Armando Juárez Bribiesca
Initially, we must consider that the right to the presumption of innocence, as a standard of treatment in its extrajudicial aspect, is provided for in Article 20, Section B, Clause I of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and Article 8.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
In this context, it is also pertinent to consider the standard related to rehabilitation or the possibilities of reintegration, as established by the Federal Legislator in Article 18 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.
It is necessary to consider that the dissemination, publication, or broadcasting of stigmatizing material by the Prosecutor’s Offices, to the detriment of the individual involved, in the mass media inevitably impacts their legal rights and the standards related to the presumption of innocence and rehabilitation.
This infringement of the indicated human rights arises because we are facing a parallel trial in which the individual is exposed to the mass media in a stigmatizing manner, aiming to skew and partialize public opinion.
The impact of a parallel trial is evident when one recognizes that illegal and arbitrary practices are being employed, aiming to achieve an improper positioning through politically charged publicity strategies, which negatively affect the criminal process. This could even impact the evidence presented by the Prosecutor’s Office, which must be assessed according to the guidelines outlined in the following legal principle, including its heading and content:
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AS A STANDARD OF TREATMENT IN ITS EXTRAPROCESSUAL ASPECT. FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE EXPOSURE OF DETAINEES TO THE MEDIA IMPACTS THE RELIABILITY OF EVIDENCE. The mere display of accused individuals in the media constitutes a form of mistreatment that fosters illegality and leads to other human rights violations. Therefore, such actions should be discouraged regardless of whether they influence the testimonies against the accused. Relevant legal principles can be found in the isolated theses from the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation: 1a. CLXXVI/2013 (10th) and 1a. CLXXVIII/2013 (10th), titled “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AS A STANDARD OF TREATMENT IN ITS EXTRAPROCESSUAL ASPECT. ITS CONTENT AND CHARACTERISTICS.” and “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION. ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EXPOSURE OF DETAINEES TO THE MEDIA.”. When a violation of this nature is alleged, the media exposure (and the associated information) must be sufficiently robust to be considered as having created a stigmatizing perception, which has significantly increased the likelihood that the testimonies and evidence gathered contain biased and thus questionable information. Some factors a judge may consider when making this assessment include: 1. The level of State intervention in creating and/or disseminating the information. When the State deliberately acts to create a negative image and contributes to its formation, judges must be particularly skeptical about evaluating the evidence. 2. The underlying stigmatizing nature of the accusation and its potential harmful effects. 3. The variety of news sources and the degree of uniformity in the content they present. The judge assesses whether the stigmatizing prejudice has been repeatedly presented and analyzes its level of dissemination. They also evaluate whether there are opposing views capable of counteracting the stigma. 4. The extent to which relevant parties have access to the information. The judge may examine the proximity of themselves, witnesses, or involved parties to the questioned information. If the information is too remote, there is less likelihood that the judge or these individuals had access to it, making it difficult to question the reliability of the evidence. These criteria are intended as guiding principles to assist courts in evaluating such claims. They are indicators that require consideration in the context of each specific case. They should not be interpreted as implying that an impact on the process will only occur if all the stated elements are present.In conclusion, the mere fact that the media publishes content portraying individuals as “criminals” does indeed violate the principle of the presumption of innocence in its procedural aspect. However, to assess the impact these publications may have on a criminal process, judges must conduct a motivated evaluation to determine if there is reason to doubt the reliability of the evidence.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AS A PROCEDURAL STANDARD OF TREATMENT. The presumption of innocence is a right that can be described as “polyhedral,” in the sense that it encompasses multiple manifestations or aspects related to guarantees aimed at regulating various elements of the criminal process. One of these aspects manifests as a “procedural standard of treatment” or “treatment rule” for the accused, as this right dictates how an individual undergoing a criminal process should be treated. In this context, the presumption of innocence entails the right of every person to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty by a conviction. This aspect of the presumption of innocence mandates that judges prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the implementation of measures that equate the accused with the guilty. In other words, it prohibits any judicial decision that anticipates the imposition of a penalty.
National jurisprudence aligns with that issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case Lori Berenson vs. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2004 (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), which explicitly states the following:
160. “The right to the presumption of innocence, as derived from Article 8.2 of the Convention, requires that the State not informally convict a person or pass judgment before society, thereby contributing to shaping public opinion, unless the person’s criminal responsibility is proven according to the law.”
Regardless of these national and international jurisprudences, the current practice of Prosecutor’s Offices involves disseminating incomplete names and partial images of individuals involved in legal proceedings, while still including elements that allow for their identification. This practice is reinforced by the coordinated dissemination of the individual’s full image and name through informal channels. Such informal media receive illegal leaks of information about the ongoing criminal process, and this strategy creates a parallel trial aimed at subjecting the individual to public lynching, scrutiny, and judgment by society or public opinion.
Nonetheless, it is appropriate to affirm that when an individual involved in a criminal process is exposed in the mass media, it results in a violation of their human rights to presumption of innocence and rehabilitation, regardless of whether the stigmatizing material is later removed from these platforms. To effectively address such violations, we are prepared to defend your rights before the courts.