If a person walking down the street is approached by two individuals who, at gunpoint, demand their wallet and a bank transfer, it is universally understood that the person approached is a victim of robbery and extortion. Yet when powerful political and economic actors collude to divert public funds intended for healthcare, education, or infrastructure, the victims often remain invisible.
To date, Mexican judges have failed to grasp that all citizens are victims of corruption. They have not acknowledged that such crimes inflict both individual and collective harm. As a result, citizen participation—and its effective representation through civil society organizations—in administrative and criminal proceedings related to corruption remains an unmet obligation for Mexican authorities.
In recent years, anti-corruption efforts have dominated Mexico’s socio-political discourse. Currently, in light of the recent judicial reform and the impending public election of judges, anti-corruption rhetoric has become a double-edged sword. On one hand, supporters of the reform argue that removing sitting judges en masse and electing new ones through a popular vote will eliminate corruption within the federal judiciary. On the other, critics warn that the reform may lead to the judiciary’s cooptation by special interests, thereby deepening corruption.
Amid this contentious debate, one must ask: what has the federal judiciary done for corruption victims? The answer is mixed. While some progress has been made in administrative matters, in the criminal sphere the outcome suggests that the judiciary—aligned with the regrettable positions of the Attorney General’s Office (FGR)—has shut the door on victims of corruption.
The Javier Duarte Case: A Starting Point
The first major national debate emerged from the Javier Duarte case. In 2019, Mexico City’s Sixth District Court for Criminal Amparo issued a landmark ruling in favor of corruption victims. It recognized the civil society organization TOJIL as a victim in a criminal proceeding against the former governor. The court highlighted the existence of collective legal interests—such as proper public administration—based on a systemic interpretation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), the Mexican Constitution, the National Code of Criminal Procedure, and the General Victims’ Law. The court concluded that CSOs should be recognized as victims in corruption cases that affect society at large.
Unfortunately, a collegiate appellate court overturned the ruling and denied TOJIL victim status. The decision was not unanimous; one judge issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that proper public administration is a collective legal interest belonging to the citizenry, and that CSOs should thus be recognized as victims in cases of grand corruption.
After exhausting domestic remedies, TOJIL brought the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2020. In its petition, it claimed that Mexican authorities had violated the conventional rights of TOJIL’s co-founders by denying them recognition as victims in criminal proceedings. The case was preliminarily admitted; the Mexican government submitted its observations, and the Commission must now issue a final admissibility report.
Since then, Mexican jurisprudence on the matter has remained inconsistent. Both the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) and lower courts have issued rulings filled with nuances, contradictions, and setbacks. The following three recent cases—each with its progress and limitations—illustrate the ongoing struggle for recognition of corruption victims in the country.
Second Chamber of the SCJN: A Slight Opening (Contradiction of Thesis 253/2020)
In 2020, a company filed an administrative complaint alleging irregularities in a direct procurement process for medications. Authorities shelved the investigation, and the company sought an amparo. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court as a contradiction of thesis.
The Court’s Second Chamber issued a precedent that appeared to mark a turning point in understanding the citizenry’s role in combating corruption. Through an expansive interpretation of the law, the Chamber recognized the complainant’s standing to file an amparo over irregularities in the administrative investigation. The Court emphasized that the General Law on Administrative Responsibilities grants an active role to citizens acting as whistleblowers, referring to them as part of a “broad social oversight mechanism.”
First Chamber of the SCJN: A Step Backward (Amparo in Review 162/2022)
Soon after, a person reported suspected acts of corruption between a State-owned company and Google to the FGR. When they requested access to the investigation’s records, the FGR denied the request, asserting that the individual was not a victim, despite having filed the complaint. The decision was challenged and reached the Supreme Court.
In this case, the complainant did not explicitly request victim status but rather access to investigative records as a whistleblower. Nonetheless, the case represented a valuable opportunity for the Court to define and expand the rights of corruption victims. Unfortunately, the First Chamber adopted a restrictive reading of UNCAC, concluding that public participation in anti-corruption efforts is limited to general advocacy. It ruled that UNCAC does not obligate the Mexican state to recognize complainants as victims in criminal proceedings.
This conclusion is untenable under any interpretive methodology. A literal, pro persona, or systemic interpretation of UNCAC, the Constitution, and Mexican law could have easily led to the opposite conclusion. Regrettably, the Court missed a historic opportunity to conduct a structural analysis of corruption and its impact on collective legal interests.
The Most Recent Ruling: A Bittersweet Victory (Amparo in Review 208/2024)
In 2024, a group of public servants filed a complaint against a mayor for abuse of authority after he refused to comply with a court order reinstating them in their jobs. The workers sought recognition as victims, but the district court dismissed their request, arguing that the protected legal interest—“proper public service”—belongs to the State, not to the workers individually.
Upon review, the Fourth Collegiate Court of the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision. While acknowledging that the workers were not direct holders of the legal interest, it held they should be recognized as victims because the crime indirectly violated their right of access to justice. Though well-intentioned, the court’s reasoning is limited and carries problematic implications.
Under this view, authorities cannot categorically deny victim status to corruption whistleblowers based solely on a lack of direct ownership over the affected legal interest. They must first assess whether the offense indirectly violated other rights. However, the court’s reasoning is grounded in the assumption that the only party with standing in corruption cases is the state. This replicates a 19th-century, individualistic concept of harm, incapable of fully recognizing the collective and structural nature of the damage caused by corruption.
Conclusion
The recognition of corruption victims remains an unresolved issue in Mexico. The human rights violations resulting from acts of corruption are often tangible and visible. But this phenomenon also undermines the collective right to a corruption-free environment and to proper public administration—rights held by society as a whole.
So far, no judicial body has taken the definitive step of recognizing the public as a victim of corruption and fully guaranteeing its rights. Unfortunately, criminal court rulings have, at best, produced limited progress and, at worst, reinforced restrictive or counterproductive interpretations. As judicial elections approach, it is essential that the public scrutinize candidates’ positions on the rights of corruption victims and vote for those committed to their recognition and protection.
Photo credits: via Freepik.com