Patricia Melo Tapia, José Tapia Cruz and 21 other women in pretrial detention at Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16 v. Mexico

The authors of the communication are Patricia Melo Tapia,² born on 11 July 1976; Bertha Guerrero Trejo, born on 25 March 1966; Guadalupe Cárdenas Guerrero, born on 19 September 1983; Ivonne Hernández Carbajal, born on 10 July 1972; Malinali Tenepal Peña Hernández, born on 16 November 1987; Gloria Lidia Alvear Hilario, born on 7 November 1988; Alba Alvear Hilario, born on 17 January 1985; Verónica Razo Casales, born on 29 August 1978; Maricela Ramírez Villanueva, born on 19 January 1978; Adriana Ivonne Sepúlveda Ccoolle, born on 10 May 1976; Brenda Cristina Garnica Romero, born on 21 September 1981; Yolanda Campos Hernández, born on 2 February 1967; Juliana Maldonado Campos, born on 6 October 1989; Nancy Mariana Hernández Almazán, born on 1 September 1989; Nancy Huerta Ramírez, born on 9 May 1992; Dulce Fabiola Domínguez Vázquez, born on 12 March 1992; Brenda Quevedo Cruz, born on 24 August 1980; Mónica Moctezuma Vidales, born on 4 May 1981; Luz Elena Neri Reyes, born on 11 January 1973; Mónica Itzel Montalvo Neri, born on 11 February 1992; Roxana Nohemí Concha Álvarez, born on 9 April 1976; and Adilene Primo Alfaro, born on 26 October 1988. The authors are all nationals of Mexico. The authors claim that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 1, 2 (a) and (d)–(f), 3 and 12 (1) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, because of the structural conditions of detention, which affect them disproportionately as women in detention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Mexico on 15 June 2002.

2. Patricia Melo Tapia died on 15 May 2020 in the custody of the prison authorities at the Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre. ↩

On 14 October 2022, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications under the Optional Protocol, decided not to request the State Party to take interim measures.

The authors state that, in 2020, at the federal level, 51.7 per cent of female detainees in the State Party were in pretrial detention, a larger percentage than for men (41.34 per cent).³ Between January and June 2020, the number of men in pretrial detention increased by 1.9 per cent, while the number of women increased by 10.3 per cent.⁴

3. Ministry of Security and Citizen Protection, Cuaderno Mensual de Información Estadística Penitenciaria Nacional (Monthly Record of Statistical Information on the National Prison System), January–June 2020. Available at www.gob.mx/prevencionyreinsercion/documentos/ cuaderno-mensual-de-informacion-estadistica-penitenciaria-nacional. ↩
4. Ibid., October 2020. ↩

Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16 (Morelos Women’s Prison) is the only federal prison exclusively for women in the State Party. It holds inmates from all over the country⁵ who are charged with federal crimes, mostly related to organized crime.⁶ In accordance with article 19 of the Constitution,⁷ such crimes call for pretrial detention, which is imposed mandatorily (automatically) at the charging stage. The inmates concerned are thus automatically excluded from alternatives to pretrial detention⁸ and from confinement in prisons close to their places of origin. At the Centre, 483 of the 817 inmates (59.11 per cent)⁹ are in pretrial detention.

5. Of the 817 inmates, only 230 are from Mexico City or the State of Mexico; the rest come from as far as 900 or 1,000 km away. ↩
6. Ministry of Security and Citizen Protection, Cuaderno Mensual de Información Estadística Penitenciaria Nacional, January–June 2020. ↩
7. Article 19 of the Constitution: “The judge shall order pretrial detention mandatorily in cases of abuse or sexual violence against minors, organized crime, intentional homicide, femicide, rape, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, burglary of a dwelling, use of social programmes for electoral purposes, corruption in relation to the offences of illicit enrichment and abuse of functions, theft of cargo in transit in any of its forms, offences relating to hydrocarbons, petroleum products or petrochemicals, offences relating to the enforced disappearance of persons and disappearance perpetrated by private individuals, offences committed with violent means such as weapons and explosives, offences relating to firearms and explosives for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and serious offences determined by law against national security, the free development of personality, and health.” ↩
8. See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, report No. 2/97, and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Jenkins v. Argentina, Judgment, 26 November 2019, paras. 90–94. ↩
9. Ministry of Security and Citizen Protection, Cuaderno Mensual de Información Estadística Penitenciaria Nacional, October 2020. ↩

Despite being the only federal women’s prison, Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16 lacks medical personnel, both general practitioners and specialists in gynaecology, psychiatry and paediatrics, who are necessary to the care of inmates and their children. Since 2016, the National Human Rights Commission and the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture have documented violations of the right to health, as well as deficiencies in basic services, reintegration activities and social interaction, at the Centre.¹⁰ In addition, most of the inmates do not receive visits because their families live far away and lack economic resources, which increases the inmates’ isolation and uprootedness.¹¹ In 2023, 13 inmates committed suicide at the Centre, as a result of which the Commission issued its recommendation No. 276/2023, in which it emphasized the lack of adequate measures to guarantee the health and life of inmates, in particular by preventing and treating mental health problems.

10. National Human Rights Commission, Diagnóstico Nacional de Supervisión Penitenciaria (National Assessment of Correctional Supervision). Available at www.cndh.org.mx/web/ diagnostico-nacional-de-supervision-penitenciaria. ↩
11. Ministry of Security and Citizen Protection, Cuaderno Mensual de Información Estadística Penitenciaria Nacional, October 2020. ↩

Patricia Melo Tapia, Bertha Guerrero Trejo and Bertha’s daughter, Guadalupe Cárdenas Guerrero, were arrested on 15 June 2011 and charged with organized crime, aggravated kidnapping and drug dealing. Patricia suffered from gastritis and colitis. In 2017 she requested a change of module to make it easier for her daughter to visit, but the request was denied. Her defence counsel repeatedly requested that she be provided with appropriate medical treatment. On 19 February 2020, she was seen and diagnosed with gastrocolitis, irritant dermatitis and gonalgia, and was prescribed drug treatment. Patricia, however, reported that the symptoms persisted. On 15 May 2020, she died of “septic shock, acute liver failure and probable ovarian cancer”. Bertha suffers from eye problems, anaemia and depression due to the death of one of her daughters from cervical cancer in 2018, while Bertha was in pretrial detention without having been allowed to visit her. Guadalupe has gynaecological problems, including breast lumps, and chronic pain in her knees. She did not receive authorization to visit her sister before her death in 2018 either.

Ivonne Hernández Carbajal was arrested on 10 September 2012 and charged with kidnapping and organized crime. She claims that she and her two children were tortured during her arrest. Both children have been institutionalized; she has not received visits for eight years. She has suffered from generalized allergies and insomnia for four years without treatment, has not received gynaecological care for more than two years, suffers from hot flushes due to menopause, and presents with anxiety and fatigue.

Malinali Tenepal Peña Hernández, Alba Alvear Hilario and Gloria Lidia Alvear Hilario were arrested on 19 November 2013 and charged with kidnapping and organized crime. Malinali has reported various health problems without receiving adequate medical attention, which has resulted in complications relating to her eyes, veins, skin and joints, as well as weight loss; she has also reported the presence of two breast masses but has not received a gynaecological assessment. She has two children. Alba is overweight and suffers from allergic rhinitis and mechanical lower back pain. She was the main financial provider for her son, whom she has not been able to see regularly. Gloria has problems with her eyesight. Despite repeated requests from their defence counsel, none of the three has received adequate medical care.

Verónica Razo Casales was arrested on 8 June 2011 and charged with kidnapping and organized crime. She claims to have been physically, sexually and psychologically tortured¹² during her arrest. She is a mother of two and has hyperthyroidism, which requires daily treatment and six-monthly follow-up with an endocrinologist, and medication that she has not received despite repeated requests. That situation risks worsening her chronic, degenerative health condition. In addition, she suffers from post-traumatic stress and depression, and is not receiving psychiatric care. Verónica was acquitted on 21 June 2024 and released, after it was determined that her confession had been obtained through torture.

12. Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez, “Verónica Razo Casales”, Rompiendo el Silencio: Todas Juntas contra la Tortura Sexual. Available at https://centroprodh.org.mx/ rompiendoelsilencio/portfolio/veronica-razo-casales/. ↩

Maricela Ramírez Villanueva, Adriana Ivonne Sepúlveda Ccoolle and Brenda Cristina Garnica Romero were arrested on 9 April 2014 and charged with kidnapping and organized crime. They claim to have been tortured during their arrest. Maricela has partial hearing loss, ear discharge, severe headaches, chronic knee pain and gynaecological problems involving excessive bleeding; she does not receive regular medical care, medication or menstrual hygiene products. She has two children, who were also beaten during her arrest. Adriana suffers from migraines and post-traumatic stress syndrome, has lesions on her feet, as a result of which she needs special footwear, and lacks adequate gynaecological care. Brenda suffers from back and knee pain as a result of the torture that she was subjected to during her arrest and has had no gynaecological care for two years. It is financially difficult for her family to visit her, and contact with her family members has therefore been limited. Despite repeated requests from their defence counsel and court orders, none of them has received adequate medical care.

Yolanda Campos Hernández, Juliana Maldonado Campos and Nancy Mariana Hernández Almazán were arrested on 14 April 2011 and charged with trafficking in persons and organized crime. Yolanda suffers from diabetes, ankle pain and nail necrosis due to lack of medical care; Juliana has problems with her eyesight, pain in her left leg, excessive menstrual bleeding and an ovarian cyst; and Nancy suffers from headaches, back and knee pain, nosebleeds, kidney problems and recurrent gynaecological infections, and is not adequately treated unless her relatives pay. After complaining of kidney pain, she was mocked by medical personnel. Despite repeated requests from their defence counsel, none of them has received adequate medical care. All three were convicted in 2023 and their case is pending appeal.

Nancy Huerta Ramírez and Dulce Fabiola Domínguez Vázquez were arrested on 6 April 2014 and charged with kidnapping and organized crime. They both claim to have been tortured during their arrest. Nancy suffers from recurrent gynaecological infections and, despite having two children, does not receive visits because they live so far from the prison. Dulce claims to have been forced to sign her confession under threats against her and her children; she suffers from breast, lower back and hip pain. Her defence counsel has requested medical care on several occasions without receiving a response.

Brenda Quevedo Cruz was arrested on 28 November 2007 in the United States of America and extradited to Mexico in September 2009, and charged with kidnapping and organized crime. She has claimed to have been tortured, suffers from chronic insomnia and needs controlled medication. She also suffers from migraines, hormonal acne and anaemia, which are aggravated by the inadequate diet in prison. Since 24 June 2024, Brenda has been under house arrest.

Mónica Moctezuma Vidales was arrested on 18 April 2011 and charged with organized crime and kidnapping. Her family lives more than 600 km away, but, despite requests for a transfer, and a court ruling in which it was stated that the proceedings must be reopened with a gender perspective, given that Mónica was responsible for the maintenance and care of her youngest daughter and two nephews, she remains in Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16. She claims to have been tortured and to have suffered serious psychological consequences. She currently suffers from obesity, type 2 diabetes, lower back pain, meniscopathy, an anal fistula and cervicovaginitis. Her defence counsel has repeatedly requested adequate medical care and conditions that guarantee her integrity and contact with her family. Mónica was convicted in April 2024; her appeal is pending.

Luz Elena Neri Reyes and her daughter Mónica Itzel Montalvo Neri were arrested on 5 October 2013 and charged with kidnapping and organized crime; both have claimed that they were tortured during their arrest. Luz Elena has diabetes and high blood pressure, has lost half of her teeth in prison, suffers from eye and back problems and does not have appropriate access to medical care. Mónica suffers from post-traumatic stress, has requested psychiatric treatment, has lost weight and self-harmed, and has untreated menstrual pain that puts her reproductive health at risk. Given the lack of care, her lawyer also filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission in 2019. Both women were convicted, and their appeals have been pending since 13 August 2025.

Roxana Nohemí Concha Álvarez and Adilene Primo Alfaro were arrested on 14 April 2011 and charged with crimes against health; they have claimed to have been tortured during their arrest. Roxana, a mother of three, does not receive visits because her children live so far from the prison; since 2013, she has made requests for a transfer, but those requests have been rejected, despite the effect on her family life, on the grounds that the fact that she does not live with her three children does not preclude the application of the exception related to organized crime enshrined in article 19 of the Constitution. She suffers from kidney infections, knee damage, bone pain, fibrosis and breast cysts, but is not receiving adequate treatment owing to shortages of supplies. Adilene suffers from osteochondritis and anxiety, and gave birth during her imprisonment. She was able to live with her son for only six months; she currently receives no visits. Her defence counsel has requested medical care and measures to uphold her family rights, but has not received an effective response. Roxana was acquitted on 8 March 2023 and Adilene was acquitted on 9 February 2023.

The authors claim to have exhausted the available domestic remedies, which have proved ineffective due to their excessive duration and the absence of structural measures to remedy the alleged violations. Although the authors have taken various legal actions, those actions have not guaranteed effective protection or improvements in the conditions of their detention. In that context, in 2020 the authors filed 23 petitions for indirect amparo in which they requested: (a) the periodic review of the legality, reasonableness and proportionality of pretrial detention, with a gender-specific approach; (b) access to non-custodial measures, even in exceptional situations such as the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic; and (c) dignified conditions of detention at Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16.

As the authors have been arrested and charged with federal crimes, their cases are being heard by federal judges in various States of the Republic (district judges). A petition for indirect amparo must be submitted to the district judge who ordered the pretrial detention if the order is to be reviewed, while the enforcement of the ruling on the petition is the responsibility of the sentence enforcement judge.¹³ Of the indirect amparo petitions filed by the authors, 2 were rejected on technicalities,¹⁴ 12 were refused,¹⁵ 1 was dismissed due to the death of the person concerned,¹⁶ 6 were granted¹⁷ and 2 remained subject to the admissibility procedure at the time of submission of the present communication.¹⁸ In their amparo decisions, some district courts recognized the obligation to apply the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), while others held that it was not necessary to incorporate a gender perspective in the review of provisional measures.¹⁹ The 12 authors whose indirect amparo petitions had been refused filed petitions for review before collegiate circuit courts for criminal matters, arguing that their pretrial detention had not been periodically reviewed ex officio and requesting an analysis with a gender perspective. As a result, an ex officio review of the pretrial detention orders was ordered in eight cases;²⁰ in two cases, it was established that the review should comply with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) and the Bangkok Rules;²¹ in one case, the petition for review was dismissed without a specific pronouncement;²² and, in three cases, the petitions for review remained pending at the time of submission of the present communication.²³ The Third and Eighth District Courts of the State of Mexico, however, which were responsible for enforcing the remedies of amparo that had been granted, ruled that the pretrial detention of the women concerned should not be modified, on the grounds that the crimes with which those women had been charged were serious. In response to that refusal, some of the authors filed appeals in which they argued that those courts had not complied with the orders of the courts of second instance. The proceedings remained pending at the time of submission of the present communication. By 2024, three of the authors had been acquitted on appeal²⁴ and six had been convicted.²⁵ Brenda Quevedo was placed under house arrest and the others remained in pretrial detention.

13. See the national Constitution, arts. 16, 19 and 107, section VII; the Amparo Act, arts. 15, 22, 107 and 114, section I; and the National Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 153, 154 and 166. ↩
14. B.Q.C. ↩
15. G.C.G.; B.G.T.; I.H.C.; V.R.C.; Y.C.H.; J.M.C.; N.M.H.A.; N.H.R.; D.F.D.V.; M.M.V.; R.N.C.A.; and A.P.A. ↩
16. P.M.T. ↩
17. M.T.P.H.; G.L.A.H.; A.A.H.; M.R.V.; B.C.G.R.; and A.I.S.C. ↩
18. L.E.N.R. and M.I.M.N. ↩
19. M.M.V.; Y.C.H.; J.M.C.; N.M.H.A.; N.H.R.; and D.F.D.V. ↩
20. G.C.G.; B.G.T.; I.H.C.; Y.C.H.; J.M.C.; N.M.H.A.; N.H.R.; and D.F.D.V. ↩
21. G.C.G.; B.G.T.; and I.H.C. ↩
22. V.R.C. ↩
23. R.N.C.A.; A.P.A.; and M.M.V. ↩
24. V.R.C.; R.N.C.A.; and A.P.A. ↩
25. Y.C.H.; J.M.C.; N.H.R.; M.M.V.; L.E.N.R.; and M.I.M.N. ↩

In addition, the authors filed at least 23 administrative appeals²⁶ with authorities at Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16 to request urgent medical attention, access to medication, improvements in prison conditions, such as space, clothing and footwear, and the possibility of relocating to receive visits from their families.

26. Collective administrative petition filed with the authorities of Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16 and collective disputes brought before the jurisdictional authority in matters of penal enforcement. ↩

On 11 September 2019, Brenda Quevedo Cruz submitted a communication to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. On 25 August 2020, the Working Group adopted opinion No. 45/2020, in which it concluded that her detention was arbitrary. Brenda also requested precautionary measures and filed a petition with the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. On 23 November 2022, the Commission issued an admissibility report on the petition.

On 27 January 2020, Guadalupe Cárdenas Guerrero, Ivonne Hernández Carbajal, Malinali Tenepal Peña Hernández, Verónica Razo Casales, Adriana Ivonne Sepúlveda Ccoolle, Yolanda Campos Hernández, Juliana Maldonado Campos, Nancy Mariana Hernández Almazán, Nancy Huerta Ramírez, Dulce Fabiola Domínguez Vázquez, Mónica Moctezuma Vidales, Luz Elena Neri Reyes, Mónica Itzel Montalvo Neri, Roxana Nohemí Concha Álvarez and Adilene Primo Alfaro submitted a communication to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. On 29 July 2021, the Working Group adopted opinion No. 14/2021 in favour of Verónica Razo Casales.

On 6 April 2020, Yolanda Campos Hernández, Juliana Maldonado Campos, Nancy Mariana Hernández Almazán, Nancy Huerta Ramírez and Dulce Fabiola Domínguez Vázquez submitted a request for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The authors state that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 1, 2 (a) and (d)–(f), 3 and 12 (1) of the Convention by failing to prevent, punish or redress the discrimination and institutional violence that they face as women in detention at Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16. They claim that certain public policies and legal reforms affect them disproportionately, in particular the excessive and disproportionate use of pretrial detention, the lack of equal access to justice and the lack of effective guarantees of the rights to health, integrity and life. They state that the situation reveals a structural problem that affects women in conflict with the criminal law in a differentiated manner.

The authors claim that their rights to be tried within a reasonable time, to have equal access to justice and to remain free from violence and discrimination, with an approach that takes into account gender and intersectionality, in accordance with articles 1 and 2 (a) and (d)–(f) of the Convention, articles 2 (1), 3, 7, 9 (1) and (3), 14 (1) and (2) and 14 (3) (c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, rule 6 of the Tokyo Rules and rules 56 and 58 of the Bangkok Rules, have also been violated. They state that pretrial detention is applied in an excessive and unjustified manner, for up to 15 years and without due diligence, which makes it a punitive measure. They state that this practice has differentiated and disproportionate effects on women, who face greater vulnerabilities than men. They also argue that no context analysis with a gender perspective has been carried out in relation to their cases, which makes it difficult to identify differentiated impacts and ensure the special treatment and enhanced safeguards to which they are entitled.

The authors claim that various constitutional reforms have significantly increased the number of women in detention in Mexico. They state that women in conflict with the criminal law suffer the consequences of restrictive provisions and regimes of exception, endorsed in contravention of the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Under the regime of exception for organized crime, many women remain in undignified prison conditions for years, with no access to alternatives to pretrial detention. In particular, under the 2008 and 2019 reforms relating to organized crime, judges are obliged to order automatic pretrial detention in cases of such crime.²⁷ In addition, women face complex trials with multiple co-defendants, which leads to undue delays. Their participation in the offences is usually minor in comparison with men and is confined to secondary roles. The authors claim that these provisions have caused them physical and mental harm through the unjustified prolongation of proceedings and pretrial detention orders, without adequate medical care or a gender-specific approach, in violation of articles 1 and 3 of the Convention.

27. Decree amending the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (18 June 2008), and expansion of the list of offences (2 April 2019). ↩

The authors claim that, as women in detention in Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16, they face institutional and intersectional discrimination, in violation of article 2 of the Convention. Although the laws of the State Party formally recognize equality, no effective measures have been taken to ensure dignified conditions of detention or adequate and continuous health services with a gender-specific approach. Furthermore, no provision is made for social reintegration strategies that take into consideration the fact that many women are detained far from their support networks. In the case of the authors, the lack of a gender perspective is shown by the refusal to implement alternatives to imprisonment despite excessive periods of pretrial detention, in the refusal to transfer them to their places of origin and in the lack of diligence in their proceedings. In addition, the management of prisons through service provision contracts and models such as those of the American Correctional Association reinforce a restrictive and discriminatory system that is incompatible with international standards.²⁸

28. CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/9, para. 13; and Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Mexico, OAS/Ser.L/II.100 Doc. 7 Rev.1, 24 September 1998, paras. 272 and 277. ↩

Lastly, the authors claim that the State Party has violated article 12 (1) of the Convention by failing to eliminate discrimination in access to healthcare. They state that dignified conditions of detention have not been ensured and that their rights to health, physical integrity and life, including sexual and reproductive health, have not been protected, which places them in a situation of extreme vulnerability. Although Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16 is the only federal centre in Mexico exclusively for women, it does not have specialists in gynaecology who can provide appropriate and continuous care, which constitutes discrimination. The authors add that the lack of general and specialized medical care may entail violations of the rights to life and to integrity of the person, and of the prohibition of torture and other cruel treatment.²⁹

29. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 19 May 2011, Series C, No. 224, paras. 76–79. ↩

The authors request the Committee to ask the State Party to: (a) urgently review the precautionary measures with a view to replacing pretrial detention with an alternative measure that is less harmful and allows them to receive adequate medical care; and (b) ensure that women in detention have continuous and ongoing access to gynaecological services, including the appropriate diagnostic tests and examinations, and provide the necessary medications.

In its observations dated 14 April 2023, the State Party submits that the present communication is inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, since the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies. The State Party notes that, although the 22 authors filed petitions for indirect amparo – in some cases granted to order a review of their pretrial detention – not all of them filed a petition for review of the unfavourable decisions.

The State Party also submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol because 15 of the authors initiated an individual complaint before the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention containing allegations related to the same facts and circumstances. In the case of Brenda Quevedo Cruz, the State Party notes that the Working Group has issued opinion No. 45/2020 and that there is also a petition at the merits stage before the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. According to the State Party, the submission of a communication on behalf of Brenda Quevedo Cruz also constitutes an abuse of the right of submission.

On the merits of the communication, the State Party submits that the authors have been afforded due process and judicial guarantees without distinction based on sex. It states that the appeals filed have been resolved impartially and efficiently. It argues that mandatory pretrial detention is automatically ordered on the basis of the offence with which the person concerned is charged, cannot be reviewed ex officio by the judge in the criminal proceedings, is not based on any gender-specific criteria and is not a discriminatory measure. According to the State Party, the defence may, at its own discretion, file a petition for a review of this mandatory detention whenever it sees fit to do so.

The State Party adds that it has various policies and actions in place to promote the protection of the rights of women in detention, such as the National Programme for Equality between Women and Men 2020–2024, which includes the strengthening of health services and timely and high-quality obstetric and gynaecological care for women in detention.

The State Party submits that there is a mechanism for dealing with administrative complaints and petitions, which the authors have used in relation to health matters and legal proceedings. At Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16, a “medical monitoring care” procedure is applied, including six-monthly consultations involving general medicine, laboratory tests, dentistry and oral health services, in addition to specialized care, namely, gynaecology and obstetrics once a year, psychiatry once a month, vaccination campaigns and eye examinations. In the Diagnóstico Nacional de Supervisión Penitenciaria (National Assessment of Correctional Supervision), the National Human Rights Commission monitors detention conditions and recommends improvements with a gender perspective. In addition, educational activities, paid and unpaid self-employment programmes and female security personnel are provided, and men and women are kept separate. The right to motherhood and breastfeeding, the prevention of obstetric violence and access to hygiene products are assured, in order to ensure dignified and equitable conditions for women in detention.

In their comments of 15 January 2024, the authors argue that the domestic remedies have not been effective, as they have been characterized by excessive and unjustified delays and, in the cases that have been resolved, have not provided full redress for the alleged violations. They state that, although they filed petitions for indirect amparo and petitions for review or appeals, the decisions took significantly longer than the statutory time limit of 30 days and, in some cases, more than one or two years. They contend that the State Party has not justified such delays, demonstrated the effectiveness of the remedies or explained how the decisions affected the rights of the women. Although violations of the right to be tried within a reasonable time and to alternatives to pretrial detention were acknowledged in some judgments, none of the decisions had any practical effect on the authors’ legal situation or their liberty, as the enforcement judges upheld the continuation of the pretrial detention, arguing that the period equivalent to the “minimum sentence” for the offences with which the authors had been charged had not elapsed.³⁰

30. General Act to Prevent and Punish Kidnapping Crimes, arts. 9 and 10 (penalties from 40–80 to 50–90 years of imprisonment). ↩

The petitions filed to obtain medical care have not been effective, either because of the excessive time taken to rule on them or because of the absence of comprehensive solutions to the general lack of adequate medical care. On the contrary, the alleged violations have persisted, worsening the situation of the authors in a context of repeated omissions by the State.

The authors state that the submission of information to a special procedure, such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, cannot be regarded as the use of a procedure that “examines” a case in a quasi-judicial sense. The Working Group does not conduct a contentious proceeding entailing the substantiation, contradiction or binding determination of violations of international treaties. The purpose of submitting the information was solely to prompt communication with the State Party and did not constitute a consideration of the merits. Consequently, there can be no allegation of lis pendens that would limit the competence of this Committee to consider the communication.

The request for precautionary measures filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 6 April 2020 on behalf of five of the authors does not constitute an examination of the case or imply a determination of human rights violations or reparation measures. The only case actually submitted to another international mechanism is that of Brenda Quevedo Cruz, for which the Commission has already issued an admissibility report.

On the merits, the authors contend that the lack of periodic and ex officio review of pretrial detention has a disproportionate impact on them, owing to multiple discrimination factors and a prison system that renders their needs invisible. They state that the analysis of the proportionality and reasonableness of pretrial detention must consider the “historical disadvantage of women in society, any history of previous victimization, the absence of aggravating factors in the commission of the offence, the different and incremental impact of the imposition of detention on the persons looked after by the detainee” and, in the case of mothers, the best interests of the child.³¹ However, the continuation of pretrial detention has been justified using generic arguments about “serious offences” or flight risk, without determining whether there was any outstanding evidence to be collected, whether it was impossible to obtain that evidence while the accused was at liberty, or whether there were relevant personal circumstances, such as a fixed residence, employment or a family. In November 2024, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that mandatory pretrial detention ran counter to international standards, as it was not based on individual judicial decisions.³² Nevertheless, between December 2024 and April 2025, the State Party amended article 19 of the Constitution twice, expanding the list of offences subject to mandatory pretrial detention and “prohibiting any analogous or extensive interpretation designed to set aside, suspend, amend or nullify its terms or its validity, in whole or in part”,³³ which rules out the possibility of analysing the particular circumstances of individuals on a case-by-case basis and verifying the real need to impose this precautionary measure.

31. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Practical Guide to Reduce Pretrial Detention, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.163 Doc. 107, 27 September 2017, p. 46. ↩
32. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Mexico: UN Human Rights Chief concerned about expansion of mandatory pretrial detention”, 22 November 2024. ↩
33. Article 19 of the Constitution: “The judge shall order pretrial detention mandatorily in cases of abuse or sexual violence against minors, organized crime, extortion, offences under the applicable laws, committed for the unlawful introduction and diversion, production, preparation, disposal, acquisition, importation, exportation, transportation, storage and distribution of chemical precursors and essential chemical substances, synthetic drugs, fentanyl and derivatives, intentional homicide, femicide, rape, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, burglary of a dwelling, use of social programmes for electoral purposes, corruption in relation to the offences of illicit enrichment and abuse of functions, theft of cargo in transit in any of its forms, offences relating to hydrocarbons, petroleum products or petrochemicals, offences relating to the enforced disappearance of persons and disappearance perpetrated by private individuals, offences committed with violent means such as weapons and explosives, offences relating to firearms and explosives for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, the offence of terrorism and serious offences determined by law against national security, health, the free development of personality, smuggling and any activity related to false tax receipts, in accordance with the terms established by law.” ↩

On 18 September and 20 October 2025, the authors submitted additional information indicating that 11 of them were still in pretrial detention. They also claimed that practices such as solitary confinement and isolation continued to be used to deal with mental health crises and that they were permitted only three 10-minute telephone calls per week, forcing them to choose between speaking with family members or defence attorneys, which seriously affected their mental health, especially in the case of mothers and caregivers. The high incidence of self-harm and attempted suicide has been linked to insufficient medical and psychological care.³⁴

34. Informe sobre el Centro Federal de Readaptación Social Núm. 16 (Report on Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16), by the Human Rights Strategic Litigation Unit and the Technical Secretariat for Combating Torture, “Abriendo caminos para la Justicia”, Defensa de mujeres privadas de la libertad: avances y retos institucionales (“Opening pathways to justice”, Defence of women in detention: progress and institutional challenges). See also Informe Especial 1/2023 del Mecanismo Nacional de Prevención contra la Tortura Relacionado con las Visitas de Supervisión a Centro Federal de Readaptación Social Núm. 16 (Special report 1/2023 of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture on monitoring visits at Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16). ↩

In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. In this regard, the Committee notes that Brenda Quevedo Cruz has filed a complaint under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, namely, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, raising the same claims presented to the Committee. The Committee notes that, on 23 November 2022, the Commission issued an admissibility report on the case, which is currently at the merits stage. The Committee therefore considers that, in respect of Brenda Quevedo Cruz, the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol and declares the complaint of Brenda Quevedo Cruz inadmissible under that article.³⁵

35. A contrario sensu, Semey v. Spain, para. 8.3, and Rodríguez Castañeda v. Mexico, para. 6.3. ↩

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion concerning Verónica Razo Casales in July 2021.³⁶ The Committee is of the view that the communications mechanism under the Working Group constitutes a review mechanism within the meaning of article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, as the Working Group examines claims of human rights violations, and issues opinions in which it verifies such violations, orders compliance measures and monitors the implementation of such measures. The Committee must therefore decide whether, in respect of that author, the same matter has been examined under that procedure.³⁷

36. A/HRC/WGAD/2021/14. ↩
37. Oriol Junqueras et al. v. Spain (CCPR/C/135/D/3297/2019), para. 7.2. ↩

The Committee recalls that the “same matter” within the meaning of article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol must be understood as relating to the same author, the same facts and the same substantive rights.³⁸ In the present case, the Committee notes that the complaint of Verónica Razo Casales to the Committee refers to the disproportionate impact of pretrial detention on women, the failure to take a gender-specific approach in assessing the precautionary measure and the lack of adequate medical care. In contrast, in the communication submitted to the Working Group, the author sought to determine whether her detention was arbitrary, arguing that the torture that she was subjected to during her arrest and her mandatory pretrial detention constituted arbitrary detention and a form of advance punishment, thereby violating her right to be tried within a reasonable time. The Committee is therefore of the view that the communication submitted to the Working Group does not constitute the “same matter” within the meaning of article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. Consequently, the Committee concludes that there are no obstacles to the admissibility of the present communication under that provision.

38. X and Y v. Georgia (CEDAW/C/61/D/24/2009), para. 6.6. ↩

The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims under articles 2 (1), 3, 7, 9 (1) and (3), 14 (1) and (2) and 14 (3) (c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in relation to their right to be tried within a reasonable time, their right to equal access to justice and their right to remain free from violence and discrimination. The Committee is of the view that this element of the complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and declares it inadmissible under article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.³⁹

39. CEDAW/C/69/D/88/2015, para. 5.4. ↩

The Committee recalls that, under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, it is precluded from considering a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted or that the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. The Committee takes note of the State Party’s argument that, at the time of submission of the communication, domestic remedies had not been exhausted because not all the authors had filed petitions for review. It also takes note of the argument of the authors that, although several of their cases were pending when the communication was submitted, 17 of them, namely, Guadalupe Cárdenas Guerrero, Ivonne Hernández Carbajal, Malinali Tenepal Peña Hernández, Verónica Razo Casales, Adriana Ivonne Sepúlveda Ccoolle, Bertha Guerrero Trejo, Gloria Lidia Alvear Hilario, Alba Alvear Hilario, Maricela Ramírez Villanueva, Brenda Cristina Garnica Romero, Patricia Melo Tapia, Yolanda Campos Hernández, Juliana Maldonado Campos, Nancy Mariana Hernández Almazán, Mónica Moctezuma Vidales, Nancy Huerta Ramírez and Dulce Fabiola Domínguez Vázquez, had filed petitions for review and appeals, and their cases had been finalized. In addition, the Committee notes that, in the cases of Roxana Nohemí Concha Álvarez and Adilene Primo Alfaro, the amparo appeals were at the compliance stage at the time of acquittal, and were therefore moot. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that all those authors pursued an approach that was suitable for satisfying their claims before it and, for those authors, concludes that domestic remedies have been exhausted for the purposes of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol.⁴⁰

40. CEDAW/C/82/D/149/2019, para. 1.43. ↩

The Committee notes that the amparo appeals filed on behalf of Luz Elena Neri Reyes and Mónica Itzel Montalvo Neri were dismissed for failure to meet the formal admissibility requirements and that, according to the State Party, the authors did not file appeals against that decision. The Committee also notes the authors’ argument that the petitions for review of their pretrial detention have not been effective for any of them, given constitutional and legal limitations. It observes that the State Party has not provided an explanation of the ways in which the petitions for amparo and/or appeals on the grounds of non-compliance with the amparo judgment have been effective, in practice, in bringing effective relief to the authors. It therefore concludes that the domestic remedies mentioned do not, in the present case, offer a reasonable likelihood of effectiveness under domestic law.⁴¹ The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the claims presented by Luz Elena Neri Reyes and Mónica Itzel Montalvo Neri.

41. See Sandra Luz Román Jaimes v. Mexico (CEDAW/C/83/D/153/2020), para. 6.3. ↩

Consequently, and in the absence of any other information from the State Party indicating other remedies that would have been effective in redressing the violations alleged in the present communication, the Committee is of the view that the available domestic remedies under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol have been exhausted.

The Committee considers that the authors’ claims that they are being held at Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16 in poor, unsanitary and degrading conditions, which constitutes gender-based discrimination, and that, although the Centre is the only federal facility exclusively for women, the State Party failed to ensure the protection of their dignity and physical and psychological security, despite repeated requests, have not been sufficiently substantiated and finds them inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol.

Furthermore, the Committee is of the opinion that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their claims under article 2 (a) and (e) of the Convention in relation to discrimination and institutional violence against Mexican women resulting from omissions in policies and laws on protecting the rights of persons in conflict with the criminal law, and finds those claims inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol.

Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that, for purposes of admissibility, the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims under articles 2 (d) and (f), 3 and 12 (1) of the Convention in relation to the disproportionate use of pretrial detention against them, the failure to conduct periodic gender-sensitive reviews of such detention and the lack of adequate medical care. The Committee also notes that, in substance, the authors’ claims raise issues related to sociocultural patterns based on gender stereotypes, and concludes that, in the circumstances of the present case, the complaint has been sufficiently substantiated with respect to article 5 (1) of the Convention.⁴² Accordingly, in the absence of any other issue relating to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares it admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.

42. S.M.A. v. Spain (CRC/C/85/D/40/2018), para. 7.4. ↩

The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the authors and by the State Party, in accordance with the provisions of article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee notes the authors’ claims that pretrial detention has been applied to them in an excessive and unjustified manner, in some cases for up to 15 years, without due diligence or regular review of its necessity, appropriateness and proportionality, and without a gender-sensitive analysis of the differentiated and disproportionate effects that this measure has on them as women. The authors have also pointed out that various constitutional reforms, in 2008, 2019, 2024 and 2025, have made it mandatory for judges to order pretrial detention in cases of serious crimes, such as organized crime, kidnapping and offences involving violence, weapons or explosives, and have introduced restrictions on amendments to this measure, which has had a differentiated impact on women. The Committee takes note of the State Party’s assertion that the review of pretrial detention is automatically ordered on the basis of the offence with which the person concerned is charged, cannot be reviewed ex officio by the judge in the criminal proceedings and is not based on any gender-specific criteria.

The Committee recalls that women in detention face structural discrimination owing to the lack of gender-sensitive alternative measures, the failure to address their specific needs and the absence of independent gender-sensitive mechanisms for the review of prison-related decisions.⁴³ In this regard, in its general recommendation No. 33 (2015) on women’s access to justice, the Committee established that States should closely monitor sentencing procedures and eliminate any discrimination against women in the penalties provided for particular crimes and in determining eligibility for parole or early release from detention, while ensuring that mechanisms are in place to monitor places of detention, paying special attention to the situation of women prisoners and applying international guidance and standards on the treatment of women in detention. The Committee is of the view that women’s access to justice entails not only formal equality in procedures but also material safeguards against the specific risks and vulnerabilities faced by women in pretrial or administrative detention. ⁴⁴

43. General recommendation No. 33 (2015) on women’s access to justice. ↩
44. General Assembly resolution 65/229, annex, rules 1, 4, 57 and 58. ↩

The Committee has emphasized that pretrial detention should be used only as a last resort and for as short a time as possible.⁴⁵ The Committee has also noted that mandatory pretrial detention disproportionately affects vulnerable groups of women.⁴⁶ In addition, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that mandatory pretrial detention, when imposed automatically on the basis solely of the nature of the offence, ceases to be a precautionary measure⁴⁷ and becomes a form of advance punishment,⁴⁸ which violates the principles of equality and nondiscrimination⁴⁹ by preventing certain persons from having access to alternative measures or procedural benefits.⁵⁰ It has also held that any pretrial mechanism that restricts personal freedom for investigative purposes is a violation of the rights to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.⁵¹ In the present case, the Committee notes that this situation arises from both de jure provisions, which make pretrial detention mandatory or exclude alternatives depending on the type of offence, and de facto practices of judicial bodies that apply mandatory pretrial detention automatically, without examining the circumstances of each case.⁵² In the present case, none of the decisions on the petitions for amparo made in favour of the authors led to a change in their legal situation, as the authorities responsible for enforcement systematically confirmed the extension of the pretrial detention, without considering the amparo rulings or the particular circumstances of each case, relying solely on the type of offence and arguing that the term equivalent to the “minimum sentence” for the offences with which the person concerned had been charged had not yet elapsed. The Committee also notes that this situation has been exacerbated by the constitutional reforms of 2024 and 2025, which limited the possibility of conducting an individual judicial review of the necessity, proportionality and reasonableness of the measure.

45. General recommendation No. 33 (2015) on women’s access to justice, para. 51 (p); and A/HRC/20/16, paras. 74–78. ↩
46. CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/10, para. 15 (b). ↩
47. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, García Rodríguez et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 25 January 2023, paras. 157 and 158. ↩
48. Ibid., Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, Judgment, 17 November 2009, para. 121. ↩
49. Ibid., García Rodríguez et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 25 January 2023, para. 173. ↩
50. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Women Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, 2023, para. 77. ↩
51. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 7 November 2022, paras. 171–173. ↩
52. Ibid., García Rodríguez et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 25 January 2023, para. 170. ↩

In line with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Committee considers that such provisions unduly restrict the judicial function by automatically applying the measure and depriving the authors of the possibility of challenging the facts or questioning the grounds for their detention.⁵³ The Committee also notes that the State Party has not demonstrated that the courts have considered less restrictive alternatives to pretrial detention⁵⁴ to ensure the appearance of the authors at trial,⁵⁵ such as reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions.⁵⁶ Pretrial detention must be justified on an individual basis; legal systems that impose the automatic application of such detention in accordance with the type of offence disregard the principle of proportionality and perpetuate a system that unjustifiably excludes women accused of certain offences from access to essential prison benefits aimed at reducing the differentiated impacts of the deprivation of liberty.⁵⁷ In the light of these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the State Party has not demonstrated that the authors’ detention meets the criteria of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.

53. Ibid. ↩
54. Aleksandr Golubev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/143/D/3127/2018), para. 7.4. ↩
55. On 24 June 2024, the pretrial detention of Brenda Quevedo was terminated and replaced with supervised house arrest. ↩
56. Baban v. Australia (CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001), para. 7.2; F.K.A.G. et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/108/D/2094/2011), para. 9.4; M.M.M. et al. v. Australia (CCPR/C/108/D/2136/2012), para. 10.4; and Fofana v. Ecuador (CCPR/C/124/D/2290/2013), para. 8.6. ↩
57. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Women Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, 2023, paras. 77 and 78. ↩

The Committee notes that prolonged pretrial detention and the detention conditions have had differentiated and disproportionate effects on the authors as women and on their families,⁵⁸ in particular given the distance from their places of origin and the lack of measures to ensure regular contact with their children. It also notes that two of the authors were denied visits to close family members before the deaths of those family members. Lastly, the Committee notes that the State Party has not justified the need for the authors to be detained at Federal Social Rehabilitation Centre No. 16, given the significant distance from their families in many cases. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with the Bangkok Rules, States are required to provide an enabling environment for women in detention, allow free contact between mothers and their children, facilitate extended visits and refrain from imposing punishments that restrict those ties.⁵⁹ Under the Bangkok Rules, States must also encourage and facilitate by all reasonable means the contact of women in detention with their families and take measures to counterbalance disadvantages faced by women detained in institutions located far from their homes.⁶⁰ The Committee consequently concludes that the State Party did not take the necessary measures to facilitate the authors’ contact with their families.

58. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, para. 136. ↩
59. General Assembly resolution 65/229, annex, rules 23, 28 and 43–47. ↩
60. Ibid., rule 26. ↩

The Committee notes the authors’ claims regarding the lack of access to adequate medical care. It also notes the “medical monitoring care” procedure mentioned by the State Party. It observes, however, that the State Party does not provide specific information, including statistical data, on the practical implementation of that procedure. The Committee notes, in particular, that the State Party has not refuted the authors’ claims that, for years, they did not receive the specialized medical care that they required, including gynaecological care, even though many of them suffered from serious medical conditions and had requested such care. The Committee recalls that the failure of detention centres to respond to the specific needs of women constitutes a form of discrimination under article 1 of the Convention,⁶¹ as women encounter specific barriers in obtaining services that meet their health needs. Consequently, States must allocate the necessary resources to provide adequate services, in line with principle 5 (2) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,⁶² which establishes that special measures designed to address the specific needs of women in detention are not to be deemed discriminatory. The lack of timely medical attention, the absence of a gender perspective and the restrictions on maintaining family ties exacerbate their situation in a differentiated manner, thereby affecting their health, integrity and family life.⁶³ In view of the foregoing, and in the light of the circumstances of the case, the Committee concludes that the State Party failed to ensure that the authors had access to the adequate medical care that they required.

61. E.D. et al. v. Belarus (CEDAW/C/87/D/157/2020), para. 7.5. ↩
62. General Assembly resolution 43/173, annex. ↩
63. General Assembly resolution 65/229, annex, rules 5–10 and 41. ↩

Consequently, acting under article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is of the view that the prolonged and unjustified pretrial detention of the authors, together with the lack of measures to foster contact with their families and the lack of adequate medical care, constituted a violation of their rights under articles 2 (d) and (f), 3, 5 (1) and 12 (1) of the Convention.

In the light of the above conclusions, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the State Party:

In accordance with article 7 (4) of the Optional Protocol, the State Party must give due consideration to the views of the Committee, together with its recommendations, and submit to the Committee, within six months, a written response, including information on any action taken in the light of the views and recommendations of the Committee. The State Party is also requested to publish the Committee’s views and recommendations and disseminate them widely in order to reach all relevant sectors of society.