Mexico

Introduction

Reporting period: 2023

Report author(s): Carlos Silva Forné, Catalina Pérez Correa, José Enrique Coutiño

Summary: Public information on the use of lethal force is deficient or non-existent for the more than 2000 security forces in Mexico. In a context of growing militarization, abuse of force (and lethal force in particular) by the military raises questions on the advisability of using military personnel in public security tasks.

Abstract

With more than 2000 security forces in Mexico, and an expanding military, official data on the use of force is scarce, deficient or non-existent, making indicators difficult to use in comparative analysis. Existing data is often contradictory, even from the same sources reporting over the years. When aggregated, national indicators on lethal force would appear to be low, in comparison with other countries. However, when data from specific agencies is disaggregated, it shows a growing use of lethal force by the military, pointing often to excessive use of force and possible extrajudicial executions. Across Mexico, law enforcement agencies do not often use data to evaluate and improve performance.

Background

Mexico is a representative, democratic and federal republic. With a population of 130 million, it is made up of thirty-two states, including the capital, Mexico City. Each state is divided into municipalities, together there are 2,469 municipalities. According to the Constitution, public security is a concurrent jurisdiction between the Federation, the States and Municipalities1. However, during the past 30 years, public security policies and strategies have been constantly absorbed by the federal government and given to the military (despite the provisions of the Constitution).

Two types of police institutions provide security and crime prosecution to citizens: preventive and ministerial. Preventive police forces work to maintain order and prevent crime, while ministerial police forces investigate crime and work in coordination with the judicial authorities. There are security institutions at the three levels of government, and each may act according to the tasks constitutionally attributed to each level. In 2019, the Federal Police was disbanded and replaced by the National Guard, a new federal-level preventive force. Although constitutionally a civil force, the National Guard is a de facto military institution, run by the Mexican Army, with military training and equipment and mainly composed by soldiers. The military status of this institution has been problematic, not only due to the legality of their actions, but also due to the fact that the members that form the National Guards receive military training, which is aimed at defending the nation and not preventing crime. Along with the National Guard, the Federal Ministerial Police investigates crimes that are federal in jurisdiction.

Each state government also has two police institutions that are preventive and ministerial. In other words, there are 64 police institutions functioning at the state level, that can only operate within the limits of its own jurisdiction. Although municipalities can also have their own preventive police, not all of them have one: due to lack of resources or because the particular state adopted a single police corps for the state. At the end of 2021 it was estimated by the Mexican government that around 1,800 municipal police institutions existed.

It is relevant to note that today the armed forces are the leading public security providers. It is precisely the context of the militarization of public security in Mexico that makes it more urgent to understand and monitor the use of lethal force.

Global treaties

Adherence to selected global human rights treaties
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)State party
ICCPR Optional Protocol 1State party
1984 Convention Against Torture (CAT)State party
CAT committee competent to receive individual complaints?Yes

Regional treaties

Adherence to selected regional human rights treaties
1948 Charter of the Organization of American StatesState party
1969 Inter-American Convention on Human RightsState party
Competence of Inter-American Court on Human RightsYes

The Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico (enacted 1917, various alterations)2 guarantees the following:

  • Art 10 entitles citizens to possess weapons for protection (but police regulations can restrict their right to bear them in inhabited areas),
  • Art 14 asserts the right to life,
  • Art 21 allows only the judiciary to impose any penalties, and Art 22 restricts capital punishment to specific offences,
  • Art 129 states no military authority may in time of peace perform any functions other than those related to military affairs.

Relevant specific national legislation

The Organic Law of the Mexican Army and Air Force, 1986, regulates the military. Art 129 of the Constitution prevents it to carry out civilian duties, but it has been informally tasked with policing duties since 20063.

The National Law on the Use of Force, 2019, regulates security institutions while undertaking public security functions:

  • Art 32: Whenever members of the security institutions use force in the performance of their duties, they shall make a detailed report to their immediate superior, a copy of which shall be included in the file of the officer in command of the operation and, where appropriate, of each of the participants.The hierarchical superiors shall be responsible when they should have or have knowledge that the agents under their command have unlawfully used force, instruments or firearms in their charge and do not prevent it or do not report it to the corresponding authorities.
  • Art 33: The detailed report shall contain:
    1. Name, assignment and identification data of the officer;
    2. Level of force used;
    3. Circumstances of manner, time, place of occurrence and reasons for the decision to use such level of force, and;
    4. If lethal weapons were used:
      1. Detail the reasons for the use of the firearm or explosive;
      2. Identify the number of shots fired or the amount of explosive detonation;
      3. Specify the type of injuries, the number and identity of the injured persons, and the material damage caused; and
      4. If applicable, specify the number and identity of persons killed.
  • Art 35: Security institutions shall submit annual public reports on the development of activities involving the use of force. These reports shall contain:
    1. Data related to arrests;
    2. The results of the bodily assessment carried out on persons detained;
    3. The number of persons killed by the use of force, disaggregated by sex, and;
    4. If applicable, any recommendations issued by public human rights bodies in relation to these events, and the attention given to them.

Not all agencies comply with the law in terms of making information public. They also do not always respond to information requests in the same way. Some states or municipalities do not even respond to requests, although obliged by law to do so.

This law is applicable to all agencies and their personnel when conducting public security tasks. This is a problem when members of the armed force use lethal force as they may describe their activities as national security and not public security. However, the Supreme Court has stated that when the human rights of any civil person are harmed, civil —and not military— authorities should investigate the events and sanction the perpetrator. Still, recent cases of extrajudicial killings are investigated and prosecuted in military courts.

The National Guard Law, 2019, regulates the National Guard. Although constitutionally a civil body, it is in fact a military institution4, that carries out public security tasks in direct contravention of the constitution5.

UN or other international body decisions or advisory opinions
  • Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: report of the Special Rapporteur, Asma Jahangir, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/35
  • Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to its Resolution 17/5. A/HRC/26/36
  • Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, submitted to the Human Rights Council. A/HRC/14/24/ADD.6
  • Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Mexico. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/MEX/CO/6
  • Letter and preliminary observations on the decree “Ley de Seguridad Interior”, 2017. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Regional court judgments

The following cases were heard at the Inter-American Court on Human Rights:

  • Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371. On Abuse of force, sexual assault and torture by the Federal Police6.
  • Fernández Ortega et al. v Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215. On sexual assault committed by the military, the lack of due diligence in the investigation and punishment of the authors; “the failure to make adequate reparation to the [alleged] victim and her next of kin; […] the use of the military justice system to investigate and prosecute human rights violations, and […] the difficulties encountered by indigenous people, indigenous women in particular, to obtain access to justice”7.
  • Rosendo Cantú et al. v Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216. On sexual assault committed by the military and lack of due diligence in investigating and punishing perpetrators8.
  • Alvarado Espinoza et al. v Mexico. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Disappearance of three members of a family during a military operative in Chihuahua. The court recognized the military’s responsibility in the disappearances, the state’s responsibility in the inadequate investigation and established criteria for the use of military in public security efforts, stating it must be extraordinary, subordinated to civil authorities and supplementary, regulated through legal mechanisms9.
National court judgments

Supreme Court of Justice, Amparo Directo 15/2012. The court reinforced civil courts’ jurisdiction, over civilians. Stating that military tribunals cannot extend their jurisdiction over nonmilitary persons. Also, on cases where a military member commits a crime against civilians, civil and not military courts have jurisdiction. (Amparo is a Mexican legal concept most closely translated as ‘due process’10.)

Supreme Court of Justice, Action of Unconstitutionality 25/2016, 27/2016 and 28/2016: The Court determined the unconstitutionality of certain articles of the Law that regulates the Use of Public Force in the State of Mexico. The Court stated thar use of force must comply with the principle of legality, absolute necessity, proportionality and accountability. The Court also stated that in violates these principles by allowing the discretionary use of arms as a first option. However, the law was upheld in several portions that had been deemed in violation of human rights by the plaintiffs.

National Supreme Court of Justice, Action of Unconstitutionality 46/2016: The case was brought forth by the National Human Rights Commission against reforms to the Military Code and the Military criminal procedure code. The Supreme Court again reinforces a clear constitutional prohibition for military authorities to enforce jurisdiction over civilians. It also states the need for military laws to comply with basic rights such as personal freedom, due process, etc.

National Supreme Court of Justice, Action of Unconstitutionality 64/2019: Presented by the National Human Rights Commission regarding the unconstitutionality of the National Law on the Use of Lethal Force. The Court stated that the use of law must be subjected to the principles of rationality and opportunity. Congress should establish the purpose in the use of force.

Part 2: Policies and Procedures

Data collection and publication by official agencies

1. Are the number of deaths following any police use of force
Collected?Partial, Medium
Accessible through existing publicly available information?Limited, Poor
Is this a legal requirement?Partial, Medium
Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available?Limited, Poor
2. If published, to what extent can the number of deaths be readily determined from official statistics?Partial, Medium
3. Is it possible to identify specific individuals killed in official records?No Provisions
4. Is demographic and other information for the deceased
Collected?Partial, Medium
Accessible through existing publicly available information?Limited, Poor
Is this a legal requirement?Good, Robust
Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available?Limited, Poor
If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released?Partial, Medium
5. Is demographic and other information on officers in use of force incidents
Collected?No Provisions
Accessible through existing publicly available information?No Provisions
Is this a legal requirement?No Provisions
Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available?Limited, Poor
If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released?Limited, Poor
6. Is information on the circumstances
Collected?Good, Robust
Publicly available?Partial, Medium
Is this a legal requirement?Good, Robust
Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available?Limited, Poor
If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released?Partial, Medium
7. Is information about the type(s) of force used
Collected?Good, Robust
Accessible through existing publicly available information?No Provisions
Is this a legal requirement?Good, Robust
Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available?Limited, Poor
If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released?Partial, Medium

Data quality of official sources

8. How reliable are the sources used to produce official statistics about deaths?Limited, Poor
9. Are there mechanisms for internal quality assurance / verification conductedNo Provisions
10. Is the methodology for data collection publicised?No Provisions
11. How reliable are the overall figures produced?Limited, Poor

Data analysis and lessons learnt

12. Do state or police agencies analyse data on the use of lethal force, to prevent future deaths?Limited, Poor
13. Is there evidence that state/ police agencies act on the results of their analysis, including applying lessons learnt?Limited, Poor
14. Are external bodies are able to reuse data for their own analyses?Limited, Poor
15. Do external, non-governmental agencies collect and publish their own statistics on deaths following police use of force?Limited, Poor

Investigations by official agencies

16. Is there a legal requirement for deaths to be independently investigated?Good, Robust
17. If so, which organisation(s) conduct these investigations?Civil prosecutors should investigate the deaths of civilians.
19. Are close relatives of the victims involved in the investigations?No Provisions
20. Investigation reports into deaths
Are publicly available?No Provisions
Give reasons for the conclusions they have reached?No Provisions
Is this a legal requirement?Good, Robust
Can such information be requested from the authorities when not publicly available?Good, Robust
If one can request it, what is the likelihood this information would be released?Partial, Medium
21. Is there information available on legal proceedings against agents / officials, pursuant to deaths?Limited, Poor
22. Is there information available on legal proceedings against state agencies, pursuant to deaths?Limited, Poor
23. Is there information available on disciplinary proceedings against agents/ officials, pursuant to deaths?Limited, Poor
24. Number of prosecutions against agents / officials involved in the last ten years?Data unavailable
25. Number of convictions against agents / officials involved in the last ten years?Data unavailable
26. Number of prosecutions against agencies involved in the last ten years?None.
27. Number of convictions against agencies involved in the last ten years?Not applicable (none).
28. Number of cases in which states have been found to have breached human rights law on the use of lethal force?None.

Detailed elaboration

Data collection and publication by official agencies

As there are several institutions in charge of public security, there is no single source of information about many of the policy and procedural issues assessed through the Lethal Force Monitor. The accessibility and quality of information, mechanisms of control, etc., often vary from one state or municipality to another. This section, therefore, supplies generalizations across Mexico that might not be relevant for certain locations.

According to the National Law on the Use of Force, public security agencies should collect data regarding the agent(s) and circumstances involved in instance of the use of force, level of force used and weapons (Art. 35). Circumstances are described in the individual reports (Art. 32 & 33), but these reports are not public due to protection of personal information laws.

Furthermore (Art. 35), public security agencies should also publish data related with detentions, the result of body searches make during detentions, number of civilians killed through the use of lethal force, desegregated by sex. This, however does not always happen in practice with most security institutions.

As noted previously, Mexico has over 1900 police: national, state, and municipal. Not all agencies comply with the law in terms of making information public (e.g., the number of civilians killed through use of lethal force). Information can be requested through requests but not all authorities give the information, or they only do so partially (e.g., by giving an aggregate number for multiple years).

Data quality of official sources

Data quality and reliability depend on the agency and often on the individual persons involved. There are no internal quality or verification checks conducted, each institution adopts its own methodology.

Often information from the same agency is contradictory from one year to another. This, for example, is the case for the military11.

Data analysis and lessons learned

The use of data and evidence to prevent future deaths or create public policies depends on the particular institution. But overall, evidence-based practice is not sought, either to prevent abuse in the use of lethal force or human rights violations. Often, institutions like the military, see performance information as problematic and not as a resource to improve practices. Some institutions have human rights courses but do not evaluate the usefulness of these resources in terms of lowering abuses. External bodies, like the national human rights commission, do not regularly analyse and/or use data to evaluate institutions.

Investigations by official agencies

Even though there is a legal requirement for each death to be investigated by the public ministry, these investigations often do not take place. It is important to note that other homicides —i.e., those not perpetrated by law enforcement agents— are not investigated either but left in impunity.

In cases that gain public attention, it is common for investigations to be initiated but then often result in acquittals12. In the case of the military, even though the law obliges civil prosecutorial and judicial authorities to investigate the death of civilians, often military authorities initiate procedures in military tribunals. The results of these trials are not always public and also often lead to acquittals. Institutions often take the use of force as justified and it is up to family victims to show this is not the case, placing the burden of actioning prosecutorial and judicial institutions on the victims or their relatives. Many cases of illegal use of force are known thanks to videos or witness accounts pointing to excessive use of force or extrajudicial executions.

Mexico has been found to have breached its international human rights obligations due to an abuse of force in several cases and has been ordered to regulate the use of force, including lethal force. Examples of these cases from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights are:

  • Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v Mexico
  • Alvarado Espinoza and Others v Mexico
  • Female victims of sexual torture in Atenco v Mexico

Non-official sources

External and non-government agencies are able to collect and publish their own statistics, with the information they generate. Several NGOs and academics (e.g., the Monitor of Lethal Force (MOLF), Universidad Iberoamericana, Intersecta and Causa en Común A.C.) have constructed databases or written reports on the subject either using official data, results from FOI requests, or a combination of both. Some, like the MOLF, have used press information to evaluate the use of lethal force. Some NGOs also describe particular cases which illustrate an abuse of lethal force and the institutional responses following these cases.

Some examples of non-official sources are:

The quality of non-official sources depends on the quality of available data, which varies from state to state and often from case to case.

Part 3: Comparative indicators

Table: The following information corresponds to the year 2020. Further information on methodology and characterization on the data can be found in Monitor of Use of Lethal Force in Latin America and the Caribbean – Mexico 202113
I-1a. CK: Number of civilians killed by law enforcement agents on duty, by gunshot495
I-1b. CKt: Number of civilians killed by law enforcement agents, regardless of means and whether or not on dutyData unavailable
I-1c. CW: Number of civilians wounded by law enforcement agents on duty, by gunshot195
I-1d. CWt: Number of civilians wounded by law enforcement agents, whether or not on duty and regardless of meansData unavailable
I-2. CK per 100000 inhabitants0.39
I-3. CK per 1000 law enforcement agents2.04
I-4. CK per 1000 arrests1.46
I-5. CK per 1000 weapons seized26.08
I-6. AK: Number of law enforcement officers unlawfully killed on duty by firearm119
I-6b. AKt: Number of law enforcement officers unlawfully killed, whether or not on duty and regardless of means524
I-7. AK per 1000 agents0.36
A1. Percentage of homicides due to state intervention1.40%
A2. Ratio between CK and AK5.33
A3. Civilian lethality index: Ratio between CK and CW2.5
A4. Lethality ratio: Ratio between Civilian lethality index and law enforcement agents lethality index6.57
A5. Average number of civilians killed by intentional gunshot, per incidentData unavailable

Summary and recommendations

The National Law on the Use of Force contains some guidelines in terms of the effective regulation and verification of the use of lethal force. However, it also contains omissions and errors. Although the National Law on the Use of Force establishes the obligation to annually make public some data regarding use of force, it does not oblige the publication of disaggregated information on injuries or deaths. This information, however, is essential in order to properly evaluate the actions of the civilian police, military authorities and other law enforcement agents. It is therefore recommended that this law be revised and amended to fill these gaps.

Institutional policies on the use of force should also be devised so that they provide security agents with all the necessary conditions for the professional use of lethal and non-lethal force; ranging from regulations, training, psychological support, institutional culture, and the avoidance of unnecessary risks. These are currently lacking overall in Mexico.

There is a need for reports, such as police reports on the use of force, to be supervised, audited by external institutions and open for analysis by academia or NGOs. This obligation should extend to all institutions that use lethal force and not only those nationally involved in public security. The military, when conducting national or internal security should be obligated as well.

There should be ex officio investigations, both at the administrative and criminal levels, based on different thresholds of use of force. It must be ensured that investigations are carried out by personnel who are independent of the officials being investigated.

Early intervention systems need to be established so as to identify problematic patterns either from individuals, agencies or units. Proper training for law enforcement agents, as well as psychological assessment should be given. There should also be legal support to professionally defend the legitimate use of force, in particular lethal force.

References, data sources and downloads

References

Carlos Silva, Catalina Pérez Correa & Rodrigo Gutiérrez (2012). Uso de la fuerza letal. Muertos, heridos y detenidos en enfrentamientos de las fuerzas federales con presuntos miembros de la delincuencia organizada. Desacatos, no. 40, September–December. pp. 47–64, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Distrito Federal, México. Available from: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/139/13925007004.pdf.

Carlos Silva, Catalina Pérez Correa & Rodrigo Gutiérrez (2017). Índice de letalidad 2008–2014: Menos enfrentamientos, misma letalidad, más opacidad, Perfiles Latinoamericanos, 25(50):331–359.

Footnotes

1 Article 21, see e.g., https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/CPEUM.pdf.

2 Mexican constitution e.g., https://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/mex_res3.pdf.

3 See e.g., https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/26/mexico-extending-military-policing-threatens-rights.

4 See e.g., https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexican-congress-backs-army-taking-control-national-guard-2022-09-09/.

5 See e.g., https://apnews.com/article/mexico-national-guard-constitution-civilian-military-8c0be1ed6c6f28d180e2b9f9d8ccbcc5.

6 ICtHR report: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_371_ing.pdf

7 ICtHR report: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_215_ing.pdf

8 ICtHR report: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_216_ing.pdf

9 ICtHR report: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_370_ing.pdf

10 Oxford Constitutional Law (OXCON) encyclopedia entry, ‘Amparo’. Retrieved 23-01-2024 from: https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e200.

11 Javier Trevino-Rangel, Raúl Bejarano-Romero, Laura H. Atuesta & Sara Velázquez-Moreno (2022). Deadly force and denial: the military’s legacy in Mexico’s ‘war on drugs’. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26:4, 567-590, DOI: 10.1080/13642987.2021.1947806.

12 An example of this could be checked in https://www.animalpolitico.com/sociedad/guardia-nacional-dispara-estudiantes-irapuato-guanajuato.

13 Carlos Silva, Catalina Pérez Correa & José Enrique Coutiño (2022). Monitor of Use of Lethal Force in Latin America and the Carribbean — México. Available from: https://monitorfuerzaletal.com/docs/MonitorFuerzaLetal_2022_Mexico.pdf.