Ambassador Ken Salazar warned that judicial reform in Mexico could threaten bilateral economic relations.

Amid ongoing debates over the implementation of judicial reform in Mexico, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar has voiced his concerns in a press conference and an official statement. Salazar warned that the direct election of judges, as proposed in the reform, could endanger Mexico's democratic system.

The Ambassador also noted that the reform could negatively impact the commercial relationship between the two countries by undermining the trust and stability essential to Mexico’s legal framework, potentially weakening North American economic integration efforts.

Sigue leyendo:

¿Qué es un "tercer país seguro" y por qué Trump quiere que México se convierta en uno?

Salazar further cautioned that such a reform risks appointing “underqualified” judges, which could impair the handling of complex issues such as extraditions and commercial disputes and jeopardize the effective prosecution of cartel members and other “malign actors.”

Finally, Salazar reiterated that the United States respects Mexico's sovereignty and expressed confidence that the outcome “will lead to a strong and independent judiciary.”

What Does the Judicial Reform Entail?

The judicial reform aims to combat corruption within the Supreme Court and make it more accessible to the public. It outlines mechanisms to ensure that Ministers, Magistrates, and Judges are well-trained and possess the necessary experience to fulfill their duties. Below is a summary of the key points in President Andrés Manuel López Obrador's proposal:

1. Democratization of Judicial elections: Positions for Ministers, Magistrates, and Judges will be elected through citizens' personal and secret vote. Open calls will be held to ensure that candidates meet the requirements and demonstrate knowledge and experience in their respective fields. Evaluation Committees will be established to select the best-qualified candidates, focusing on their integrity.

2. Creation of an independent oversight body: While the Federal Judiciary Council currently exists, it comprises members from within the judiciary and imposes minimal sanctions. The reform proposes creating a Judicial Discipline Tribunal as an independent authority separate from the Supreme Court. This body would address citizen complaints and impose penalties for judicial misconduct, including suspension or dismissal.

3. Performance evaluation of Judges and Magistrates: Currently, once ratified, Judges and Magistrates hold their positions until retirement or death. The reform would introduce assessment during the first year of their term, with the possibility of suspension or dismissal for poor performance. Additionally, they would be re-elected every nine years through popular vote.

4. Efficient Handling of Trials: Presently, judges who resolve cases beyond the maximum time limits established by law are not punished. The reform would require judges to notify and justify delays to the Discipline Tribunal, with potential sanctions.

5. Austerity and Transparency: Currently, the salaries of Ministers, Magistrates, and Judges exceed the constitutional maximum. The reform would cap salaries at the level of the presidency and eliminate privileges after leaving office.