Constitutionality of Article 121 of the National Criminal Procedures Code Affirmed
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has determined that Article 121 of the National Criminal Procedures Code, which allows a judge to remove a defense attorney without their consent, is constitutional.
Article 121 Details
Article 121, titled “Guarantee of Technical Defense,” outlines the process for replacing a defense attorney due to technical incapacity. It specifies timeframes and procedures for both private and public defenders.
- If a private defender is removed, the accused has three days to appoint a new one.
- If no new defender is chosen, a public defender will be assigned to assist.
- For public defenders, the superior authority is informed for substitution purposes.
- A maximum of ten days is granted to develop an adequate defense following the change.
SCJN’s Rationale
The SCJN, under the leadership of Irving Espinosa Betancourt, delineated the controversy surrounding Article 121’s abstract control versus the right to a fair defense and judicial impartiality.
The court emphasized that Article 121’s purpose—ensuring effective defense and equal treatment in the legal process—is legitimate. However, it acknowledged potential impacts on a lawyer’s honor and professional autonomy, demanding enhanced motivation and prudent judicial exercise.
The court stipulated that removal of a defense attorney is only warranted with objective, relevant, and repeated indications of technical incapacity—such as ignorance of litigation techniques, neglecting resources, or abandoning the defense.
Judges must hear the accused, respect their choice, provide adequate motivation for decisions, and grant reasonable time to reorganize the defense, especially when requested by the prosecution.
Military Jurisdiction in Crime Determination
Under President Hugo Aguilar Ortiz’s leadership, the SCJN resolved that determining military jurisdiction in crimes committed by uniformed personnel requires analyzing the strict connection between the alleged offense and disciplinary military jurisdiction’s protection.
Two elements must be proven:
- The conduct must violate the chain of command or military discipline’s hierarchical organization.
- The conduct must obstruct the objectives of the Armed Forces, understood as national security and protection of Mexico both domestically and internationally.
Failure to meet either requirement results in jurisdiction falling to ordinary penal courts.
Criticism of SCJN’s Luxury Vehicle Purchases
Mario Salazar Madera, head of the Acción Nacional (PAN) state directorate in Durango, criticized the SCJN for secretly purchasing nine high-end, armored SUVs for its justices, contradicting their austerity rhetoric.
Salazar Madera expressed disappointment, stating that the purchase lacked transparency and violated the principle of separation of powers since the federal executive defended the action.
