On August 1, as has become clear, Mexican citizens will face an exercise, in principle, essential for any democracy: the popular consultation.
But as we usually do in the country, our consultation is a mess. Whoever asked for the consultation and promotes it more, the president, says that the question is one.
But the question on the ballot is another, completely different. Yes, like this. And a few days ago the President of the Court said that it was intentionally ambiguous.
For this reason, the organizations Justicia Transicional México and Elementa DDHH have asked the SCJN to clarify its sentence, a procedure contemplated in the law. The clarification does not modify the question, but seeks some clarification. These are those raised by the organizations:
1. What is the period that should be understood as “past years” in the terms of the resolution in reference? Precision of the time component.
2. What is understood by “political actors of the past” in the terms of the resolution in question? The concept is extremely broad and prevents knowing its limits. The state of the art on the matter would also oblige us to consider organized armed groups, criminal networks or private actors as political actors. It is proposed to specify that the figure includes them.
3. What is a “binding consideration input” in the terms of the resolution in question? (precision of the means). It is important to specify in a concrete way how the inputs of binding consideration are going to materialize in front of the legal system, the competences and powers.
4. How should the range of possibilities referred to in paragraph 79 of the reference determination be reconciled with in the area on which, according to the established standard, the result of the consultation affects? (Paragraph 79 talks about the possibilities after the consultation, from a truth commission to procedures of “competent authorities” to “gather evidence” on particular responsibilities).
5. What are the limits of the term “clarification process”? (precision of the material component of the query). As this is the core of what could be activated, it must be specified what should be understood by it and what this concept includes (as well as what is excluded).
We’ll see if the SCJN clarifies something. If not, we will have two consultations, the one in the morning and the one at the polls.