Defense of Judicial Honor: A Revealing Amparo Case

OLMEDO y TORRES ABOGADOS Information note February 22, 2024 Reference: Indirect amparo trial promoted by District Judge Crescencio Contreras Martínez

On this day, the admission of the indirect amparo trial promoted by District Judge Crescencio Contreras Martínez, against unconstitutional acts attributed to the President of the United Mexican States and the Minister of the Interior, was issued.

The admitted suit concerns the undue pressure caused by the presidential showcasing of the complainant at the daily presser held by the President’s office known as “la mañanera”, and the issuing and dissemination of a statement that summarized what was discussed in the aforementioned communicational space.

As a precautionary measure, the complainant was granted a provisional suspension against the acts complained of, barring the President and the Minister from further pressuring the claimant unless evidence is provided in the same public manner and the opportunity to dispute the allegations is offered.

It should be noted that the amparo Court indicated that the responsible authorities issued derogatory statements in relation to the complainant in his actions as District Judge Specialized in the Accusatory Criminal System.

The amparo court correctly indicated, in the suspension resolution, that “whoever exercises jurisdictional functions cannot be punished by the State for issuing a resolution.” She also highlighted that "for the purposes of this amparo trial, [the claimant] is also a person whom by this means is defending his right to honor, dignity and privacy (...) it is neither legal nor correct to make accusations that affect the honor, dignity and privacy of a person if supporting evidence is not offered and mentioned.”

The injunction order finalizes by indicating that "it is concluded that the combatted mentions cause a credible violation of the complainant's right to privacy due to the disparagement of his jurisdictional work, all apparently without any legitimate purpose and, up to this moment, without proving its legal obtention and without demonstrating its certainty.”