Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as the Convention, establishes the duty of States to adopt provisions of domestic law. This means that if the exercise of rights and freedoms is not already guaranteed by legislative provisions or others, the States parties commit to adopting, in accordance with their constitutional procedures and the provisions of this Convention, the legislative or other measures necessary to make such rights and freedoms effective.
Conventionality Control is the tool derived from the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court that allows States to fulfill the obligation to guarantee human rights at the domestic level, by verifying the conformity of national norms and practices with the American Convention and its jurisprudence. Furthermore, the Court determined in the case of Garrido and Baigorria vs. Argentina that a State that has entered into an international treaty must introduce the necessary modifications into its domestic law to ensure the execution of the obligations assumed, and that this principle, as stated in Article 2 of the Convention, establishes the general obligation of States Parties to adapt their domestic law to the provisions of this Convention to guarantee the rights contained therein.
In light of the above, it is interesting to bring the debate to the table regarding whether the Mexican State is fulfilling its commitments stipulated in the Convention, which it ratified in 1981, specifically with Article 2 of the Convention. In recent years, there has been an increase in violations of human rights enshrined in the Convention; for instance, Mexico, while not officially at war, has established itself as the second deadliest country in the world for the press, with nine journalists murdered in 2025. We have surpassed nations with open civil conflicts in terms of lethality, becoming the epicenter of violence against the press in the Western Hemisphere, thus violating Article 13 on freedom of expression, in relation to Articles 1, 2, and 4 of the Convention, to the detriment of the Mexican people.
Additionally, actions such as the Judicial Reform of 2024 highlight the legislative regression in human rights, undermining Article 8 of the Convention on judicial guarantees and Article 25 regarding a swift and effective remedy for access to justice, again in relation to Articles 1 and 2 of the same instrument, which is entirely contrary to what Conventionality Control and the Convention aim to achieve.
Bringing to the forefront the push for non-renewable energies and projects that affect the environment and indigenous peoples, as well as the omission in complying with judgments from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, such as in the case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile and others vs. Mexico, where the elimination of the figure of preventive detention is requested, makes it very difficult to consider that the Mexican State is fighting for the rights of its people enshrined in the instruments of Public International Law and the progressiveness of Human Rights.
- Cf. Dr. Claudio Nash R. Jurisprudence booklet of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights No. 7: Conventionality Control
- Cf. Case Garrido and Baigorria. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68.
- Cf. IBERO, The Geography of Silence: Mexico, the second deadliest country for journalists, Mireya Márquez Ramírez, 12/15/2025, consulted on 01/08/2026.