Mexico: Court closes to the public registry of sex offenders of the CDMX

Source: 2/16/23

[NOTE: This article is in Spanish, so we used online translation to get the following English version. Of course, there may be translation errors]

Faced with the argument of violating the right to social reintegration and the presumption of innocence of the sentenced, the Court closes the registry to the public. The vote for its validity will take place on Monday, February 20

The Public Registry of Sex Offenders (RPAS) of Mexico City, created in 2020, violates the right to social reintegration, generates stigma and a double penalty for those sentenced for crimes of femicide, rape, abuse and sexual harassment against children under 12 years of age, sex tourism and human trafficking, as determined by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN).

Therefore, a majority of eight ministers determined that it should not be public, by invalidating the reforms to the laws of Access to Women to a Life Free of Violence, of the Rights of Girls, Boys and Adolescents made by the local Congress.

In this way, the highest court gave the reason to the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) and the Human Rights Commission of Mexico City, in the challenges that both bodies formulated via action of unconstitutionality against the reforms considering them unconstitutional.

In a session on Thursday, the president of the SCJN, Norma Lucía Piña Hernández said that the registration in the Public Registry of Sex Offenders, based on the crime committed by people, encourages them to be marked as sexual aggressors in front of society.

“It seems to me, doing a weighting analysis and a proportionality analysis, the measure is constitutionally valid, it is adequate, it is legitimate.”

In his speech before the plenary, Zaldívar pointed out that the registry is an adequate tool so that citizens can be prevented from sexual and gender crimes, “it is logical that the people who are in this registry and who arbitrarily consider that they are there, have the means of defense to enforce them, but of course this registry by itself, It seems to me that it is not unconstitutional, because it is not a penalty but a security measure.”

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Looks like the US is the black sheep of the countries when it comes to the registry.

First Canada determines that mandatory placement on their, non-public, Registry is unconstitutional and unnecessary. Now Mexico concludes that public disclosure constituents a double penalty. However, America will continue the insist that neither of these conclusions are accurate.

Also the German court that concluded that the FTR Scheme is a Human Rights violation similar in impact to what the Nazi’s we’re doing, is also wrong [according to America].

That even the US DoJ SMART group is totally wrong [according to America], about recidivism rates being significantly lower than average for felony convicted…and that the Registry has had no impact on these rates, or first time crimes either. [According to America] they are also completely wrong about how the, already tiny likelihood, of recidivism drops every single year…to the point that some registrants belong to subgroups whose likelihood of recidivism is so miniscule it can’t even be meaningfully measured…just not enough instances to create a statistically meaningful number.

It seems that the entire world is completely wrong about everything [according to America].

When Mexico, the land of eternal gang bloodshed , shows this kind of vision, maybe it’s time for the U.S. to hop on the progressive wagon.

Ah, but of course, the omnipresent – and, apparently, universal – response from Registry supporters:
…it is not unconstitutional, because it is not a penalty but a security measure“. Blah, blah, blah. 🙄

To which I say, “Come join me on the Registry, brother, and then tell me your thoughts.”

W O W’s and 90’s and it worked, they appealed to their pub cry, why can’t USDOJ can’t see this and W A K E U P, we were there in the 80

Didn’t Mexico (or at least Mexico City) originally make their registry public because of a … tsk… certain neigboring influence, which loudmouth kept buggering (‘scuse my French) foreign nations until they gave into her dogmatic “public registry’zzz savezz dem womenz and childrenzz!!1!”?

Well, looks like Mexico, the friendly neighbor, gave it a try and decided it didn’t work well with las gentes de ella. =)

Last edited 7 months ago by AC