On June 3rd, with little over two years before the Constitutional deadline, it was announced that Yucat\u00e1n became the fourth state in the country \u2013 after Chihuahua, State of Mexico and Morelos \u2013 in implementing the new criminal justice model, a result of a 2008 reform, throughout its territory. According to the Interior Secretary, Miguel \u00c1ngel Osorio Chong, the final goal is the full or partial adoption of the new system on the remaining 28 Mexican states. After its issuance on June 28, 2008, the reform established a timeline of eight years, with the purpose of going from an inquisitor criminal system to an accusatory model that followed international standards and was respectful of human rights. Nevertheless, in an evaluation made six years after the reform\u2019s approval, it is evident that the implementation process has been characterized by sloppiness and obstacles.
\nThe confidence behind Osorio Chong\u2019s statement regarding the accelerated process that the criminal reform will go through might be backed by the over 7 billion pesos that are currently allocated to the sector. Unlike the previous federal government, the Pe\u00f1a administration has demonstrated an interest on the matter as well as a willingness to end the process by June 2016. However, the thick of the battle will be on the efficiency of the expenditure of such a resource. Most of the budget will be destined to building large infrastructure projects (courthouses, administrative complexities, etc.). Unfortunately, constructing buildings does not equate to implementing the reform\u2019s principles. However, the temptation of settling with the picture of a majestic (or humble, it\u2019s all the same) courthouse and a sign that says \u201cmission accomplished\u201d could delay the institutional changes. Regardless of the fact that there is a need for modernizing and updating the physical infrastructure of the judiciary system, the urgent priority is to modify the work models inside the institutions, to establish tools for evaluation and continual improvement as well as to develop the necessary skills that operators need.
\nBecause the idea of extending the Constitutional deadline of June 2016 is not a viable option, perhaps it is time to assume a more realistic approach and distinguish from what will be transformed by that time and from what will not be attained. The federal government is stubborn on complying with the aforementioned limit using all available options when perhaps it would be wiser to establish the basis of what should be a transformation that transcends 2016.
\nAn adequate implementation of the criminal justice system will not be produced by an Executive decree or by providing a blank check. That is why the claims made by the Secretary of the Interior have drawn so much attention. At this point, no one is as na\u00efve to think that the necessary transformation will be finalized once the authorities say so. The only way to ensure that a real change has made consists on doing assessments that will enable to face the results in both systems. It is not enough to know in how many states the new system is operating rather than determining what its quality, how much the institutions have actually changed and how has it impacted on the confidence of users. Otherwise, there is a risk of maintaining old habits in new facilities.<\/p>\n
CIDAC<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On June 3rd, with little over two years before the Constitutional deadline, it was announced that Yucat\u00e1n became the fourth state in the country \u2013 after Chihuahua, State of Mexico and Morelos \u2013 in implementing the new criminal justice model, a result of a 2008 reform, throughout its territory. According to the Interior Secretary, Miguel \u00c1ngel Osorio Chong, the final goal is the full or partial adoption of the new system on the remaining 28 Mexican states. After its issuance on June 28, 2008, the reform established a timeline of eight years, with the purpose of going from an inquisitor criminal system to an accusatory model that followed international standards and was respectful of human rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4656,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[30],"class_list":["post-3572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-weekly-political-analysis","tag-political-analysis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3572"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3572\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4193,"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3572\/revisions\/4193"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4656"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cidacmx.org\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}