Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN), through its First Chamber, delivered a ruling in Direct Amparo 35/2022, in which it analyzed the liability of the Mexican State arising from judicial error.
Constitutional Analysis of the Right to Compensation for Judicial Error
1.- Broad constitutional grounds: Although the Mexican Constitution does not explicitly recognize the right to be compensated for judicial error, such right derives from the right of access to effective justice enshrined in Article 17 of the Constitution. It is a case-law-based creation of a procedural right aimed at ensuring meaningful access to justice.
2.- Constitutional block: The right to compensation for judicial error is incorporated into the Mexican legal system through Article 1 of the Constitution, which integrates human rights recognized in international treaties ratified by Mexico— specifically, Article 10 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Every person has the right to be compensated in accordance with the law if they have been sentenced by a final judgment and the conviction has been reversed or pardoned on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice), and Article 14.6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Reaffirming the right to compensation in such cases).
The constitutional block is the set of norms and principles of the highest legal rank in the country that is conformed from the Political Constitution and the human rights contained in international treaties subscribed by the Mexican State, as well as the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and diverse international norms on the matter.
3.- Obligation of the Mexican State: Even in the absence of specific secondary legislation, the State is obliged to ensure this right, either through legislative measures or judicial mechanisms that make it effective. This embodies the principle of direct constitutional effectiveness, which holds that constitutional rights—particularly human rights— must be maximized and enforced, even in the absence of regulatory legislation.
How will Liability for Judicial Error be Claimed Going Forward?
1.- Nature of the action: It is a civil action for direct subjective liability against the State—not against the judge or magistrate. The error must be inexcusable, evident, attributable to the adjudicator, and must have caused serious harm.
2.- Criminal matters only: For now, compensation for judicial error applies exclusively to final criminal convictions. It does not extend to civil, labor, administrative, or other areas of law.
3.- Procedural avenue: a) The action must be filed as a federal ordinary civil lawsuit; b) The claim must be brought against the State, represented by the Federal Judiciary Council (or the equivalent local body); c) The judges who rendered the erroneous ruling will not be defendants but must be summoned as interested third parties to safeguard their right to a hearing. This stems from the principle of judicial independence, which protects adjudicators from undue or unjustified interference —direct or indirect—and ensures that their decisions are not influenced by the potential for legal action against them.
4.- Jurisdiction: Since it involves a claim against the Federation and is based on international treaties, jurisdiction lies with Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 11, section XVII of its Organic Law.
5.- Compensation: Compensation must be fair, proportional, and sufficient to remedy both pecuniary and moral damage. It may also include the publication of the ruling that acknowledges the error as a form of symbolic reparation.
Implications for Individuals and Companies
For individuals:
- Recognition of a new enforceable right: Persons who were wrongfully convicted in criminal matters may now claim compensation, even in the absence of specific enabling legislation.
- Increased trust in the justice system: This strengthens the accountability of the judiciary.
- Enhanced human rights protection: The constitutional block is reaffirmed as a tool to claim rights not explicitly recognized in the Constitution.
For companies:
- Precedent on State liability: Although limited to criminal law, the decision lays the groundwork for future debates on State liability in other areas, such as tax or administrative law.
- Legal certainty: It is now clear that judicial errors cannot be claimed under the Law on State Liability or the General Victims’ Law, which helps delineate legal risks.
- Potential reputational impact: Companies involved in criminal proceedings could face reputational damage if a conviction is later found to be erroneous, potentially opening the door to claims for redress.
