**Senate Declares Constitutionality of Mandatory Preventive Detention for Extortion, Fake Invoices, and Fentanyl**
On December 3, 2024, the Senate ratified the constitutional reform of Article 19, effectively expanding the list of offenses eligible for mandatory preventive detention. This followed the approval of the reform in 20 state congresses, surpassing the required minimum of 17. José Gerardo Rodolfo Fernández Noroña, President of the Senate Board, declared this in session and forwarded it to the Chamber of Deputies for a similar process before sending it to the Federal Executive for publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation.
The local congresses of Mexico City, Chiapas, Colima, Durango, Guerrero, Michoacán, Nayarit, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosí, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, and Zacatecas led the voting, with Baja California, Campeche, and Yucatán being the final concurring states. The amendment was favorably voted by the Senate with 94 in favor and 34 against on November 26, 2024.
The legislative proposal, backed by members of the Morena party, along with the Green Ecologist Party and the Labor Party, faced opposition from the National Action Party, Institutional Revolutionary Party, and Citizen’s Movement. A subsequent detailed vote reflected similar support with 93 approvals and 35 rejections.
By broadening the catalog of crimes under Article 19, the reform mandates judges to order automatic detention for individuals involved in these offenses, restricting judicial discretion regardless of case specifics. Crimes such as extortion, invoice forgery, and fentanyl trafficking are among those affected.
Senator Óscar Cantón Zetina of Morena defended the reform, arguing it does not infringe on human rights and pertains only to about 11% of crimes nationally, asserting the protection of victims and safety.
**Secondary Article: Growing Concerns over Mandatory Preventive Detention Reform**
The recent constitutional reform expanding the list of crimes eligible for mandatory preventive detention in Mexico has sparked considerable debate. Critics argue that the policy could exacerbate the country’s already strained prison system and might infringe upon human rights, potentially holding individuals without trial for extensive periods.
Human rights organizations have raised alarms over the implications of the reform, emphasizing the potential for abuse and the undermining of due process. There’s a concern that the policy could lead to overcrowding and worsen conditions in the already overpopulated detention facilities, a situation that could escalate human rights violations within the penal system.
Moreover, some legal experts contend that the reform could deter proper judicial evaluations in each case, as judges would be stripped of their ability to consider alternative measures to imprisonment during pre-trial proceedings. This inflexibility could disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
Despite these criticisms, supporters argue that the reform is a necessary step to curb serious criminal activities, promising better safety and justice for victims. The ongoing discussion reflects broader national conversations about balancing security measures with protecting civil liberties.