parameters to interpret and apply human rights norms. Consequently, this provision allows a “dialogue of sources” seeking the best norm which could better protect individuals in a specific situation regardless of its international or domestic status or hierarchy.

View PDFchevron_right
Criminal Justice, Due Process and the Rule of Law in Mexico
Paola De la Rosa Rodrìguez

Mexican Law Review, 2019

The criminal justice process should not involve obtaining the truth at any price. This article discusses how Mexico has adopted exceptional regulations which violate due process considerations and create a problematic breach of the rule of law. We argue that, at a time when Mexican society suffers the consequences of organized crime, the Constitution provides for two types of regulations: one protecting human rights, which are the foundation of the rule of law; and another which infringes on the individual rights of those suspected of having participated in organized criminal activity. We examine mechanisms such as preventive detention and preventive imprisonment and analyze their treatment under Mexican law as well as in international agreements. We explore whether or not the fight against criminality and the prosecution of criminals “by any means necessary” is more important that the protection of the human rights of those suspected of illegal activity. We conclude by suggesting t...

View PDFchevron_right
Román González, Eduardo (2019). “The Challenge of Developing a New Human Rights Culture in Future Mexican Lawyers”, en Le Clerq, Juan Antonio y Abreu Sacramento, José Pablo (eds.). Rebuilding the State Institutions, Cham, Suiza: Springer-UDLA, pp. 175-190,
Eduardo Román González

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The cover photo of this book was photographed by the first coeditor Juan Antonio Le Clercq who granted permission to use his photo in his own book. The photographer retains the copyright.

View PDFchevron_right
Enforcement of fundamental rights by lower courts: Towards a coherent system of constitutional review in Mexico
Alfredo Narváez Medécigo

Mexican Law Review, 2013

This article reviews the evolution of constitutional judicial review in Mexico. It claims that while the Mexican legal system has fluctuated between two fairly consolidated constitutional review models-the American and the continental European-it has so far disregarded at least one major factor strongly embedded within the rules of both. Stated differently, most constitutional scrutiny regarding fundamental rights-the essential prerogatives and freedoms to which every person as such is entitled under the constitutionshould be fulfilled by lower courts empowered for such purpose within ordinary adjudication procedures. For this reason, constitutional jurisdiction should play only a guiding role-even when solving a specific controversy on its merits-in the enforcement of these rights. While the rules of these two models leave the vast majority of legal controversies regarding fundamental rights outside constitutional jurisdiction, they guarantee that the interpretation of the few leading cases that are formally reviewed impact the rest of the legal system. Instead, the Mexican rules of constitutional scrutiny have fostered excessive dependence on specialized constitutional courts. Simultaneously, they have weakenedthrough artificial differentiations regarding the review of statutes-the guiding role of constitutional interpretation in the legal realm. This results in a complex system that is neither effective in making constitutional rules guide conduct nor in wholly enforcing fundamental rights.

View PDFchevron_right
There is just one stpe from indifference to coexistence. the necessary relationship between human rights, international and national law
Paola Andrea Acosta
View PDFchevron_right
• “Epilogue”, in Digest of Latin American Jurisprudence on Crimes under International Law, Roht-Arriaza Ed., United States Institute for Peace and the Due Process of Law Foundation, Washington D.C., 2009
Susan L Kemp
View PDFchevron_right
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Latin America”, Maryland Journal of International Law 24. Pgs. 94-98
Liliana Obregón
View PDFchevron_right
The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level in Mexico
José-Antonio Guevara-Bermúdez, Alejandro Anaya Muñoz

The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level: Twenty Years On, 2024

This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-nc-nd 4.0 license. chapter 12

View PDFchevron_right

References (152)

  1. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, [177].
  2. 12 Niels Petersen, 'The Role of Consent and Uncertainty in the Formation of Customary International Law' in Brian D. Lepard (ed), Reexamining Customary International Law (CUP 2017) 113.
  3. Vaughan Lowe, International Law: A Very Short Introduction (OUP 2015) 24.
  4. Merkouris, Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT and the Principle of Systemic Integration (n 10) 10.
  5. Malgosia Fitzmaurice, 'Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties' in Dinah Shelton (ed), The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (OUP 2015) 745-750.
  6. Jan Klabbers, 'Virtuous Interpretation' in Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Olufemi Elias, and Panos Merkouris (eds), Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years On (Martinus Nijhoff 2010) 30-31.
  7. Sergio García Ramírez and Julieta Morales Sánchez, 'Considerations on the Principle of Criminal Legality in Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' (2011) 24 Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional 195, 211.
  8. Manuel Vidaurri Arechiga, 'La Interpretación de la Ley Penal' in Mariá Bono Loṕez (ed), Liber ad honorem Sergio García Ramírez Volume I (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 1998) 731.
  9. Mark E. Villiger, 'The Rules on Interpretation: Misgivings, Misunderstandings, Miscarriage? The "Crucible" Intended by the International Law Commission' in Enzo Cannizzaro (ed), The Law of the Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (OUP 2011) 108-10, 114-15.
  10. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Aguas del Tunari v Bolivia (Decision on Respondent's Objections to Jurisdiction) (2005) ICSIDARB/02/03 [91].
  11. ILC, 'Yearbook of the International Law Commission Volume II' (n 1) 219-220, [8]-[9].
  12. South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa) (Preliminary Objections) [1962] ICJ Rep 319, 336. 23 Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v Senegal) (Merits) [1991] ICJ Rep 53, [48].
  13. 24 Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway) (Merits) [1993] ICJ Rep 38, [27].
  14. Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Chad) (Merits) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, [41].
  15. 26 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Merits) [2004] ICJ Rep 12, [83]-[85].
  16. ILC, 'Yearbook of the International Law Commission Volume II' (n 1) 220, [9].
  17. Jean-Marc Sorel and Valérie Boré Eveno, 'Volume I, Part III Observance, Application and Interpretation of Treaties, s.3 Interpretation of Treaties, Art. 31' in Olivier Corten and Pierre Klein (eds), The Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties (OUP 2011) 808.
  18. ILC, 'Yearbook of the International Law Commission Volume II' (n 1) 206 [36].
  19. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (n 9) 222.
  20. Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade, The Access of Individuals to International Justice (OUP 2011) 6.
  21. Theodor Meron, The Humanization of International Law, vol III (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006) 6-8.
  22. Louis Henkin, 'The Universal Declaration at 50 and the Challenge of Global Markets' (1999) 25 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 17, 19.
  23. Thomas Buergenthal, 'The Normative and Institutional Evolution of International Human Rights' (1997) 19(4) Human Rights Quarterly 703, 722.
  24. Karlos Castilla, 'El Principio Pro Persona en la Administración de Justicia' (2009) 20 Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional 65, 68.
  25. ECtHR, 23 March 1995) [72], [75];
  26. Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia App no 25965/04 (ECtHR, 7 January 2010) [275].
  27. 39 UNHRC 'Communication no 829/1998' in Roger Judge v Canada (5 August 2002) UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998, [10.3];
  28. UNHCR CERD 'Communication no 26/2002' in Hagan v Australia (20 March 2003) UN Doc CERD/C/62/D/26/2002, [7.3].
  29. UNHCR CAT 'Communication nos 130/1999; 131/1999' in V.X.N. and H.N. v Sweden (15 May 2000) UN Doc CAT/C/24/D/130; 131/1999, [7.3].
  30. 41 See generally Rudolf Bernhardt, 'Evolutive Treaty Interpretation, Especially of the European Convention on Human Rights' (1999) 42 German Yearbook of International Law 11. See also Michael P. Van Alstine, 'Dynamic Treaty Interpretation' (1998) 146(3) University of Pennsylvania Law Reviw 687; Christian Djeffal, 'Dynamic and Evolutive Interpretation of the ECHR by Domestic Courts?' in Aust and Nolte (n 4) 175-197.
  31. The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC- 2/82, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series A No 2 (24 September 1982) [29].
  32. 43 The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series A No 16 (1 October 1999) [114]-[115].
  33. 44 Alexander Orakhelashvili, The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law (OUP 2008) 311. 45 Eirik Bjorge, The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties (OUP 2014) 36.
  34. ILC, 'Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law' (13 April 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L682, [17].
  35. ILC, 'Report of the International Law Commission' (1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006) UN Doc A/61/10, 404-405, [244], [251].
  36. Olivier De Schutter, International Human Rights Law (2nd edn, CUP 2014) 118-120.
  37. George Letsas, 'Intentionalism and the Interpretation of the ECHR' in Fitzmaurice, Elias and Merkouris (eds), Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (n 16) 272.
  38. Birgit Schlütter, 'Aspects of Human Rights Interpretation by the UN Treaty Bodies' in Helen Keller and Geir Ulfstein (eds), UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy (CUP 2012) 264.
  39. Ineta Ziemele and Lasma Liede, 'Reservations to Human Rights Treaties: From Draft Guideline 3.1.12 to Guideline 3.1.5.6' (2013) 24(4) The European Journal of International Law 1135, 1147-1148.
  40. Christian Tomuschat, Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism (3rd edn, OUP 2014) 1-7, 112.
  41. ILC, 'Second report on reservations to treaties, by Mr Alain Pellet, Special Rapporteur' (13 June 1996) UN Doc A/CN.4/477/Add.1, [77]-[85].
  42. 54 Schlütter, 'Aspects of Human Rights Interpretation by the UN Treaty Bodies' (n 50) 280.
  43. ILC, 'Fragmentation of International Law' (n 46) 428.
  44. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (n 9) 222.
  45. Fitzmaurice, 'Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties' (n 15) 740-744.
  46. Álvaro Francisco Amaya Villareal, 'El Principio Pro Homine: Interpretación Extensiva vs. El Consentimiento del Estado' (2005) 5 Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 337.
  47. "Other Treaties" Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court, Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series A No 1 (24 September 1982) [41].
  48. 60 Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations, Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series A No 8 (30 January 1987) [14]-[16].
  49. 61 Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series A No 9 (6 October 1987) [37]-[38].
  50. IACHR, 'Strategic Plan 2011-2015' (2016) 7, para 82.
  51. UNHRC, 'Communication no 1536/2006' in Elgueta v Chile (Individual Opinion of Ms Helen Keller and Mr Fabián Salvioli) (7 September 2009) UN Doc CCPR/C/96/D/1593/2006, [11].
  52. 64 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series A No 5 (Separate Opinion of Judge Rodolfo E. Piza E.) (13 November 1985) [11]-[12].
  53. 65 Bámaca-Velasquez v Guatemala (Separate Concurring Opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 70 (25 November 2000) [3].
  54. 66 Mónica Pinto, 'El principio pro homine: Criterios de hermenéutica y pautas para la regulación de los derechos humanos' in Martín Abregú and Christian Courtis (eds), La aplicación de los tratados sobre derechos humanos por los tribunales locales (Editores del Puerto 1997) 163.
  55. Castilla, 'El Principio Pro Persona en la Administración de Justicia' (n 35) 71-78.
  56. Edgar Carpio Marcos, La interpretación de los derechos fundamentales (Palestra Editores 2004) 470-473.
  57. Castilla, 'El Principio Pro Persona en la Administración de Justicia' (n 35) 71-78.
  58. Humberto Henderson, 'Los tratados internacionales de derechos humanos en el orden interno: la importancia del principio pro homine' (2004) 39 Revista IIDH 71, 87.
  59. Fitzmaurice, 'Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties' (n 15) 740.
  60. Panos Merkouris, 'Interpreting the Customary Rules on Interpretation' (2017) 19 International Community Law Review 126, 142-154.
  61. Fredeŕic Vanneste, General International Law Before Human Rights Courts: Assessing the Specialty Claims of International Human Rights Law (Intersentia 2010) 253-257.
  62. Schlütter, 'Aspects of Human Rights Interpretation by the UN Treaty Bodies' (n 50) 317.
  63. Fitzmaurice, 'Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties' (n 15) 753-757; Zlata Drnas de Clément, 'La complejidad del principio pro homine' (2015) 12 JA 2015-I 98, 109 <http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r33496.pdf> accessed 4 September 2018.
  64. IACHR, 'Indigenous and Tribal Peoples' Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System' (30 December 2009) OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc 56/09;
  65. Norín Catrimán et al(Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v Chile (Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 279 (29 May 2014) [155].
  66. 77 Antônio Augusto Cançado Tríndade, 'The Right to Cultural Identity in the Evolving Jurisprudential Construction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' in Sienho Yee and Jacques-Yvan Morin (eds), Multiculturalism and International Law: Essays in Honour of Edward McWhinney (Martinus Nijhoff 2009) 485.
  67. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua (Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 79 (32 August 2001) [143]-[151].
  68. Claude-Reyes et al v Chile (Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 151 (19 September 2006) [77];
  69. IACHR, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, 'The Inter- American Legal Framework Regarding the Right to Access to Information' (7 March 2011) OEA/Ser.L/V/II. CIDH/RELE/INF. 9/12, [14].
  70. 81 Ivcher-Bronstein v Peru (Competence) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 54 (24 September 1999)
  71. IACHR, 'The Death Penalty in The Inter-American Human Rights System: From Restrictions to Abolition' OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc 68 (31 December 2011) 61-62, 115.
  72. 19 Tradesmen v Colombia (Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 109 (5 July 2004) [173];
  73. Tiu Tojín v Guatemala (Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 190 (26 November 2008) [118]-[120].
  74. 84 Radilla-Pacheco v Mexico (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 209 (23 November 2009) [274].
  75. J. v Peru Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 275 (27 November 2013) [330], [362].
  76. 87 See generally Gerald L. Neuman, 'Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' (2008) 19 The European Journal of International Law 101; Lucas Lixinski, 'Treaty Interpretation by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Expansionism at the Service of the Unity of International Law' (2010) 21(3) The European Journal of International Law 585.
  77. IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 (n 43) [58]-[62], [113]-[115].
  78. 89 Vásquez Durand et al v Ecuador (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 332 (15 February 2017) [30]-[32].
  79. 90 Street Children (Villagrán-Morales et al) v Guatemala (Merits) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 63 (19 November 1999) [194];
  80. Juvenile Reeducation Institute v Paraguay (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 11 (2 September 2004) [163], [221].
  81. 91 Pacheco Tineo Family v Plurinational State of Bolivia (Judgment) (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 272 (25 November 2013) [128]-[160].
  82. Valerio de Oliveira Mazzuoli and Dilton Ribeiro, 'The Japanese Legal System and the Pro Homine Principle in Human Rights Treaties' (2015) 15 Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional 263.
  83. Castilla, 'El Principio Pro Persona en la Administración de Justicia' (n 35) 81-83.
  84. Michael Freitas Mohallem, 'Horizontal Judicial Dialogue on Human Rights: The Practice of Constitutional Courts in South America' in Amrei Müller (ed), Judicial Dialogue and Human Rights (CUP 2017).
  85. Lixinski, 'Treaty Interpretation by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' (n 87) 586.
  86. Neuman, 'Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' (n 87) 123.
  87. Rodiles, 'The Law and Politics of the Pro Persona Principle in Latin America' (n 7) 161-3.
  88. See generally Villareal, 'El Principio Pro Homine: Interpretación Extensiva vs. El Consentimiento del Estado' (n 58).
  89. Neuman, 'Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' (n 87) 115. 100 International Justice Resource Center, 'Venezuela Denounces American Convention on Human Rights as IACHR faces Reform' (19 September 2012) <http://www.ijrcenter.org/2012/09/19/venezuela-denounces- american-convention-on-human-rights-as-iachr-faces-reform/> accessed 4 September 2018.
  90. Christian Tomuschat, Obligations Arising for States without or Against their Will (Martinus Nijhoff 1993) 274.
  91. Fitzmaurice, 'Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties' (n 15) 745.
  92. Negishi, 'The Pro Homine Principle's Role in Regulating the Relationship Between Conventionality Control and Constitutionality Control' (n 7) 473.
  93. Tobin, 'Seeking to Persuade: A Constructive Approach to Human Rights Treaty Interpretation' (n 2) 14.
  94. César Sepúlveda, Derecho Internacional (Porrúa 2004) 81.
  95. Luis Miguel Díaz, 'National Treaty Law and Practice: Mexico' in Duncan B. Hollis, Merritt R. Blakeslee and L. Benjamin Ederington (eds), National Treaty Law and Practice (Martinus Nijhoff 2005) 451. 108 Mexican Constitution of 5 February 1917, article 133, translation by the author <http://www.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/Constitucion/1917.pdf> accessed 4 September 2018.
  96. David N. Cinotti, 'The New Isolationism: Non-Self-Execution Declarations and Treaties as the Supreme Law of the Land' (2003) 91(6) The Georgetown Law Journal 1277, 1290.
  97. Jorge Carpizo, 'La Interpretación del artículo 133 constitucional' (1969) 2(4) Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado 3, 3-7.
  98. Constitution of Argentina, article 75.22 <http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/argentina-constitution.pdf> accessed 4 September 2018; Constitution of Spain, article 10.2 <http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/portal/Congreso/Congreso/Hist_Normas/Norm/const_espa_texto_i ngles_0.pdf> accessed 4 September 2018.
  99. Gerald L. Neuman, 'Human Rights and Constitutional Rights: Harmony and Dissonance' (2003) 55(5) Stanford Law Review 1863, 1890.
  100. Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium (2nd edn, Martinus Nijhoff 2010) 225.
  101. Negishi, 'The Pro Homine Principle's Role in Regulating the Relationship Between Conventionality Control and Constitutionality Control' (n 7) 466.
  102. SEGOB, Decreto de Reforma Constitucional, DOF 10 de Junio de 2011, Secc.I, p.2. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/dof/CPEUM_ref_194_10jun11.pdf accessed 4 September 2018.
  103. José Ramón Cossío Diaz, 'Los intrumentos internacionales en materia de derechos fundamentales y el principio pro homine' (2007) 247 Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de México 377, 377-383.
  104. Irvin Uriel Loṕez Bonilla, 'Significacioń del bloque de constitucionalidad en la tematica de derechos humanos en el ordenamiento juridico mexicano' (2015) 31 Letras Juridicas 111, 118-121.
  105. Negishi, 'The Pro Homine Principle's Role in Regulating the Relationship Between Conventionality Control and Constitutionality Control' (n 7) 475.
  106. José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, 'Los derechos humanos y el nuevo artićulo 1° constitucional' (2011) 5(28) Revista del Instituto de Ciencias Juridicas de Puebla 85, 93-94.
  107. See generally Thomas Buergenthal, Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties in National and International Law (Martinus Nijhoff 1992).
  108. Radilla-Pacheco v Mexico (n 84).
  109. SCJN Plenum, Judgment of 14 July 2011 (Exp.912/2010)
  110. SCJN First Chamber, Tesis 1.aXXVI/2012(10a.), SJFyG, V, I, February 2012, 659.
  111. Henderson, 'Los tratados internacionales de derechos humanos en el orden interno' (n 70) 87.
  112. UNHCR, '2013 United Nations Human Rights Prize', <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/hrprize.aspx> accessed accessed 4 September 2018.
  113. Christina M. Cerna, 'Status of Human Rights Treaties in Mexican Domestic Law' (2016) 20(4) American Society of International Law <https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/4/status-human-rights-treaties-mexican- domestic-law> accessed 4 September 2018.
  114. Jorge Ulises Carmona Tinoco, 'The Judicial Application of International Human Rights Treaties' (2007) 7
  115. Mexican Law Review <http://info8.juridicas.unam.mx/cont/mlawr/7/arc/arc2.htm> accessed 4 September 2018.
  116. Thomas Buergenthal, 'The Evolving International Human Rights System' (2006) 100(4) The American Journal of International Law 783.
  117. Rodiles, 'The Law and Politics of the Pro Persona Principle in Latin America' (n 7) 174.
  118. Ricardo Velázquez, 'El principio Pro Persona en la legislación mexicana' (Milenio, 25 May 2016) <http://www.milenio.com/firmas/ricardo_velazquez/principio_Pro_Persona- legislacion_mexicana_18_743505712.html> accessed 4 September 2018.
  119. Neuman, 'Human Rights and Constitutional Rights' (n 112) 1893.
  120. 'Mexico's growing crisis: Reforms and democracy, but no rule of law' (The Economist, 15 November 2014) https://www.economist.com/leaders/2014/11/15/reforms-and-democracy-but-no-rule-of-law> accessed 24 August 2018; Edgardo Buscaglia, 'Mexico: Neither Pax Mafiosa, nor rule of law' ALJAZEERA (15 December 2016) <http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/12/mexico-pax-mafiosa-rule-law- 161214115937003.html> accessed 4 September 2018.
  121. David Sloss, 'Domestic Application of Treaties' in Duncan B. Hollis (ed), The Oxford Guide to Treaties (OUP 2012) 367-377.
  122. See generally Malcolm Langford, 'Domestic Adjudication and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Socio- Legal Review' (2009) 6(2) Sur Revista Internacional de Direitos Humanos 98.
  123. Mauricio Iván del Toro Huerta, 'La apertura constitucional al derecho internacional de los derechos humanos en la era de la mundialización y sus consecuencias en la práctica judicial' (2005) 38(112) Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado 325, 344-345.
  124. Negishi, 'The Pro Homine Principle's Role in Regulating the Relationship Between Conventionality Control and Constitutionality Control' (n 7) 463.
  125. The control of conventionality or conventionality control is a term introduced by the IACtHR in the case of Almonacid-Arellano et al v Chile (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 154 (26 September 2006) [124] and reiterated in Radilla-Pacheco v Mexico (n 84) and Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v Mexico (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 220 (22 November 2010) [225]; see generally Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor, 'Interpretación conforme y control difuso de convencionalidad: El nuevo paradigma para el juez mexicano' (2011) 9(2) Estudios Constitucionales 531.
  126. Karlos Castilla, 'El control de convencionalidad: Un nuevo debate en Mexico a partir de la sentencia del caso Radilla Pacheco' (2011) 11 Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional 624.
  127. Patricio Navia and Julio Ríos-Figueroa, 'The Constitutional Adjudication Mosaic of Latin America' (2005) 38(2) Comparative Political Studies 189, 200-203.
  128. Elena I. Highton, 'Sistemas concentrado y difuso de control de constitucionalidad' in Armin von Bogdandy et al (eds), La Justicia Constitucional y su Internacionalización: ¿Hacia un ius constitutionale commune en América Latina? (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas 2010) 131-133. For the different sanctions that judges may face under the Mexican law, see: <http://mexico.leyderecho.org/responsabilidad-judicial/> accessed 4 September 2018.
  129. SCJN, Plenum, Jurisprudences P./J.74/99 and P./J.73/99, SJFyG, X, August 1999, 518. 144 SCJN (n 122) [28]-[34].
  130. SCJN, Second Chamber, Jurisprudence 2a./J.56/2014(10a.), GSJF, 6, II, May 2014, 772.
  131. Radilla-Pacheco v Mexico (n 84) [339].
  132. 148 Ariel E. Dulitzky, 'An Inter-American Constitutional Court? The invention of the Conventionality Control by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' (2015) 50 Texas International Law Journal 45, 60-61.
  133. Hećtor Musalem Oliver, Reseña del Amparo Directo en Revision 2424/2011: Contenido y Alcance del Derecho al Nombre, Reseñas Argumentativas, Primera Sala, SCJN. https://www.scjn.gob.mx/sites/default/files/resenias_argumentativas/documento/2017-01/res-JRCD-2424- 11.pdf 154 SCJN, First Chamber, Tesis 1a.XXV/2012(10a.), SJFyG, V, I, February 2012, 653. 155 SCJN (n 152) [79].
  134. 156 Aust et al, 'Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation' (n 150) 98-100.
  135. SCJN, First Chamber, Judgment of 22 January 2014, (Amp.Dir.Rev. 3516/2013) 31-57.
  136. SCJN, Plenum, Judgment of 7 February 2012, (Acc.Inconst. 155/2007); Rodiles (n 7) 169-70. 162 First must be the penalty of warning, then fines, and finally forced communal work. 163 SCJN (n 161).
  137. Rodiles, 'The Law and Politics of the Pro Persona Principle in Latin America' (n 7) 169.
  138. The VCLT has been in force in Mexico since 27 January 1980, see Elma del Carmen Trejo García, Tratados Internacionales vigentes en Mexico: relacioń de Legislaturas y/o Periódos Legislativos en que fueron aprobados (Centro de Documentación Información y Análisis, 2007) 3-4.
  139. Rodiles, 'The Law and Politics of the Pro Persona Principle in Latin America' (n 7) 174.
  140. 'La Corte al Día: El Principio Pro Personae, muchas nueces y poco ruido' (Vivir México, 10 February 2012) <http://vivirmexico.com/2012/02/la-corte-al-dia-el-principio-pro-personae-muchas-nueces-y-poco-ruido> accessed 4 September 2018.
  141. Séptimo Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Civil del Primer Circuito, Tesis I.7o.C.46K, SJFyG, XXVIII, August 2008, 1083.
  142. Primer Tribunal Colegiado en Materias Administrativa y de Trabajo del Décimo Primer Circuito, Tesis XI.1o.A.T.45K, SJFyG, XXXI, May 2010, 2079. 170 ibid 1932.
  143. SCJN, Plenum, Judgment of 3 September 2013, (Contradicción de Tesis 293/2011).
  144. SCJN, Plenum, Jurisprudence P./J.20/2014(10a.), GSJF, 5, I, April de 2014, 202.
  145. SCJN (n 172) Individual opinion of Judge Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena.
  146. Susan Marks and Andrew Clapham, International Human Rights Lexicon (OUP 2005) 61-70.
  147. Geraldina Gónzalez de la Vega, '¿Qué pasó, entonces, en la Suprema Corte?' (Nexos: el Juego de la Suprema Corte, 3 September 2013) <http://eljuegodelacorte.nexos.com.mx/?p=3081> accessed 4 September 2018.
  148. Amnesty International, 'México: Decisión de SCJN es un retroceso en protección de derechos humanos' <https://www.amnistia.org.pe/noticia/mexico-decision-scjn-retroceso-proteccion-ddhh/> accessed 4 September 2018.
  149. SCJN, First Chamber, Jurisprudence 1a./J.37/2017(10a.), GSJF, 42, I, May 2017, 239.
  150. SCJN (n 172) Individual opinion of Judge José Ramón Cossío Díaz; and Individual opinion of Judge Olga Sánchez Cordero de García Villegas; Eduardo Diego-Fernández Forseck, 'La Corte y el fin del principio pro homine en México' (Nexos: el Juego de la Suprema Corte, 5 May 2014) < https://eljuegodelacorte.nexos.com.mx/?p=3776 > accessed 4 September 2018.
  151. De Schutter, International Human Rights Law (n 48) 583-632; Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman, International Human Rights (OUP 2013) 383-485; Marks and Clapham, International Human Rights Lexicon (n 174) 71-89, 149-161, 345-358.
  152. SCJN (n 172) Individual Opinion of Judge Luis María Aguilar Morales.

Related papers

The Interpretation of Human Rights according to International Treaties: Notes for their Jurisdictional Application in Mexico
geofrey angus

The Age of Human Rights Journal

The reform of article 1 of the Political Constitution of the Mexican United States in June 2011, has incorporated into the constitutional text the clause of interpretation according to international treaties on human rights as the hermeneutic criteria which domestic judges must adopt in their verdicts. This clause reflects an evolutionary tendency which the Constitutional States are adopting, generating a new understanding of the state function as a whole, especially of the judiciary function. Despite this aperture, which enables the application of this type of hermeneutic techniques, it is possible to see how in some jurisprudential criteria a restraining posture is adopted towards international regulatory contents in human rights, leaving aside the possibility of an interpretative process of harmonization

View PDFchevron_right
The Law and Politics of the Pro Persona Principle (forthcoming in Helmut P. Aust & Georg Nolte (eds.), The Interpretation of International Law by Domestic Courts – Unity, Diversity, Convergence (OUP, 2015)
Alejandro Rodiles

Latin American national courts increasingly make use of the pro persona principle of interpretation, both when dealing with international and domestic law. This principle is reconcilable with other methods. However, operating in a unidirectional manner as it does, it tends to fade out other rules of interpretation. The resulting interpretive work may be viewed as a threat to the integrity of international law, or as an enrichment of its development by judicial voices from the “global south”. Within the region, the underlying narrative of the “interpretive turn” is integration. This is strongly questioned here since there are some fundamental problems which are ignored by the eulogistic nature of the legal philosophy that underpins the pro persona, such as the alienation of the legal communities and cultures involved. I will analyse these developments in light of the case law of the Colombian Constitutional Court and the Mexican Supreme Court.

View PDFchevron_right
One Norm, Two Models. Legal Enforcement of Human Rights in Mexico and the United States
Karina Ansolabehere

Mexican law review, 2016

The January meeting of the Princeton Project included jurists from around the world who met to hammer out consensus principles. The Princeton Principles, including the introductory matter, emerged in their present form from this meeting, and were re-circulated in February 2001 to Project participants and dozens of human rights organizations around the world, some of whom offered us comments. We have tried to keep the process of formulating these Principles as open and transparent as possible, while also taking seriously the need to assemble representative and workable groups of participants. Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni deserves special thanks for his lead role in drafting and revising the principles over the course of many months. His vast expertise and tireless energy have been essential at every stage. My thanks to the scholars who contributed essential intellectual underpinnings to this Project, and also to the jurists who assembled from around the world in January: their acuity and moral seriousness were all that we could have hoped for and more. Thanks to the many others who provided valuable assistance, including three at Princeton: Professors Gary J. Bass, Richard A. Falk, and Diane Orentlicher (who was here as Fellow, 2000-2001, in the Program in Law and Public Affairs). Thanks finally to Bill Butler and Steve Oxman for bringing this idea to Princeton University. They furnished me with an unexpected but rewarding inaugural project for the Program in Law and Public Affairs. Steve Oxman's careful attention to matters large and small improved every aspect of this Project. Bill Butler's well-known energy and depth of commitment to justice under law have powered this Project from the start. These Principles will not, and are not intended to, end the many controversies that surround universal jurisdiction. I do hope that they clarify what universal jurisdiction is, and how its reasonable and responsible exercise by national courts can promote greater justice for victims of serious crimes under international law.

View PDFchevron_right
HUMAN RIGHTS IN MEXICO MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER ITS IMPLEMENTATION (Atena Editora)
Atena Editora

HUMAN RIGHTS IN MEXICO MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER ITS IMPLEMENTATION (Atena Editora), 2023

More than a decade after the constitutional reform referring to the first article, which supervises and recognizes compliance with Human Rights, it turns out that such recognition of rights is in a state of vulnerability. There is a socio-legal, ontological and epistemological imbalance of human rights to which the state has not paid sufficient attention. The terms State and Law must be kept together for the proper functioning of modern societies. From its conception, the State was regulated by law, but the State also exists by and for the individuals that make it up. Knowing that its motivation is the guarantee of an effective life in society, both for the institutions, bodies and individuals that are part of it. More than ten years of protection of rights have brought very significant changes in all areas of social life. Its meaning is not only verbal, but it has a deep and direct impact on people's lives. Today, the authorities cannot ignore the constitutional framework that limits their individual freedom of movement and the courts cannot apply the law without take into account the rights involved in the case, without interpretive tools and adjudicative methods that make the principle of personality a reality, it is no longer possible to talk about public policies without talking about human rights.

View PDFchevron_right
The Inter-American Human Rights System and Transitional Justice in Mexico
Bruno B Bernardi

The aim of this article is to analyze how and why the norms of the Inter-American Human Rights System on transitional justice convened under the Rosendo Radilla ruling against the Mexican state exerted an impact on the human rights issues in Mexico, especially on the topics of military jurisdiction and conventionality control. Based on the emerging theoretical approach according to which the effects of international human rights regimes are conditioned by domestic factors of the target-countries, our research seeks to unravel how domestic politics influences the potential impact of these international norms that comprise the justice cascade, highlighting the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the local higher court.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • International Law
  • International Human Rights Law
  • Judicial review
  • International Human Rights Treaties
  • Conventionality Control
  • Human Rights Implementation
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved