A story with moral that circulates through social networks refers that one morning a fisherman returns to his cabin after several hours in the lake and decides to sleep a nap.
His wife decides to leave in his boat and although he does not know his lake well, navigates inward.Anchor and prepare to read a book.
A guardian in his boat approaches the woman and says: “Good morning, ma'am ... What is he doing?
-Leiring a book- she responds (as she thinks isn't it obvious?).
-You are in a restricted area to fish-, he informs you.
-Farly, I am not fishing ... I'm reading-
-Yes ... but he has the whole team ... and for what I see, he could start at any time.I will have to stop it and take it.
-If does that, I will have to accuse him of sexual abuse-, says the woman ...
-But I didn't even touch it -says the guard.
-It's true, but the whole team has to do it.From what I see I could start at any time-, she says.
-Disculpe, who has a good day lady- and he left.
This moral of an unknown author, entitled "The woman who reads" reflects the subjectivity and manipulation that allows the concept "presumption of crime", which today is a daily practice in the delivery of justice in the criminal field, as well as in combatto corruption and punishment of alleged fiscal crimes.
For presumption that he could escape abroad it was that a judge decided to put Rosario Robles in prison for almost two and a half years.And who was a PAN senator, -Jorge Luís Lavalle Maury, Campechano -, he has been in pretrial detention since April of last year ... almost a year, refusing him to face the accusations in freedom under the argument that “he has enough resources to hide from hiding from Justice".
Similarly, the ambiguity of the use of the "presumption" before fiscal reviews to a deceased, allows to link a legal act, -with another equally legal -, but which intervinculated could offer the possibility of configuring a fiscal crime.Why does the SCJN not instruct as unconstitutional the use of "presumption" in the judicial and fiscal spheres to imprison those who do not represent a danger to society?
The presumption is a serious risk in the hands of the Mexican State, as it is always used against the citizen.However, at the fundamental principle of law, -of global application, which is the "presumption of innocence" -, the Mexican State handles it and abuses its powers to imprison someone simply to investigate it, without having evidence to involve it ina crime, but a simple circumstantial presumption that it could have participated.
A case that describes the severity of the presumptions is the tragedy that Ana Laura "N" and his family live, who was imprisoned in Veracruz for owning a car that circulated very close to the place where he was killed to the reporter Jacinto Romero.
She didn't even come in the car during that attack, "her husband was driving, who was caught in the shooting.However, when the authorities investigated the plates of all the vehicles that had been close, they searched her for being the owner.In addition, they imprisoned her for the "presumption" that he had participated as an intellectual author.
That his truck had been in the wrong place and at the inconvenient moment he resulted in Ana Laura today to be in prison in Veracruz.
Surely they will release her, but the psychological damage of having been in prey and the possible abuse in prison infringed to an innocent woman can accompany her all life.And the damage to your reputation?...And the footprint of this nightmare in his family, in addition to the impact on family finances.
The Mexican State irresponsibly does not replenish the indicated who are exonerated by being innocent, invested in their defense, which can damage or end the heritage of an honorable family.
If there is no judicial record in the field of crime that is investigated, the presumption of innocence of the accused should prevail and give him the opportunity to defend himself in freedom, instead of using “the presumption” in the opposite sense, to generate the imputation and delegate to theaccused the responsibility of verifying his innocence.We are exposed to living horror stories by a surreal justice, where all Mexicans are guilty of what any authority accuses us as long as we do not check our innocence.
Preventive detention means for the judicial authority that it is practiced to avoid thorough investigation and the opportunity to blackmail and even threaten the detainee to accept his guilt of a crime that could not have committed, because he already has it under his control.Let's not say the practice of torture, so common in our country.
To this we can add the subjectivity that represents the interpretation of the law, which allows to carry an administrative or simple infraction, to the criminal scope.
The concepts "organized crime", which means -in the simplistic form as practiced today -, the supposed participation of other people, -consciously or unconsciously -in the same fact, which is sufficient to give this circumstance.
The other concept managed to sink someone is that of "resources of illicit origin", which we have seen that corresponds to the use that in these times, -fighting the corruption "4t style" -, has been used to damage adversariespoliticians or enemies.
The "illicit" concept, used under the interpretation of Mexican authorities, is not even linguistically defined from a vision of "ethics".
Many injustices would be avoided in Mexico if the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared unconstitutional the use of the concept of "presumption", so ambiguous in its practice, in the criminal and fiscal and so dangerous and so dangerous areas when it is manipulated to generate informal preventive detention.
Protection of audiences
The Ombudsman's Office is a worldwide tendency and in Mexico it has not been the exception.The Federal Telecommunications and Radiodifusion Law of 2014 already contemplates it.
In turn, in 2017 the Federal Telecommunications Institute established the guidelines to defend the rights of the hearings.The radio and TV industry did not object as they do today that the first SCJN room resolved an amparo filed by CLEDH giving them reason.
The difference between these three legal moments are surely the fears that awaken the current political context with its revisionist and controlling attitude.Perhaps the difference between the promulgation of the two previous laws and the expectations and fears that arouses the current resolution of the SCJN, is the lack of confidence in today's political actors, that to have control they manipulate the legal opportunities.
In the radio and TV industry, as well as in the press, it worries that this measure granted by the SCJN opens the door to the establishment of measures that promote informative censorship.
Before, it was legislated with transparency and if a sector sought to influence legislation, it was heard.In contrast, today those who have a majority in Congress are authoritative to impose their vision of laws without moving "not a comma".The context is definitely a lot.
What do you think?
Facebook: @Ricardo.Homs1Twitter: @homsricardoLinkedin: Ricardo Homswww.ricardohoms.com