Just one day after the Mexican government publicly condemned President Donald Trump for allegedly not respecting the rights of all Mexicans, it reportedly endeavored to do away with the basic legal protections of its own citizens – an eradication of rights that was recently introduced via legislation.
The newly proposed Mexican bill, which is labeled as a criminal code reform, was written to make “adjustments” to the new legal system that was completed in Mexico last year – an overhaul that The New York Times says used $300 million of American aid to come to fruition.
According to legal scholars, however, it is feared that the changes would greatly expand the Mexican government’s power to bring suspects into custody years before their trials – a move that would enable law enforcement officials to rely on hearsay in court, while potentially permitting prosecutors to utilize evidence acquired through torture, the Times reported.
The New York daily also said that the prospective law would also require concrete evidence of reasonable doubt, which would ultimately shift the burden of proof to the accused – throwing away the universal and timeless legal precept: “innocent until proven guilty.”
Height of hypocrisy
As the Mexican government moves to relinquish the rights of its own citizens, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is being called out for concealing the true nature of his corrupt government.
"The new legislation reflects a central contradiction of modern Mexico under [Enrique] Peña Nieto and his party: the version of the country that his government promotes to the world versus the reality it creates on the ground," The New York Times’ Azam Ahmed reported.
Nieto’s hypocritical criticism of the Trump administration for not respecting the rights of Mexicans with his new immigration policy was also brought to light.
"The government's recent scolding of the Trump administration – while actively trying to roll back the rights of Mexicans at home – underscores the paradox," Ahmed added.
The Mexican government’s response to Trump’s plans to construct a wall stretching continuously along the entire expanse of the 2,000-mile United States-Mexico border was also noted.
“[We demand that] all Mexicans should be treated with absolute respect to their civil rights and human rights," the Mexican government declared in opposition to the wall, according to the Times.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Commissioner James Cavallaro pointed out how the Mexican government has vigorously attempted to present itself as a champion of human rights abroad.
"Mexico has worked hard to promote its image as a state that defends or advances international human rights,” Cavallaro informed the Times.
He went on to mention argue that Nieto and other Mexican political leaders have just been putting on a compassionate front to fool the world.
"But at home, the human rights situation is simply dreadful: severe abuse, torture, summary executions and virtually guaranteed impunity," insisted Cavallaro, who is also a professor at Stanford Law School.
More control, less rights
It is maintained by the Times that Mexico’s governing party and other legislators have been hard at work to put in place other control mechanisms, including a number of versions of another law designed to make it legal for the Latin American country’s army to enforce domestic security.
According to a statement issued by the Mexican government, the newly proposed military bill would help to regulate the armed forces – a new law that would give them the legal power to continue on in their so-called “essential” role in fighting organized crime within the nation’s borders.
However, Jan Jarab – who serves as the representative for the United Nations’ high commissioner for human rights in Mexico – indicated that government officials are basing the proposed bill on wrong assumptions.
"But that isn't the right question," Jarab expressed to the Times. "The right question is, 'Should they continue to do it at all?' … The right question is, 'Has the military paradigm been successful?' … The answer to that – in a huge and overwhelming majority – is 'No.'"