1

COMPLAIANT: ALEJANDRA LIZBETH NAVEDA ALONSO

PROTECTION:___________________
INCIDENTAL NOTEBOOK
VIOLATION OF SUSPENSION

FOURTH DISTRICT JUDGE IN MATTERS OF CRIMINAL PROTECTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.

PRESENT.

ANDRES PARRA SANCHEZ on behalf of ALEJANDRA LIZBETH NAVEDA ALONSO , currently deprived of
liberty inside the Women's Social Rehabilitation Center of Santa Martha Acatitla in the Federal District ,
before you, with due respect, I appear to state:

That I come hereby to denounce the violation that the responsible authority has incurred in the resolution
by virtue of which the complainant was granted the flat and provisional suspension of the act complained of in
the incident in which the action is taken.

In order to provide information to your Honor, the following background information is provided:

FACTS

1. On December 3 of the current year , my representative filed an amparo lawsuit, indicating as the acts
claimed:
“ 1.- The extraction, segregation, solitary confinement, isolation and punishment of the undersigned
complainant from dormitory G 205, to send her to another place where she endangers my life and
physical integrity than where she is currently confined, to cause me nuisance without legal reason, for
the purpose of incommunicating her, tormenting her, segregating her and torturing her with the
purpose of making her testify against other people and her own, for not willing to extort people
outside the prison, since they say they will to punish as only they know how, and if we can't
stand it then there's no way.
SO I REQUEST FROM THIS MOMENT THAT THE COMPLAINANT NOT BE
EXTRACTED FROM BEDROOM G 205, BECAUSE, IN THE CHANGE OF STAY OR THEY ARE
SEGREGATE AND INCOMMUNICATION, SHE COULD BE BOTHERED BY OTHER INMATES AND
UNFORTUNATELY, SHE COULD LOSE HER LIFE, AS HAS HAPPENED TO OTHERS. INMATES
INSIDE THE PRISON.

2.- violation of my human rights among others, such as life, consecrated and
protected by our political constitution of the United Mexican States and the legal and material
consequences that may arise from the acts of organization and execution claimed in this guarantee
trial .”

Having attributed this act to the authorities identified as responsible:

"1 C. COMMISSIONER OF THE DECONCENTRATED ADMINISTRATIVE BODY PREVENTION
AND SOCIAL REHABILITATION, OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SECURITY SECRETARIAT.

2 C. GENERAL COORDINATOR OF THE FEDERAL CENTERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE,

DECONCENTRATED, PREVENTION AND SOCIAL REHABILITATION BODY, OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC SECURITY SECRETARIAT.

3.- C. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EXECUTION OF SANCTIONS TO FEDERAL SOCIAL

REHABILITATION CENTERS, FOREIGNERS, INDIGENOUS AND TRANSFERS, OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC SECURITY SECRETARIAT.

4.- C. SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.

5.- C. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE PENITENTIARY SYSTEM OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT

GOVERNMENT.

6C. LEGAL DIRECTOR OF THE GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF PREVENTION AND SOCIAL

REHABILITATION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.

7.C. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PRISON SECURITY OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT

GOVERNMENT.

8.- C. DIRECTOR OF THE FEMALE SOCIAL REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MARTHA

ACATITLA OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.

9.- H. INTERDISCIPLINARY TECHNICAL COUNCIL OF THE WOMEN'S SOCIAL

REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MARTHA ACATITLA OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.
 2

10.- C. DIRECTOR OF THE FEMALE SOCIAL REHABILITATION CENTER OF SANTA MARTHA

ACATITLA OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.”

2. By meeting the relevant legal requirements, the claim was admitted for processing by you, ordering in the
admission order that the incidental notebook be opened in duplicate, so at this time I request the
SUPLACEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT, which regulates article 79 of the AMPARO LAW, to the effect that H.
The judge obtains the necessary evidence in order to prove what is stated in the application for protection
and in this document denouncing the violation of the provisional suspension and the outright suspension in
this guarantee trial and that for this purpose The tests are offered, regardless of which ones your HONOR
BELIEVES MOST CONVENIENT.

3. In the primary order of the suspension incident, the provisional suspension was granted for the purpose of
returning me to my room such as dormitory G 205, so that my life would not be put at risk, to date I have
received threats, and they have even left her land with which they supposedly perform witchcraft on her so
that she will die, but that perhaps she will not be saved from a beating, according to what her companions
from other cells murmur, and they have not taken her down so the authority has her segregated. ,
incommunicado and isolated, so she has not been able to live with her family and her cellmates, sometimes
she does not even sleep because she is alert that they are going to bite her at night as has already happened
to other inmates of whom, not is made known outside the prison.

4. Once the incident of suspension was substantiated in all its parts, the suspension was granted to the
complainant, so that her life would not be put at risk, until the amparo trial was resolved in all its parts.
However, the responsible authorities have not given due compliance to the suspension granted by your
honor, which is why they have incurred the provisions of articles 262 and 263 of the AMPARO LAW, which
literally regulates:

Article 209. If as a result of the incident it is demonstrated that the responsible authority has not
complied with the suspension, that it has done so in an excessive or defective manner or that with
notorious bad faith or inexcusable negligence it admitted illusory or insufficient bail or counter-bond,
the judicial body, in its resolution, will require it to comply with the suspension within twenty-four
hours, to rectify the errors incurred in complying with it or, where appropriate, to correct the
deficiencies related to the guarantees, with the warning that if it does not do so it will be reported. to
the Public Ministry of the Federation for the crime that, depending on the case, is established in
sections III and IV of article 262 of this Law.

5. Said resolution has been duly notified to those responsible and yet they continue to commit violations of
the complainant's human rights and guarantees, enshrined in the POLITICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED MEXICAN STATES.

6. It is the case that today the person responsible has not given due compliance to the agreement by which
the suspension is granted outright in the main notebook and the agreement by which the provisional
suspension is granted, which demonstrates that the authorities continue to commit arbitrary acts, violating the
suspension of the claimed act, which is why I appear before you through this writing to denounce such
procedure, so that the incident of violation of the suspension begins and the person responsible is ordered to
respect and comply with what was agreed in the suspension, during the time that the amparo trial process
lasts, as ordered by His HONOR.

Therefore, the following jurisprudential theses serve as support:

SUSPENSION IN THE AMPARO. THE COMPLAIANT'S REQUEST FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO REQUIRE THE
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY TO INFORM HIM AND PROVE THAT HE HAS COMPLIED AND CONTINUES TO
COMPLY WITH IT, CONSTITUTES A REPORT OF ITS POSSIBLE VIOLATION, REGARDLESS OF THE
INAPPROPRIATE TERMINOLOGY OR INACCURATE NAME GIVEN TO IT BY THE RECURRING, WHICH DOES NOT
AFFECT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNNOMINATED INCIDENT. The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of
Justice of the Nation, in the jurisprudence due to contradiction of thesis P./J. 2/2010, published on page 7 of
 3

Volume XXXI, February 2010, of the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette, Ninth Period, under the
heading: "VIOLATION OF SUSPENSION. THE RELATIVE COMPLAINT OR, IF APPLICABLE, THE COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST THE RESOLUTION PRONOUNCED IN THAT COMPLAINT, WHEN THE AMPARO TRIAL IS RESOLVED,
DOES NOT REMAIN WITHOUT MATTER.", he specified, among other issues, that the suspension is not only
intended to keep alive the matter of the protection, but also aims to avoid the aggrieved party, during the
processing of the trial, the damages that the execution of the act could cause by acting on it, since it affects
the measures aimed at its execution, paralyzing them and preventing the claimed act from being carried out.
execute or cease such measures if execution has already begun. In this order of ideas, it is concluded that the
complainant's request for the Amparo Judge to require the responsible authority to inform him and
demonstrate that he has complied and continues to comply with the definitive suspension granted, constitutes
a complaint of its possible violation, by virtue of the fact that the inappropriate terminology or inaccurate
name given by the appellant is a situation that does not affect the establishment of the unnamed incident, and
although it is true that said procedure is not provided for in the Amparo Law, because its articles 123 , 124,
130, 131, 104, 105 first paragraph, 107 and 111 only contemplate the incident of suspension and its
compliance, it is also the case that it must be processed in terms of articles 358 and 360 of the Federal Code
of Civil Procedures, of supplementary application in accordance with the second paragraph of article 2. of
the aforementioned law, in which the parties (aggrieved party and the responsible authority) may offer
evidence in terms of numerals 93, 94 and 361 of the aforementioned adjective code, in order to prove their
respective statements.

THIRD COLLEGIATE COURT ON LABOR MATTERS OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

Complaint 6/2011. Rodolfo Alanís Gutiérrez. June 8, 2011. Unanimity of votes. Speaker: Daniel Cabello
González. Secretary: M. Gerardo Sánchez Cháirez.

SUSPENSION IN THE AMPARO. WHEN PROVIDING REGARDING ITS GRANT, THE DISTRICT JUDGE MUST
WEIGHT BOTH THE DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAIANT WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE COMPLAINED ACT, AND A
POSSIBLE ALTERATION TO PUBLIC ORDER OR SOCIAL INTEREST, TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THOSE TWO
AFFECTIONS MAY BE IRREPARABLE, OR WELL, OF GREATER TRANSCENDENCE DUE TO ITS PERMANENCE OR
FOR AFFECTING SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS IN A GENERAL AND SUPERLATIVE WAY (SYSTEMATIC
INTERPRETATION OF FRACTIONS II AND III OF ARTICLE 124 OF THE AMPARO LAW). Articles 107, section the
nature of the alleged violation, the difficulty of repairing the damages that the complainant may suffer with its
execution and the contrast between these and those that the suspension causes to third parties or to the public
interest, and which is a requirement to grant the measure, that this does not cause damage to the social
interest or contravene provisions of public order. Under these conditions, in order to determine when this
requirement is met, the District Judge must contrast the impact that would affect the interest of the individual
with the execution of the act, with that referring to the social interest or public order if it is not executed,
determining which of the two would be greater, which must be avoided through said measure. Likewise,
although it is true that there are no parameters according to which this opposition judgment must be carried
out, this court considers that a systematic interpretation of the aforementioned article 124 leads to the
conclusion that said study is closely linked to compliance with the requirement of origin of the suspension
contained in section III of the precept itself, relating to the fact that the damages and losses caused to the
injured party with the execution of the act are difficult to repair, since the content of this normative portion is
noted, as an assessment parameter the level of impact on the interest of the individual, the degree of
reparability of the harm suffered, which in turn can be determined from the permanence of the damage that
would be caused or its irremediable significance to substantive rights, irreducible even from the individual's
own will, such as, for example, life, liberty, equality, dignity or any other of the supreme values enshrined in
the Federal Constitution. Thus, according to the proposed mechanics, when providing for the suspension of the
protection, the District Judge must weigh both the damage to the complainant with the execution of the
claimed act, as well as a possible alteration to public order or social interest if it is granted. to determine which
of these two effects may be irreparable, or of greater significance due to its permanence or because it affects
substantive rights in a general and superlative way, and if the result of that assessment indicates that the
damage that has that character is the one that would be suffered. the complainant, then he must grant the
measure.

SECOND COLLEGIATE COURT ON ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

Suspension incident (review) 218/2009. Real Estate Business Development. October 15, 2009. Unanimity of
votes. Speaker: José Carlos Rodríguez Navarro. Secretary: Eucario Adame Pérez.

INCIDENT OF VIOLATION OF SUSPENSION. THERE IS NO TERM TO PROMOTE IT. Article 143 of the Amparo
Law states that the resolutions issued regarding suspension in the guarantee trial are comparable to those
issued after it has concluded, since for their compliance the provisions relating to the execution of the amparo
sentences must be observed. , to the extent that they participate in its characteristics and, therefore, are
governed by the principles pertaining to such resolutions, hence if from articles 105, 108 and 113 of the
aforementioned law, it is obtained that compliance with the sentences protection is of public order, so no
obstacles or difficulties should be established that prevent it from being satisfied, it is possible to conclude that
in the case of incidents issued in compliance with the sentences there is no preclusion term for its promotion,
since it cannot be the guarantee trial will be archived without the sentence in which constitutional protection
has been granted being fully complied with. Therefore, in the incident of violation of the suspension, article 297
of the Federal Code of Civil Procedures is not applicable, which regulates a general term of three days in those
cases in which the law does not expressly establish a term, since said figure is contrary to the purpose provided
 4

for in the Amparo Law itself, to obtain compliance with their sentences, which also applies to compliance with
the suspension.
SECOND COLLEGIATE COURT OF CIVIL MATTERS OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
Complaint 66/2006. José Ángel Rodríguez del Valle. November 9, 2006. Majority of votes. Dissident: Juan
Manuel Rochín Guevara. Speaker: José Gabriel Clemente Rodríguez. Secretary: Guillermo Erik Silva González.

SUSPENSION, THE COMPLAINT RELATING TO ITS VIOLATION MUST BE PROCESSED INCIDENTALLY, IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 358 AND 360 OF THE FEDERAL CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURES, OF SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION TO THE AMPARO LAW. From the analysis of the provisions
of articles 104, 105, first paragraph, 107, 111 and 143 of the Amparo Law, which regulate the execution and
compliance of the suspension order, it is clear that they do not indicate the procedure that must be followed by
the authority that hear about the indirect protection trial in relation to the complaint of violation of the
suspension. However, given the criminal nature of the sanction provided for in article 206 of the
aforementioned law, which may be applied to the authority that does not obey a suspension order, it is
essential that the essential formalities of the procedure provided for in the article be respected. 14 of the
Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, among which is the opportunity to offer and present the
evidence on which the defense is based and, therefore, when it comes to that complaint, the opening of the
unnamed incident must be ordered. referred to in articles 358 and 360 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedures,
of supplementary application in accordance with the second paragraph of article 2. of the Amparo Law, in
which the parties may offer the means of proof contained in articles 93, 94 and 361, of the aforementioned
code, in order to prove their statements, without the evidentiary limitation established in the case being
applicable. Article 131 of the indicated law, since it only regulates the processing of the suspension incident in
the indirect protection trial.
Contradiction of thesis 139/2002-SS. Among those supported by the Third Collegiate Court on Administrative
Matters of the First Circuit and the Second Collegiate Court of the Twentieth Circuit. March 28, 2003. Five
votes. Speaker: Sergio Salvador Aguirre Anguiano. Secretary: Guillermo Becerra Castellanos.
Jurisprudence thesis 33/2003. Approved by the Second Chamber of this High Court, in a private session on April
4, two thousand and three.

SUSPENSION IN THE AMPARO. SYSTEMS REGULATED IN THE LAW OF THE MATTER TO ACHIEVE ITS
COMPLIANCE (LEGISLATION IN FORCE AS OF APRIL 3, 2013). The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of
Justice of the Nation, in jurisprudence 1a./J. 165/2005, published in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and
its Gazette, Ninth Period, Volume XXIII, January 2006, page 637, under the heading: "VIOLATION OF
SUSPENSION. THE REPORT CAN BE MADE SINCE THE RESOLUTION GRANTING IT HAS BEEN NOTIFIED TO THE
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.", maintained that compliance with the suspension order in matters of amparo is
regulated in two different systems that operate in parallel: the first, provided for in articles 104 and 105, first
paragraph, 107 and 111 of the previous Amparo Law, which provides the judge the legal means to require the
responsible authorities and obtain from them compliance with the resolution that granted the suspension of
the claimed act, whether provisional or definitive; and the second, contained in article 206 of said law, which
establishes the form and moment in which the responsible authority that does not comply with that measure
will be sanctioned; systems that can be applied parallel and simultaneously. Now, the current Amparo Law
contains precepts of similar content to those interpreted in the aforementioned jurisprudence; thus, articles
143, 104, 105, first paragraph; 107, 111, 206, 130 and 139 of the repealed Amparo Law, essentially correspond
(in that order), with numerals 158, 192, 193, 194, 211, 136 and 139 of the current law. However, there is a
notable difference, because while article 143 referred to the chapter that contained the procedure for
compliance with the enforcement of protection, which was used analogically and only partially in the case of
suspension, article 158 of the Protection Law in force refers to the fifth title, called "Disciplinary and
enforcement measures, responsibilities, sanctions and crimes" and not to the rules provided in this regard to
achieve effective compliance with the enforceable measures that grant constitutional protection. However,
regardless of this, currently, with the corresponding legal clarifications, it can still be stated that compliance
with the suspension order is regulated by two systems; one that looks directly at compliance with the
suspension order, which has no incidental processing, and another that looks at the contempt of the
responsible authority, which gives rise to an incidental processing. Systems that the judge can apply
simultaneously and that operate in parallel. The first system is the one established by article 158 of the
Amparo Law, which allows the judge to enforce the suspension resolution and/or take the necessary measures
for its compliance and has the following characteristics: a) its primary objective is not to determine if the
suspension was violated, but to obtain compliance; b) does not require incidental processing; c) it is informal
(public order), although the possibility of a party's request is not excluded; d) it is preventive, since its success
depends on whether the incident is not promoted due to excess or defect in compliance with the suspension;
and, e) in the event of a violation of the suspension, the judge may declare the nullity of the offending act to
return things to the state they had at the time the measure was granted (as long as the nature of the claimed
act allows it). For its part, the second system is the one established by chapter V of the third title, called
"Compliance and execution" of the Amparo Law, which goes from article 206 to 209, and regulates the
incident due to excess or defect in compliance with the suspension, which has the following characteristics: a)
it is not ex officio, since it requires the promotion of a party, which undoubtedly excludes the possibility of
appreciating the principle of public order, evident in the other system; b) it is repressive to the extent that its
main consequence is the sanction of the authority that failed to comply with the order to suspend the claimed
act; c) in the event of a violation of the suspension, the judge can also declare the nullity of the offending act
and, in fact, it is in this system where said declaration is traditionally made (although if it was made in the
other system, then there will be no need to reiterate it and the incidental resolution will be limited to the
analysis of the responsibility of the responsible authority in the violation of the suspension).

THIRD COLLEGIATE COURT OF CIVIL MATTERS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

 5

Complaint 11/2014. Pacific Airport Group, SAB CV February 13, 2014. Unanimity of votes. Speaker: Víctor
Francisco Mota Cienfuegos. Secretary: Karlo Iván González Camacho.

This thesis was published on Friday, May 8, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation.

PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION. EFFECTS OF ITS VIOLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TWO SYSTEMS
ESTABLISHED TO ACHIEVE ITS COMPLIANCE (AMPARO LAW IN FORCE AS OF APRIL 3, 2013). The violation of
the provisional suspension decreed by the District Judge based on the procedure provided for in article 158 of
the Amparo Law (first system) has the effect or consequence that the nullity of the act violating the
precautionary measure is declared. This is because the act executed that contradicts the suspension, even
without knowledge that it already existed, must be declared null and void because it violates the
determination made by the judge, who must order that things return to the state they had at the time the
suspension was granted. Thus, regardless of noticing the violation of the suspension, it may happen that it is
not possible to declare the violating act null, either because the incidental resolution has been issued that
denies the suspension against the act suspended by the provisional one (a circumstance that would prevent
the emergence of said effect, since by virtue of the definitive one the provisional one has been left non-
existent), or because the nature of the violating act does not allow its annulment (for example when it is
impossible to repair). For its part, the violation of the provisional suspension declared in the incident due to
excess or defect in its compliance (second system) has two effects: the first, declaring the aforementioned
nullity for the reason stated, in accordance with the circumstances described (in case of that by virtue of the
first system the declaration has not been made); and, second, that the criminal responsibility of the authority
denounced for its contempt be determined. In the incident in question, the declaration decreed by the District
Judge that the suspension has been violated may cause the two aforementioned effects to occur, or only one of
them, without the other being updated, therefore, It must be kept in mind that it is not a necessary
requirement to declare the violation of the precautionary measure that both effects occur simultaneously,
since it may happen that the conduct of the authority violates the suspension granted by the Judge, becoming
a creditor to the sanction. legal that arises from it, but the violating act cannot be declared void (for the
reasons already noted in relation to the first system, based on the change in the legal situation caused by the
issuance of the incidental resolution and the nature of the infringing act). , which does not exempt the
authority from having the responsibility incurred determined; On the other hand, it may also happen that the
executed act that was reported violates the suspension, and must be declared null and void, although the
authority that executed it does not incur liability, which is why it is not the case to determine this for the
purposes of I sanctioned him.

THIRD COLLEGIATE COURT OF CIVIL MATTERS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

Complaint 11/2014. Pacific Airport Group, SAB CV February 13, 2014. Unanimity of votes. Speaker: Víctor
Francisco Mota Cienfuegos. Secretary: Karlo Iván González Camacho.

This thesis was published on Friday, May 8, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation.

EVIDENCE

I now offer the following as evidence on behalf of the complainant:

1.- THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTARY: with the understanding that in the incidental suspension notebook the
suspension sentence in which the definitive suspension was granted to the complainant, as well as the
notification of that resolution to the responsible authority, appear as records of the proceedings, that work in
these proceedings

2.-THE EYE INSPECTION . That it must be practiced inside the Women's Social Rehabilitation Center of
Santa Martha Acatitla of the Federal District , room G-205, for the purpose that the actuary assigned to that
H. The Court verifies that the complainant is actually in the room or bedroom that corresponds to G-205,
which is where she is not in danger of being harmed or even deprived of her life as they have done with
other inmates.

For what has been previously stated and founded, TO YOU CITIZEN JUDGE, I sincerely ask that
you serve:

FIRST. Have me presented with this letter, initiating an incident of violation of the definitive suspension.
 6

SECOND. Admit this incident to processing, requiring the responsible authority to submit its justified report on
the litigation now raised.

THIRD. To have the evidence to which I now agree to be offered, setting a date and time so that the
respective incidental hearing can be verified and the evidence provided by the parties can be heard, ordering
the clerk of the court to carry out the announced ocular inspection procedure, fixing on the part from you date
and time for this purpose.

ROOM. Following the legal procedures, issue an interlocutory ruling in accordance with the law, declaring
that the person responsible has violated the definitive suspension.

I PROTEST WHAT IS NECESSARY

Mexico, Federal District on December 8, 2015.

ANDRES PARRA SANCHEZ

____________________________
In representation of
ALEJANDRA LIZBETH NAVEDA ALONSO