“Brude” resolution of the TEPJF on the impact on election day: CNDH

Mexico City., The National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) said it will fight “in all legal, national and international arenas” the resolution of the Specialized Regional Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Branch of the Federation (TEPJF) in which it is accused of having violated the principles of impartiality, neutrality and equity in the electoral contest, misuse of public resources and dissemination of government propaganda during a prohibited period, due to the publication of its two reports on political violence.

In a statement, the CNDH described the resolution, which was notified to it yesterday, as “crude and rigged” and emphasized that it “threatens the exercise of human rights and their defense.”

He said that the decision of the magistrates of that chamber – originating from a complaint by the PAN – “reveals the way in which justice, and also democracy, has been exercised in this country.”

This is, he said, “a crude attack that not only confirms the slogan that has existed since its inception against the current administration of the CNDH, but also exposes the omissions and overlaps incurred by some elements of the electoral bodies in the last election, their annoyance because the CNDH exposed and denounced facts that compromised the development of the campaigns, and underlines the urgency for the Judiciary and the electoral apparatus itself to transform themselves and act in accordance with the principles of human rights, respecting the Constitution.”

It should be recalled that last May, the Superior Chamber of the TEPJF also determined that the CNDH “incurred in an excess of its powers”, issued value judgments on issues that do not fall within its jurisdiction and therefore had an impact on electoral matters, while declaring the invalidity of the mechanism for monitoring electoral campaigns that the commission intended to carry out.

At that time, he also ordered him to remove the first report on political violence from his official website, arguing that it is not his job to prepare such documents.

In the statement released today by the CNDH, chaired by Rosario Piedra Ibarra, it once again denied that the publication of the aforementioned reports was intended to intervene in the 2024 electoral process and “much less generate a trend for or against a particular contender for the position of President of the Republic.”

He clarified that we are only speaking out and making visible the multiple acts as violations of human rights “that were putting the election results at risk, and there is no expression in said documents in favor of one political party or the other.”

The exercise, he reiterated, had as its main objective to provide the population with “elements of reflection and analysis for the identification and prevention of acts constituting political violence,” since for the CNDH the right to democracy is an “inconceivable exercise” that could not be carried out without the guarantee of its freedom.

Regarding its powers, the CNDH pointed out that it has a constitutional mandate to protect human rights in all contexts, including electoral ones. “There is no pause in its functions during election periods, as the TEPJF falsely claims,” it stressed.

He said that “it is regrettable that those who claim to be the highest authority to do justice do not know how to differentiate between government propaganda and the fulfillment of constitutional functions, a biased and self-serving interpretation, the latter of which is aimed at favoring a political party.”

In this regard, the CNDH expressed its concern, since according to the arguments of the resolution, the actions of defense and protection of human rights that it carries out could be considered as “government propaganda.”

Contrary to the resolution, the CNDH insisted, the published reports are covered by Article 102, Section B of the Constitution, and do not invade electoral powers or pronounce on the results of the elections, “as this ruling intends to establish in a tendentious and malicious manner, which reveals the anti-democratic and distant nature of the people that has permeated the resolutions of the majority of the magistrates of the Judicial Branch and the interests that surround them.”