Source: Proceso (Spanish) via MXporFCassez
Translation: ACDV
The case of a woman sentenced to 25 years in prison for the killing of her husband, case in which the confession allegedly obtained under torture was one of the key items of evidence for her conviction, opened the door for any allegations of torture to be immediately investigated ex officio.
In addition, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) determined that the burden of proof to demonstrate that this practice was not committed on a suspect corresponds to the State.
Deciding on the writ of direct amparo 90/2014, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court said that this resolution is intended to “discourage the use of any form of coercion” in the investigation of crimes by the Office of the Public Prosecutor.
The resolution went beyond the case in particular because the judges set the parameters that should be followed for investigating cases of torture.
In the case decided by the First Chamber, the defendant argued before the judge that to obtain her confession the investigating officials subjected her to psychological torture.
The judges did not rule on the guilt of the woman but granted the writ for rescission of the conviction, and ordered a new trial after a “thorough” investigation as to whether her confession was actually obtained under torture.
The Court ruled that it is the judge who orders the relevant psychological and medical examinations, as well as any inquiry to clarify if there was torture in the case and, depending on the results, decides if the confession has probative value.
In terms of the parameters that judges must take into account investigating possible acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by State agents, the First Chamber decided that investigations concerning allegations of torture must be held ex officio and immediately, and they should also be “impartial, independent and thorough.”
Also judges should not only determine the nature and the origin of reported injuries, but also identify those responsible for them and, where appropriate, start trial proceedings.
For this reason, the SCJN determined that it is up to the judicial authorities to ensure the rights of the person under arrest, which involves obtaining and securing all evidence that could prove acts of torture.
In addition, the Court noted that the State must guarantee the independence of the medical and health personnel responsible for examining and providing assistance to the detainees, so that they can freely carry out the required medical evaluations according to the standards established in the practice of their profession.
According to the resolution, when a person alleges within the trial process that his or her statement or confession was obtained through coercion, the State should check the veracity of the complaint through an investigation conducted with due diligence.
The burden of proof of such facts lies with the State, so it will not be valid that the argument is made that the complainant did not fully prove his or her claim to rule it out. It will be for the State to prove that the confession was voluntary.
