Mexico Country Profile

Judicial System

Individual Corruption

According to the Latinobarómetro 2008 (see English version), very few Mexicans believe that all citizens have equal access to the judicial system. Global Integrity 2007 reports that access to justice might be influenced by ethnicity and gender as indigenous people and women are often discriminated against. Furthermore, the Transparencia Mexicana Índice Nacional de Corrupción y Buen Gobierno 2007 (in Spanish) reveals that citizens are frequently asked for bribes when taking cases to court. This finding is backed by Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2006 in which citizens rank the judiciary among Mexico's most corrupt institutions.

Business Corruption

Companies should note that the Mexican judicial system is characterised by delays and unpredictability, especially in lower courts and in rural areas. Business leaders surveyed by the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 do not report a high degree of confidence in Mexico's judiciary or legal system. Companies should be aware that several sources describe the corrupt and inefficient judiciary as an obstacle for settling commercial disputes in Mexico. Additionally, the US Department of State 2009 reports that disputes related to real estate transactions may take years to settle in Mexican courts, although with great variations from state to state. Observers report that bribery occurs in the early stages of court cases dealing with alleged corruption and bribery. The Public Prosecutor's Office is the sole agency charged with initiating criminal legal action or conducting initial investigations. Facilitated by this monopoly on raising criminal charges and compounded by discretion on whether to do it, the situation has evolved in cases being settled by means of bribes to officials from the Public Prosecutor's Office for them not to start an official investigation nor bring criminal charges.

According to a CEESP 2007 business survey (in Spanish), companies generally evaluate the quality and transparency of courts to be very low. This tendency is especially pronounced for large companies when they deal with judicial authorities at the federal level. The business community, through the Mexican Employers Union (Confederacíon Patronal de la República Mexicana, Coparmex) is nevertheless reacting to cases in which biased decisions were rendered in exchange for bribes. In fact, in November 2008, the newspaper El Norte reported of a meeting on this issue between high-ranking government officials and Coparmex's National Secretary.

Political Corruption

The separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches is defined by law, and there has been progress in making the procedure for selecting high court judges more transparent. However, in practice, large sections of the judiciary suffer from politicisation. Judges have been involved in corruption, organised crime and drug trafficking. According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, impunity for members of the judiciary is part of the Mexican legal culture. Freedom House 2009 reports that lower courts are characterised by widespread bribery and the Council of the Federal Judgeship, which is the judges' oversight institution, is said to lack independence and to be ineffective in initiating investigations. The majority of its members are from the judiciary, which raises concerns about conflicts of interest, as members of the judiciary may choose to protect their colleagues. The judiciary rarely prosecutes high-profile cases, but instead tends to focus on minor crimes, thus paving the way for widespread impunity for powerful elites and for those able to pay bribes. According to the Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2007, lower-ranking judges are pressured into following 'instructions' and protecting the interests of their superiors. The Public Prosecutor's Office, the sole organ which can decide to initiate investigations of alleged corruption and bribery, is not independent from the President at the federal level or from governors at the local level. Consequently, independent investigations against officials from the ruling party are very difficult to undertake and rarely take place.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010:
- Enforcing a commercial contract in Mexico requires a company to go through an average of 38 administrative procedures, taking an average of 415 days at a cost of 32% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the Mexican judiciary's level of independence from influences of members of government, citizens, or companies a score of 3.2 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.2 and 3.3 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the judiciary a score of 4.3 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

Latinobarómetro: Annual Report 2008 (see English version):
- 45% of the respondents believe that it is likely or very likely to succeed in bribing a judge.

CEESP: Encuesta sobre el Costo de la Regulación Para las Empresas en Mexico 2007 (in Spanish):
- Companies give the judiciary a score of 4.5 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'no obstacle' and 7 being 'big obstacle').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006:
- 26.6% of companies surveyed believe that the court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

- 10% of companies surveyed identify the functioning of the courts as a major business constraint.