The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) declared as unconstitutional the crime of “outrages to the authority” that in the state of Veracruz it has been persecuted with such force that more than a thousand citizens are in preventive detention.
However, the governor of the entity, Cuitláhuac García, assured that he will not leave things like that, since with the prosecution of said crime, the violence against the authority was reducedand the state has been pacified.
He added, during his press conference from the government palace, that despite the decree, the intent of your security strategy was clearwho sought to reduce the attacks and murders of police officers while carrying out their public work.
Although he said calm and assured that he will take responsibility without problemsalso reported that the main argument is not against the aggravating factors, but against “the heading” of the article.
Thus, revealed that it will change the wording of the penal code in order to “immediately cover what remains unprotected, which is violent aggression against people, whether they are citizens or officials.”
He insisted that It will be this March 1, 2022 when I present a new law initiative to the local congress who has even worked since the weekend. Her goal, she reported, is “to protect what the constitution mandates.”
In this regard, he argued that will probably change the “insults to authority” for “violent aggression”where people who violently attack officials, such as with weapons, will be included.
“We are going to make it more textual, we are going to change the type, they are no longer outrages. We will have to do the analysis so that it continues to be protected. I will analyze it, the wording is important (…) We have already taken note of what words you cannot use, what terms cannot be, and what criminal types must be used”.
Finally, he clarified that it will be in the afternoon when he presents his bill to send it to Congress, who will be asked to turn it over to commissions, who will make their opinion and take it to the plenary session of Congress. in just one week.
The ruling declaring this crime unconstitutional was voted in favor by 10 of the 11 magistrates who made up Monday’s session; only Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo voted against.
According to the Superior Chamber of the Supreme Court, as stated in this Article, the rights to freedom of expression, legality and the principle of limitation are violatedin other words, the text does not specify or abound enough to make it clear what type of conduct is classified as prohibited and what type of sanctions will be applicable in legal terms.
Under this logic, the ministers of the Court pointed out a flagrant violation of this term, since the wording in this Article does not clarify how this crime would be incurred, so “Any word, tone of voice, gesture, mockery could be a threat or aggression against an official”.
With these elements in context, the Supreme Court added that it is inconsistent that the authorities are empowered to determine whether or not the crime occurred when an arrest is made, because the alleged perpetrator could react adversely if he feels threatened, which it would be a reflex of self-defense rather than aggression.