The twelfth and thirteenth paragraphs of article 16 of the General Constitution of the Republic establish the inviolability of private communications and if violated, the criminal law will sanction that offense. In case private communications are required to be intervened, it corresponds to a control judge.
They literally say that “[l]Private communications are inviolable. The law will penalize any act that violates their freedom and privacy, except when they are contributed voluntarily by any of the individuals who participate in them. The judge will assess the scope of these, as long as they contain information related to the commission of a crime. Communications that violate the duty of confidentiality established by law will not be admitted in any case.
And that “[e]Only the federal judicial authority, at the request of the federal authority empowered by law or the head of the Public Ministry of the corresponding federal entity, may authorize the interception of any private communication. For this, the competent authority must establish and justify the legal causes of the request, also stating the type of intervention, the subjects thereof and its duration. The federal judicial authority may not grant these authorizations in the case of matters of an electoral, fiscal, mercantile, civil, labor or administrative nature, nor in the case of communications between the detainee and his defense attorney.”
The plenary Council of the Federal Judiciary, which is the administrative body that belongs to the Judicial Power of the Federation that disciplines and monitors federal judges and magistrates, issued the “General Agreement 3/2017 of the Plenary of the Federal Judiciary Council, by the that the National Center of Justice Specialized in Control of Investigation Techniques, Settlement and Intervention of Communications is created”. These courts are in charge of issuing authorizations when, exceptionally, the competent authority requests the intervention of a private communication, however, espionage in private communications is not allowed. Intervention in communications illegally is nothing more than espionage and if it occurs, it means that one lives in a state in which the law of the strongest prevails instead of the rule of law.
Control courts work 24 hours, with 48-hour breaks. That is to say, they worked the 24 natural hours that a day has. There are control courts ready to immediately receive and resolve requests for interception of private communications made by the competent authority, as established in article 7 of said General Agreement, stating that “[t]Both the control judges and their staff will have shifts of twenty-four hours of work with forty-eight hours of rest. Each shift will start with a difference of twelve hours, the first shift will start at eight hours and the second at twenty hours. During the first twelve hours, they will receive and resolve the requests; and in the other twelve, they will only solve them”.
By General Agreement 12/2021, of the Plenary of the Council of the Federal Judiciary, one of its articles was reformed -the 13- which is related to the vacation periods of the control courts, but it is still valid that they are open to work 24 hours a day. natural hours in a day.
The specific cases in which, exceptionally, the competent authority, which are the prosecutors, can request the intervention of a private communication, it is only when a person is under arrest and crimes of organized crime are being investigated, as would be the case of crimes and operations with resources of illicit origin and the search and intervention of private communications and correspondence is required.
A request can also be made to intervene in a private communication so that the authorized telecommunications concessionaires or application service providers deliver the geographic location content in real time or the stored data, also in the case of organized crime crimes and operations with security resources. illicit origin.
And, among other few assumptions, authorization can be requested from the National Guard, formerly the General Commissioner of the former Federal Police, when a request is made to intervene in a private communication.
For its part, the Federal Penal Code establishes in article 177, that “[a] Whoever intervenes in private communications without a mandate from a competent judicial authority, will be subject to penalties of six to twelve years in prison and a three hundred to six hundred day fine.
In Mexico none of this is respected, there is telephone espionage to both authorities and individuals. Telephone espionage occurs, even knowing the penalties incurred by the person or persons who commit it.
Telephone espionage is carried out to intimidate, intimidate or even generate a collective bias in public opinion in relation to a State institution, weaken it or irreparably damage the person who represents it.
One point is clear, you can take issues that are very sensitive in public opinion and use them to protect or create a temporary smokescreen and weaken the person in office so much that it weakens in every way anything that make. The weakening of the person whose private communications are spied on normally has an intimidating effect and with the intention of biasing public opinion so that other crimes are covered up or covered up.
Who or who commit these crimes, who are people or groups of people without scruples or conscience between good and evil, know – or feel confident that they will get away with the crime – because they know they are too powerful, with plenty of economic resources and that They have a lot of strength and contacts so that they are never deprived of their liberty, otherwise, they would not commit or order the commission of the crime.
This means that whatever the cause for which private communications are intervened and both article 16 of the Constitution and the Federal Penal Code are violated, it is worrying that there is no rule of law in the country.
So regardless of the reasons and especially the person or persons who commit the espionage of private communications, the seriousness is extreme.
Even more delicate is the measurement made by those who intervene and bring private communications to light. It is a measure of the impunity that exists in the country. They bet on her because they know that something is not going to happen.
In a country where the rule of law is extremely weak with weak institutions, that wager – that is, impunity and confusing civil society – is the one that normally prevails, which is perhaps why the prisons are full of people of wrong people who should not be deprived of their liberty.
kg