Table of Contents

• 1) How Judges Must Construe the Statutes in Civil Cases
• 2) Case Adjudication
• Judgment’s Completeness
• Internal Congruence
• External Congruence
• 3) Appeal Relief
• Drafting Issues
• Court of Second Instance
• Effects of the Second Instance Judgment
• Vacating the Judgment for Further Proceedings
• Revoking
• Modifying
• Affirming
• Res Judicata
• 4) Direct Amparo Proceedings
• Background of the Amparo Proceedings
• Differences
• Direct Amparo Proceeding’s Characteristics
• Courts
• Contested Authority Act
• Direct Amparo Proceeding’s Requirements
• Presentation
• Judgment Enforceability Injunction
• Adhesive Amparo Proceeding
• Amparo’s Judgment
• Direct Amparo’s Review

After dealing with the basic aspects of the ordinary civil trial in Chihuahua in the entry Basics of the Ordinary Civil Trial in Chihuahua, Mexico. Part I, and how courts weigh and value evidence in Chihuahua’s Ordinary Civil Trial Part II. How Courts Weigh and Value Evidence, now is time to talk about 1) how judges construe the statutes, 2) case adjudication, 3) the intricacies of appeal relief and 4) the direct amparo proceedings. Without further ado, let’s start.

1) How Judges Must Construe the Statutes in Civil Cases

As you may know, Mexico is governed by a civil law system, sometimes called the Romano-German system. That means most laws and binding norms (such as ‘jurisprudencias’  or precedents in English-speaking culture) are arranged in codes and easily accessible to citizens and jurists. Due to this, people think when it is time to construe the status and norms in general, it is relatively easy. However, that’s further from the truth.

One of the reasons for not being that easy is because the language itself is full of polysemy and ambiguities that make its interpretation difficult. Another, due to globalization, our legal system is blended, let’s say, with common law systems. Then, I believe Mexico is no longer a pure civil law system but a mixed one.

With that context in mind, when civil courts resolve cases, they construe the statutes following a well-established set of rules directly from the United Mexican States Political Constitution. Specifically, in its article 14, the fourth paragraph, the founding fathers stated:

“Article 14.- […]

In civil trials, the final judgment must be issued following the law’s literal and legal interpretation nature. In the absence of this, it will be based on the general principles of law”^[1].

By the same token, our local lawmakers complemented those rules of adjudication in articles 16 and 18 of the Civil Code of the State of Chihuahua, adding a few more rules and clarifications, which are:

“Article 16.- The law’s silence, obscurity, or insufficiency does not authorize judges or courts to leave a legal dispute unresolved”.

“Article 18.- Civil judicial disputes must be resolved in accordance with the literal meaning of the law or its legal interpretation. In the absence of law, they shall be resolved according to general law principles.

The uses or custom of the place shall also be applied supplementary when the law itself, the will of the parties, or the circumstances of the case allow it”.

From those articles, civil courts in Chihuahua adjudicate the case, and parties, when they challenge the judgment, base their arguments on them, highlighting what specific rules courts fail to comply with. Still, I would say there is a lot of discretion while adjudicating a case. This is because sometimes attorneys want to stretch the meaning of a legal provision that could be perceived as easy to construe, even when the statute’s plain language is clear.

Moreover, another reason to highlight the discretion that courts have is if we consider all the legal methods that judges, and even attorneys, can imply in their arguments, such as historical, teleological, by analogy of reasons, systematic interpretation, for majority reason (or a fortiori), topographic interpretation, and many more that are matters of logic and legal argumentation that I won’t cover on this entry due to their enormous length.

Methods of legal interpretation that Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice accepts to some degree is a discretionary power for courts that finds no limit other than justifying its application with reasons, which in itself is also ambiguous. The above, according to the following precedent:

“CIVIL LAWS. WHEN THE TEXT IS OBSCURE AND THE GRAMMATICAL EXAMINATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT, THE JUDGE CAN USE THE METHOD OF INTERPRETATION THAT ACCORDING TO HIS CRITERION IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE TO RESOLVE THE SPECIFIC CASE.^[2]

Pursuant to the fourth paragraph of article 14 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, courts, while resolving the legal question raised in civil trials, must do so in accordance with the literal meaning of the law or its legal interpretation and, in the absence of this, it shall be based on the general principles of law, that is, judges are bound to the legal texts if they provide them with the solution sought. Therefore, it is concluded that civil laws do not necessarily have to be interpreted literally or grammatically since, in the face of their insufficiency or obscurity, judges can use various mechanisms of interpretation -historical, logical, systematic, among others-, without being obliged to apply a specific method of interpretation, so they can validly employ to the one that, according to their criteria, is the most appropriate to resolve the specific case.

2) Case Adjudication

Once the oral hearing trial is done, the court must issue its judgment and explain it orally in a brief and special hearing. However, that’s not what matters, but how the judgment is composed. That topic is answered in article 110 of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of Chihuahua, which regulates the rules that courts must meet while issuing their judgments.

From that legal provision, lawmakers stated judgments must contain the following:

I.- The designation of the place where the judgment is pronounced and the court that issues it.

II.- The names of the plaintiff and the defendant and the purpose of the litigation.

III.- The arguments and legal basis to resolve the case, clarifying the statutory law on which the decision was based and explaining the legal procedure. Needless to say, this argumentation includes how the court weighed the evidence.

IV.- A brief extract of the facts or the background to understand the case.

V.- The appropriate condemnation or acquittal in the judgment’s decision.

Moreover, from that article, higher courts have construed three essential principles of judgments, and attorneys must understand them fully if it is necessary to appeal the judgment. I’m talking about 1) completeness, 2) internal congruence, and 3) external congruence.

Judgment’s Completeness

For completeness, precedents, scholars, and doctrine have understood it has been met when the court covers all the points of litigation or claims of the parties in its judgment. Consequently, courts fail to comply with this principle if any claim is left unresolved.

As with most institutions of law, there is an evident exception to such principle: if the, let’s say, ‘principal claim’ is denied, it would be unnecessary for the court to rule on an accessory claim. For example, suppose the rescission action is filed as the main claim and the payment of damages from that action. In that case, it is logical that if the rescission were declared inadmissible in the ruling, the damages would also be inadmissible.

Internal Congruence

This principle implies that the judgment does not contain statements contradicting each other. For example, when in one part the court rules the plaintiff didn’t have standing to file a lawsuit, but at the same time deemed appropriate his civil action and condemns the defendant. That would be contradictory and against the law since non-civil action can succeed in Mexico without standing.

External Congruence

This principle implies that the judgment must be issued in accordance with the civil complaint (demanda) of the plaintiff and the answer formulated by the defendant.

In my experience, the courts violate this principle very often. This is with the intent to demonstrate their authority and under the excuse of enforcing an adage that reads: “Give me the facts, and I shall give you the law.” Although courts have the discretion to adjudicate the case pursuant to the legal provisions and principles they consider best, we cannot ignore that the adjudication must focus on the facts of the case and not on external elements.

3) Appeal Relief

Once the judgment is issued, parties have a legal remedy, an appeal relief to challenge. This legal remedy must be filed within 9 business days after the judgment has been notified.

If you remember what I stated in the first entry regarding the civil process in Chihuahua, that in doubt, you should retain a good attorney who knows how to express his thoughts by writing them. This is because most cases in Mexico are resolved by local and federal magistrates whose jurisdiction doesn’t involve any oral hearing.

That is the case for the appeal relief in Chihuahua because the appellant must draft the grievances and issues. If the attorney who assists that party doesn’t know how to explain to higher courts what the trial court missed or violated, that party will surely lose the case. 

On the other hand, once the appellant files the legal remedy, the respondent has 6 business days to answer, but he has the option not to do so because what matters for processing the appeal has been done.

I want to emphasize that in Chihuahua, the answer to the appeal is not a mandatory study for the magistrate since, by law, he must only study and resolve the appeal signed by the appellant. However, it is always good to answer the appeal and provide the magistrate with elements of how to issue his judgment.

Drafting Issues

When an appeal is drafted, no rules are established in the statutes, and attorneys, if they know what they are doing, rely on precedents, rules of logic, legal reasoning, etc., to revoke, vacate, or modify the trial court’s judgment.

There are general theories of how to challenge a court’s resolution where scholars examine the rules of logic, grammar, legal reasoning, and precedents since these are the tools attorneys use while drifting their issues and parties’ grievances. Thus, as this blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an essay, I will not cover how to draft issues for the appeal. However, I only want to underpin what I’ve said before: retain an attorney who knows how to write perfectly in Spanish. That’s the skill that makes win cases in Mexico. Oral argumentation, at least in our country, is a facade and simulation. Lastly, remember what I said in my first entry: don’t retain an attorney based on his English skills because what you are seeking is precisely a Mexican attorney, not an interpreter. Be wise.

Court of Second Instance

Once the appeal has been answered or the term for doing so has expired, the trial court must send the judicial file to the second instance court, which is comprised in Chihuahua of just one magister, unlike other states where there are Collegiate Appeal Courts made up of three magisters.

The court of the second instance shall first verify that the appeal was filed on time. Then, it shall issue an order stating that the appeal shall be resolved without further ado in the second instance and without the parties having to attend hearings.

According to the statutes, magistrates have 20 days to resolve the case in the second instance. Still, this period can be extended depending on the complexity of the case and the court’s workload. Nevertheless, in my experience, the longest it takes magistrates to resolve civil cases is 4 months, but most of them are resolved within a maximum period of one month.

Effects of the Second Instance Judgment

Once the magister issues its second instance judgment, there are several directions in which the judgment affects the trial court’s judgment, such as 1) vacating the judgment for further proceedings, 2) revoking, 3) modifying, or 4) affirming.

Vacating the Judgment for Further Proceedings

This order is the strangest one that may happen due to the fact that in Chihuahua, we don’t have what is known by scholars as ‘reenvío’, which is basically that the appeal court remits the judicial file again to the trial court so that it can correct some defects detected in the appeal and, after that, resolve the trial again issuing another judgment.

Here in our state, the general rule is that if the appeal court detects omissions from the trial court (let’s say it doesn’t weigh some evidence or didn’t decide accessory claims), the appeal court must resume full jurisdiction and resolve what was pretermitted, pursuant to a binding precedent issued by Mexico’s Supreme Court: APPEAL IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS. AS THERE IS NO REMIT, THE APPEAL COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO RESUME JURISDICTION AND PRONOUNCE THE CORRESPONDING RESOLUTION, EVEN IF THE JUDGE HAS NOT RESOLVED THE LITIGATION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE^[3].

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, there are very exceptional cases where the magister cannot resume full jurisdiction and resolve cases, such as when evidence was denied by the trial court (for example, when the court rejects testimonies, expert witnesses’ interventions, etc.) and the appeal court finds that ruling was against the statutes. Therefore, it’s necessary to incorporate those proofs into the case. Still, since he doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh witnesses and experts directly, the appeal court remits the case record to the trial court to consider those proofs.

With that direction, the second instance judgment shall vacate the trial court’s judgment and order that proceedings might be necessary to resolve the case on the merits of the case. Therefore, it shall order the trial court to resolve the case again with complete jurisdiction, but this time, considering what was omitted by it and that the court of appeal cannot weigh.

Revoking

Revoking a trial court’s judgment has two layers: the first implies that the appeal court removed a procedural obstacle on which the trial court based its ruling in the sense of not resolving the case on merits (such as it was wrong the applicability of the statutes of limitations, etc.) In this hypothesis, the appeal court shall resolve the entire case. In the second case, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment because although it was issued on merits, the court was wrong in the matter of law or in weighing the evidence.

I would say that the first case is most prevalent in Chihuahua. The reasons are many, but one outstands: trial courts’ workload. With too much work, trial courts seek excuses not to resolve cases on merits, so they use legal presumptions (which I talked about in the first entry) such as standing, statutes of limitations, elements of the civil action, etc.   

Modifying

When a trial court’s judgment is modified, its direction or ‘sense’ abides, but accessory things might change, such as the amount of money granted to the plaintiff, its legal interest, etc. Even reverse an accessory claim.

Affirming

Another direction the second instance’s judgment may have is affirming the trial court’s judgment. Generally, affirming will happen when the appellant’s arguments are so groundless or simple that what he tries goes against the law’s plain language and legal precedents issued by higher courts. This doesn’t require further explanation.

Res Judicata

Pursuant to article 364, section II of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of Chihuahua^[4], a second instance judgment acquires the nature of res judicata. That means parties can enforce the judgment immediately. Nevertheless, as you will see in the next chapter of this entry, Mexican attorneys can challenge second instance judgments issued by civil magisters through a constitutional lawsuit known as ‘amparo proceedings’.

4) Direct Amparo Proceedings

Even though the appeal relief is the last ordinary remedy to challenge the trial court’s judgment in Chihuahua, Mexico, we have another legal institution that may vacate, modify, or affirm the civil case. Its name is Amparo proceeding, and it’s a constitutional lawsuit with the scope of reviewing almost every act of Mexican authorities from two angles: 1) analysis by mere legality and 2) constitutionality itself.

Background of the Amparo Proceedings

Actually, in Mexico, we have two kinds of Amparo proceedings: 1) indirect and 2) direct, whose scope is too broad to explain here and also deserves an autonomous blog entry. However, for now, you should know that these two differ in their historical roots. In this way, when Mexico was a less populated country, we had only, let’s say, a few courts in the federal government known as district courts and the Supreme Court of Mexico.

Thus, back in the day, district courts conducted cases by hearing what parties said and witnessed. Also, they weighed the case’s evidence before issuing their judgments, which were regularly challenged under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction as a second instance. Basically, they perform what a regular court does today under the indirect Amparo proceeding. On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Mexico received cases and didn’t perform another duty related to judicial matters. Therefore, the court resolved the issue immediately without another court intervention. Then, the direct Amparo proceeding was distinguished by not having to perform another court duty except to resolve the case.

Consequently, the direct Amparo proceeding was known that way because the Supreme Court of Mexico studied the case immediately or in a ‘direct way.’ In contrast, our highest court also studied cases in indirect Amparo proceedings but, as I stated, in an indirect way.

On another topic, as I said before, the Amparo proceeding generally studies acts and omissions of Mexican authorities that cover a broad spectrum of acts, such as legislative, administrative, and judicial. Even Mexican lawyers can contest laws that recently came into force. But when attorneys file an Amparo proceeding, the study of the lawsuit has two angles, as I said: of mere legality and authentic constitutionality, which is also applicable to a direct Amparo proceeding.

Differences

Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice distinguishes acts of mere legality from constitutionality in judiciary precedents. Accordingly, an act of mere legality is when there is doubt about how lower courts construe the scope of legal provisions. Whereas an act of constitutionality, we don’t have doubts about the scope of that legal provision, but for reasons beyond the law, parties seek the law’s inapplicability in the specific case. Both kinds of analysis may be performed in the direct Amparo proceeding, and the judgments issued on those cases can become binding precedents for lower courts.

An example of understanding the difference could be found in the eviction trial in Chihuahua, where the legislator stated that this trial proceeds only when the tenant has missed two monthly payments.

In that case, an act of mere legality would be if the plaintiff argued what should be the legal meaning or construction of those two unpaid months in cases where the lessee has not paid rent for one month and in another he has made a partial payment. In that case, the plaintiff, as lessor, could argue whether it also counts as two months of non-payment to make the eviction appropriate. In that case, a kind of legal reasoning looser may be convenient.

On the other hand, when attorneys argue about constitutional matters, obviously, they base their arguments on our constitution, and the legal reasons are entirely different. Following the same topic, imagine if the plaintiff argues two months violates the human of decent housing contemplated in Article 4 of Mexico’s General Constitution because instead of what the statutes state, lessees should have at least 3 or more months of grace time before an eviction is feasible.

Direct Amparo Proceeding’s Characteristics

The direct Amparo proceeding is mainly regulated in the Amparo Law, from articles 170 to 191. Naturally, I won’t cover all its features because, as I said, this topic deserves its own blog entry. Still, I will mention the most important characteristics of this constitutional legal remedy to challenge civil judgments:

Courts

Courts who have jurisdiction over this legal remedy are two: 1) Collegiate Circuit Courts of the Federal Judicial Branch and 2) exceptionally the Supreme Court of the United Mexican States pursuant to article 107, section V of Mexico’s Constitution.

On the other hand, Collegiate Circuit Courts are comprised of three federal magisters, whereas Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice has 11 justices but is divided into two chambers of 5 justices. The president of the Supreme Court only resolves matters when the court acts in plenary session.

Contested Authority Act

In Amparo proceedings, we have what is known to scholars as ‘acto reclamado’ or contested authority acts, which cover a myriad of issues that authorities perform or omit, such as judgments, administrative procedures, laws, regulations, public policies, etc. However, most of these acts are challenged through an indirect Amparo proceeding, whereas with direct Amparo proceedings, you can only challenge final judgments or those resolutions that end the lawsuit. That is why several scholars consider direct Amparo proceedings to be a mere ordinary legal remedy instead of a proper constitutional lawsuit.

Direct Amparo Proceeding’s Requirements

The plaintiff of this constitutional lawsuit must comply with the following requirements while drafting his direct Amparo:

I.- Indicate the name and address of the complainant (called quejoso) or the person who files the Amparo on his behalf.

II.- Indicate the name and address of the third interested party (called tercero interesado), who is the opposite party and has an opposing interest.

III.- Indicate the civil magister who issued the contested act.

IV.- Indicate the contested act.

V.- Indicate the date on which the complainant has been notified of the contested act.

VI.- The articles contained the human rights that the complainant deemed violated.

VI.- Indicate his conceptos de violación (legal arguments against the contested act)

Presentation

The direct Amparo proceeding must be filed under the civil magister who studied the appeal, whose job or function in the Amparo proceeding is simply to process it, notify all related parties, and remit the judicial docket to the Collegiate Circuit Court.

Judgment Enforceability Injunction

Almost all contested authority acts might be suspended through a special legal institution called ‘suspensión del acto reclamado’ hitherto as ‘injunction’, but it’s not for free because the complainant must pay a guarantee (usually through a bond) for the suspension to take effect.

The complainant must solicit this injunction expressly in his direct Amparo proceeding or in a motion until Amparo’s judgment is issued because it doesn’t come in automatically while filing the direct Amparo proceeding.

Once the complainant solicits this injunction, the magister shall grant a provisional injunction that lasts 5 business days and establish the amount of money the complainant must guarantee. If the complainant guarantees the suspension, then a definitive injunction shall take place, and the third interested party (who generally won the case in the appeal) cannot enforce the judgment challenged with the direct Amparo proceeding.

Therefore, the only legal institution that deters the enforceability of the second instance judgment, which, as I stated before, acquires the quality of res judicata by its mere issuance, is la suspensión del acto reclamado or definitive injunction.

To understand this topic better, it’s important to quote a precedent about it issued by Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice:

“RES JUDICATA. SECOND INSTANCE JUDGMENTS ISSUED BY ORDINARY COURTS RETAIN THAT QUALITY EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CHALLENGED IN AN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS^[5].

In accordance with articles 420, section II, of the Code of Civil Procedures of the State of Jalisco and 426, section II, of the Code of Civil Procedures for the Federal District, second instance judgments, that is, those against which the common laws that govern in local jurisdiction do not grant any ordinary remedy by virtue of which they can be confirmed, modified or revoked, they acquire enforceability by operation of law and produce the effects of res judicata. Now, the above must be understood in the sense that said judgments do not admit legal remedies established in ordinary legislation but not an extraordinary remedy such as the Amparo proceeding, since in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, in the Amparo Law, or in the aforementioned procedural codes, there is no provision that warns that such resolutions are not enforceable or that the authority of res judicata disappears when the constitutional lawsuit is promoted against them. That is, since there is a legal provision that grants them the quality of res judicata and there is no rule from which it can be deduced that they lose it when an extraordinary legal remedy is brought against them, it is incontrovertible that the contested authority act – with its res judicata quality – It only ceases to exist legally when a final judgment is issued in the Amparo proceeding when the federal protection is granted, declaring that it transgressed subjective public rights of the governed protected by the Federal Constitution. Consequently, the enforceability of the second instance judgment is only interrupted when the granting of the injunction is obtained to prevent its consequences since the enforceability or not of the contested authority act derives, but in no way does it depend on the circumstance that the legal term for the promotion of the Amparo proceeding is passing, nor with its presentation or its processing”.

Adhesive Amparo Proceeding

Once the direct Amparoo proceeding is admitted, the Collegiate Circuit Court or the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice shall grant fifteen business days to the interested third party to file an adhesive Amparo proceeding that seeks to bolster the second instance judgment (contested authority act) because, of course, the interested third party has the interest that this act continues to exist and is not declared unconstitutional.

The same term shall be granted to the interested third party to present written arguments debating why the direct Amparo proceeding should be inadmissible.

Amparo’s Judgment

Once the period for the interested third party to promote adhesive Amparo proceedings or its allegations has elapsed, the court supposedly must resolve the constitutional lawsuit within the period of 90 business days. However, that’s not true. Since federal courts, through Amparo proceedings, basically study every act of Mexican authorities, it’s natural they have a lot of workload. For that reason, on average, a direct Amparo proceeding is resolved in 6 months, but it depends on its complexity. Cases with constitutional allegations can take 1 to 2 years to be resolved.

Furthermore, the effects of Amparo’s judgment have the scope to modify, affirm, vacate, and revoke the second instance’s judgments. Nevertheless, a Collegiate Circuit Court or Mexico’s Supreme Court won’t resolve (regularly^[6]) the case on merits. Instead, when the ‘Amparo is granted,’ they will enjoin the civil magister to issue another judgment but, let’s say, with the corrections or curing of the defects that Amparo’s court found in the process.

Direct Amparo’s Review

To complicate things more,  direct Amparo proceeding’s judgments are not final. There is another federal ordinary remedy that parties in Amparo may challenge that judgment. Its name is Direct Amparo’s Review, and it’s only resolved by the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, but only if the direct Amparo proceeding was resolved by a Collegiate Circuit Court.  Naturally, if the Supreme Court of Mexico resolved the direct Amparo proceeding, this legal remedy won’t be available. Here are the characteristics of this legal remedy:

A) This is an exceptional remedy that can only be resolved by Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice. 80% of the cases are not suitable for this remedy.

B) It must be filed within ten business days after the Collegiate Circuit Court’s judgment is issued and its notification is rendered.

C) Only can be studied by the Mexican Supreme Court against direct Amparo proceeding’s judgments that resolve issues regarding the constitutionality of general laws where one party establishes the direct interpretation of Mexico’s constitution or such proposition was pretermitted by the Collegiate Circuit Court in its judgment.

D) Mexico’s Supreme Court must resolve this remedy in two different ways: from one of its chambers or the court acting in full (plenary session) Whatever the case, its judgments are final.

By Omar Gómez

Partner

beLegal abogados s.c

Abogados en Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, México

Visit my website at www.ogomezabogado.com for more helpful information

Contact the firm at [email protected] or call (656) 271-41-43 (Spanish) or (656) 774-75-73 English assistance.

---

^[1] It is important to clarify that this statement made by the Mexican founding fathers refers to all trials opposed to criminal cases, such as administrative, labor, and commercial. Therefore, the rules of interpretation imposed on this article also apply to such legal matters. The aforementioned, in accordance with the following judicial criteria issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico: CIVIL ORDER TRIALS. THE RELATIVE EXPRESSION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 14, FOURTH PARAGRAPH, OF THE GENERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC, ALSO APPLIES TO JUDGMENTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE (IN A BROAD SENSE) AND LABOR MATTERS.

^[2] Title: 1a. XI/2007. First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice. Ninth Judicial Epoch. Not Binding Precedent. Digital Record: 173254.

^[3] Title: 1a./J. 80/2009. First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice. Ninth Judicial Epoch. Jurisprudencia. Digital Record: 165887.

^[4] Article 364.- There is res judicata when  the judgment is enforceable. Judgments are enforceable by provision of law: […]

II.- Second instance judgments.

^[5] Title: 1a./J. 51/2006. First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Ninth Judicial Epoch. Jurisprudencia (binding precedent) Digital Record: 174116.

^[6] I am aware that I do not delve into all the exceptions I mentioned in this entry. But there are two main reasons for this: the first is that this blog entry is limited to civil matters and, in turn, tends to be shorter and shallower. The other is that the Amparo proceeding is so complicated that even groups of attorneys  in Mexico are only dedicated to this constitutional trial of which multiple books have been written to try to understand it. In the future, of course, I will write an essay on this fascinating Mexican constitutional trial where I will address all the exceptions not explained here.