Overview
- The justices validated article 27, section V, item g) of the National Law on Criminal Enforcement, which permits records of serious offenses to remain after sentences are completed.
- The ruling distinguishes between grave and non-grave crimes, allowing cancellation only for the latter and finding the differential treatment objectively justified.
- The majority concluded that retention is compatible with equality, non-discrimination, and reintegration rights, stressing that certificates are not public and are issued solely to the individual.
- Court president Hugo Aguilar Ortiz and Minister Yasmín Esquivel Mossa dissented, calling the permanent notation stigmatizing and akin to a double sanction; Minister Giovanni Figueroa Mejía dissented on procedural grounds.
- The case stemmed from an amparo by a person denied a security job after a certificate reflected a past conviction for transporting 10 migrants, illustrating labor-market effects of the policy.