What are the faceless judges, one of the most controversial figures in judicial reform?

( Spanish) – President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s recently approved reform to the Judicial Branch includes the figure of faceless judges who guarantee anonymity in drug trafficking proceedings in the context of violence in Mexico.

“In the case of organized crime, the judicial administration body may take the necessary measures to preserve the security and protect the identity of the judges in accordance with the procedure established by law,” the document states. Article 20 of the reform.

In this way, the accused person will not be able to know the face or identity of the judge.

The figure of faceless judges was incorporated on the recommendation of López Obrador, who in his daily conference On August 20, he said it was necessary to include a “kind of protection for judges (…) a mechanism where authorities can make decisions without anyone knowing. But we need to find a way to do it, because many are subject to threats and pressures,” he said.

Ricardo Monreal, a congressman for the ruling Morena party, says that this model seeks to protect those who administer justice, since violence equally affects people seen as “collateral damage,” such as police officers and judges, figures who are symbols of security and justice.

However, the mechanism of faceless judges has been questioned by human rights organizations in Mexico and abroad, which point out that this practice violates the right to a fair trial.

The Mexico office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out in X that the figure of faceless judges “impedes knowing the identity of the person judging, as well as assessing their suitability and competence.” He clarified that, although it is necessary to protect the persons judging, the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court should not be violated.

The UN Human Rights Committee points out that trials with faceless judges “often suffer not only from the problem that the accused does not know the identity and status of the judges, but also from other irregularities such as the exclusion of the public, or even the accused or his representatives, from the proceedings.”

“Courts, with or without ‘faceless judges’, in circumstances such as these do not satisfy the fundamental standards of a fair trial, and in particular the requirement that the court must be independent and impartial,” the Committee states. This mechanism for excluding people from trials is not included in the judicial reform in Mexico.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) also has a position against this mechanism. In a 2013 document and with arguments based on jurisprudence in Peruvian cases, it points out that “faceless” judges violate Article 8.1 of the American Convention, because “it prevents defendants from knowing the identity of the judges and from assessing their suitability and competence, as well as determining whether they were considered grounds for recusal, in order to be able to exercise their defense before an independent and impartial court.”

In addition, the Miguel Agustin Pro Juárez Human Rights Center considered that courts with faceless judges in the current circumstances “do not satisfy the fundamental standards of a fair trial, nor in particular the requirement that the court must be independent and impartial.”

In practice, Latin American countries such as Peru and Colombia adopted the figure of anonymous judges for cases against drug trafficking, guerrillas and terrorism. In Peru, then-President Alberto Fujimori and his Council of Ministers introduced a package of anti-terrorist laws in 1992 that included the figure of faceless judges in the courts.

In 1996, the UN Human Rights Committee recommended that the Peruvian government immediately abolish the use of faceless judges on the grounds that they did not meet international standards for fair trials, but the Peruvian Congress extended their existence until 1997, according to Amnesty International.

Colombia adopted the model as part of a judicial reform in 1991 for drug and terrorism cases. However, a study published in the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy in 1993 noted that the adoption of faceless courts sacrificed the rights of the accused.

“While the secret court system has increased the conviction rate and provided some protection to the judiciary, it has done so at the expense of the basic rights of the accused. Furthermore, the secret court system has been used for political purposes, punishing legitimate political protesters as ‘terrorists,’” the study said.

The Constitutional Court of Colombia determined in 2000 that this figure should be modified, arguing that the 1991 reform indicated that faceless justice was “exceptional, extraordinary, justified only by the very special situation that prevented the proper exercise of the administration of justice at that time, and that it had a temporary and precarious validity.”