Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 - World Justice ...

1

Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020

World Justice Project

The 32 States Under the Spotlight

SEATTLE, WA 1424 4th Avenue, Suite 828Seattle, WA 98101P 206 792 7676 | F 202 747 5816

The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 was prepared by a team led by Alejandro Ponce and Leslie Solís, under the executive direction of Elizabeth Andersen.

The conceptual framework and methodology of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index were developed by Camilo Gutiérrez, Alejandro Ponce, and Leslie Solís, with the assistance of Alicia Evangelides, Daniel Gamboa, Roberto Hernández, Rachel Martin, Layda Negrete, and Pablo Parás, based on the conceptual framework and methodology of the WJP Rule of Law Index, developed by Mark David Agrast, Juan Carlos Botero, and Alejandro Ponce.

The data collection for the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 was coordinated by Eréndira González Portillo.

The data analysis for the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 was performed by Eréndira González Portillo, Jorge Morales, Alejandro Ponce, and Leslie Solís.

Alejandro Ponce, Mario Rodríguez Vigueras, and Leslie Solís were in charge of writing and editing the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020. English translation by Mario Rodríguez Vigueras.

Graphic design by Priya Khosla and Courtney Babcock.

The research, data collection, analysis, and final report production team was Eréndira González Portillo, Estefanía González, Amy Gryskiewicz, Carlos Ham, Tim Kessler, Jorge Morales, Fernando Omedé, Pablo Parás, Alejandro Ponce, Mario Rodríguez Vigueras, Omar Santoyo, and Leslie Solís, with the support of Erin Campbell, Alexa Hopkins, Ayyub Ibrahim, Carlos López, and Rafael Lozano.

The research team received administrative support from Miguel Contreras, Nikki Ngbichi-Moore, Jason Murray, Samira Popal, Adriana Ríos, and Richard Schorr.

The production of communication and interactive products was developed by Amir Galván, Ester Arroyo, Paulina del Paso, Eréndira González, Estefanía González, Matthew Harman, Rafael Lozano, Jorge Morales, Fernando Omedé, Alejandro Ponce, Mario Rodríguez Vigueras, and Leslie Solís, with the help of Sofía Ambrosi, Carlos Castañeda, Gabriel Charles Maribel Flores, Gerson Hernández, Coizta Grecko, Martha Mejía, Concepción Peralta, Mayte Ramos, and Gildardo Rodríguez.

The website was produced by New Emage.

The WJP Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 was made possible thanks to the generosity of the World Justice Project's sponsors. © Copyright 2019 World Justice Project. The WJP Rule of Law Index® and the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index® are trademarks of the World Justice Project.

All rights reserved. Any requests to reproduce this document must be sent to:

Alejandro Ponce World Justice Project 1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S.A. Email: [email protected]

ISBN (versión impresa): 978-1-951330-32-3 ISBN (versión en línea): 978-1-951330-63-7

worldjusticeproject.org

worldjusticeproject.mx

facebook.com/thewjp

twitter.com/theWJP

twitter.com/theWJP_mx

WASHINGTON, DC 1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1200Washington, DC 20005P 202 407 9330 | F 202 747 5816

MEXICO CITY Avenida Michoacán 22 Condesa, 06100 CDMX, México

ASIA PACIFIC 8 Robinson Road#03-00 ASO Building, 048544, Singapore

Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020

World Justice Project

The 32 States Under the Spotlight

Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

The Mexico States Rule of Law Index

Executive Summary

Rule of Law by Factor

What is the Rule of Law and How is it Measured?

Sources of Information

How to Read the State Profiles

State Profiles

Methodology

Contributing Experts

Acknowledgments

About the World Justice Project

Results of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index, 2018 and 2019-2020

Other Publications by the World Justice Project

3

5

6

8

11

15

20

22

24

56

62

86

87

88

90

2

Photo credit: Miguel Tovar / Bambú Audiovisual

The rule of law is fundamental in guaranteeing security, justice, human rights, effective democracy, and sustainable development. However, in Mexico, the strengthening of the rule of law continues to be a pending issue. Violence, corruption, and impunity affect millions of Mexicans and are testaments to the lack of mechanisms to guarantee the adherence to norms for an effectively organized society and government.

Recent changes in government at the local, state, and federal levels present a unique opportunity to begin a collective process of institutional consolidation aimed at strengthening the rule of law in Mexico. With this in mind, the WJP presents the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020, the second edition of the most comprehensive citizen-based measurement of the rule of law in Mexico’s 32 states. The Index presents new data organized into eight factors of the rule of law: Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice. The scores for these factors reflect the perceptions and experiences of over 25,000 citizens across the entire country and of over 2,600 specialists, in addition to a variety of third-party survey databases related to rule of law topics. Behind every indicator is a detailed academic analysis supported by experts in each subject and a significant effort to collect, verify, and validate the data.

The results of the Index show persistent challenges in all states regarding corruption and justice, and, in most of them, a worrying deterioration of security. Despite these results, there are important differences in the performance and progress of the 32 states. The scores increased in fifteen states, decreased in eleven, and remained unchanged in six. Of the eight factors of the Index, the most states saw improvements in their Constraints on Government Powers scores.

Mexico faces major institutional challenges, especially at the state and municipal levels. Therefore, it is necessary to advance alliances and policies that strengthen its institutions and ensure compliance with the law. Such transformation, however, is complex and requires the participation and commitment of all areas of government, the private sector, political forces, civil society organizations, and the media. The WJP seeks to contribute to this effort by generating specialized, accurate, and timely data. Our goal is that the scores published here are used as a reference to evaluate the performance of state authorities over time and motivate actions aimed at strengthening the rule of law in Mexico.

Dr. Alejandro PonceChief Research Officer, World Justice Project

Preface

"[...] it is necessary to advance alliances

and policies that strengthen its

institutions and ensure compliance with the law."

The Index presents new data organized into eight factors of the rule of law:

Constraints on Government

Powers

Order & Security

Open Government

Civil Justice

Absence of Corruption

Regulatory Enforcement

Fundamental Rights

Criminal Justice

3Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020

4

Photo credit: Laura Aquino, World Justice Project

The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 captures the experiences and perceptions of over 25,000 citizens

and 2,600 experts in the 32 states of the country.

Over more than a decade, the World Justice Project® (WJP) has conducted interviews in over 120 countries to measure adherence to the rule of law from the citizen’s point of view, producing information regarding the ex-periences and perceptions of people on issues such as corruption, contact with authorities, perception of safety, victimization, fundamental rights, and access to justice. The WJP Rule of Law Index® has become a leading tool to identify institutional strengths and weaknesses in coun-tries and to promote evidence-based decision making.

The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 is the second edition of the only subnational index produced by the WJP and is one of the most complete measurements of institutional performance in the country. The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 uses the same conceptual framework and methodology that the WJP has used around the globe to measure adherence to the rule of law in each of Mexico’s 32 states.

The Index presents new data organized into 42 sub- factors and eight factors: Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice. These factors summarize different components of the rule of law, provide information regarding the institutional

strengths and weaknesses of each state, and serve as reference points to evaluate the performance of state au-thorities over time or in comparison to other states. This is the second edition of the Index, which allows for the identification of developments and persistent challenges on topics related to the rule of law.

This Index is unique. It uses information obtained first-hand from citizens to capture the voices of thousands of people in urban and rural areas in the 32 states of the country. Specifically, the Index uses over 600 variables generated from answers to a General Population Poll (GPP) of 25,600 people, answers to Qualified Respon-dents' Questionnaires (QRQs) administered to over 2,600 attorneys and experts in criminal law, civil law, labor law, and public health, and information produced by other institutions (third-party sources). For more details on the methodology used by the WJP, please refer to “Sources of Information” (page 20) and “Methodology” (page 56).

The Index is aimed at a wide audience that includes legis-lators, civil society organizations, academia, and the media, among others. Our intention is that this tool is used to identify strengths and weaknesses in each state, and promote public policies that strengthen the rule of law in Mexico.

Introduction

There are several features that differentiate the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 from other measurements and indices:

1. Rule of Law in Practice: The Index measures adherence to the rule of law by looking at policy outcomes, such as whether people have access to courts or whether crime is effectively controlled. This stands in contrast to efforts that focus on the written legal code or the institutional means by which a society may seek to achieve these policy outcomes.

2. Comprehensive and Multi-Dimensional Theoretical Framework: While other indices cover particular aspects of the rule of law, such as absence of corruption or human rights, they do not yield a full picture of the state of the rule of law. The WJP Mexico States Rule of Law Index is the only instrument that looks at the rule of law comprehensively in Mexico.

3. Perspective of Ordinary People: The WJP Mexico States Rule of Law Index puts people at its core. It looks at a country’s adherence to the rule of law from the perspective of ordinary individuals and their experiences with the rule of

law. The Index examines practical, everyday situations, such as whether people can access public services and whether a dispute among neighbors can be resolved peacefully and cost-effectively by an independent adjudicator.

4. New Data Anchored in Actual Experiences: The Index is based on primary data obtained from the assessments of the general population and experts. This ensures that the findings reflect the conditions experienced by actual people from different segments of the population, including those from marginalized sectors of society.

5. Adapted to the Reality in Mexico: Lastly, even though the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 uses the same conceptual framework and methodology that the WJP Rule of Law Index uses on a global level, the surveys and third-party sources have been adapted to reflect the institutional architecture in Mexico, the competencies of the different government levels, and the availability of data.

Box 1: Main features of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index

The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 captures the experiences and perceptions of over 25,000 citizens and 2,600 experts in the 32 states of the country.


Chihuahua

Coahuila

Baja California

Baja California Sur

Zacatecas

Durango

SinaloaNuevo León

Tamaulipas

QuerétaroHidalgo

Veracruz

San Luis Potosí

OaxacaGuerrero

Guanajuato

Mexico City

Puebla

Morelos

NayaritAguascalientes

ColimaMichoacán

Jalisco

Sonora

Summary Table: Scores and rankings

Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating the strongest adherence to the rule of law. No state has a perfect score. In fact, the highest score is 0.46 (Yucatán), which implies that all states face important challenges. Even though the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 is based on the methodology that the WJP Rule of Law Index has used on a global level for many years, its scores cannot be compared to those found in the global Index due to adaptations of the conceptual framework and methodology applied to the Mexico Index in order to strengthen local measurement and reflect the national context. A section that summarizes the differences between the Global Index and the Mexico States Index is found on page 61.

0–.30 .31–.33 .34–.37 .38–.40 .41–.43 .44–.47

Stronger adherence to the rule of law

Weaker adherence to the rule of law

0.0 1.0

.46

The following map and table present the scores and rankings of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020.

Tlaxcala

State of Mexico

6

Chiapas

Yucatán

QuintanaRoo

CampecheTabasco

0–.30 .31–.33 .34–.37 .38–.40 .41–.43 .44–.47

1 Yucatán 0.46 0.012 Aguascalientes 0.45 0.013 Zacatecas 0.43 -0.014 Campeche 0.43 0.005 Querétaro 0.43 0.006 Coahuila 0.43 0.007 Nuevo León 0.43 0.018 Durango 0.43 0.019 Guanajuato 0.42 0.01

10 Hidalgo 0.42 0.0011 Sinaloa 0.42 0.0112 Colima 0.41 0.0213 Baja California 0.40 -0.0314 Oaxaca 0.40 0.0115 Chihuahua 0.40 0.0116 Nayarit 0.40 0.03* Average 0.39

17 Baja California Sur 0.39 0.0418 Michoacán 0.39 -0.0119 Tamaulipas 0.39 0.0120 San Luis Potosí 0.38 -0.0121 Sonora 0.38 0.0222 Veracruz 0.38 0.0123 Chiapas 0.38 -0.0124 Tabasco 0.37 -0.0125 Tlaxcala 0.37 -0.0126 Jalisco 0.37 0.0027 State of Mexico 0.36 0.0028 Mexico City 0.36 -0.0129 Morelos 0.36 -0.0130 Quintana Roo 0.35 -0.0131 Puebla 0.35 -0.0132 Guerrero 0.33 0.04

Rank State Score*



*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

Change 2018-

2019–2020*


The Index presents new data organized into eight factors of the rule of law: Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice. The results show persistent challenges in corruption, justice, and security.

The scores of the eight factors are disaggregated into 42 sub-factors, which reflect the perspectives and experienc-es of more than 25,000 citizens from all over the country and more than 2,600 specialists in civil justice, criminal jus-tice, labor justice, and public health, as well as the results of a variety of surveys and databases on topics related to the rule of law (third-party sources).

The Index uses a scale from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates the highest adherence to the rule of law. Like in the last edi-tion, no state has a perfect score, which implies that all states face important challenges.1

The states with the highest scores in the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020 are Yucatán (0.46), Aguascalientes (0.45), and Zacatecas (0.43). These same states were at the top of the ranking in the 2018 edition of the Index. The states with the lowest places are Guerrero (0.33), Puebla (0.35), and Quintana Roo (0.35). In the last edition, Guerre-ro was also at the bottom of the ranking.

Since the last edition, the scores of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index increased in 15 states (Aguascalientes, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Colima, Durango, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Nayarit, Nuevo León, Oaxaca, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Veracruz and Yucatán), decreased in 11 (Baja California, Chiapas, Mexico City, Michoacán, Morelos, Puebla, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosí, Tabasco, Tlaxcala and Zacatecas) and remained unchanged in 6 (Campeche, Coahuila, State of Mexico, Hidalgo, Jalisco and Querétaro).

Executive SummaryThe Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 is the second edition of the most comprehensive measurement of the rule of law in Mexico’s 32 states.

8

1 Scores are rounded to two decimal places

*Factor 3 did not have any changes since the 2018 version of the Index. For more details on the measurement of Factor 3, refer to the Methodology section.

Factor 8

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3*

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Factor 7

9 23

6

26

*

27

5

26

23

24

42

1 4

19 8

1 5

6 3

6 2

Changes in scores by factor Statistically significant changes in the scores of each factor of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020, compared to 2018.

States without a statistically

significant change

Mexico States Rule of Law Index

States with a decrease in its score. States with an increase in its score.

11 15

Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020 9

Yucatán

Aguascalientes

Zacatecas

Campeche

Coahuila

Querétaro

Baja California

Durango

Nuevo León

Hidalgo

Guanajuato

Sinaloa

Michoacán

San Luis Potosí

Colima

Chiapas

Oaxaca

Chihuahua

Tamaulipas

Tabasco

Tlaxcala

Nayarit

Veracruz

Jalisco

Mexico City

Morelos

Sonora

State of Mexico

Puebla

Quintana Roo

Baja California Sur

Guerrero

0.25

0.25

0.30

0.30

0.35

0.35

0.40

0.40

0.45

0.45

0.50

0.50

Improvements and Setbacks of the Rule of Law in MexicoChanges in the scores of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index from 2018 to 2019–2020, by state

Note: The scores are on a scale of 0 to 1, where 1 means greater adherence to the Rule of Law.

2018 score 2019-2020 score No change

10

Main findings

The most worrisome result of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020 is the decline in Factor 5, Order and Security, which decreased its score in 19 states (all statisti-cally significant)2, due to the increase in the homicide rate (sub-factor 5.1, which decreased in 13 states), the increase in the prevalence and incidence of crime (sub-factor 5.2, which decreased in 15 states), and the deterioration in citizens’ perception of security (sub-factor 5.3 , which de-creased in 18 states).

The data also show persistent challenges in Factor 2, which measures absence of corruption, defined as the use of public power to obtain private benefits. In this topic, the lowest scores are in sub-factor 2.4, which measures the perceptions of corruption in local legislatures.

Another aspect that requires special attention is Factor 7, Civil Justice, which measures whether people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system. In most states, the sub-factors with the lowest scores in this topic are related to access to justice and procedural efficiency of the civil justice system.

Most states also face major challenges in Factor 8, which evaluates the effectiveness and quality of the criminal justice system. Specially, many states face challenges in sub-factor 8.1, which measures whether the police and the Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) investigate crimes efficiently. Of the eight sub-factors under Factor 8, this is the sub-factor with the lowest scores in every state of the country. This is largely due to the ‘dark figure’, or the number of crimes that are not reported or recorded by the police. INEGI estimates this figure at 93.2% nationally, according to the National Survey on Victimization and Per-ception of Public Security (ENVIPE) 2019.

Strengths and improvements of the rule of law in Mexico

Despite these results, the Index also shows some progress. The scores of Factor 1, Constraints on Government Powers, which measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law, increased in 26 states (nine of them statistically significant).3 These increases were caused by changes in citizen perceptions of the effectiveness of state systems to sanction public officials who abuse their power (sub-factor 1.4, which increased in 30 states) and by changes in the perceptions about freedom and trans-parency in elections (sub-factor 1.6, which increased in 24 states). As in the 2018 edition, the results of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020 show that the most effective checks on the power of governors in Mexico are civil society and the press (sub-factor 1.5).

2 Yucatán, Coahuila, Chiapas, Hidalgo, Querétaro, Tlaxcala, San Luis Potosí, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas, Zacatecas, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Jalisco, Tabasco, Sonora, Guanajuato, Mexico City, Baja California and Morelos. 3 Nuevo León, Aguascalientes, Hidalgo, Querétaro, Zacatecas, Durango, Colima*, Yucatán*, Jalisco, Morelos, Chihuahua, Tabasco*, San Luis Potosí, Sinaloa, Nayarit, Sonora*, Guanajuato*, Tlaxcala*, Michoacán, Mexico City, Puebla, Tamaulipas, State of Mexico*, Coahuila, Veracruz, Baja California Sur* and Guerrero*. States with an asterisk had a statistically significant change.

Scores and rankings of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020

Constraints on Government Powers Factor 1

1 Nuevo León 0.50

2 Baja California 0.48

3 Colima 0.47

4 Yucatán 0.47

5 Zacatecas 0.46

6 Aguascalientes 0.46

7 Campeche 0.46

8 Hidalgo 0.45

9 Querétaro 0.45

10 Tlaxcala 0.45

11 Tabasco 0.45

12 Guanajuato 0.44

13 Sinaloa 0.44

14 Chihuahua 0.44

15 Oaxaca 0.44

16 Baja California Sur 0.44

* Average 0.4317 San Luis Potosí 0.43

18 Sonora 0.43

19 Jalisco 0.43

20 Durango 0.43

21 Morelos 0.43

22 Nayarit 0.42

23 Michoacán 0.41

24 Mexico City 0.41

25 State of Mexico 0.41

26 Tamaulipas 0.40

27 Coahuila 0.40

28 Chiapas 0.39

29 Guerrero 0.39

30 Puebla 0.39

31 Quintana Roo 0.37

32 Veracruz 0.36

1 Querétaro 0.45

2 Zacatecas 0.44

3 Guanajuato 0.43


5 Colima 0.41

6 Nuevo León 0.40

7 Yucatán 0.40

8 Hidalgo 0.40

9 Campeche 0.39

10 Sinaloa 0.39


12 Nayarit 0.38

13 Tamaulipas 0.38

* Average 0.3614 Oaxaca 0.36

15 Chihuahua 0.36

16 Tabasco 0.3617 Baja California Sur 0.36

18 Coahuila 0.35

19 Veracruz 0.35

20 Sonora 0.34

21 San Luis Potosí 0.34

22 Michoacán 0.34

23 Morelos 0.33

24 Tlaxcala 0.32

25 Puebla 0.32

26 Durango 0.31


28 Jalisco 0.31


30 Guerrero 0.30

31 Chiapas 0.30

32 Mexico City 0.28

0–.30 0–.30.31–.33 .31–.33.34–.37 .34–.37.38–.40 .38–.40.41–.43 .41–.43.44–.47 .48–1.0 .44–.47



Absence of CorruptionFactor 2

Rank State Score* Rank State Score*

.48–1.0




Rule of Law by Factor


1 Mexico City 0.51

2 Guanajuato 0.48

3 Jalisco 0.45


5 Zacatecas 0.43


7 Sinaloa 0.42

8 Sonora 0.42

9 Coahuila 0.41

10 Michoacán 0.41


12 Veracruz 0.41

13 Tabasco 0.40


* Average 0.38

15 Durango 0.3816 Nuevo León 0.38

17 Morelos 0.38

18 Chihuahua 0.38

19 Yucatán 0.38

20 Guerrero 0.37

21 Campeche 0.37

22 Hidalgo 0.36


24 Colima 0.35

25 Chiapas 0.35


27 Puebla 0.34

28 Tamaulipas 0.34

29 Oaxaca 0.33

30 Nayarit 0.33

31 Tlaxcala 0.29

32 Querétaro 0.27

1 Yucatán 0.54

2 Nuevo León 0.54



5 Querétaro 0.53

6 Morelos 0.53

7 Colima 0.52

8 Guanajuato 0.52

9 Nayarit 0.51

10 Hidalgo 0.5111 San Luis Potosí 0.5112 Chihuahua 0.51

13 Zacatecas 0.51

14 Tabasco 0.51


16 Durango 0.51* Average 0.50

17 Sonora 0.50

18 Tlaxcala 0.50

19 Coahuila 0.50

20 Campeche 0.49

21 Sinaloa 0.49

22 Mexico City 0.49

23 Oaxaca 0.49


25 Jalisco 0.48

26 Tamaulipas 0.48

27 Michoacán 0.47


29 Chiapas 0.46

30 Puebla 0.44

31 Veracruz 0.44

32 Guerrero 0.44

0–.30 0–.30.31–.33 .31–.33.34–.37 .34–.37.38–.40 .38–.40.41–.43 .41–.43.44–.47 .44–.47



Open GovernmentFactor 3

Fundamental RightsFactor 4


.48–1.0 .48–1.0




12

Order and SecurityFactor 5

1 Yucatán 0.73

2 Durango 0.60

3 Coahuila 0.60

4 Chiapas 0.56

5 Campeche 0.53

6 Hidalgo 0.52


8 Veracruz 0.48

9 Oaxaca 0.4510 Nayarit 0.4511 Tamaulipas 0.41

12 Querétaro 0.41

13 Michoacán 0.41

14 Nuevo León 0.39


16 Sinaloa 0.39* Average 0.37

17 Tlaxcala 0.36

18 Zacatecas 0.34


20 Chihuahua 0.30

21 Colima 0.29

22 Jalisco 0.27

23 Sonora 0.27


25 Puebla 0.25

26 Tabasco 0.24

27 Guerrero 0.23

28 Mexico City 0.22

29 Guanajuato 0.21



32 Morelos 0.19

1 Querétaro 0.45

2 Guanajuato 0.43


4 Campeche 0.43


6 Zacatecas 0.41

7 Colima 0.41

8 Nuevo León 0.40

9 Puebla 0.40

10 Yucatán 0.39

11 Chihuahua 0.39

12 Coahuila 0.38

13 Sinaloa 0.38

14 Oaxaca 0.38

15 Veracruz 0.38


* Average 0.3717 Tamaulipas 0.37

18 Durango 0.37


20 Tlaxcala 0.36

21 Hidalgo 0.35


23 Guerrero 0.34


25 Jalisco 0.34

26 Michoacán 0.34

27 Nayarit 0.33

28 Morelos 0.33

29 Sonora 0.32

30 Mexico City 0.32

31 Chiapas 0.32

32 Tabasco 0.31

0–.30 0–.30.31–.33 .31–.33.34–.37 .34–.37.38–.40 .38–.40.41–.43 .41–.43.44–.47 .44–.47



Regulatory EnforcementFactor 6


.48–1.0 .48–1.0





1 Guanajuato 0.44

2 Nuevo León 0.42

3 Durango 0.42


5 Campeche 0.41


7 Sinaloa 0.40

8 Chihuahua 0.40

9 Zacatecas 0.40

10 Colima 0.39

11 Yucatán 0.38

12 Querétaro 0.38

13 Coahuila 0.37

14 Sonora 0.37


* Average 0.3616 Hidalgo 0.36


18 Morelos 0.3519 Mexico City 0.3420 Oaxaca 0.34

21 Tabasco 0.34


23 Nayarit 0.33

24 Puebla 0.33

25 Tamaulipas 0.33

26 Michoacán 0.33


28 Tlaxcala 0.33

29 Veracruz 0.33

30 Jalisco 0.32

31 Chiapas 0.32

32 Guerrero 0.29

1 Querétaro 0.47

2 Zacatecas 0.46

3 Sinaloa 0.45

4 Guanajuato 0.44


6 Oaxaca 0.41

7 Coahuila 0.41

8 Hidalgo 0.41

9 Nayarit 0.41

10 Colima 0.40

11 Tabasco 0.39

12 Durango 0.39

13 Yucatán 0.39

14 Chihuahua 0.39

15 Nuevo León 0.39

* Average 0.3816 Michoacán 0.38

17 Sonora 0.38


19 Tamaulipas 0.37



22 Campeche 0.35

23 Tlaxcala 0.35

24 Morelos 0.34


26 Chiapas 0.33

27 Jalisco 0.33


29 Veracruz 0.30

30 Puebla 0.29

31 Mexico City 0.29

32 Guerrero 0.29

0–.30 0–.30.31–.33 .31–.33.34–.37 .34–.37.38–.40 .38–.40.41–.43 .41–.43.44–.47 .44–.47



Civil JusticeFactor 7

Criminal JusticeFactor 8


.48–1.0 .48–1.0




14

What is the Rule of Law? The rule of law is a principle of governance in which the government and private actors alike are accountable under the law, and that those laws are clear, publicized, stable, just, applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights. It also requires that the process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient, and that justice is delivered in a timely manner by compe-tent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve. The rule of law is a guiding principle that connects authorities and citizens through the establishment of rights, obligations, and con-straints in order for people to live in harmony, access better opportunities, participate in the decisions made by their communities, and enjoy a safe life and estate. The rule of law is one of the necessary pillars upon which societies can promote equality of opportunities, sustainable develop-ment, effective democracy, and peace.

The rule of law is recognized by the international commu-nity as an essential element of sustainable development and made part of Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustain-able Development, approved by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2015. Goal 16 aims to promote fair, peaceful, and inclusive societies, and target 16.3 specif-ically invites countries to “promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”4

How is the Rule of Law Measured? Conceptual Framework of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index The rule of law as a concept is notoriously difficult to define and measure. The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 approaches this challenge by building a series of indicators that capture multiple outcomes of the rule of law in everyday life, defined using the four universal principles highlighted in Box 2.

The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 uses a conceptual framework and methodology very similar to those used by WJP around the world, but with concepts, surveys, and third-party sources adapted to the Mexican context in order to provide a comprehensive summary of the rule of law situation in each of the states and respond to the national reality, the availability of data, the institu-tional architecture, and the competencies of the different levels of government.5 The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 is comprised of eight factors: Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open Gov-ernment, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security, Regu-latory Enforcement, Civil Justice, And Criminal Justice.6

The conceptual framework connecting these indicators is based on two main principles regarding the relationship between the government and the citizens. First, that the law imposes limits on the exercise of power by the state and its agents, as well as individuals and private entities. This is measured in factors 1, 2, 3, and 4. Second, the state limits the actions of members of society and fulfills its basic duties towards its population so that the public interest is served, people are protected from violence, and all members of society have access to dispute res-olution and grievance mechanisms. This is measured in factors 5, 6, 7, and 8.

The WJP uses a working definition of the rule of law based on four universal principles derived from internationally accepted standards. The rule of law is a system where the following four universal principles are upheld:

1. Accountability: The government as well as private actors are accountable under the law.

2. Just Laws: The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.

3. Open government: The processes by which the laws are

enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient.

4. Accessible & Impartial Dispute Resolution: Justice is delivered in a timely manner by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Box 2: Four Universal Principles of the Rule of Law

What is the Rule of Law and How is it Measured?

15

*Refer to page 21 to consult the footnotes.

Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020

Constraints on Government Powers: Factor 1 measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law. It comprises the means, both constitutional and institutional, by which the powers of the governors, mayors, and other authorities in the state's executive branch are limited and held accountable under the law for their actions. This factor also considers the role played by the non-governmental checks on the government's power, such as the press, civil soci-ety organizations, and political parties. Specifically, the factor is comprised of the following six sub-factors:

Factor 1

Government powers are effectively limited by the local legislatureMeasures whether local legislative bodies have the ability in practice to exercise effective checks on and oversight of the government. It also measures whether legislators in the opposition can express their opinions against government policies without fear of retaliation.

1.1

Measures whether the judiciary has the indepen-dence and the ability in practice to exercise effective checks on the state government and whether author-ities comply with the decisions of courts.

Government powers are effectively limited by the local judiciary

1.2

Measures whether comptrollers or auditors, as well as human rights ombudsman agencies, have sufficient independence and the ability to exercise effective checks on and oversight of the state government and apply penalties in practice.

State government powers are effectively limited by independent auditing and review

1.3Measures whether government officials who abuse their powers or fail to comply with regulations are punished in practice. The sub-factor considers officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, as well as police officers.

State government officials are penalized when they abuse their powers or fail to comply with regulations

1.4

Measures whether journalists, civil society organiza-tions, political parties, activists, and individuals are free to report and comment on government policies without fear of retaliation. The sub-factor also mea-sures whether people can speak freely and protest peacefully against the government or whether they can present petitions to the government.

State government powers are subject to non-govern-mental checks from civil society, political parties and the press

1.5 Measures the integrity of the electoral process, including access to the ballot, the absence of intimi-dation, and public scrutiny of election results.

Elections are free, clean and transparent1.6

Absence of Corruption: This factor measures the absence of corruption, defined as the use of public power to obtain private benefits in the local executive branch, the judiciary, the legislature, and safety and law enforcement systems. This factor considers three types of corruption: bribery, improper influence, and misappropriation of public funds, and is divided into four sub-factors.

Government officials in the state executive branch do not commit acts of corruptionMeasures the integrity of officials in the state execu-tive branch through the absence of bribery, informal payments, and other inducements in the delivery of public services and the enforcement of regulations. It also measures the transparency of bidding processes and whether the government officials refrain from embezzling public funds.

2.1 Government officials in the judicial branch do notuse public office for private gainMeasures whether judges and judicial officials refrain from soliciting and accepting bribes to perform du-ties or expedite processes, and whether the judiciary and judicial rulings are free of improper influence by the government, private interests, and criminal organizations.

2.2

Factor 2

Factors and Sub-Factors of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index7

16


Government officials in the legislative branch do not use public office for private gainMeasures whether members of the legislature refrain from soliciting or accepting bribes or other inducements in exchange for political favors or favorable votes on legislation.

2.4

Open Government: Factor 3 measures the openness of government, defined by the extent to which gov-ernment shares information, empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen partici-pation in public policy deliberations. In other words, it measures whether citizens can know the actions of the government and whether they can influence their deliberations. The factor presents information from the Open Government Metric 2017, performed by the National Institute of Access to Information (INAI) and the Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), which uses an extremely robust conceptual framework and methodology and is transparent and public. The Open Government Metric incorporates two fundamental aspects of open government: citizen participation (3.1) and transparency (3.2)8.

Civic participation in decision-making Measures whether citizens can effectively partici-pate in the formulation of public policies.

3.1

Government officials in the safety and law enforce-ment systems do not use public office for private gainMeasures whether police officers and criminal inves-tigators refrain from soliciting and accepting bribes, and whether they are free from improper influence by private interests or criminal organizations. It also measures the absence of corruption in the army and navy.

2.3

The right to public information is effectively guaranteedMeasures whether citizens have access to public information and open data, including the availability of information (active transparency) and the response to requests for information (passive transparency). It also measures how feasible it is for citizens to obtain public information in a prompt and complete manner.

3.2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Fundamental Rights: Factor 4 measures the effective protection of human rights, recognizing that a governance system that does not guarantee the fundamental rights established by international law is not a rule of law system. This factor is focused on the civil and individual rights established under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are most closely related to the rule of law (first-generation rights), leaving aside the second- and third-generation rights (economic and social rights and solidarity rights), which are measured, directly or indirectly, by other metrics. Currently, in Mexico there is no adequate data to measure sub-factor 4.2 on a state level, and it cannot be properly quantified through surveys. Therefore, it has been left as an empty value that has no effect on scores.

Equal treatment and absence of discrimination

Measures whether individuals are free from discrim-ination in practice, which is understood as a distinc-tion, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on socio-economic status, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or educational level, with respect to public services or everyday experiences.

4.1

Measures the absence of extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, and whether political dissidents or activists are subjected to unjustified detentions, threats, abusive treatment, or violence.9*

The right to life and security of the person is effec-tively guaranteed

4.2

Measures respect for investigation rules and due pro-cess. It measures whether the basic rights of criminal suspects are respected, including the presumption of innocence, the freedom from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable pre-trial detention, the right to not be tortured, to have a fair and public trial before an independent, competent, and impartial court, and the right to adequate legal assistance. In addition, it mea-sures whether the principle of equality is respected in the criminal process.

Due process of the law and rights of the accused are effectively guaranteed

4.3

Measures whether journalists, civil society organiza-tions, political parties, and individuals are free to report and comment on government policies without fear of retaliation. The sub-factor also measures whether peo-ple may speak freely and protest peacefully against the government and whether they may present petitions to the government.

Freedom of opinion and expression is effectively guaranteed

4.4

17


Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019–2020

Freedom of belief and religion is effectively guaranteedMeasures whether people can worship and conduct religious practices freely and publicly, without fear of retaliation.

4.5

Measures whether the police or other government officials spy on or intercept electronic communications of activists and the opposition and whether they conduct physical searches without warrants.

The right to privacy is effectively guaranteed4.6

Measures whether people can freely attend peaceful protests, community meetings, sign petitions, and join political organizations without fear of retaliation.

Freedom of assembly and association is effectively guaranteed

4.7

Measures the effective enforcement of fundamental labor rights, including the right to social security, safety and health conditions at work, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, the absence of discrimination with respect to employ-ment, and the freedom from forced labor and child labor.

Fundamental labor rights are effectively guaranteed4.8

Order & Security: Factor 5 measures whether the state effectively guarantees the safety of people and property. Security is one of the defining aspects of any society with rule of law and is a fundamental function of the state. It is also a precondition for the realization of rights and freedoms that the rule of law seeks to advance. This factor does not include crimes such as drug trafficking, organized crime, money laundering, theft of fuel, and human trafficking, among others, because these crimes are not suitable for measurement through surveys, and there is currently no consistent, uniform, high-quality data for them in the country. The violence caused by organized crime is indirectly captured by the number of murders and perceptions of insecurity.

Factor 5

Regulatory Enforcement: Factor 6 measures the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented. Factor 6 does not assess which activities a government chooses to regulate, nor does it consider how much regulation of a particular activity is appropriate. Rather, it examines how regulations are implemented and enforced in aspects such as public health, workplace safety, environmental protection, and commercial activities.

Government regulations are effectively enforcedMeasures whether government regulations, such as labor, environmental, commercial, and public health are effectively enforced and whether authorities in-vestigate and penalize those that do not comply with regulations.

6.1

Administrative proceedings are conducted effectively and efficientlyMeasures whether administrative procedures are conducted effectively, efficiently, and without unrea-sonable delay.

6.3

The state government does not expropriate without lawful process and adequate compensationMeasures whether the government respects the prop-erty rights of people and corporations, refrains from the illegal seizure of private property, and provides adequate compensation when property is legally expropriated without delays. This sub-factor considers direct and indirect expropriation and measures respect of intellectual property.

6.5

Measures whether the enforcement of regulations and processes such as payments are subject to corruption and improper influences.

Government regulations are applied and enforced without corruption

6.2

Measures whether due process of the law is respected in administrative proceedings.

Due process is respected in administrative proceedings

6.4

Factor 6

Absence of homicidesMeasures the homicide rate for every 100,000 people as an approximation of peace by recognizing that the state is responsible for protecting people's lives.

5.1

Perception of safetyMeasures whether people feel safe in their state and in spaces such as their homes, work, streets, schools, markets, parks, malls, banks, ATMs, public transport, cars, and roads. It also measures the perception of safety of businesses in the state.

5.3

Measures the absence of crimes that directly affect people and homes. It incorporates measurements of the incidence and prevalence of crimes.

Ausencia de crimen5.2

18

Factor 7Civil Justice: Factor 7 measures whether people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system. To guarantee access to civil justice, it is necessary for people to know and trust the formal mecha-nisms to solve legal problems (7.1), for adequate and affordable counsel to be available (7.2), and for civil justice to not impose barriers through cost or bureaucratic processes (7.3). The effective application of civil justice also requires that the system be impartial, independent, and free of corruption and improper influences (7.4); that judicial procedures re-spect due process (7.5); that procedures be performed promptly and without unreasonable delay (7.6); and that judicial resolutions be applied effectively (7.7). Lastly, this factor measures the accessibility, impartiality, and effectiveness of mediation and arbitration systems that allow parties to resolve disputes (7.8).

People know their rights and trust civil justice institutionsMeasures whether people are aware of their rights, know what to do and where to go when faced with a civil legal problem, and whether they trust the for-mal mechanisms to solve disputes. It also includes a measurement of the difficulties faced by people due to lack of information.

7.1

Measures whether people have access to adequate, affordable, and quality legal counsel when facing civil and labor legal problems, including free legal assis-tance if they lack the means to pay for it.

People have access to information and affordable quality legal counsel when facing legal problems or disputes

7.2

Measures whether the civil justice system is free of discrimination, corruption, and improper influences. The sub-factor includes measurements on the use of bribery to rush processes or favor a particular party, as well as the use of improper influence in the designation and promotion of court personnel. It also quantifies whether judges solve cases independently and objectively.

The civil justice system is impartial, independent and free of corruption

7.4

Resolutions of civil and administrative courts are effectively enforcedMeasures whether the civil justice system effectively solves disputes and if civil justice decisions are effec-tively and efficiently enforced.

7.7Measures whether civil justice proceedings are con-ducted in a timely manner and without unreasonable delay during the resolution of disputes.

The civil justice system is not subject to unreasonable delay

7.6

Measures whether alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are accessible, efficient, enforceable, timely, and free of corruption.

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are accessible, impartial and effective

7.8

The civil justice system guarantees a quality process

Measures whether the civil justice system respects due process and guarantees quality processes and resolu-tions. It also includes variables regarding the adequate education and professionalization of mediators and judges.

7.5

People can resolve their legal problems easily and without high costs or bureaucratic proceduresMeasures whether people can access the civil justice system without facing high costs or problems caused by the complexity of requirements and procedures.

7.3

Factor 8 evaluates the effectiveness and quality of the criminal justice system. An effective criminal justice system is a key aspect of the rule of law, as it constitutes the conventional mechanism to redress grievances. A quality criminal justice system must respect the rights of victims and the accused. This is why a comprehensive assessment of the criminal justice system must take into consideration the actions of all participants in the system, including the police, lawyers, legal counsels for victims, prosecutors, judges and prison officers.

Criminal JusticeFactor 8

The police and the public ministry investigate crimes effectively

Measures whether the justice system is effective at solving crimes and respecting due process. It includes structural variables such as resources, equipment and technology, sufficiency of personnel, training and education of agents in charge of the investigation of crimes, the sufficiency of crime information systems, and indicators of outcomes regarding the effective-ness of investigations.

8.1

Measures whether the criminal adjudication system is timely and effective, including whether it is capable of solving cases effectively and without unreasonable delays.

The criminal adjudication system is timely and effective

8.2


Victim's rights are effectively guaranteedMeasures whether the criminal justice system as a whole respects victims’ rights. It includes medical and psychological assistance, legal counsel, restitution, protection, and the effectiveness of alternative mech-anisms to solve disputes in criminal matters.

8.3

Criminal justice system is impartial, independent and free of corruptionMeasures whether the police and criminal judges are impartial, independent, and free of corruption and improper influence. The sub-factor includes measure-ments of the use of bribery and the improper influence of political powers, economic powers, and organized crime to favor a party in the criminal process. It also includes measurements for the use of bribery and improper influence in the recruiting and promotion processes.

8.5

The prison system guarantees the safety and rights of detained people

Measures whether the prison system guarantees conditions of safety and order and respects the rights of the detained. It also measures the absence of corruption and the effectiveness of the prison system in reducing recidivism.

8.6

Measures whether due process of the law is respected, including the presumption of innocence, the principle of equality in the criminal process, absence of discrimi-nation, the treatment received by detained people, the right to an adequate defense, and the right to a public trial before a competent and impartial judge.

Due process of the law for the accused is effectively guaranteed

8.4

Sources of Information The indicators presented in the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 measure adherence to the rule of law through 42 indicators that reflect the experiences and perceptions of people who live in Mexico. The Index shows the citizens’ view of the rule of law in the 32 Mexican states, and is focused on outcomes rather than on the written legal code.The Index uses three different sources of information: i) a General Population Poll (GPP), ii) Qualified Respon-dents' Questionnaires (QRQs) for experts and attorneys who practice in each of the 32 states, and iii) official sta-tistics and databases compiled by other institutions (or third-party sources). The use of three sources allows WJP to measure the rule of law from different complementary perspectives, use a large number of questions, and use the best sources for measurement of the different concepts, which reduces the bias that could come from a single method of data collection.

The Mexico States Rule of Law Index is the result of a long process of development, validation, and consultation. The surveys, designed by the WJP, are the result of a com-prehensive consultation with academia and experts and feedback from various forums and meetings. Third-party sources were selected by the WJP team after reviewing over 30 databases and surveys. The indicators were built following strict methodological criteria, reviewed for their conceptual consistency, validated using other metrics and indices, and subjected to a sensitivity analysis to guarantee their reliability. The purpose of this Index is to provide reli-able information that can be compared over time and used to design public policies in Mexico.

1. General Population Poll: The general population poll for the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 was admin-istered to a representative sample of 800 adults in each state, yielding a total of 25,600 surveyed individuals. The GPP was designed by WJP and includes questions regard-ing the perception and experience of issues such as fun-damental rights, civic participation, knowledge of the law, discrimination, contact with police and armed forces, cor-ruption, safety, institutional performance, ordinary justice, and elections. The GPP was administered in a coordinated manner by four leading public opinion companies in Mexi-co from May to July 2019. The interviews were conducted face-to-face using tablets and smartphones. In order to guarantee the quality of the information, traditional in-situ supervision techniques were applied by the field personnel, and remote supervision techniques were applied in real time by a fifth survey monitoring company.

2. Qualified Respondents' Questionnaires: The WJP de-signed four Qualified Respondents' Questionnaires (QRQs), aimed at attorneys specialized in: i) civil, administrative, and commercial law; ii) criminal law; iii) labor law; and to health personnel specialized in iv) public health. The QRQs include questions regarding the perception of the per-formance of state authorities, focused specifically on the performance of justice authorities in the specialized fields of each surveyed individual. The WJP collected more than 16,000 attorney contacts across the entire country and

20

invited them to respond the questionnaires. The WJP ad-ministered the survey online from April to August 2019 and obtained 2,673 complete surveys.

3. Third-party sources: The WJP compiled administrative information and state representative surveys addressing rule of law issues to complement the WJP’s other sources of information. The WJP used five criteria to select and include the data. The data had to be: i) conceptually valid, ii) timely, iii) disaggregated by state, iv) representative at the state level, and v) compiled using a transparent and robust methodology.

In total, 12 third-party sources were included in the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020: administrative records of murder rates by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), the National Survey on Victimization and Perception of Public Safety (ENVIPE) by INEGI, the National Survey of Population Deprived of Liberty (ENPOL) by INEGI, the National Survey on the Dynamics of Relation-

ships in Homes (ENDIREH) by INEGI, the National Survey of Occupation and Employment (ENOE) by INEGI, the Na-tional Survey on Government Impact and Quality (ENCIG) by INEGI, the National Survey on Discrimination (ENADIS) by INEGI, the National Survey on Victimization of Compa-nies (ENVE) by INEGI, the record of murdered journalists (Article 19), INAI/CIDE's Open Government Metric, the data base of the National Diagnosis of Prison Supervision (DNSP) by the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH), and prison statistics journals taken by the Depart-ment of Interior (Segob).10

The WJP hired leading survey companies in Mexico to conduct interviews of 25,600 people across the entire country. Translators and interpreters were used at times. This was an exercise in which citizens heard other citi-zens. The survey field teams worked to produce empathy and win the trust of respondents in order to ask ques-tions regarding potentially sensitive subjects. Survey teams were exposed to unsafe and violent situations, such as threats and theft, but managed to capture the perception and experience of the general population in Mexico on the rule of law.

The survey companies that worked with WJP for the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 were:

1. Data Opinión Pública y Mercados: Coordination and monitoring of fieldwork.

2. Buendía & Laredo: Fieldwork in Mexico City, Durango, Guerrero, State of Mexico, Michoacán, Nayarit, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, and Tlaxcala.

3. Parametría: Fieldwork in Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Quintana Roo, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Yucatán, and Zacatecas.

4. Pulso Mercadológico: Fieldwork in Campeche, Chiapas, Coahuila, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Sinaloa, and Tabasco.

5. Sistemas de Inteligencia en Mercados y Opinión (SIMO): Fieldwork in Aguascalientes, Colima, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Nuevo León, and Veracruz.

Box 3: Citizens listening to citizens: experiences during field work

4 UN, A/RES/70/1, Resolution approved by the General Meeting on September 25th, 2015: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. October 21st, 2015, pp. 2. Available at: un.org/es/comun/docs/?symbol=A/RES/70/1. http://www.un.org/es/comun/docs/?symbol=A/RES/70/1

5 Refer to the Methodology section for detailed information on the differences between the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 and the global WJP Rule of Law Index. 6 Each of the 42 sub-factors are written as a statement that reflects concrete aspects of the rule of law and that fulfill certain characteristics, such as providing a clear interpretation of the concept for measurement, measuring progress towards a specific goal of the rule of law, providing a balanced measurement of each concept, and being sensitive to changes over time [Vera Institute of Justice (2003), Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector].

7 For more information regarding each factor and sub-factor in the global WJP Rule of Law Index, visit the website worldjusticeproject.org.

8 For the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020, it was decided to use the Open Government Metric 2017, due to the adjustments made to its methodology in the 2019 version. Consult the Methodology section for more details.

9 Refer to the Methodology section to find more details regarding the measurement of sub-factor 4.2.

10 Refer to the Methodology section to find more details about third-party sources.


How to read the State ProfilesThe state profiles show scores for each of the factors and sub-factors in the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020. Scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates the highest adherence to the rule of law. Each profile consists of four sections, outlined below.

Section 1: Displays the state’s overall score for the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020, the state's ranking, and a map that shows where the state is located. It also includes the change of score and position of the state with respect to the 2018 Index, as well as arrows indicating the direction of the change. Scores and changes in score are rounded to two decimal places. The rank is based on the exact score.

Section 2: Displays the state's individual factor scores for the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 and compares the state's ranking to other states. It also includes arrows indicating changes in the scores of the factors with respect to the 2018 Index.

Section 3: Displays the state’s scores for each of the eight factors of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020. The center of the circle represents the lowest score (0) and the outside of the circle represents the highest score (1). The color area shows the state's scores, and the black dotted line shows the average score.

Section 4: Presents the state’s disaggregated scores for each of the 42 sub-factors of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020. The black line shows the average score for the 32 states. Sub-factor 4.2 is not included in the measurement because there are no current systematized records to measure the concept in the country. Refer to the Methodology section for more details.

Section 2Section 1 Section 3

Section 4

22

23

Photo credit: Miguel Tovar / Bambú Audiovisual


Open Government **

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

Limits by the legislature

In the executive branch

Civic participation

Limits by the judiciary

In the judiciary

Right to information

In the legislature

In police/military

Independent auditing

Sanctions for official misconduct

Non-governmental checks

Elections comply with the law

Constraints on Government Powers

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

Score by sub-factorAverage

Score by factorAverage

Overall Score 2019-2020

Change in ScoreOverall Rank Change in Rank

Factor Score

Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating the strongest adherence to the rule of law

Score Trend

Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

Order & Security

Absence of discrimination People know their rights

Access to information and affordable legal counsel in civil justice

Affordable civil justice without bureaucratic processes

Quality civil justice

No unreasonable delay in civil justice

Effective enforcement of civil decisions

Accessible, impartial and prompt ADRs

Absence of homicides

Absence of crime

Perception of safety

Efficient regulatory enforcement

Efficient administrative procedures

Property rights

Due process in administrative procedures

Regulatory enforcement free of corruption

Right to life and security*

Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy

Freedom of association

Labor rights

Effective criminal investigations

Effective and efficient criminal adjudication

Impartial and independent criminal justice free of corruption

Safe prison systems that respect human rights

Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice

*Refer to the methodology section to know more details about sub-factor 4.2**Refer to the methodology section to know more details about Factor 3

Impartial and independent civil justice free of corruption

Rank

0.46

0.55

0.28

0.41

0.59

0.46

0.37

0.35

0.75

0.21

0.52

0.31

0.52

0.51

0.45

0.45

–

0.47

0.59

0.75

0.51

0.62

0.35

0.34

0.45

0.39

0.52

0.45

0.32

0.39

0.47

0.39

0.47

0.42

0.39

0.41

0.26

0.39

0.48

0.54

0.48

0.47

0.45

02/32

0.46 06/32

0.41 04/32

0.43 06/32

0.53 04/32

0.49 07/32

0.41 05/32

0.41 04/32

0.44 05/32

0.01 -** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Aguascalientes

24

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.49

0.55

0.31

0.43

0.58

0.52

0.38

0.30

0.00

0.17

0.41

0.30

0.49

0.51

0.36

0.51

–

0.44

0.58

0.78

0.38

0.63

0.46

0.35

0.46

0.32

0.54

0.44

0.29

0.38

0.49

0.40

0.33

0.35

0.50

0.57

0.24

0.35

0.40

0.34

0.47

0.44

0.40

13/32

0.48 02/32

0.38 11/32

0.41 11/32 **

0.54 3/32

0.19 31/32

0.43 03/32

0.41 06/32

0.37 21/32

-0.03 -60.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Baja California




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.48

0.49

0.29

0.35

0.54

0.48

0.33

0.25

0.17

0.46

0.55

0.29

0.45

0.44

0.36

0.51

–

0.49

0.54

0.81

0.25

0.58

0.36

0.21

0.39

0.26

0.47

0.38

0.24

0.30

0.38

0.38

0.33

0.36

0.33

0.47

0.22

0.34

0.41

0.30

0.47

0.49

0.39

17/32

0.44 16/32

0.36 17/32

0.35 26/32

0.51 15/32

0.39 15/32

0.38 16/32

0.33 27/32

0.37 20/32

0.04 14** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Baja California Sur

26



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.45

0.49

0.34

0.40

0.56

0.50

0.43

0.22

0.58

0.54

0.47

0.31

0.46

0.52

0.35

0.45

–

0.38

0.56

0.80

0.31

0.58

0.37

0.31

0.47

0.34

0.49

0.43

0.38

0.40

0.49

0.32

0.43

0.38

0.37

0.63

0.20

0.34

0.39

0.33

0.44

0.38

0.43

04/32

0.46 07/32

0.39 09/32

0.37 21/32

0.49 20/32

0.53 05/32

0.43 04/32

0.41 05/32

0.35 22/32

- -** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Campeche




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.42

0.38

0.26

0.45

0.51

0.33

0.26

0.23

0.42

0.88

0.38

0.26

0.36

0.47

0.30

0.35

–

0.36

0.51

0.75

0.30

0.55

0.37

0.28

0.29

0.27

0.37

0.33

0.28

0.33

0.42

0.30

0.35

0.35

0.27

0.32

0.19

0.30

0.34

0.38

0.43

0.36

0.38

23/32

0.39 28/32

0.30 31/32

0.35 25/32

0.46 29/32

0.56 04/32

0.32 31/32

0.32 31/32

0.33 26/32

-0.01 -9** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Chiapas

28



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.42

0.51

0.32

0.39

0.49

0.52

0.32

0.25

0.00

0.50

0.40

0.29

0.47

0.50

0.37

0.46

–

0.47

0.49

0.75

0.43

0.56

0.41

0.33

0.45

0.34

0.49

0.39

0.32

0.39

0.49

0.40

0.39

0.44

0.38

0.32

0.23

0.43

0.40

0.32

0.48

0.47

0.40

15/32

0.44 14/32

0.36 15/32

0.38 18/32

0.51 12/32

0.30 20/32

0.39 11/32

0.40 08/32

0.39 14/32

0.01 3** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Chihuahua




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.40

0.51

0.28

0.37

0.53

0.36

0.24

0.40

0.33

0.04

0.29

0.23

0.41

0.62

0.24

0.41

–

0.41

0.53

0.78

0.35

0.59

0.37

0.28

0.36

0.29

0.44

0.36

0.25

0.31

0.44

0.36

0.37

0.32

0.33

0.24

0.13

0.29

0.31

0.24

0.38

0.41

0.36

28/32

0.41 24/32

0.28 32/32

0.51 01/32

0.49 22/32

0.22 28/32

0.32 30/32

0.34 19/32

0.29 31/32

-0.01 -3** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Mexico City

30



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.38

0.46

0.31

0.39

0.52

0.33

0.33

0.35

0.58

0.67

0.54

0.28

0.45

0.47

0.35

0.44

–

0.41

0.52

0.82

0.32

0.59

0.36

0.29

0.43

0.32

0.45

0.37

0.31

0.36

0.48

0.40

0.46

0.33

0.32

0.41

0.20

0.42

0.40

0.57

0.45

0.41

0.43

06/32

0.40 27/32

0.35 18/32

0.41 09/32

0.50 19/32

0.60 03/32

0.38 12/32

0.37 13/32

0.41 07/32

- -** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Coahuila




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.51

0.55

0.29

0.37

0.61

0.51

0.41

0.21

0.00

0.50

0.38

0.31

0.49

0.49

0.43

0.44

–

0.47

0.61

0.81

0.49

0.62

0.22

0.27

0.35

0.28

0.46

0.40

0.37

0.44

0.57

0.35

0.41

0.42

0.30

0.55

0.20

0.35

0.47

0.47

0.45

0.47

0.41

12/32

0.47 03/32

0.41 05/32

0.35 24/32

0.52 07/32

0.29 21/32

0.41 07/32

0.39 10/32

0.40 10/32

0.02 3** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Colima

**

32



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.44

0.46

0.32

0.35

0.54

0.47

0.28

0.29

0.58

0.71

0.52

0.27

0.45

0.48

0.25

0.53

–

0.49

0.54

0.79

0.22

0.59

0.38

0.26

0.45

0.28

0.51

0.43

0.38

0.43

0.59

0.35

0.33

0.41

0.46

0.29

0.25

0.35

0.34

0.48

0.44

0.49

0.43

08/32

0.43 20/32

0.31 26/32

0.38 15/32

0.51 16/32

0.60 02/32

0.37 18/32

0.42 03/32

0.39 12/32

0.01 1** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Durango




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.44

0.52

0.32

0.36

0.53

0.27

0.28

0.30

0.25

0.13

0.25

0.23

0.44

0.58

0.26

0.39

–

0.42

0.53

0.76

0.39

0.58

0.33

0.28

0.38

0.32

0.44

0.41

0.36

0.34

0.47

0.34

0.44

0.36

0.33

0.36

0.18

0.33

0.35

0.32

0.37

0.42

0.36

27/32

0.41 25/32

0.30 29/32

0.44 04/32

0.49 24/32

0.21 30/32

0.37 19/32

0.37 15/32

0.33 28/32

- 3** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

State of Mexico

34



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.40

0.56

0.30

0.39

0.55

0.46

0.45

0.37

0.08

0.29

0.27

0.30

0.51

0.58

0.47

0.44

–

0.48

0.55

0.72

0.54

0.61

0.31

0.31

0.42

0.49

0.48

0.43

0.35

0.43

0.58

0.31

0.43

0.38

0.35

0.70

0.31

0.37

0.49

0.49

0.48

0.48

0.42

09/32

0.44 12/32

0.43 03/32

0.48 02/32

0.52 08/32

0.21 29/32

0.43 02/32

0.44 01/32

0.44 04/32

0.01 3** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Guanajuato




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.44

0.39

0.27

0.39

0.50

0.35

0.32

0.21

0.08

0.29

0.32

0.28

0.34

0.53

0.28

0.35

–

0.39

0.50

0.72

0.28

0.58

0.24

0.24

0.26

0.26

0.36

0.27

0.24

0.30

0.43

0.29

0.36

0.33

0.33

0.40

0.14

0.26

0.30

0.24

0.39

0.39

0.33

32/32

0.39 29/32

0.30 30/32

0.37 20/32

0.44 32/32

0.23 27/32

0.34 23/32

0.29 32/32

0.29 32/32

0.04 -** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Guerrero

36



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.48

0.51

0.30

0.42

0.55

0.46

0.36

0.27

0.50

0.63

0.43

0.33

0.49

0.46

0.41

0.44

–

0.53

0.55

0.76

0.40

0.62

0.29

0.29

0.39

0.26

0.47

0.43

0.33

0.30

0.45

0.36

0.28

0.40

0.28

0.43

0.27

0.39

0.44

0.37

0.45

0.53

0.42

10/32

0.45 08/32

0.40 08/32

0.36 22/32

0.51 10/32

0.52 06/32

0.35 21/32

0.36 16/32

0.41 08/32

- -2** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Hidalgo




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.47

0.42

0.29

0.36

0.55

0.50

0.31

0.38

0.17

0.25

0.38

0.27

0.35

0.52

0.29

0.42

–

0.41

0.55

0.77

0.35

0.61

0.27

0.31

0.35

0.27

0.39

0.30

0.24

0.29

0.42

0.36

0.33

0.36

0.32

0.33

0.16

0.27

0.32

0.42

0.43

0.41

0.37

26/32

0.43 19/32

0.31 28/32

0.45 03/32

0.48 25/32

0.27 22/32

0.34 25/32

0.32 30/32

0.33 27/32

- -3** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Jalisco

38



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.38

0.50

0.24

0.42

0.50

0.45

0.33

0.29

0.08

0.79

0.35

0.27

0.43

0.53

0.33

0.42

–

0.48

0.50

0.73

0.38

0.57

0.24

0.24

0.32

0.28

0.40

0.32

0.30

0.32

0.44

0.28

0.33

0.32

0.29

0.45

0.21

0.38

0.40

0.43

0.41

0.48

0.39

18/32

0.41 23/32

0.34 22/32

0.41 10/32 **

0.47 27/32

0.41 13/32

0.34 26/32

0.33 26/32

0.38 16/32

-0.01 -50.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Michoacán




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.42

0.52

0.28

0.37

0.54

0.43

0.30

0.20

0.08

0.17

0.31

0.25

0.45

0.55

0.31

0.45

–

0.45

0.54

0.76

0.52

0.61

0.39

0.32

0.34

0.24

0.47

0.36

0.28

0.34

0.44

0.30

0.41

0.32

0.25

0.37

0.20

0.27

0.35

0.35

0.39

0.45

0.36

29/32

0.43 21/32

0.33 23/32

0.38 17/32 **

0.53 06/32

0.19 32/32

0.33 28/32

0.35 18/32

0.34 24/32

-3-0.010.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Morelos

40



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.48

0.43

0.27

0.38

0.55

0.43

0.33

0.19

0.17

0.67

0.50

0.31

0.44

0.47

0.45

0.49

–

0.47

0.55

0.76

0.40

0.63

0.30

0.30

0.33

0.25

0.42

0.38

0.28

0.29

0.42

0.32

0.26

0.31

0.33

0.44

0.28

0.42

0.46

0.34

0.47

0.47

0.40

16/32

0.42 22/32

0.38 12/32

0.33 30/32 **

0.51 09/32

0.45 10/32

0.33 27/32

0.33 23/32

0.41 09/32

0.03 60.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Nayarit




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.56

0.54

0.31

0.42

0.62

0.52

0.37

0.27

0.33

0.46

0.39

0.32

0.50

0.49

0.40

0.43

–

0.45

0.62

0.77

0.42

0.66

0.42

0.36

0.44

0.32

0.49

0.42

0.39

0.42

0.52

0.37

0.42

0.38

0.39

0.45

0.26

0.37

0.44

0.31

0.48

0.45

0.43

07/32

0.50 01/32

0.40 06/32

0.38 16/32 **

0.54 02/32

0.39 14/32

0.40 08/32

0.42 02/32

0.39 15/32

0.01 30.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Nuevo León

42



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.44

0.48

0.33

0.47

0.50

0.42

0.34

0.24

0.25

0.71

0.39

0.28

0.43

0.42

0.40

0.45

–

0.51

0.50

0.71

0.40

0.59

0.27

0.27

0.37

0.30

0.41

0.39

0.25

0.28

0.44

0.32

0.40

0.37

0.28

0.50

0.21

0.44

0.44

0.44

0.46

0.51

0.40

14/32

0.44 15/32

0.36 14/32

0.33 29/32 **

0.49 23/32

0.45 09/32

0.38 14/32

0.34 20/32

0.41 06/32

0.01 20.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Oaxaca




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.36

0.44

0.26

0.38

0.49

0.40

0.38

0.27

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.24

0.36

0.41

0.28

0.41

–

0.37

0.49

0.77

0.27

0.56

0.25

0.30

0.36

0.28

0.38

0.33

0.26

0.32

0.43

0.36

0.39

0.29

0.31

0.65

0.20

0.27

0.33

0.24

0.37

0.37

0.35

31/32

0.39 30/32

0.32 25/32

0.34 27/32 **

0.44 30/32

0.25 25/32

0.40 09/32

0.33 24/32

0.29 30/32

-0.01 -30.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Puebla

44



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.42

0.52

0.30

0.42

0.56

0.49

0.46

0.23

0.50

0.29

0.44

0.30

0.52

0.32

0.53

0.45

–

0.52

0.56

0.75

0.47

0.60

0.37

0.35

0.40

0.32

0.48

0.33

0.30

0.37

0.48

0.44

0.39

0.40

0.35

0.66

0.28

0.41

0.54

0.59

0.46

0.52

0.43

05/32

0.45 09/32

0.45 01/32

0.27 32/32 **

0.53 05/32

0.41 12/32

0.45 01/32

0.38 12/32

0.47 01/32

--0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Querétaro




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.37

0.40

0.30

0.39

0.45

0.32

0.30

0.26

0.08

0.38

0.32

0.24

0.39

0.54

0.29

0.42

–

0.45

0.45

0.74

0.30

0.57

0.30

0.30

0.34

0.28

0.41

0.35

0.30

0.30

0.41

0.36

0.35

0.31

0.26

0.42

0.18

0.34

0.34

0.29

0.41

0.45

0.35

30/32

0.37 31/32

0.31 27/32

0.40 14/32 **

0.46 28/32

0.26 24/32

0.34 24/32

0.34 22/32

0.34 25/32

-0.01 -30.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Quintana Roo

46



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.47

0.52

0.21

0.36

0.57

0.47

0.27

0.24

0.25

0.38

0.40

0.26

0.47

0.47

0.35

0.40

–

0.46

0.57

0.77

0.46

0.61

0.34

0.31

0.37

0.35

0.46

0.36

0.29

0.28

0.45

0.35

0.39

0.37

0.33

0.29

0.20

0.30

0.41

0.42

0.46

0.46

0.38

20/32

0.43 17/32

0.34 21/32

0.36 23/32 **

0.51 11/32

0.34 19/32

0.34 22/32

0.36 17/32

0.38 18/32

-0.01 -30.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

San Luis Potosí




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.43

0.56

0.27

0.41

0.48

0.51

0.34

0.28

0.17

0.50

0.49

0.33

0.49

0.56

0.39

0.46

–

0.51

0.48

0.72

0.33

0.56

0.39

0.33

0.46

0.35

0.49

0.41

0.32

0.35

0.47

0.33

0.43

0.38

0.37

0.37

0.30

0.45

0.47

0.45

0.53

0.51

0.42

11/32

0.44 13/32

0.39 10/32

0.42 07/32 **

0.49 21/32

0.39 16/32

0.38 13/32

0.40 07/32

0.45 03/32

0.01 -0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Sinaloa

48



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.42

0.47

0.29

0.42

0.53

0.46

0.29

0.34

0.17

0.17

0.46

0.29

0.44

0.50

0.35

0.43

–

0.45

0.53

0.76

0.37

0.60

0.35

0.31

0.37

0.30

0.44

0.39

0.30

0.37

0.52

0.33

0.34

0.35

0.32

0.29

0.21

0.42

0.40

0.33

0.47

0.45

0.38

21/32

0.43 18/32

0.34 20/32

0.42 08/32 **

0.50 17/32

0.27 23/32

0.32 29/32

0.37 14/32

0.38 17/32

0.02 80.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Sonora




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.46

0.53

0.31

0.42

0.55

0.40

0.30

0.31

0.25

0.25

0.22

0.28

0.45

0.50

0.40

0.45

–

0.48

0.55

0.77

0.38

0.60

0.33

0.33

0.32

0.27

0.44

0.37

0.25

0.28

0.46

0.26

0.36

0.35

0.25

0.33

0.22

0.37

0.45

0.38

0.44

0.48

0.37

24/32

0.45 11/32

0.36 16/32

0.40 13/32 **

0.51 14/32

0.24 26/32

0.31 32/32

0.34 21/32

0.39 11/32

-0.01 -30.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Tabasco

50



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

Puntaje por sub-factorPromedio nacional

Clave

0.33

0.46

0.33

0.39

0.43

0.44

0.40

0.22

0.17

0.71

0.36

0.33

0.44

0.45

0.34

0.42

–

0.46

0.43

0.76

0.35

0.53

0.43

0.29

0.33

0.24

0.42

0.35

0.26

0.30

0.47

0.33

0.28

0.33

0.31

0.59

0.24

0.33

0.40

0.33

0.47

0.46

0.39

19/32

0.40 26/32

0.38 13/32

0.34 28/32

0.48 26/32

0.41 11/32

0.37 17/32

0.33 25/32

0.37 19/32

0.01 -** 0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Tamaulipas




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.48

0.42

0.36

0.41

0.56

0.48

0.33

0.19

0.50

0.21

0.37

0.29

0.37

0.39

0.29

0.39

–

0.42

0.56

0.80

0.39

0.58

0.33

0.22

0.38

0.23

0.36

0.35

0.30

0.32

0.46

0.36

0.29

0.34

0.42

0.37

0.15

0.37

0.33

0.42

0.40

0.42

0.37

25/32

0.45 10/32

0.32 24/32

0.29 31/32 **

0.50 18/32

0.36 17/32

0.36 20/32

0.33 28/32

0.35 23/32

-0.01 -50.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Tlaxcala

52



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.32

0.45

0.23

0.41

0.40

0.38

0.38

0.34

0.33

0.79

0.31

0.27

0.42

0.48

0.33

0.36

–

0.37

0.40

0.76

0.31

0.55

0.34

0.26

0.36

0.22

0.41

0.37

0.24

0.28

0.47

0.28

0.33

0.38

0.29

0.59

0.13

0.23

0.35

0.31

0.40

0.37

0.38

22/32

0.36 32/32

0.35 19/32

0.41 12/32 **

0.44 31/32

0.48 08/32

0.38 15/32

0.33 29/32

0.30 29/32

0.01 20.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Veracruz




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.53

0.49

0.26

0.39

0.63

0.50

0.41

0.22

0.83

0.71

0.65

0.31

0.46

0.54

0.41

0.37

–

0.46

0.63

0.75

0.66

0.64

0.26

0.34

0.42

0.29

0.44

0.41

0.33

0.31

0.53

0.33

0.37

0.41

0.38

0.47

0.22

0.38

0.43

0.39

0.46

0.46

0.46

01/32

0.47 04/32

0.40 07/32

0.38 19/32 **

0.54 01/32

0.73 01/32

0.39 10/32

0.38 11/32

0.39 13/32

0.01 -0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Yucatán

54



Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

3.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

2.4

2.2

3.2

2.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.4

6.2

8.1

8.2

8.5

8.6

8.3

8.4

0.41

0.60

0.35

0.39

0.54

0.48

0.43

0.31

0.08

0.58

0.36

0.30

0.56

0.56

0.45

0.46

–

0.53

0.54

0.75

0.35

0.61

0.32

0.29

0.39

0.29

0.54

0.44

0.30

0.41

0.51

0.32

0.38

0.37

0.32

0.64

0.28

0.44

0.52

0.45

0.52

0.53

0.43

03/32

0.46 05/32

0.44 02/32

0.43 05/32 **

0.51 13/32

0.34 18/32

0.41 06/32

0.40 09/32

0.46 02/32

-0.01 -0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0 1.0

Zacatecas




Factor Score


Score Trend


Order & Security









Absence of crime




Property rights




Due process of law

Freedom of opinion

Freedom of religion

Right to privacy


Labor rights





Rights of victims

Due process of law



Open Government

Fundamental Rights

Order & Security


Civil Justice

Criminal Justice


Criminal Justice



Rank


Open Government **



Civic participation


In the judiciary


In the legislature

In police/military








These indicators are built using three sources of infor-mation: i) the General Population Poll (GPP), ii) Qualified Respondents Questionnaires (QRQs) for attorneys who practice law in each of the 32 states, and iii) official sta-tistics and databases compiled by other institutions (or third-party sources). The scores presented in each of the state profiles are calculated using the following procedure:

1. Conceptual Framework and Surveys

The WJP developed the conceptual framework and surveys to quantify the rule of law based on the frame-work developed for the global Index and adapted it to the subnational Mexican context.

The WJP team designed five surveys based on the sur-veys developed for the global Rule of Law Index: the GPP and the four QRQs for professionals specialized in civil, administrative or commercial law, criminal law, labor law, and public health. The WJP adapted the sur-veys to reflect the institutional architecture in Mexico, the competencies of the different government levels, and the availability of data. The five surveys benefited from exhaustive consultation with academia and ex-perts.

2. Data Collection

General Population Poll (GPP): The WJP hired four lead-ing companies in public opinion surveys to administer the survey to the general population and a fifth com-pany to supervise fieldwork. The WJP developed the methodological framework with the survey companies and selected the target population, sample frame, sam-ple selection process, geographic coverage, and size of the sample.

The survey was administered to a representative sam-ple of 800 people in every state, for a total of 25,600 surveyed individuals, using multi-stage sampling, with data from the Population and Housing Census 2010 (INEGI) used as the sampling frame. In the first stage, 80 Primary Sampling Units (PSU) were selected, com-prised of basic geostatistical areas (AGEB) in urban and rural areas, using quotas of sex and age. In the second stage, blocks or clusters of homes were selected using simple random sampling. In the third stage, homes were selected using systematic methods based on the num-ber of homes visible on each block. Finally, in the last

stage, the person to be interviewed was selected based on gender and age quotas from adults who live in the country and who permanently live in the home where the survey took place. The GPP has a 95% confidence level, a margin of error of +/- 0.61% at the national level and +/- 3.46% at the state level.

The surveys were administered from May 11 to July 27, 2019. The interviews were conducted face-to-face using tablets or smartphones. The survey was pro-grammed in the SurveyToGo (STG) application. Before conducting fieldwork, the pollsters completed a training program and the survey companies performed a pilot exercise. In order to guarantee the quality of the infor-mation, traditional in-situ supervision techniques were applied by field personnel, and remote supervision was applied in real time to validate the interviews through the STG console.

Qualified Respondent Questionnaires: The WJP collect-ed 16,000 records from attorneys specialized in civil, commercial, administrative, criminal, and labor matters across the entire country, using phone books in over 100 cities, websites, databases from Centro de Estudios para la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje del Derecho, A.C. (CEEAD), and references from other attorneys.

The WJP programmed the surveys using an online plat-form and invited the experts to participate. Data was collected using SurveyGizmo. The WJP administered the online survey between April 9 and August 18, 2019 and kept in constant communication with the surveyed individuals to increase response rates. The WJP ob-tained 2,673 effective complete interviews: 41% were lawyers specialized in civil, administrative, or commer-cial law, 25% were lawyers specialized in criminal law, 17% were lawyers specialized in labor law, and 17% were public health experts.

MethodologyThe indicators presented in the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 are organized into eight factors and 42 sub-factors.

56

Fijh

Pijh

Expansion factor for the individual i of the jth PSU of the hth stratum.

Probability of selection for the individual i of the jth PSU of the hth stratum.

Box 3: An Overview of the General Population Poll

The expression used to obtain the sample size of the GPP was:

The probability of selection is calculated:

The parameters of p = q = 0.5 (maximum variability) were used for the target population, N as the size of the universe to be represented, and a maximum expected relative error of: +/- 3,465% at 95% confidence. Obtaining a sample size of 800 cases per state.

The results are considered proportion estimates when accounting for the sample design (by clusters, stratified and weighted). Therefore, expansion factors were developed. These represent the "weight" of each individual in the sample, according to their probability of selection, considering the sociodemographic distributions and the sample itself. This is a way of calibrating the sample to represent the total population. The weight was adjusted by sex, age and region (urban or rural).

The expansion factors were calculated as the inverse of the selection probability. Namely:

(z2 pqN) (r2 (N-1)+z2 pq)

(nh mjh)

Ph

1 Pijh

n=

Fijh=

Pijh=

Value in statistical Z-table of a normal function, a necessary condition to achieve a confidence level of 95%.

Proportion estimated from the sample

(1-p)

Finite population to estimate

Maximum expected error

Number of PSU selected in the hth stratum.

Number of interviews conducted in jth PSU of the hth stratum. Population over 18 years that lives in the hth

stratum.

z2

p

q

N

r

nh

mjh

Ph


Third-party sources: The WJP compiled administrative information and survey databases representative at the state level on rule of law topics to complement the WJP’s other sources of information. The WJP used five criteria to select and include third-party data. The data had to be: i) conceptually valid, ii) timely, iii) disaggregat-ed by state, iv) representative at the state level, and v) compiled using a transparent and robust methodology. In the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020, the WJP included 12 third-party sources, which were pub-lished before September 30, 2019:

National Survey on Discrimination (ENADIS) 2017 INEGI

National Survey of Population Deprived of Liberty (ENPOL) 2016 INEGI

National Survey on Government Impact and Quality (ENCIG) 2017 INEGI

National Survey on the Dynamics of Relationships in Homes (ENDIREH) 2016 INEGI

National Survey on Victimization and Perception of Public (ENVIPE) 2019 INEGI

National Survey on Victimization of Companies (ENVE) 2018 INEGI

National Survey of Occupation and Employment (ENOE) 2019-ii INEGI

Records of murder rates 2018 INEGI

Records of murdered journalists Artículo 19

National Diagnosis of Prison Supervision (DNSP) 2018 National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH)

Open Government Metric 2017 INAI y CIDE

Prison Statistics Journals 2018-2019 Secretaría de Gobernación (Segob)

3. Data Cleaning and Score Computation

Once collected, the WJP carefully cleaned and pro-cessed the data. Any incomplete answers and answers with atypical values detected through the Z-score meth-od (X+/-2SD) were excluded. Then, the WJP calculated the scores for every state (disaggregated into eight factors and 42 sub-factors), according to the following steps: i) First, the responses to each of the interviews completed in the general population survey, qualified respondent questionnaires, and third-party sources were codified to produce numerical values ranging from 0 to 1, where 0 represents lower adherence to the rule of law and 1 represents higher adherence to the rule of law. ii) Then, average scores were calculated for every state to produce statistical data for each question. iii) Intervals were created for categorical variables, so that the transformed variables were located between 0 and 1. The categorical variables are the records of murdered journalists (Article 19), incidence and perception of cor-ruption by the ENCIG (INEGI), prevalence of violence against women by the ENDIREH (INEGI), discrimination experiences by the ENADIS (INEGI), mistreatment in arrest and detention in the Public Ministry by the EN-POL (INEGI), child labor by the ENOE (INEGI), deaths by murders (INEGI), crime prevalence and incidence in the ENVIPE (INEGI), and the National Diagnosis of Prison Supervision (CNDH). For the rest of the variables, WJP decided to not normalize the variables, and instead use the original measurement scale where, for each ques-tion, 0 represents the total absence of rule of law and 1 represents the ideal rule of law. This was to facilitate comparisons over time and to prevent the transmission of erroneous messages suggesting that leading states in the country had reached perfection in the rule of law. iv) Next, scores of the categories inside the sub-factors were calculated and used to calculate sub-factor scores. Sub-factor scores were then aggregated using simple av-erages to produce the factor scores.11) Lastly, the scores of the factors were combined to produce a state score, and the final rankings were calculated.

4. Validation and Visualization of Data

The data was validated through comparisons with over 20 quantitative and qualitative indicators produced by other organizations to identify possible mistakes and inconsistencies, as well as through trends presented in the news media and qualitative reports. The WJP also validated the final results with a diverse group of experts from a variety of fields.

58

11 The variable map and the exact formulas used to calculate each score are available at worldjusticeproject.com and worldjusticeproject.mx

The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 uses a conceptual framework and methodology that are very similar to those used by WJP around the world, but has adapted the concepts and surveys to the Mexican context in order to provide a comprehensive summary of the rule of law situation in each of the states.

The WJP team made an exhaustive consultation with academia and experts to design five surveys: one General Population Poll (GPP) and four Qualified Respondent Questionnaires (QRQs).

1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND SURVEYS

WJP cleaned and processed the data:

Three sources of information were used:

3. DATA CLEANING AND SCORE COMPUTATION

Over 20 quantitative and qualitative indicators from other organizations

News media and qualitative reports

Review with a diverse group of experts from a variety of fields

Data were validated with:

4. VALIDATION

25,600 face-to-face interviews

800 interviews in each state

Representative sample of the population of 18 years and above.

III. THIRD-PARTY SOURCES

WJP invited more than 16,000 experts to take an online poll.

Average scores were calculated for every state

In some states, a telephone follow-up was performed.

Their responses were received.

I. GENERAL POPULATION POLL

Civil Justice

Criminal Justice

Labor Justice

Public Health

II. QUALIFIED RESPONDENT QUESTIONAIRES

12 indicators of administrative information and survey databases

representative at the state level

2,673 interviews with experts in:

607 variables were codified

Scores for the factors were aggregated to calculate the scores for the Mexico

States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020

Scores for the eight factors and 42 sub-factors were

calculated

2. DATA COLLECTION

Box 5: Methodology


For the Mexico States Rule of Law Index, however, the conceptual framework and methodology were adapted to reflect the national context and the institutional archi-tecture in Mexico. Additionally, more third-party sources were included to measure some concepts. As a result, the scores in the global Index and in the Index in Mexico are not comparable. The Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each state in order to provide useful and timely information to decision-makers, companies, civil society organizations, academia, and anyone interested in strengthening the rule of law in Mexico.

The Index, like any analysis tool, has strengths and weak-nesses. On one hand, it summarizes complex information into very few indicators, is robust and relatively easy to communicate, and allows comparisons across states and over time. On the other hand, the Index presents a sim-plified image of reality. It may hide details that would be obvious when analyzing certain individual indicators and may lead to simplified interpretations of data. Likewise, the Index does not establish causality or contextualize the results. Therefore, it is necessary to use it with other quan-titative and qualitative instruments to obtain a compre-hensive picture of the situation in a state and the problems faced by the state in public policy matters. Additionally, the scores in the Index may be sensitive to specific events that took place while the data was collected or may be subject to measurement mistakes due to the limited number of experts interviewed in some states, which produces less precise estimations. To mitigate this, WJP works to contin-uously expand the network of experts that contribute their

knowledge and time to this project.

Lastly, it is worth mentioning that indices and indicators are subject to possible abuse and misinterpretation. Once released to the public, they can take on a life of their own and be used for purposes unanticipated by their creators. If data are taken out of context, it can lead to unintended or erroneous policy decisions.

Other Considerations

Regarding Factor 3 (Open Government). WJP decided to incorporate the Open Government Metric of the INAI/CIDE into the Mexico States Rule of Law Index because of its robust methodology and publicly accessible data. The Open Government Metric incorporates two fundamental aspects of open government: citizen participation (3.1) and trans-parency (3.2) and is the most complete and comprehensive measuring tool on the subject in Mexico.

In line with its objective of providing the best possible in-formation, the Metric made changes to its methodology for its 2019 edition. These included changes in the sources of information and in the construction of the indicators. These changes were substantial, affecting the comparability of its scores over time. After a thorough analysis, conversations with the developers, and a series of comparative exercises, the WJP decided to prioritize comparability over time to the detriment of a more accurate measurement of open gov-ernment in 2019 and decided to use the results of the 2017 edition of the Metric, which were used in the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2018. If the Open Government Metric 2019 had been incorporated into the Index, it would have

Notes on the Mexico States Rule of Law IndexThe Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 employs a conceptual framework and methodology similar to those used by the WJP to measure adherence to the rule of law around the world from the citizens’ perspective.

60

Lastly, the data was organized into tables and graphs in the state profiles in order to facilitate the data’s presentation and interpretation.

5. Tracking Changes Over Time

This year’s report includes a measure to illustrate whether the rule of law in a state, as measured through the factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index, changed since the previous year. This measure is presented in the form of arrows and represents a summary of rigorous statistical testing based on the use of bootstrapping procedures, to generate 150 samples of all the variables of the Index in order to estimate the standard deviations of each of the factors by state. The upward (downward) arrow means that the score of that factor increased (decreased) more than 1.96 standard devia-tions. If there was no statistically significant change, the arrow is not included.

been impossible to determine whether the changes ob-served in the scores were due to changes in the openness of the state governments or changes in the methodology, which would have been especially problematic in a year in which many states have new governments.

Regarding Factor 4.2 (Right to Life and Security of the Person). Currently, in Mexico there is no adequate data to measure sub-factor 4.2 on a state level, and it cannot be properly quantified through surveys. Therefore, it has been left as an empty value that has no effect on scores. None-theless, WJP recognizes the importance of guaranteeing this right for the rule of law, and it is therefore included in the conceptual framework of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020.

Differences Between WJP’s Global Index and the Mexico Index

As noted before, the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 uses the same conceptual framework and methodol-ogy as WJP’s global Index to quantify respect for the rule of law, with some adaptations made to reflect the institutional architecture in Mexico, the competencies of the different government levels, and the availability of data. Specifically, i) some sub-factors were modified; ii) surveys were re-viewed, adapted, and expanded to reflect the multiple sit-uations, manifestations, and problems associated with the rule of law in Mexico; and iii) 12 third-party sources were added to capture some concepts included in the Index in a reliable, systematic, and precise manner. In total, the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 was prepared using 607 variables, while the global Index has 550.

Below is a summary of the main changes, organized by the factors of the Index. A full map of all the sub-factors and variables is available at WJP’s website.

Factor 1. Constraints on Government Powers: In the global Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 1.6 refers to the transition of power according to the law. In Mexico, the transition of power requires elections that are free and transparent. Therefore, sub-factor 1.6 has been retitled “Elections are free, clean, and transparent.”.

Factor 2. Absence of Corruption: Sub-factor 2.3, previ-ously titled “Government officials in the police and the military do not use public office for private gain,” was renamed “Government officials in the safety and law enforcement systems do not use public office for pri-vate gain” to include the absence of corruption in the Prosecutor’s Office.

Factor 3. Open Government: The global Index uses four sub-factors: publicized laws and government data (3.1), right to information (3.2), civic participation (3.3), and complaint mechanisms (3.4). The Mexico Index uses only two sub-factors: civic participation (3.1) and trans-parency (3.2) and employs the Open Government Met-ric 2017 published by the INAI and CIDE, because it is considered robust and reliable. This measurement in-cludes an analysis of the regulations that apply to each required subject, a review of websites, and a simulated user exercise.

Factor 5. Order & Security: The global Index uses three sub-factors: crime is effectively controlled (5.1), civil conflict is effectively limited (5.2), and people do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances (5.3). In contrast, the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 uses three different sub-factors to measure Factor 5: absence of homicides (5.1), absence of crime (5.2), and the perception of safety by people and com-panies in the state (5.3). These changes better reflect the security situation in Mexico by giving more weight to murders, incorporating data of crime prevalence and incidence from INEGI, and including security perceptions.

Factor 7. Civil Justice: Factor 7 of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index includes the same measurements used in the global Index, but redistributes them to give more weight and specificity to the concept of accessibility, which is now split into sub-factors 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. The global Index comprises seven sub-factors to mea-sure civil justice: people can access and afford civil jus-tice (7.1); civil justice is free of discrimination (7.2); civil justice is free of corruption (7.3); civil justice is free of improper government influence (7.4); civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delay (7.5); civil justice is effec-tively enforced (7.6); and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are accessible, impartial, and effective (7.7). By contrast, the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2018 measures civil justice by taking into consideration whether people know of and trust the formal mecha-nisms to solve their legal problems (7.1); whether there is adequate and affordable legal counsel (7.2); whether people can easily solve their legal problems without high costs and bureaucratic processes (7.3); whether the civil justice system is impartial, independent, and free of corruption (7.4); whether the civil justice system guarantees a quality process (7.5); whether the civil jus-tice system conducts procedures promptly and without unreasonable delays (7.6); whether judicial decisions in civil courts are effectively enforced (7.7); and whether alternative mechanisms to solve disputes are accessi-ble, impartial, and timely.


Factor 8. Criminal Justice: Factor 8 of the global Index comprises seven sub-factors: criminal investigation system is effective (8.1), criminal adjudication system is timely and effective (8.2), correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behavior (8.3), criminal justice system is impartial (8.4), criminal justice system is free of corruption (8.5), crimi-nal justice system is free of improper government influence (8.6), and due process of the law and rights of the accused (8.7). Factor 8 of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2018 incorporates the protection of victims’ rights and reorga-nizes the other sub-factors into six sub-factors: effective criminal investigation (8.1), effective and efficient criminal adjudication system (8.2), guarantee of the rights of victims (8.3), guarantee of the right to due process of law for the accused (8.4), impartial and independent criminal justice free of corruption (8.5), and the prison system guarantees the safety and human rights of people deprived of their liberty (8.6).

Contributing ExpertsThe Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 was made possible by the generous contributions of academics and practitioners who contributed their time and expertise by answering the surveys sent by the WJP. The names of those experts wishing to be acknowledged individually are listed in the following pages. This report was also made possible by the work of the survey companies who conducted fieldwork and administered the General Population Poll and by the thousands of individuals who responded to the survey in the 32 states of the country.

Aguascalientes

Abdul Zabdiel Medina MorínVisión Joven A.C.

Adrian Sánchez HdzHernández Montoya Asoc. S.C.

Adriana Alfaro HernándezAlfa, Consultoría y Coaching Empresarial

Alejandro Carlos Ríos GuerreroTecnología y Derecho, Sociedad Civil

Alejandro Jiménez Padilla

Ana Lilia Muñoz ArmentaAsociación de Abogadas, Profesionistas y Estudiantes para Defensa de los Niños, Mujeres y Adultos Mayores A.C.

Andrés Gerardo Rodríguez de AlbaProtege, Centro de Estudios en Derechos Humanos A.C.

Briseida Rodríguez ZamarripaUniversidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

Carlos Alberto Vila MacielInstituto Mexicano de Investigación Criminal

Mtro. Carlos Manuel Díaz MárquezXpande, Business Consulting

Carolina Velasco PreciadoEmpresa Construcción

Mtra. Claudia Priscilla Merino SarmientoAFYB Abogados y Contadores Tributarios (R)

Daniel Alberto Tiscareño Trujillo

Diana Marisol Hernández Rodríguez

Edgar Emilio Arvizu Maitret

Lic. Elvia Muñoz López

Fabián Reyes Lozano

Gastón Adán Zamarripa Ortiz

Héctor M. de Ávila González

Irving Ivan Sánchez SánchezCorporativo Jurídico Fiscal e Inmobiliario

Irving Tafoya DavilaBarra de Abogados del Estado de Aguascalientes

Israel Martínez ÁvilaDefensori, Abogados Tributarios

Lic. Ivan Torres QuirozTorres y Martínez Abogados Asociados S.C.

Jaime Rangel NavejarUniversidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

Javier Ambriz de LaraVega, Guerrero & Asociados

Javier Soto ReyesUniversidad Panamericana

Jessica Pamela Corrales LopezNotaría Pública 56

Mtro. Jesús María Uvario BautistaUvario & Asociados. Abogados

Joaquín Vega MartínezVega, Guerrero & Aso-ciados

Lic. Joel Salazar RamírezSalazar Galindo Consultores

Jorge Manuel Aguirre HernándezUniversidad Panamericana

José Adrian Verdin RamírezVerdin Ramírez Abogados

José de Jesús Castro GalvánCorporativo Jurídico Fiscal e Inmobiliario

José Luis Eloy Morales BrandUniversidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

Lic. José Noe Arias Díaz

José Roberto Landeros Rojas

Juan Carlos Esquivel VillanuevaSindicatos Innovativos de México

Juan José Rico UrbiolaLegem

Julio César Alvarado RamosUniversidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

Laura Angélica Ríos GodínezSoluciones Totales, Abogados

Luis Daniel Ramos ReyesUniversidad Panamericana

Luis Fernando Mendez BeltranUniversidad Panamericana

Luis Humberto Reyes Delgado

Luz Trinidad Rosales HernándezUniversidad del Valle de México

Ma del Carmen Terrones SaldívarUniversidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

Marco Antonio Vázquez MartínezServicios Administrati-vos Javer

Lic. María de los Dolores Zepeda Silva

María Elena Méndez de ÁvilaUniversidad Panamericana

María Guadalupe Marquez AlgaraUniversidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

62

María Isidra Cuevas PedrozaDespacho Jurídico Serna Ventura & Abogados

María Luisa Coronel Rugarcia

Miguel Ángel Montoya Landeros

Miriam Elizabeth Tello García

Oscar Alberto Hernández ValdésHernández & Muñoz - Consorcio Legal

Paula Estrella Rios GodinezR&Barcunsky

Lic. René Miguel Rico MoctezumaLex Abogados

Ricardo Martínez Alvarado

Richard Ramírez Díaz de LeónRAMLE Abogados. Peritos, Valuadores & Mediadores

Rodolfo Arturo López AraujoFiscalía Especializada en Combate a la Corrupción

Dr. Rodrigo Gutiérrez Álvarez

Rubén González RamírezCasas Javer, S.A. de C.V.

Sadí Kuri MartínezConsultoría en Ciencias Penales, S.C.

Salazar y Galindo

Mtra. Yazmin Leticia Casas HernándezUniversidad Autónoma de Durango Anonymous contributors Baja California

Alba Lizzet López González

Alberto Romo Salcedo

Lic. Alfredo Carrillo Arce

Lic. Alma Irma Laines RosasUniversidad de Sonora

Andrés López RomeroL. Romero y Asociados

Lic. Antonio P. ÁvilaMuñoz Mérida & Asociados

Astrid Marrón Martínez

Mtra. Aurora Baltazar HernándezUniversidad Vizcaya de las Américas

Beatriz Adriana Robles García

Lic. Blanca Virginia Bosdet GalindoBosdet & Bosdet

Carmen Amalia Plazola RiveraUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Christian G. García OrtegaUniversidad Vizcaya de las Américas

Daniel Gutiérrez

Lic. Dennise Vargas Dominguez

Lic. Fernando Barcenas de RoblesDe la Peña y Rivera S.C.

Mtro. Fernando González CastroConsejo de la Judicatura del Estado de Baja California

Lic. Fernando Martínez AcevedoUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Francisco Ballesteros Gallegos

Giancarlo Covelli Gómez

Gilberto Martínez QuinteroCESUN Universidad

Mtro. Guillermo René Macias EspinozaUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Gustavo Camarena AlatorreMi Despacho Jurídico

Mtro. Hugo Enrique Sánchez Villegas

Dr. Humberto García GómezUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Ignacio Avilés BustillosDe Hoyos y Avilés, S.C.

J. Israel AcevedoSolución Jurídica

Mtro. Jesús Enrique Urías SotoCentro de Estudios Superiores en Ciencias Penales

Jesús Fernando Villarreal GómezRamo Norte Consulting

Dr. Jesús Rodríguez CebrerosUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Jesús Vargas FloresUniversidad Iberoamericana Tijuana

Jonathan Isaac Arauz CabreraUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Jorge Arturo Alvelais PalaciosUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California / ECISALUD

Jorge Fernando Cáza-rez RamírezInstituto Iberoamericano de Política Criminal y Seguridad Estratégica

José Antonio Orenday BarrazaRVS y Compañía

Lic. José Antono Torres LimonesUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

José de Jesús Rodríguez UribeEstratto Asesores

Dr. José Manuel Avendaño ReyesUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Juan Carlos Briones AcostaSoluciones Jurídicas de Baja California

Juan Carlos Sánchez Zertuche CeseñaSánchez Zertuche & Asociados

Juan Manuel Cordova

Lic. Juan Manuel Serratos GarcíaGrupo Serratos

Lic. Karina LugoAyuda Legal

Katya M. León MoralesRR&A Legal

Dr. León Aillaud GonzálezAsociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología

Luis Alberto Sánchez PérezASA Defensa y Estrate-gia Fiscal

Luis BourguetUniversidad de Castilla - La Mancha y University of Bologna

Dr. Luis Carlos Castro VizcarraUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Lic. Luis Eduardo Alonso RuizAlonsovega Despacho Jurídico

Luis Eduardo Flores SeañezDespacho Jurídico Flores Seañez y Asociados

Luis Enrique Perea ÁlvarezUnión Nacional de Sordos en México, A.C.

Luis Fernando Rucobo Valenzuela

Dr. Luis Fernando Zepeda GarcíaUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Luis Miguel KrasovskyKrasovsky Abogados

Lynnette Amparo Velasco AulcyUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Dra. Magdalena Díaz BeltránUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Lic. Manuel Alonso Vera Vidal

Marco Polo Hernández AlvaradoTreu™ Legal & Business

Lic. María Eugenia GonzálezGrupo Telvista S.A. de C.V.

Lic. Mario Alberto Barreras PérezBarreras & Asociados

Mtro. Mario Alfonso Mayans OlacheaMayans y Perfecto Abogados

Maryen Estrada

Dr. Miguel de J. Neria GoveaUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Dr. Octavio de la Torrer de SteffanoTLC Asociados

Omar Zamir Jaly Hozamnth VillaseorSerrano y Asociados

Pablo García Rascon

Paulina Martínez Castro

Mtro. Pedro Ariel Mendivil GarcíaLópez Frank y Mendivil S.C.

Pedro Augusto Vázquez Domínguez

Mtro. Rafael Quiroz Gómez

Raul Díaz MolinaUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

René Alberto Castro RazcónDemocracia Electoral Representativa para Baja California, A.C.


René Bartolo Mireles TejedaColegio de Especialistas en Derecho Laboral, A. C.

Ricardo Alcalá PuentesMIPYMEX Consultoría Legal

Roberto Rodríguez CastañedaMB Abogados

Dra. Rosa Alicia Luna V. GómezUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Lic. Rosa María Solis Rodríguez

Mtro. Rubén Ernesto Zaragoza GonzálezZ & Z Asesores Jurídicos Especializados

Dr. Rufino Menchaca DíazUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Dr. Sergio Cuen SandovalUniversidad de las Cali-fornias Internacional

Sergio Gilberto Capito MataUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Servando Mauro Munoz EvilaUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Tomas Enrique Moreno LopezDe la Rosa, Moreno y González Montalvo, S.C.

Verónica Cruz Sánchez.

Verónica Guzmán RamosCETYS Universidad

Dr. Victor Guadalupe García GonzálezUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Mtro. Victor Hugo Saldaña GuevaraUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California

Xenia Xiomara Pinzón CervantesLópez, Pinzón & Baca Abogados Anonymous contributors Baja California Sur

Alejandro Aguirre Chávez

Antonio de Jesús Guillin ÁlvarezUniversidad del Desarrollo Profesional

Lic. Armando Méndez MéndezPartida, Soberanes y Asociados, S.C.

Arturo Rubio RuizColegio de Posgraduados en Derecho y Ciencias Afines de Baja California Sur A.C.

Bernardo Villafaña LopezInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Mtro. Carlos Arturo Rubio HernándezConsejo Ciudadano para la Atención a Víctimas del Delito

César Antonio Piña IbarraColegio Médico Cirujanos de Baja California Sur

Comisión Estatal de los Derechos Humanos de B.C.S.Comisión Estatal de los Derechos Humanos en BCS

Lic. David Rodolfo Esqueda SedanoAbecorp S.C. Despacho Jurídico

Edgar OrigelBaja Law Group

Eduardo Esponda TortSecretaría de Salud

Gustavo A. EchevesteEcheveste Abogados, S.C.

Lic. Héctor Sosa CorralTax Care & Legal Procedures, S.C.

Ivan Manzanares Loaiza

Lic. Joaquin Jesús León HerreraLH Consultoría Legal y Empresarial

Joaquín Tello de Meneses A.

Dr. José del Carmen Flores CastilloInstituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado

José Luis de la Torre RamírezDLT Abogados

Mtro. Luis Eduardo Ruiz Ceseña

Lic. Marco Antonio Reyes GamaIuris Consultores

Margarita RoblesMinera y Metalúrgica del Boleo, S.A.P.I. de C.V.

Mtra. Michelle Tuchmann M.Barra de Abogados de Sudcalifornia A. C.

Miguel Alejandro Maldonado VerdugoSoluciones Jurídicas BCS Law Firm & Consoulting Group

Mtro. Octavio Edmundo Inzunza RomeroONG. Esp. Part

Patricio Maldonado López

Lic. Samuel Lozano SotresPlascencia Sotres & Asociados Anonymous contributors Campeche

Adriana Berenice Villacís FernandezSecretaría de Salud

Ana Cecilia Ortiz CortésUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche

Angelita Reyes Montero

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez BaroniSecretaría de Salud de Campeche

Dra. Carmen Peralta SánchezSecretaría de Salud de Campeche

Claudia Alejandra AguilarUniversidad Autónoma del Carmen

Claudio Antonio Solis FuentesClaudio Solis, Firma Legal

Daniel González

David Gibran Luna ChiUniversidad Autónoma del Carmen

Doris Marlene Cambranis DíazUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche

Emilio del Río PachecoCorreduría Pública No. 4

Dr. Francisco Javier Tejero BolónUniversidad Autónoma del Carmen

Dra. Idalia Ceballos SolórzanoUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche

Lic. Jacqueline Pali AznarUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche

Javier Cantun CuAsesores y Consultores de Empresas S.C.

Lic. Javier Jesús Valencia CantoDespacho Jurídico Valencia y Asociados

Lic. Jorge Ramon Zavala Camara

Mtro. José Francisco Gongora EkUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche/Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

José NegrinSecretaría de Salud de Campeche

Julio César Matos PantiCorporativo M Argente y Asociados S.C.

Dra. Karina Ivett Maldonado LeónUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche

Karla Doreyde A. de la Cruz GóngoraINDESALUD

L.D.B. José Luis Zavala RoldánServicios Especializados de Auditoría Forense

Luis DzulUniversidad Anáhuac

Manuel Jesús Rivero GilUniversidad Autónoma del Carmen

Maritza Esmeralda Heredia Escalante

Lic. Maximiliano ReyesReyes & Asociados Abogados

Mirlene Guadalupe Aguayo GonzálezUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche

Dra. Patricia de la Cruz Gongora RodríguezUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche

Dr. Pedro Elías Zetina MedinaUniversidad Autónoma de Campeche/INDESA-LUD Campeche

Lic. Raymundo Heredia EscalanteHeredia Escalante Abogados

Roberto García Lara / Erika Barony VeraGarcía & Barony Abo-gados

Rodrigo Liceaga Reyes

Román Castro RodríguezSecretaría de Salud Anonymous contributors

64

Chiapas

Aben Amar Rabanales GuzmánDiálogos de las Juventudes por un México Mejor, A.C.

Alfonso Jaime Martínez LazcanoColegio de Abogados Procesalistas Latinoamericanos

Dr. Amín López SantosDespacho Jurídico "Losa y Asociados"

Mtro. Andrés Castro BallinasBallinas A.C. Consultorio Jurídico y Pericial

Antonio de Jesús Victorio LópezUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Braulio Eduardo Salazar GordilloUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Lic. Carlos Jeved Arciniega MartínezConsultoría Jurídica Iusta Lex

César Iván Ochoa CruzCésar Ochoa Abogados

Christian Canseco Celaya

Christian Maythé Santiago BartoloméUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Colmenares & Wilson, Abogados

Diana Leslie Mendoza RoblesUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Eliceo Muñoz MenaAsociación de Juristas del Estado de Chiapas y Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Esaú Adalberto Enríquez DíazUniversidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas

Eugenia Elizabeth Robles MorenoUniversidad Intercultur-al de Chiapas

Mtra. Fabiana Ortega PintoProfesionistas Unidas de Comitán, A.C.

Fernando BuenrostroBuenrostro Abogados

Fernando de Arcia MendozaDe Arcia Quiroz y Asociados Firma Legal

Héctor Javier Sánchez PérezEl Colegio de la Frontera Sur

Irene Hernández CancinoUniversidad del Valle de México

Jesús Ivan Robles GonzálezRobles González & Asociados

Jorge Alberto Pascacio Bringas

Jorge Fonseca ZeaDespacho Jurídico Fonseca & Herpri

José Joaquín Piña MondragónConsorcio para el Estudio de Zonas Metropolitanas

Lic. José Luis Valdés Maza

Karla Trejo GtzSecretaría de Salud

Laura Eloyna Moreno NangoUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Manuel de Jesús Corado de PazCentro Iberoamerica-no de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales

Manuel Gustavo Ocampo MuñoaUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Marco Antonio Arevalo GrajalesDespacho Jurídico Arevalo Grajales

Marco Antonio Hernández MonjarazDefensoría Legal La Trinitaria A.C.

Maricela Hazel Pacheco PazosUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Marilin Ocaña CigarroaIusta Lex

Lic. Marilu García Vasquez

Dr. Mirlo Matías de la CruzUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Néstor Rodolfo García ChongUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Omar David Jiménez OjedaUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Oscar Andrey Espinosa GómezUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Oscar Aurelio Zepeda Nuñez

Dr. Pedro Cantú JuárezInstituto de Salud del Estado de Chiapas

Rodolfo Gómez ArandaAliat Universidades

Mtro. Ruben Dario Alcazar PaniaguaUniversidad Intercultural de Chiapas Anonymous contributors Chihuahua

Mtro. Alán Armando Aguilar MendozaAGA Abogados Consultores

Álvaro Holguín CasasCounselors International Abogados, S.C.

Andre RomoUniversidad La Salle

Andrea N.SCOD Corporativo

Dr. Antonio Palacios LéonInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Dr. César Ramón Agui-lar TorresUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Cristina Fernández HernándezOficina de las Naciones Unidas Contra la Droga y el Delito

Diana Valdez LunaUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Eduardo Luevano FloresHospital Ángeles Chihuahua - Laboratorio de Anatomopatología Privado

Dr. Eduardo Medrano FloresUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Emiliano García Fernandez

Emma Guadalupe Ramírez Torres

Mtro. Fernando Ávila GonzálezUniversidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez

Gilberto Alonso Ramírez y RomeroGonzález Herrell, Greenspan, Ramírez y Romero Abogados

Lic. Gustavo A. Alcalá SáenzNotaría Pública No.5 Meoqui

Imelda G. Alcalá- SánchezUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Lic. Indira Torres Baca

Jaime Ernesto García VillegasUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Dr. Jesús Gilberto González ChávezEthos Buró Legal

Jesús Ulises Villalva TrujilloNaciff & Villalva

Jorge Alberto Hernández OgazEC Legal Rubio Villegas

Lic. Jorge Vazquez Campbell

Lic. José Alejandro Álvarez JorgeARPA Abogados Espe-cialistas

José Armando Rocha AcostaUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Laura Adriana Chávez Quezada

Lila Maguregui AlcarazUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Lilia Martha Burrola AlmanzaÍntegra Soluciones Legales, S.C.

Luis Javier Casanova CardielUniversidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez

Manuel Carlos Porras BetancourtPensiones Civiles del Estado, Hospital Infantil de Especialidades

Marco Ivan Gloria Ruvalcaba

Marsal Estrada Padilla

Lic. Mirna Leticia González LopezUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Noé Francisco Muñoz EscárcegaM&M Abogados

Mtro. Oswaldo FragaCounselor Abogados

Lic. Rafael F. Cereceres RonquilloCereceres Estudio Legal, S.C.


Ramón Alvidrez LoyaAsesoría Legal Empresarial

Raul H. LoyaCOSAT

Rubén Trejo OrtegaUnión Social de Empresarios de México

Sergio Rogelio Sánchez CortésECLEGAL Rubiovillegas

Susana Sánchez HernándezUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Dr. Ubaldo H. García TrujilloUniversidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

Ulises GloriaUniversidad Regional del Norte

Lic. Víctor Hugo Vique Gutíerrez

Anonymous contributors Mexico City

Lic. Aalan A. Medina González

Abner Alberto Contreras SerranoDeloitte

Abraham Ugalde

Abril Martínez GómezMartínez López y Asociados, S.C.

Adolfo Reyes VelázquezViator Consultores S. de R.L. de C.V.

Adriana Sánchez RuedaFranco & Franco Bufete Jurídico

Agustín José Romero GarcíaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Mtro. Agustín Quetzalcóatl Luna RuízLuna & Aquino Abogados

Alan E. Cortés BecerrilUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Alberto Salles VizcaynoSalles Vizcayno Aboga-dos

Aldo FalabellaLincoln Electric

Alejandro Alayola SansoresUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Alejandro Barrera F.

Alejandro de Jesús Sánchez Cañas

Lic. Alejandro Trimmer SiliceoConsultoría Jurídica Trimmer y Asociados

Alejandro Vega LópezInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

Alexandra Caso RuizAmbientat Consultores, S.C.

Alfonso Armesto Santos

Alicia Beatriz Azzolini BincazUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana

Alicia Saldívar GarduñoUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana

Alix Trimmer

Alma Elena Rueda RodríguezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Álvaro Adame González de CastillaAdame González de Castilla & Besil

Amador Toca

Amalia Cruz RojoInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

Amilcar Iliu Pérez-GonzálezMaderettei, Rome and Consulting

Andrés Alejandro Pérez Frías

Andrés Cruz Mejía

Ángel MoralesAPE Consultores

Dra. Angélica Ortiz DorantesDra. Angélica Ortiz y Asociados, S.C.

Angie Morales HarrisonVega López Abogados

Antonio CanalesLockton México

Araceli Magdalena Olivos Portugal

Araceli Reyes MontesUniversidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México

Ariel Ortiz MaciasNotaría 103 de la Ciudad de México

Armando Juárez Bribiesca

Arsenio FarellFarell & Yañez, S.C.

Arturo Alejandro Canseco ÁlvarezColegio de Contadores Públicos de México

Arturo BoisseauneauEscuela Libre de Derecho

Arturo CalvoCalvo Sánchez y Abogados

Arturo Espinosa SilisStrategia Electoral

Mtro. Arturo Mancebo HernándezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México/SSPDF/UNADM

Mtro. Arturo Ramírez MartínezBarra Latinoamericana de Abogados

Axel Pérez GamaMX Legal

Belén CampilloPueblita Abogados

Bernardo Cortés AraujoDentons López Velarde

Billy Álvarez MoralesBrezles Abogados

Carlos C. Contreras IbáñezUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana

Carlos C. Ledezma CaballeroArochi & Lindner, S. C.

Carlos de la RosaMéxico Evalúa A.C.

Mtro. Carlos del Razo OchoaSOLCARGO

Carlos Domínguez AntunaDomínguez Guadarrama & Asociados

Carlos Domínguez HernándezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Carlos F Portilla Robertson

Carlos Felipe DávalosBufete Dávalos y Asociados

Carmen Patricia López OlveraUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Carolina Sánchez AlquiciraUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Caroline DeschampsMLAglobal

Mtra. Cecilia Mondragón Herrada

Mtro. César Alejandro Leal GarcíaAmerica Legal Bufete, S.C.

Lic. César Chávez LópezSámano Abogados, S.C.

César Claudio Urrutia RomeroVázquez Cardozo Abo-gados S.C.

César Díaz-Sacal

César Eduardo Castañeda Montiel

César O. BaptistaBaptista Firma Legal

César Rodríguez CastrejónArt Law & Tax

Christian Aarón Ramírez HernándezAlsea, S.A.B. de C.V.

Mtro. Christian Bernal PorrasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Christian Otniel Mancilla DávalosSociedad Mexicana del Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social, A.C.

Lic. Claudia Gómez DíazGómez & Asociados

Clemente Romero Olmedo

Cristián Monroy ContrerasMultivac México SA de CV

Mtro. Cristian Ortega Barrera

Cristina Cázares SánchezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Damián Zubillaga MorfínOZ Abogados

Lic. Daniel Alberto J. ReynaGrupo Diestra

Daniel Antonio García HuertaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Daniel Blanco TorresCompliance Penal México S.C.

Daniel. G. Tapia

David Jesús Sánchez MejíaCeballos, Cossío & Sán-chez, S.C.

Diana María Romo CuestaArt Law & Tax

66

Mtra. Diana Pluma MendozaAsociación Nacional Mexicana de Grupos Unidos de Seguridad Privada, A.C.

Diego Antonio Armida VereaGonzález Luna, Moreno y Armida, S.C.

Diego Esteban López Gómez

Diego Fernando Martínez HernándezMartínez Hernández Abogados.

Diego Pineda MartínezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Diego SantosDe la Vega & Martínez Rojas, S.C.

Domenico Lozano-WoolrichLozano-Woolrich y Castillo, Abogados-me-diadores

Dulce María Rocha SandovalOrtíz & Rocha Consultores, S.C.

Edel Sánchez Galván

Eder Gurrutia HitosCervantes Sainz Abogados

Mtro. Edgar Eduardo Barrera LaraB&B Abogados S.C.

Lic. Edgar Rodríguez BrambilaRB Soluciones Laborales

Edith Gutiérrez Zamora MedinaUniversidad Mexicana

Edith López Hernández

Eduardo Acosta ArreguínUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Lic. Eduardo Hernández Rdz.Iuris Consultores

Eduardo Ocampo Bautista

Eduardo Serdán CastroSerdán Abogados, S.C.

Lic. Efrén Bárcenas ZamoraAbogados Unidos por la Familia

Einar Hernández Granados

Lic. Elan González ÁlvarezElan Legal Abogados

Elisa Araque EspinosaHAAC

Emiliano Sosa Rivas

Emmanuel Cristian Barroso SierraGoodrich, Riquelme y Asociados

Enrique Cáceres NietoUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Enrique Eugenio Riquelme TorresHeredia Rubio Abogados

Enrique Hernández VillegasSolución de Conflictos Legales, S.C.

Enrique Rueda Santillán

Ericka Beatriz Peña AyalaCLYE Abogados

Erika Alejandra del Callejo PereyraBarra Nacional de Abogados

Erika Gómez CerónUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Esp. Eduardo Guerrero Hernández

Fabio Pluma PérezDLP Abogados

Fabiola Calvario Olvera

Fabiola Navarro LunaObservatorio de la Corrupción e Impunidad; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Fabiola Rios Hernández

Federico E. Cervantes GutiérrezCervantes Anaya Abogados, S.C.

Fernanda Canseco Vallarta

Fernando Elizondo GarcíaOficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito

Fernando Ojesto Martínez ManzurCentro de Análisis para la Investigación en Inno-vación CAIINNO

Lic. Fernando Olvera Vargas

Fernando R. López TorresLópez Chávez Castillo y Abogados S.C.

Francisco Ciscomani Freaner

Lic. y C.P. Francisco Fdo. Martínez SánchezFrancisco Martínez y Asociados

Francisco Javier González Cabello

Francisco López GonzálezCentro Mexicano para el Derecho Internacional, A.C.

Franciso Áureo Acevedo CastroInstituto Mexicano para la Justicia

Frida Romay HidalgoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Gabriel GonzálezGonzález Zebadúa Abogados

Gabriel Regino GarcíaRegino Abogados

Gabriela Peregrina EspinoDeforest Abogados

Gerardo Arias GaitánGarcía Pimentel y Asociados, S.C.

Gerardo E. Ruiz EspinosaRuiz Espinosa Abogados

Gerardo Pola MorenoPola & Asociados, Asesores y Consultores Jurídicos

Giancarlo Eduardo Petricioli Miguel

Gilberto Torres CarreñoInstituto Tecnológico Latinoamericano de Hidalgo

Govani Uriel Flores MateoTu Juicio: Abogados en Línea

Guadalupe Sánchez Flores

Guillermo Carbajal RuizCarbajal Ruiz y Asociados, S. C.

Guillermo Fajardo OrtizAsociación Mexicana de Hospitales

Lic. Gustavo Garduño Hernández

Gustavo Padilla UrrutiaCervantes Sainz, S.C.

Mtro. Hazel C. Yáñez SánchezRomero & Yáñez Abogados Asociados

Héctor Alberto Pérez RiveraInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

Humberto Barrera OrtizBufete Capital, Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Ignacio R. Morales LechugaNotaría 116 de la Ciu-dad de México

Imer B. FloresUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Irving ReginoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Isaac Mejía MéndezNatividad Abogados S.C.

Isaac Rivera y Cía, S.C.Rodrigo Rivera Díaz

Lic. Isis Lizbeth Hernández PichardoBarra Nacional de Abo-gados

Ivan Oropeza

J. Eduardo Peters KrayemÁlvarez, Cantón y Peters Abogados

Jacqueline Álvarez VelázquezNatividad Abogados S.C.

Jaime Alberto Tovar VillegasNeyra, Tovar y Detoscano, Abogados S.C.

Jaime Díaz LimónInstituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad MX

Jazmin Labra Montes

Jeant Chiu NúñezTu Juicio: Abogados en Línea

Jerónimo Ocejo TorresOcejo Torres y Abogados

Jessica Lizzette Chávez ValdezKansas City Southern de México, S.A. de C.V.

Jessica Marjane Durán FrancoRed de Juventudes Trans México

Jesús Ernesto Núñez Ángeles

Jesús Othón Baca Cacho

Jesús Ramírez OlveraRoes Abogados, S.C.

Jorge A. García

Jorge Adrián Ortíz ArmentaPharmalaw, S.C.

Jorge Arturo Tenorio CoronadoTenorio Abogados, S.C.


Jorge Bojalil OjedaEscuela Libre de Derecho

Jorge Bustamante OrgazBO Abogados

Jorge Fernando Fuentes NavarroVonwolf Abogados

Jorge L. Villanueva R.

Lic. José Alberto Ruiz NoriegaBatta y Ruiz, Abogados

José Alfredo de la Rosa MartínezDe la Rosa Abogados Asociados, S.C.

Lic. José Antonio Ángeles RosasÁngeles & Bernal Abogados

José Antonio Peña Martagón

José Clemente Poblano GarcíaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

José David Enriquez RosasGoodrich, Riquelme y Asociados

José Luis Carrillo AlorDay Legal

José Luis Gabriel Contreras AguirreUniversidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México

José Luis Roldán OrtegaAcedo Santamarina, S.C./Tecnológico de Mon-terrey

José Manuel Muñoz Díaz InfanteSierra Abogados

José Oropeza GarcíaGarcía Herrera, Valdez & Asociados

José Pedro Silva JuárezUniversidad Latina

Mto. José Raul Fernandez CastroFernandez Castro y Asociados, S.C.

José Rodolfo Piedras Luna

Juan Carlos Gámez SagreroJCGAMEZ Abogados

Juan Carlos Rosas MatuteBarra Mexicana de Abogados

Lic. Juan Carlos Silva AguilarICA

Juan Enrique Arguijo SverdrupLexCorp Abogados

Juan Enrique Benítez JovéBenítez Jové | Avellane-da Abogados, S.C.

Juan Gómez IslasG&H Abogados

Juan José Cabrera

Juan José Velasco MezaHogares Unión/ GIM Desarrollos

Juan Manuel A. Ramírez IbarraR I Abogados, S.C.

Juan Manuel Becerril de la LlataBS Abogados, S.C.

Juan Martín García Medina

Juan Pablo Pampillo BaliñoEscuela Libre de Derecho

Juan Pedro Díaz Maciel

Karen Beatriz Hernández NolascoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Karla CamachoTransportes Aeromar, S.A. de C.V.

Karla Ivonne Vázquez BarreraUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Karla Matus Castro

Karla Micheel Salas RamírezGrupo de Acción por los Derechos Humanos y la Justicia Social A.C.

Karla Rodríguez AcostaInstituto de Desarrollo e Investigación en Derechos Humanos y Soluciones Sociales, A.C.

Larisa Martínez de la FuenteTracer México

Laura Patricia Padrón Rodríguez de San MiguelResearch Center for Justice Standars

Leninn Escudero IrraEscudero Irra & Asociados, S.C.

Dr. Leonel Pereznieto CastroUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Mtra. Liesel OberarzbacherInstituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México/CIAJ

Lizeth A. Palacios Rangel

Mtro. Luis Alberto Retana HernándezRetana y Abogados

Luis Alejandro Durán Abascal

Lic. Luis Antonio Victoria ContrerasVictoria Abogados y Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana

Luis Aroche AlquiciraGuerra Gónzalez y Asociados S.C.

Luis Ernesto Flores Álvarez

Luis Fernando Vargas AgúndezAgúndez, Castro, Chávez, Abogados

Luis Hernández

Luis Hernández MartínezAlta Dirección Jurídica

Luis Ignacio López RodríguezBufete López Rodríguez Abogados Consultores, S.C.

Luis Javier Calderón RiveraE&P Consulting

Luis Ricardo Sánchez RamosBufete Sánchez Ramos, S.C.

Luis Rodrigo Vargas GilBufete Vonwolf & Aso-ciados

Mabel Díaz MartínezFlores Chao & Asociados S.C.

Manuel Augusto Coca EspinosaBufete Capital, S.C.

Lic. Manuel Díaz Rojas de SilvaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Mtro. Manuel Godinez NecoecheaEDUCEM Instituto Universitario del Centro de México, Universidad Obrera de México

Manuel Martínez CarmonaEOG Employment, Opti-mization & Growth

Marcial Alfonso Morfin MacielUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Marco Antonio Camacho Dominguez

Marco Antonio Zavale-ta GuerraGLZ Abogados

Marco Mejan GanemM&A Soluciones Jurídicas Corporativas

María Alejandra San-toyo JuárezAS Abogados

Dra. María del Carmen Dávila RicoDespacho Jurídico y Consultoría Dávila Velazco & Asociados

María del Carmen Pulliam AburtoEscuela Libre de Derecho

María Elisa Franco Martín del CampoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

María Fernanda Rodríguez M

María Teresa Orozco EscobedoCoalición Contra la Trata de Personas en América y El Caribe, A.C. / Barra Nacional de Abogados

Mariana Andreé CuevasUniversidad La Salle

Mariana Gil BartomeuOficina de Defensoría de los Derechos de la Infancia

Mtra. Mariel Correa Rivera

Marlene Lechuga CastanedoBufete Jurídico Vieyra Aguilar

Martha Corral RodríguezEscuela Libre de Derecho

Max Jalife BochiUniversidad La Salle

Miguel Ángel Hernández de AlbaHernández de Alba, Grupo Abogados

Dr. Miguel Ángel Ramírez GarcíaCentro de Estudios Kelsen, CDMX

Miguel Gallardo GuerraBello, Gallardo, Bonequi y García, S.C. Abogados

Miguel Ruelas RosasAbogados Sierra, Avia-tion Working Group

Mónica Campos LozadaCabrera Campos y Asociados

Mónica Rivera CastilloAsesores Profesionales Empresariales

68

Montserrat García LópezHaiat & Amezcua

Montserrat Villar ZavalaUniversidad La Salle

Nadia Ruiz ContrerasUniversidad Panamericana

Nancy Bautista SegundoComisión Nacional de Búsqueda de Personas

Natalia Deschamps Ramírez

Octavio NovaroMowat-Rechtlich & Gentan I, S.C.

Oscar Cruz Barney

Oscar Flores Molina

Pablo Armando Fernández de Castro y Herrera

Pablo C. Lezama BarredaAsociación Mexicana de Empresas de Capital Humano, A.C.

Paola Isabel Medellin CervantesMedellin y Villalobos Abogados S.C.

Paola Ruelas RiveraEscuela Libre de Derecho, Imagen Legal

Patricia Mendoza Vázquez

Paulina Beck MagañaMCM Abogados

Paulina MorfinCervantes Sainz, S.C.

Rafael Cruz VargasStrategia Electoral

Rafael SeptiénMargen Consultores

Rafael Torres RabaAndersen Tax & Legal, S.C.

Raúl Armando Varela GonzálezREVSA S.C.

Raúl Enrique Varela CurielAcademia de Peritos en Ciencias Forenses y Consultoría Técnica Legal

Raul MaillardMaillard Abogados Laborales

Raul Pastor EscobarDe Liux Abogados

Raúl Torres JiménezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México

Raymundo Canales de la FuenteColegio de Bioética A.C.

Dr. Raymundo Gil RendónUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Rene Deliux CamposDeliux Abogados S.C.

René Villanueva

Reynaldo Alejandro Saldívar GutiérrezCausa en Común

Ricardo Campos

Ricardo Contreras GómezUniversidad Panamericana

Ricardo Corona RealInstituto Mexicano para la Competitividad A.C.

Ricardo Ramírez HernándezRRH Consultores S.C.

Ricardo Rodríguez OlivaresEscuela Libre de Derecho

Roberto Antonio Herrera MarínHCM Abogados

Roberto Hernández Martínez

Roberto Martínez Ramírez

Rodolfo Aceves JiménezININVESTAM

Rodolfo Bucio GonzálezBucio & González, Abogados

Rodolfo Monroy MuñozMonroy & Romo Abogados Consultoría Jurídica S.C.

Mtro. Rodolfo Rodríguez CuervoFlag Assist

Rodrigo D. Vivar Campos G.De Liux Abogados

Rodrigo Josué Gazcón QuintanaGuerra González & Asociados, S.C.

Rodrigo MelgarMi8legal

Rodrigo Rosales RoblesJunquera y Forcada, S.C.

Lic. Rogelio de la Garza GonzálezBufete De la Garza y Garza

Rogelio Rojas MuñozRush Real Estate

Rolando Cabrera LópezCabrera Campos y Asociados

Rolando Christian Escalante AguilarDe Hoyos y Avilés, S.C.

Romana Silvia Platas AcevedoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Rubén Alejandro Tello HernándezFiscalía General de Justi-cia del Estado de Puebla

Dra. Ruth Saraí Aldana VergaraHospital Infantil Privado Star Médica

Mtro. Santiago Pedro Sergio

Mtra. Sara Paz CamachoUniversidad del Valle de México

Mtro. Sem Von Yavhé Macías Calvario

Sergio Aarón Bernal LópezCentro de Estudios Superiores en Ciencias Jurídicas y Criminológi-cas

Sergio Beristain SouzaBeristain Abogados

Sergio Charbel Olvera RangelDespacho Arteaga, García y Olvera, Aboga-dos, S. C.

Sergio Modesto Saenz HernándezSaher Abogados S.C.

Simón Hernández LeónInstituto de Justicia Procesal Penal

Sonia Rios CeliseoCorporativo Jura Novit

Úrsula Gutiérrez Canencia

Valeria García Zavala Sánchez

Lic. Valeria Morán Ruiz.

Lic. Verónica Prado LemusBañuelos Prado Aboga-dos Laborales

Víctor Hugo Maya Bernal

Víctor Manuel Palacios CertuchaUniversidad Panamericana

Víctor Manuel Pérez MartínezPérez Martínez Consultoría y Litigio

Víctor Martínez MendozaGrupo GICSA

Yizus RangelBasham Anonymous contributors Coahuila

Adrián E. Garza del BosqueGrupo Calmart

Alberto Campos OlivoUniversidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Alberto Lara FernandezBAC Instituto de Cien-cias Jurídicas

Alma Delia Herrera MárquezUniversidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Apolinar Rodríguez RochaFederación de Colegios, Foros, Barras y Asocia-ciones de Abogados del Estado de Coahuila A. C.

Dr. Arturo A. Z'cruz SillerHospital Z'Cruz

Carlos Alejandro Moreno MuñizALTO México

Carlos Emmanuel Jaime CastroDelta Abogados

Carlos Ernesto Martínez Robledo

Cecilia Pelletier BravoHestia y Universidad La Salle

Claudia J. Carrillo MendozaUniversidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Daniela Estefanía Sánchez IbarraUniversidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Ernesto Nieves Pacheco

Florentino Cepeda MuñozBuhostela

Héctor de León RodríguezUniversidad del Valle de México

Héctor Fernando Sánchez GonzálezSánchez & Rodríguez Abogados

Ibett Estrada GazgaIus Semper Universidad Centro Universitario Integral

Irene SpignoAcademia Interamericana de Derechos Humanos


Jean Paul Huber Olea y ContróNotaría 124 Saltillo, Coahuila / Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Dr. Jesús Rivellino Monarrez CorralesSecretaría de Salud de Coahuila

Juan Enrique Martínez RequenesCentro Diocesano para los Derechos Humanos Fray Juan de Larios A.C.

Karem L. Bocanegra FloresInstituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado

Magda Yadira Robles GarzaAcademia Interame- ricana de Derechos Humanos, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Manasés Correa CerónHablamos Derechos S.C. Abogados

Dra. Margarita Guajar-do FuentesUniversidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Lic. María José López BustosActio-Lex Abogados Saltillo

Marina Lilia Isabel Carrillo MendozaUniversidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Mario Alberto Jiménez Mendoza

Lic. Marisol Hernández Amezcua

Mónica del Carmen Flores Almaraz

Óscar Daniel Rodríguez FuentesUniversidad del Valle de México

Osvaldo Enrique Mer-cado Sánchez

Raul Ruelas Sánchez

Lic. Ricardo Acevedo BareaUniversidad La Salle Saltillo

Dr. Ricardo Acosta RodríguezHospital Ángeles Torreón

Ricardo Giovanni Hernández EspitiaUniversidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Roberto Antonio Gutiérrez RamírezDespacho Jurídico "Flores & Asociados"

Zandra Garza G.Chevez Ruiz Anonymous contributors Colima

Aida Pamela Caldera CalderaFirma Jurídica Caldera & Asociados

Lic. Alejandro Espinosa MedinaComisión de Derechos Humanos de Colima

Altagracia Santa Ana AnguianoConsejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Pública del Estado de Colima

Ángel Durán Pérez

Ángel Gabriel Hilerio LópezUniversidad de Colima

Arianna Sánchez EspinosaUniversidad de Colima

Lic. Enf. Carlos Delgado AmezcuaUniversidad de Colima

Mtro. Cuitláhuac Godina Cortés

Ericka Reyna

Dr. Ernesto Díaz Guerrero CerónColegio de Abogados Lic. Benito Juárez García del Estado de Colima

Fabián Rojas Larios

Fernando Ojeda MartínezCentro de Estudios Universitarios del Valle de Tecomán, A. C.

Dr. Francisco Morán TorresUniversidad de Colima

Héctor Javier Peña Meza

Humberto Sierra LunaUniversidad Vizcaya de las Américas

Dr. J. Armando Estrella SánchezUniversidad de Guadalajara - SSA

José Antonio Cabrera ContrerasUniversidad Colima, COMACIPE, Barra de Abogados Independientes

José Plascencia

Dra. Karla Berenice Carrazco PeñaUniversidad de Colima

Lizeloth Torres Lopez

Martha Patricia Victorica AlejandreColectivo Kybernus

Mayra Jannine Ramírez Valle

Mayra Patricia Ramírez HernándezServicios de Salud del Estado de Colima

Oscar GonzálezUniversidad de Colima

Lic. Otoniel Llerenas RuizLlerenas & Co. Abogados

Ramón Alejandro Larios Quiroz

Roberto Alan Castillo Cobián

Roberto Moreno BejarFundación Lo Mejor de Colima

Mtra. Rocío Lilián Ramírez Zamora

Rosa Edith Sandoval ChacónSandoval Chacón & Arreola Abogados

Mtro. Rubén Godínez GómezAsociación Regional de Facultades y Escuelas de Enfermería de Zona Pacífico

Mtra. Silvia Verónica Bernal RincónBernal & Abogados

Víctor Hugo Manzo SánchezColegio de Abogados de Armería A.C. Anonymous contributors Durango Alejandra Sicsik AragónInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Lic. Alonso Delgado Bañuelos

Antonio Barroeta Zamudio

Argeniz PeñaFRIC

Mtra. Azucena Martínez Urbina

Dra. Beatriz PradoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Claudia Elisa Martínez CastilloDivisión de Estudios de Posgrado, Facultad de Derecho Durango UJED

D.C. Laura E. Barragán LedesmaUniversidad Juárez del Estado de Durango

Edgar Alán Arroyo CisnerosUniversidad Juárez del Estado de Durango

Efrain Carmona Arellano

Dr. Efraín Gaytán JiménezUniversidad Juárez del Estado de Durango

Fernando Ortega SilerioOrtega Silerio Abogados

Dr. Jesús Arturo Martínez ÁlvarezSecretaría de Salud, y Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango

Jesús Rodríguez CarrascoDespacho Jurídico Par-ticular Roca Legal

Lic. Jorge Ontiveros Sarmiento

José Armando Bazán GutiérrezUniversidad Juárez del Estado de Durango

Juan Carlos Gallegos Isais

Luis Fernando Molina Espinoza

Lic. Ma. Isabel Ramírez Velázquez

Manuela de la A. Carrera GraciaUniversidad Juárez del Estado de Durango

Lic. Miguel Ángel Hernández Catrellón

Lic. Rodolfo Brena Montesinos.Fiscalía General del Estado Anonymous contributors State of Mexico

Abelardo Cruz SantiagoCentro de Especialidades Médicas Atenas Texcoco

Abraham Jaramillo MorenoDespacho Jaramillo Abogados

Lic. Agustín Flores

Alejandra Esthefania de Pando Silva

Dr. Alejandro A. Ortiz SolorioAcción Educativa en Diabetes, Obesidad y Sobrepeso, A.C.

70

Alejandro Hernández TrejoColegio del Valle de México

Alfonso Gómez VeraDespacho Jurídico Gómez Martínez & Asociados

Amalia García

Ana Karen de Jesús Flores

Dra. Angélica J. Laurent Pavón

Antonio Corchado Horta

Barrister Abogados S.C.

Lic. Benito Enrique Rodríguez Velázquez

Carlos Arturo Bravo RivasCABR Abogados

Carlos Gonzalo Blanco RodríguezInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Carolina León BastosUniversidad Anáhuac México

César Alfredo González VázquezBufete Jurídico Laboral, S.C.

Lic. César Felipe González GarcíaColegio de Abogados del Estado de México

César Gonzalo Jaloma YañezInstituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado

Mtro. César Ulises Soto BretzfelderInstituto Universitario del Centro de México

David García AntonioGarald Asesores Legales, S.C.

Diana Gabriela Arreola MoraSupremo Tribunal de Justicia del Estado de Michoacán

Diego Nuñez EscarcegaSalgado y Asociados Jurídico

Duilio César Paredes Hernández

Lic. Eduardo Márquez HernándezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Eduardo Rojas RubioAnwalt Consultoría Jurídica y Empresarial

Lic. Emmanuel González LemusGLAB Abogados

Ezequiel Velasco Valdés

Lic. Gerardo Alan Barranco Olvera

Héctor Mario Zamora LezamaAbogados Zamora

Horacio Montoya KeyZLM Abogados y Consultores Asociados

Lic. Ignacio Rodríguez Monjaraz É

Ivan Aldair Mira LiévanosBarrister Abogados S.C.

Lic. Jesús Abraham Ruiz MoralesBufete Jurídico Ruiz Morales & Arroyo

José Ángel Vilchis Uribe

Lic. José Santos Solano OcampoA&S Abogados

Juan David Pastrana y BerdejoColegio de Estudios Jurídicos de México

Juan Durán Aguilar

Juan Manuel Grosso EspinosaInstituto Nacional de Perinatología

Mtro. Julián Jesús Gudiño Galindo.Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Julieta M. Zuppa BarajasZuppa Barajas & Abogados

Karime Haua Navarro

Karlo Montané VarelaDe Anda y Montané Abogados S.C.

Dra. Laura Aída Pastrana AguirreFiscalía General de Justicia del Estado de México

Laura Citlalli Segura Millán

Luis Enrique Sánchez RiveraGPM Consultores

Mtra. Ma. Elisa Godínez Necoechea

Lic. María Elena Malvaez MartínezIurisdictio Abogados

Lic. María Gabriela Castelán Sánchez

María Virginia AguilarAguilar International Abogados

Mtra. Maricela Medina ZamudioCentro Universitario Los Ángeles

Dr. Miguel Ángel Arteaga SandovalUniversidad Anáhuac México

Lic. Miguel Ángel Mundo SánchezMundo & Abogados

Mtro. Miguel Ramírez MaldonadoRuiz, Moncada & Ramírez

Norma DíazUniversidad ICEL

Dra. Olga Elena Yautentzi GómezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México/ Hospital Futura

Plácido Espinosa Rosas

Renato Manuel Alcantara GonzálezConsorcio Jurídico RAG S.A. de C.V.

Ricardo Lozano OrozcoATC México

Ricardo Reyes Antunez

Rodrigo Cardenas

Said Manuel León FloresWalmart de México y Centroamérica

Sarah Alejandra Ortiz Rosales

Sarah Rebeca Rosales BacaAcción Educativa en Diabetes, Obesidad y Sobrepeso, A.C.

Vicente Delgado GómezDelgado, Mendoza y Asociados S.C.

Yonatan Lendizabal Linares

Anonymous contributors Guanajuato

Lic. Alan Canedo García

Dr. Antonio Mazas GarcíaHospital Regional ISSSTE León

Arturo Bolaños Andrade

Dr. Benjamin Gallo ArriagaUniversidad de Guana-juato; Hospital Ángeles León

Diego León y RábagoUniversidad de Guanajuato

Lic. Dionisio Baruch Zavala LópezCorporativo Jurídico Integral

Dr. Edduardo Pérez AlonsoUniversidad de Guanajuato

Elia Lara LonaUniversidad de Guana-juato

Elliot Quiroz JuárezLex Servicios Jurídicos

Lic. Erika Parra Pantoja

Felipe Eduardo Zarate LópezUniversidad de León

Fernanda Romo

Fernando A. Fierro T.

Francisco Antonio Alejandro Rocha Pedraza

Francisco Javier Camacho RuizLexfiscal. Abogados Tributarios

Dr. Francisco M. Mora-SifuentesUniversidad de Guanajuato

Francisco Roberto Ramírez-RamírezUniversidad de Guanajuato

Lic. Gerardo López SeguraPROLEI Group S.C. y Centro de Estudios Jurídicos PROLEI

Gerardo Moheno GallardoMoreno Rodríguez y Asoc., S.C.

Grever María Avila SansoresUniversidad de Guanajuato

Hiram Isaí VillarUniversidad Iberoamericana

Jonathan Alejandro Belman Sánchez

Jorge Armando Talavera GutiérrezTalavera Abogados

Mtro. José Alfredo Martínez Reyes

José Antonio Veloz ArandaHospital Regional ISSSTE León, Universi-dad de Guanajuato

José Cervantes HerreraUniversidad de Guanajuato

Lic. José Guadalupe Martínez Sixtos

Dr. José Juan Barrientos RomeroHospital Ángeles León

José Miguel Cortés LaraFederación de Abogados Especialistas en Juicios Orales

José Netzahualcóyotl Ortiz Rico Lara

Dr. Juan Carlos Rosel-PalaciosInstituto de Investigación Pro Mente Sana A.C.

Juan Carlos Sepúlveda MontielHeineken México

Juan Ignacio Ayala PadillaAyala Padilla. Firma Legal

Juan René Segura RicañoUniversidad de Guanajuato

Lic. Juan Tomás Acevedo López.Despacho Jurídico Acevedo & Hernández

Katya Morales PradoMorales Prado S.C.

Laura Rosario Frias GodoyHospital Materno Infantil de Irapuato

Leandro Eduardo Astrain BañuelosUniversidad de Guanajuato

Luis Andrés Álvarez Aranda.Álvarez & Asociados

Luis Eduardo Vázquez Cárdenas

Luis Manuel Orozco Arroyo

Lic. Manuel Acosta Gómez

Dr. Manuel Ledesma LópezUniversidad Anáhuac Querétaro

Dr. Manuel Vidaurri ArechigaUniversidad de La Salle Bajío

Dra. María Teresa Hernández RamosUniversidad de Guana-juato

Mauricio Guerrero GonzálezBLT de México S.A. de C.V.

Miguel Ángel Gómez GonzálezUniversidad Iberoamericana

Dr. Miguel Ángel Maricchi Carpio

Miguel Magdaleno GarcíaÁngeles León, UCMA Bajío, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social UMAA 55

Miriam Susana Téllez CabreraTJ Corporativo

Monserrat Olivos FuentesUniversidad de Guana-juato

Norma Leticia Noriega VelázquezUniversidad de Guana-juato

Oliver Alexei Martínez OrtegaInstituto de la Defensoría Penal Pública del Estado de Querétaro

Pascual Palomares AndaSecretaría de Salud Guanajuato

Pedro Andrés Felisart Legorreta

Raquel Gutiérrez MarínColegio de Psicólogos de León, A.C.

Raúl Isai Galindo SánchezGG Lex. Estrategia Legal para Emprendedores

René Urrutia de la Vega.Urrutia Consulting. Con-sultor independiente

Ricardo H. Zavala GonzálezBufete Díaz Mirón y Asociados, S.C.

Rogelio TadeoCorporativo Jurídico

Rubén Ayala PadillaAP. Abogados

Teresita Rendón Huer-ta BarreraUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Tobias García TovarUniversidad de Guana-juato Anonymous contributors Guerrero

Adolfo Román RománUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Adrián García FierroCorreduría Pública No. 2

Alejandro Moctezuma NiñoUniversidad Loyola del Pacífico

Ángel Ascencio RomeroUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Antonio Palazuelos RosenzweigPalazuelos Rosenzweig y Asociados Abogados

Carlos Ortuño PinedaUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Dra. Concepción Amador PérezInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Daysi Návez GonzálezUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Lic. Enrique J. del Rayo CastrejónObservatorio Ciudadano de Seguridad y Gober-nanza Urbana del Estado de Guerrero

Ewry Arvid Zárate Nahón

Francisco Espinobarros Vivar

Francisco Javier Jiménez OlmosBufete Altamirano, S.C. Abogados

Gerardo Huerta BeristainUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Irving Israel Moctezuma RendónUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Jeiry Toribio JiménezUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Lic. Jesús P. Castrezana Sánchez

Joaquin Reyes AñorveUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Kenia Jarizeth González HerreraUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Dra. Kenya Hernández VinalayUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Lic. Luis Alberto Puente PuenteSoluciones Inmobiliarias Puente

Manuel Zurita AllecBarra de Abogados de Zihuatanejo

Marcelina Mendoza CarmonaGM

Marcial Rodríguez SaldañaUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

María de Lourdes Soto RiosUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

María del Rocío García SánchezUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Mario López FierroEl Mejor Acuerdo Medi-ación y Asesoría Jurídica

Meridion Estrada DamianEscuela de Derecho Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Napoleón Orozco BedollaCentro de Estudios Jurídicos y Policiales del Valle de Anáhuac, S.C.

Dra. Rocío Ramírez Jiménez

Sabad Mosso Pacheco

Dr. Salvador Muñoz BarriosUniversidad Autónoma de Guerrero

Silvia Peralta GarcíaUniversidad Hipócrates Anonymous contributors Hidalgo

Lic. Adrián Anaya ÁngelesAnaya Abogados

Alberto Mendez LlacaCorreduría Pública 5 de Hidalgo

Alfonso Herrera RoldánDesCorp Abogados

Carla Pratt

Mtro. Claudio Salvador Rodríguez Maldonado

Cristian Arturo Trejo IbarraQuavitalit SA de CV

Lic. Daniela Canchola Rosas

Daniela Catalina Ceron CabañasAsesoría Jurídica

David Tenorio GrimaldoQuadratin Hidalgo

Mtro. Efrain Magueyal BaxcajayRM Abogados

Emmanuel G. Rosales GuerreroGMT Abogados, S.C.

72

Fernando Buendia MorenoDespacho Buendia, Fuentes & Cia.

Gabriel Alejandro López RicaldeNogara Asociados

Gerardo Octavio Vela y CanedaInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Gloria Lizette Bustillos Vargas

Gualberto HurtadoDACOEF

Javier David Ortíz Mendoza

Jenny Erendy Corona Moreno

Jorge Javier Soto HernándezDesCorp Abogados

José María Hernández VillalpandoUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo

Lic. Juan Carlos Ceron CabañasFirma "JCCC Asesoria Jurídica"

Lic. Juan Manuel Martínez IslasAsesores Empresariales & Litigio Laboral

Juan Manuel Ruiz AlvaradoForensing Consulting

Julio César Salinas González

Karen Isamara Hernández González

Mtro. Luis Manuel Ruiz VelazcoForensic Consulting Services S.C.

Luis Martín Bernal LechugaUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo

Lyzbeth Robles Gutiérrez

Marco A. Becerril FloresUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo

Maribel Gómez Alonso

Martha Elisa GutiérrezMG Abogados y Consultoría

Martha Magali Rosales IslasUniversidad Tollancingo

Michelle Alarcón OrtizUniversidad La Salle Pachuca

Noé Lino Luna Ángeles

Lic. Oscar T. García

Rafael Eduardo Chávez Rodríguez

Rebeca Guzmán SaldañaUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo

Dr. Roberto Wesley Zapata DuránUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo

Rogelio Gutiérrez ZunigaDespacho Jurídico Contable Gutiérrez Segovia

Sergio Beltrán Merino

Venancio Mérida Naranjo

Anonymous contributors Jalisco

Adrian Rangel

Adriana Paulina Loza CastellanosUniversidad de Guadalajara

Alberto Santiago Ochoa JiménezKelley y Ortiz Abogados, S.C.

Alejandra Maritza Cartagena LópezInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente, Universi-dad Pedagógica Nacional

Dr. Alfredo Sánchez OrtizUniversidad de Guadalajara

Alma Jéssica Velázquez G.Universidad de Guadalajara

Alonso González- Villalobos

Mtro. Álvaro Martín Alba González LunaBarragán del Rio Abogados S.C.

Ana Sofía Torres MenchacaInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente

Ángel Edoardo Ruiz BuenrostroSMRT (Ilera Mex)

Dr. Ángel Guillermo Ruiz MorenoAsociación Iberoame- ricana de Juristas de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social 'Dr. Guillermo Cabanellas'

Antonio Jiménez Díaz

Antonio Mejía AlatorreVaertis Abogados

Dr. Anuar S. García GutiérrezMéxico SOS Jalisco

Armando NuñezMMGS & PA Abogados

Arturo Martínez MartínezBasulto, Elguera y Villarreal De las Fuentes Abogados

Arturo Orduña PadillaNotaría Pública Número 1 de Ayotlán

Axel Francisco Orozco TorresUniversidad de Guada-lajara

Carlos A. Aguirre PelayoKatz & Gudiño Abogados

Carlos Acebo RodríguezContra Abogados

Carlos José Urzua LamasConsultores Jurídico Abogados Laborales

Carlos Noel Reynoso ZepedaReynoso & Adarga

Claudia Lisette Charles NiñoUniversidad de Guada-lajara

Cristian GonzálezGrupo Ius Corp, S.C.

Mtro. Daniel Magaña GilUniversidad de Guadalajara

Edith Josefina Carbajal GómezSilva Arana & Asociados Abogados Especialistas

Dr. Eduardo Barajas LangurénUniversidad de Guadalajara

Elias Gámiz SilvaMedina Abogados, S.C.

Emilia SaucedoSaucedo Martínez Garibay & Asociados

Emmanuel Calderon EspinosaHealth Inequalities Research Group-Em-ployment Conditions Network, Universitat Pompeu Fabra; Johns Hopkins University

Mtro. Emmanuel Ibarra CastilloUniversidad Panamericana

Dra. Esperanza Loera Ochoa

Estefanía García Martínez NegreteMMGS & PA Abogados

Fabián Antonio Navares AguileraBaker Mckenzie

Felipe de Jesús Villaseñor Novoa

Flores Chavarria Sergio

Francisco Contreras Muñoz

Dr. Francisco Gerardo Padilla PadillaCentro de Investigación en Cardiometabolismo

Francisco Javier Camacho MurilloFJCM Consultores

Francisco Javier Lara Acevedo

Francisco Javier Silva CastañedaSilva, Arana & Asociados, S.C.

Francisco Orozco Rubio

Geraldine Castro B.Martínez y de Labra, S.C.

Gerardo Alejandro Huerga FernándezBarbosa & Huerga Abogados S.C

Grehe Velázquez Novelo

Guadalupe FloresRAF y Asociados Abogados

Dr. Guillermo A. Gatt CoronaInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente, Universi-dad Panamericana

Guillermo Coronado AguilarInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Gustavo Lozano MorenoAsociación Mexicana del Derecho a la Información Jalisco

Héctor Arechiga TapiaUniversidad de Guadalajara

Héctor E. Villanueva

Dr. Héctor González BlancoVTZ Asesores

Héctor Salazar TorresUniversidad de Guadalajara

Hernán Ramírez ReyesRamírez & Gómez Abogados


Igor Martín Ramos HerreraUniversidad de Guadalajara

Irma Angélica Quiróz SilvaUniversidad de Guadalajara

Lic. Isaac López MedinaLópez Medina y Asociados

Dra. Isabel Álvarez PeñaUniversidad Panamericana

Mto. Ivan Vladimir Vazquez Cortés

Dra. Ivonne Álvarez GutiérrezUniversidad Autónoma de Chiapas

Javier Contreras ArreagaInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente

Jerry Luis Coats CruzCoats Consultores & Abogados

Jessica Alejandra González TorresColegio de Abogados Penalistas en el Estado de Jalisco

Jesús Manuel Orozco PulidoOrozco & Pulido's Abogados

Jorge Abraham Soto MonterdeSoto Monterde y Asociados

Lic. Jorge Antonio LangaricaAsociación de Juristas, Fiscalistas y Auditores A.C.

Jorge Emilio Hernández BlumH.B. Abogados y Centro de Estudios Jurídicos

Jorge Garza TorresServicios Jurídicos Especializados

Jorge Geovanni Avalos Palafox

Dr. José Alfredo Plascencia GarcíaUniversidad de Guadalajara

Mtro. José Antonio PeñaUniversidad de Guadalajara

José Antonio Sepúlve-da López

José Carlos DelgadoDelgado, Galaviz Corporativo, S.C.

José Carlos Herrera Jiménez"Proacuerdo" Solución Legal Alternativa 74 Centro Privado de Mediación Acreditado

Dr. José Cruz Guzmán DíazUniversidad de Gua-dalajara, Observatorio Ciudadano de Cultura de la Legalidad

José de Jesús Muñoz NavarroCorreduría Pública 81 Jalisco / González Luna Abogados

José Luis Jiménez DíazUniversidad de Guada-lajara

José Óscar Alejandro Alcaraz PazSalomon and Warner

José Santana MadrigalDespacho Jurídico, Abogados Profesionales

Joseph Irwing Olid Aranda

Lic. Juan Carlos Preciado Castillo

Juan Carlos Quintero Cornejo

Juan Daniel Lugo ValadezLugo, Attorneys at Law

Juan Luis Tirado

Juan Peña AcostaNotaría Pública 1, Tlajo-mulco de Zúñiga

Juan Tomas Coffeen CabreraSuplente del Colegio de Psicólogos Jurídicos y Criminológicos de Jalisco

Karla Arlae Rojas QuezadaMSN Consultores S.C.

Karla Sofia Hernández OleaDe Hoyos y Aviles, S.C.

Mtra. Laura Fabiola Machuca Martínez

Laura Marcela Cuellar EspinozaUniversidad de Guadalajara

Leonardo RiverosFiscalía Anticorrupción

Dr. Leopoldo Herrera ChabertHospital San Javier, Guadalajara, Jalisco, México

Lidia Celia Enciso PlasenciaEnciso & Montoya Abogados

Lucía Flores Gaytán

Luis Alberto Valadez RamírezValadez Ramírez y Asociados

Luis Javier Reynoso ZepedaMMGS & PA Abogados

Manuel Alejandro Valdez ReynosoValdez Abogados

Marco A. Vargas MataAd Litem Abogados

Marco Antonio Cervera DelgadilloInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente

Marco Antonio Zavala GonzálezUniversidad de Guadalajara

Dra. María del Carmen Cortés LópezInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Lic. Maribel Sánchez Tirzo

Martha Berenice Vázquez ChoraUniversidad de Guadalajara

Martín Eduardo Pérez CázaresUniversidad de Guadalajara

Martín Omar Lugo EscotoUniversidad de Guadalajara

Mauricio Limón AguirreLimón Consultores, S.C.

Miguel Ángel Arévalo RamírezDeforest Abogados

Miguel Ernesto Gozález CastañedaUniversidad de Guada-lajara

Mónica Ortiz GómezDespacho Jurídico Orba

Lic. Néstor Iván Medina Ornelas

Omar Osiris Mata MoralesMMGS & PA Abogados

Omar Sandoval OrtegaInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Oscar Eduardo Arenas HuertaUniversidad Panamericana

Paola Leticia Argote Valencia

Paola Rubio Herrera

Pedro Sandoval de Casas

Priscila Marisol Casillas de la RosaCARDOM IP, S.C.

Mtro. Rafael Ochoa CuétaraOchoa Cuétara y Asociados S.C.

Mtro. Ramiro Abarca UrquizaUniversidad de Guadalajara

Dr. Ramón Gerardo Navejas PadillaUniversidad de Guadalajara

Raul Godoy

Raul Rodríguez Rosales

René Cristóbal Crocker SagastumeUniversidad de Guada-lajara

Ricardo Campirano GutiérrezCABB Consultores

Mtro. Ricardo Navarro Ramos

Lic. Ricardo Tostado PadillaTostado Padilla y Asocia-dos, S.C.

Rodolfo Vazquez Cabello

Rodrigo Cano GuzmánUniversidad de Guadalajara

Rogelio Navarro UreñaVTZ Abogados

Romulo J López Morales

Sandra QuiñonesColectivo Mujeres Puerto Vallarta/ CLADEM Puerto Vallarta

Sergio A. Villa RamosIllanes y Soto

Sergio Daniel Larios RamosLarios & Arroyo Abogados

Sergio Rodolfo Chavez PérezAS Integra

Sofia Esther Jurado GalazJurasof Asesores S.C.

Dra. Stephanie Calvillo BarragánInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente

Tlacael Jiménez BriseñoANADE Jalisco

74

Valeria Díaz LizárragaUniversidad del Valle de Atemajac Anonymous contributors Michoacán

Mtro. Abel Benjamin Torres BarajasAGERE Corporativo Jurídico

Adolfo Alfredo Medina OlivosSociedad Mexicana de Educación S.C.

Lic. Aldo Alejandro Arizmendi ValenzuelaValenzuela Plaza Consul-tores Empresariales S.C.

Dr. Alejandro González CussiCussi Estudio Jurídico

Alma Lizeth Cabezas OrozcoDespacho Jurídico Actio Legis

Carlos Escobedo SuárezUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Mtro. César Andrei Villagómez VillalónUniversidad Vasco de Quiroga

David Torres Villarreal

David Viveros VázquezDigital-Ius

Dr. Edgar Domingo Bravo GarcíaUniversidad Vasco de Quiroga, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Edgar Enrique Morelos SierraMorelos-Ferreira- Sánchez Abogados

Elsa López Pérez

Mtra. Erandy Díaz

Francisco Fabián SánchezFabián Abogados

Mtro. Francisco Jesús Espinoza ToledoFiscalía General del Estado de Michoacán

Francisco Miguel Rojas LópezBufete Rojas López y Asociados S.C.

Mtro. Francisco Sánchez Chanona

Gerardo Guzmán Durán

Gerardo Ponce de León ValdésUniversidad Latina de América

Herrera Chayres Mario Miguel ÁngelUniversidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

Jaime Arroyo Barajas

Janeth Dessire Vidales EsquivelUniversidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

Dr. Jesús Antonio Ruiz MonroyOrientación Jurídica de México

Lic. Jesús Eduardo Sánchez Flores

Jonathan Pastor GómezUniversidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

Jorge Alejandro Molina LázaroUniversidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

José Alfredo Reyes Espinoza

José Alfredo Tapia NavarreteUniversidad Latina de América

José de Jesús Zenil OngayUniversidad Vasco de Quiroga

José García Rodriguez

José Gerardo Herrera BermúdezBelmor Consultores

José Luis Cerano FuentesUniversidad Vasco de Quiroga

José Luis Ortíz Coronado

José Luis Villicaña HernándezUniversidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

José Miguel Gaytan JiménezSICERJ México S.C.

Juan Carlos López MarroquinBufete López y Marroquín

Juan Carlos Zepeda BarragánSociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística

Mtra. Julieta León MingrammL. Mingramm Abogados

Mtro. Lennin Pedro Sánchez OleaComisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos

Leonardo Chávez ChávezCC&L Abogados

Leonardo Raymundo Quevedo Dominguez

Liliana Noemi Tahuado NúñezDespacho Jurídico GTC

Lorena Cortés VillaseñorComunidad Segura A.C.

Lorena FuentesUniversidad Latina de América

Luis Antonio Sámano PitaSámano & Asociados Abogados Morelia/CDMX

Luis Fernando Víctor GarcíaVictor García & Asociados, Business Legal Services

Marco Antonio Salinas Hernández

Lic. María Consuelo Ponce SaavedraInstituto Fray Antonio de Lisboa Nivel Superior

María de los Dolores López CalvilloUniversidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

Maricela Montes GarcíaHospital Infantil de Morelia

Marjorie Cruz MéndezInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Octavio de Jesús Contreras RicoInstituto Valladolid

Oscar Arturo Padilla Sánchez

Rebeca Olivera Romero

Ricardo Martorell CaballeroMartorell Consultoría

Mtra. Roselia Castro Madrigal

Mtro. Salvador López GUniversidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

Sergio Rubén Ramírez Llanderal

Tayde González AriasInstituto Michoacano de Ciencias de la Educación

Mtro. Ulises Nicolás Carmona García

Ury Magid Cortés Sánchez

Anonymous contributors Morelos

Adrián Lisbeth Lucas de JesúsUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Alejandra Valero Jaime

Mtra. Alma Patricia López MierUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Andrés Saavedra AvendañoArtistas Legales

Mtro. Carlos Gibrán Haro ÁlvarezJurídico Especializado Haro S.C.

Lic. Christian Iván Bonola RománBRAC Firma Legal

Cristina R. BonfilObservatorio Ciudadano de Morelos

David Martínez Duncker R.Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Dennia Aline Trejo PereaCohesión Comunitaria e Innovación Social A.C.

Diana Gabriela Pinzón OrtizUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Domingo Guerrero OrtizFundación Siempre por Puente de Ixtla A.C

Lic. Elias Ramírez RománUniversidad Tecnológica Morelos

Felipe Eduardo Jasso Díaz

Fernando Garzón AbreuUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Lic. Francisco Alejandro Piñera SantosSEJUPRO|Morelos Servicios Jurídicos Profesionales

Francisco Javier Pérez DavóDavó Abogados

Irene M. Parada ToroInstituto Nacional de Salud Pública

Javier Carrasco SolisInstituto de Justicia Procesal Penal

Mtra. Jazmin Martínez Benítez


Jesús Santa Olalla TapiaUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Jorge Eduardo Velázquez VásquezConcejo de las Juventudes del Estado de Morelos

José Jesús Mendoza Hernández

Dr. José Santos Ángeles ChimalUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Josue Mesraim Dávila SotoUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Juan Luis García ArellanoMondragón Openlaw Abogados

Juan Netzahualpilli García Delgadillo

Juventino Mendiola SánchezMendiola & Mendiola Hijos, Abogados S.C.

Karla Monika Marín Ramírez

Luz María González RobledoUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Dra. Mactzil Teresa Sánchez GarcíaInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social / Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado

María del Rocío Pliego SánchezJurídico Benitez Pliego y Asociados

Mario Salvador Sánchez DomínguezInstituto Nacional de Salud Pública

Moises Castro PizañaBufete Castro Pizaña S.C.

Omar Humberto Escárcega BastidaColegio de Abogados Católicos de México

Oscar Javier Apáez PinedaUniversidad La Salle

Oscar Villegas RojasMondragón Openlaw Abogados

Pedro Antonio Reyes FlorentinoUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Dra. Sandra Berenice Raya Santoyo

Teresa C. MonzónUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Lic. Uriel David Jaimes JuárezGonzález Plata y Asociados

Victoria Alva LugoUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos

Xóchitl Refugio Romero GuerreroInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Yurik Campos Gavidia

Anonymous contributors

Nayarit

Alfredo Díaz AlejandroUniversidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Dr. Carlos Cervantes AbregoSecretaría de Salud del Estado de Nayarit

Cristián García MirandaHospital San Javier Marina

Debora Espinosa LopezInvest Safely in Mexican Properties

Eduardo Ramírez RoqueServicios Legales COLM S.C.

Emiliano Zapata Sandoval Blasco

Dr. Francisco Javier Rivas SandovalUniversidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Gilberto Miramontes CorreaMB Servicios Legales y de Correduría, S.C.

Mtro. Guillermo Hasseil GómezBuró de Abogados, Becerra Gómez & Socios

Lic. Hugo Alberto Flores Nungaray

Dr. Hugo Armando Palafox RamírezUNIVER

Mtra. Isabel Reyes LuisDefensoría Pública Estatal

Jesica Marlene Cortés EspitiaASISTEC S.C.

Dr. Jorge Delgadillo Rodríguez

José Antonio Serrano MoránComisión de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos para el Estado de Nayarit

Lic. José de Jesús Ibarra GarcíaStrategia Abogados

Mtro. José Guadalupe Plascencia OrtizPlascencia & Abogados

José Ismael Huerta LedesmaClub de Leones Tepic de Nervo

Juan Antonio Maruri JiménezAcademia de Peritos en Ciencias Forenses Consultoría Técnica Legal A.C.

Lic. Manuel Moscoso ZarateUniversidad Veracruzana

Lic. Marcos Alberto González Hernández

María de la Luz Barajas Aguiar

Melina Edith Miramontes BarajasMB Servicios Legales y de Correduría, S.C.

Norman Leyva BenitezAbogados Penalistas de Nayarit.

Ricardo Humberto García IbarraUniversidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Ricardo Jaime LozadaUniversidad Vizcaya de las Américas

Rogelio Alberto Ferenandez ArguellesUniversidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Dr. Salvador Madrigal VillegasUniversidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Dr. Sergio Arnoldo Morán NavarroUniversidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Sergio Hugo Correa Soto

Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit.

Xavier Xunior Esparza GarcíaEsparzza Abogados Anonymous contributors Nuevo León

Mtro. Abelardo González DuqueUniversidad Metropolitana de Monterrey

Abraham Alejandro Becerra PuentesUniversidad Metropolitana de Monterrey, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León y Universidad de Monterrey

Adrián Ricardo Flores LozanoFlores Blanco y Asociados

Alain DuthoyUniversidad de Monterrey

Alejandro Armijo JardinesGloria Ponce de León & Hernández

Alejandro F. Basave AlanísBasave Colosio Sánchez, Abogados

Alonso Cavazos Guajardo SolísUniversidad de Monterrey

Dr. Alonso Cavazos Guajardo SolísUniversidad de Monterrey

Dr. Arturo Azuara FloresUniversidad de Monterrey

Azael Cortés Dueñas

Brenda Elizabeth Valdez QuintanillaDespacho Jurídico Gaytán y Asociados

Dr. Carlos A. Gabuardi, Ph.D.Gabuardi Abogados

Carlos Leal-Isla GarzaLeal Isla & Horváth, S.C.

Carlos Omar García Charvel

César Adrián Arellano MaldonadoCAM Consultoría Jurídica

Clemente Carmen Gaitán VigilUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Cristián Castaño ContrerasCentro de Estudios Estratégicos y de Gobierno

Dr. Daniel Garza de la VegaUniversidad Metropolitana de Monterrey

Dario Adolfo Guerra CarralesAVA Firm

David E. Leal GonzálezLittler

Dra. Diana Rocío Espino TapiaUniversidad Regiomontana

76

Dominga Balderas MarínezUniversidad Metropolitana de Monterrey

Edmundo Antonio Padilla AguilarPadilla y Villarreal, Abogados.

Lic. Eduardo Costilla SotoUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Lic. Enrique A. Elizondo

Enrique FrancoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México y CESCIJUC

Filiberto Raymundo GarcíaAcciona Energía México, S. de R.L. de C.V.

Gabriel FarahInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Génesis Scarlett Moyeda SalazarGloria Ponce de León & Hernández

Georgina Mayela Núñez RochaUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Lic. Gerardo Guzmán PlataConsorcio Empresarial y de Servicios

Gerardo Montes PeñaMontes Abogados

Héctor Hugo Castillo GarzaCastillo Abogados

Hildalila Aguilar YáñezInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Iza María Sánchez SillerInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Jaime A. Treviño GonzálezJATA - J.A. Treviño Abogados

Jaime Fernando Cienfuegos Sordo

Lic. Jaime Ricardo Espinosa CarreónUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Javier E. Núñez GarzaNúñez y Montemayor Abogados Asociados

Javier Navarro VelascoCCINLAC

Javier Pérez-RolónUniversidad de Monterrey

Dr. Javier Sepúlveda PonceUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Jesús A. Alvarado Rivera

Jesús Alberto Rodríguez GonzálezMartínez Arrieta Abogados

Dr. José Roberto Salinas PadillaSalinas Padilla, Román Ávila & Asociados, Firma Legal, S.C.

Juan Carlos Salamanca UrangaSalamanca Consultores Jurídicos

Juan René Vega PérezG&B Firma Jurídica

Juan Ubaldo López SánchezLópez Sánchez Aboga-dos

Karla Samaniego PérezUniversidad Metropolitana de Monterrey

Laura Olazarán HernándezOH Legal

Leopoldo Ángeles GonzálezÁngeles Abogados

Luis Alberto Valencia Puente

Luis Alejandro Casarin LopezAndersen Tax & Legal

Lic. Luis Darío Ángeles GonzálezUrrutia - Ángeles y Aso-ciados, S.C.

Luis Eduardo Zavala de AlbaCasa Monarca. Ayuda Humanitaria Al Migrante, A.B.P.

Luis Gerardo Rodríguez LozanoUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Luis Lankenau

María Antonieta Silva HerreraUniversidad Regiomontana

María de Lourdes Romero OrtizEl Closet Queer, A.C.

Mario Alberto Hernández RamírezUniversidad Metropolitana de Monterrey

Dr. Marlon Omar López ZapataInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Miguel Ángel Ferriz MartínezFacultad Libre de Derecho de Monterrey

Miguel Ángel Valdés AlvaradoValdés Alvarado Firma Jurídica

Dr. Milton Carlos Guevara ValtierUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Nayeli P. JonguitudUniversidad del Valle de México

Pedro César Cantú MartínezUniversidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Raúl Fernando Iglesias MejíaCarrier México

Raul Morales de AlbaUniversidad Metropoli-tana de Monterrey

Rogelio Alanis RoblesLittler México

Rolando Ríos

Samuel Hiram Ramírez MejíaUniversidad de Monterrey

Sergio García GarzaFirma Jurídica y Fiscal, S.C.

Tania Erandi Ruiz Vera

Victor M DíazJATA Anonymous contributors Oaxaca

Adan Hernández Carballo

Alberto López SotoUniversidad Regional del Sureste, A.C.

Dr. Alejandro Pérez LópezUniversidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca

Álvaro López PérezALH & Asociados Corporativo Jurídico

Andrea Ortiz Herrera

Arilda Velázquez DíazInstituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado

Carlos C. Cervantes GarcíaInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Carlos Salomon Velasquez ChagoyaNotaría Publica 104 del Estado de Oaxaca

Carlos Tomás Velasco López

Dr. Daniel Onitzuj Baltazar BarqueraInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Mtro. Edgar Alejandro García MartínezAgencia de Investigación Criminal

Elizabeth García RodríguezAcademia de Derecho Fiscal, Capítulo Oaxaca

Elsa Guadalupe Ramírez MartínezPraxis Universitaria A.C.

Mtro. Erick Habacuc Vásquez HernándezDe Abogados Asesoría Jurídica Integral S.C.

Felix Octavio Moreno Abrego

Fernando Cid Rodríguez

Mtro. Fernando Vidal Candelaria Santiago

Gerardo Francisco López GarcíaBufete Jurídico López Thomas

Homero Pérez Aquino

Irais Rivera MarquezRivera y Asociados

Lic. Iván Martínez EnríquezJurídico Martínez Enríquez y Socios

Dr. Javier Ochoa CanalesServicios de Salud de Oaxaca / Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca

Jorge Eduardo Franco JiménezJurídico Corporativo Franco S. C.

Dr. Jorge Enrique Caballero HernándezAsociación de Medicina Integrada del Adulto (AMIDA Oaxaca A.C.)

José Luis Nazario PérezUniversidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca

Mtro. José Mathus CruzFiscalía General del Estado de Oaxaca

Marco Antonio Porras Alderete

Martín Aragón Martínez


Lic. Ninjosé Manuel Flores Perea

Omar Calvo AguilarServicios de Salud de Oaxaca

Oscar Jiovani López LópezOscar Jiovani y Abogados

Pablo David Crespo de la Concha

Dra. Paola María SesiaCentro de Investigación y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social

Samantha Salazar DiegoDespacho Moreno & Diego

Mtro. Simitrio Ruiz MartínezUniversidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca Anonymous contributors Puebla

Alejandro Moreno

Alejandro Pérez MarínFiscalía General de la República

Alexandro Sin StamatiadesSobrado Juárez & Stamatiades

Alfredo RojasUniversidad Abierta y a Distancia de México

Alfredo Jiménez ReyesInstituto de Estudios Universitarios

Andrea Paz SotoGEPAMUZ Asesores y Consultores S.C.

Andrea Priede IglesiasPriede y Asociados S.C.

Ángel Huesca Bazán

Lic. Ángel Iran Muñoz MelendezCIPSA Industrias S.A. de C.V.

Ángel LezamaAL Real State México

Ángel Orlando Flores Alvarado

Ángel Ovidio Díaz Flores

Armando Sánchez Vivar

Lic. Arnulfo Jacob Carballido Pacheco.Bufete Jurídico "Glaciar Center"

Arrón Zarain Rodríguez

Azalia Pintado GonzálezUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana

Dra. Beatriz García SolanoBenemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla

Carlos A. Julián y NacerUniversidad de las Américas Puebla

Carlos F. Robredo MartínezJusticia Ciudadana Puebla

Carmen María Pérez JattarÍndice 3.0 S.C.

Carmina Parada AguilarConsultoría y Capac-itación para la Paz, A.C./ Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Cristina Jiménez AzcatlColegio de Abogados del Estado de México Lex Iure S.C.

Cynthia Solano TorresInstituto Universitario Centro Oeste de Puebla

Dainzú López de Lara E.Universidad de las Américas Puebla

Daniel Armando Limon CondadoFundación Adelphos Las Manos que Mueven al Mundo A.C.

Daniela Niccoll Becerra Valdovinos

David García CabreraInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Diana Krystal Acevedo RamírezDefensoría Pública Puebla

Diana Patricia Vázquez Mendoza

Domingo Bautista Ruiz

Mtro. Eduardo Arturo Ponce MartínezBufete Jurídico Ponce Martínez Abogados, Firma Legal

Mtro. Enrique Hernández HuertaInstituto de Ciencias Jurídicas de Puebla

Esteban Pérez OsorioBenemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla

Esteban SantamaríaCentro de Análisis para la Investigación en Innovación, A.C.

Estefanía Díaz GonzálezRivadeneyra, Treviño y de Campo, S.C.

Estefanía Valeria Moreno FloresRivadeneyra, Treviño y de Campo, S.C.

Dr. Fausto Fernández RuizUniversidad de las Américas Puebla

Felipe Tlatoa Ponce

Fernando Carreño MoralesAudi México

Fernando Enrique Rivadeneyra Núñez

Fernando Juárez HernándezSJ&S Abogados, S.C.

Mtro. Fidencio Francisco Morales y RiveraColegio del Centro Oriente, CIENMEX. S. C.

Francisco Everardo Díaz Ballesteros

Francisco Xavier Elíza-ga GutiérrezDeforest García Heres S.C.

Gabriel Larragoiti

Gabriela Hernández IslasCIJUREP

Gabriela Moreno Valle BautistaUniversidad Iberoamericana Puebla

Gerardo Moroni Martínez BortolottiRivadeneyra, Treviño y de Campo

Mtra. Gina Sánchez FloresServicios de Salud del Estado de Puebla

Inés Laura López Martínez

Ingrid Gabriela Franco RamírezGeneva Center for Security Policy

Dr. J. Álvaro López LoredoHospital Ángeles Puebla

Mtro. Jaime Esteban Castillo Villar OrtegaCastillo Villar & Asociados

Jaime Manuel Justo JaneiroBenemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla

Jessica CastilloOrtiz Linares Abogados

Jessica Paola Ortiz MartínezDeforest Abogados

Jesús Ernesto Carrasco JuárezJurídico Carrasco

Jesús González SampedroRivadeneyra, Treviño y De Campo, S.C.

Jesús Rojas Lezama

José Alberto Teutli JorgeAudi México

Dr. José Alfredo Muñoz Carreto(CMP & Asc.) Carreto, Muñoz, Pichardo & Asc. Abogados

José Luis Pérez GuzmánInstituto de Ciencias Jurídicas de Puebla

Dr. Juan Manuel Aguilar de la PeñaColegio de Profesionales en Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo, A.C.

Julia Carolina Álvarez Escalona

Juliana Vivar VaraInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Julio H. de Teresa F.

Justino Cerezo Honorato

Kevin Toquero RamírezRivadeneyra, Treviño y de Campo, S.C.

Kira Ciofalo LagosUniversidad de las Américas Puebla

Liliana López Cruz

Luis Antonio Sánchez HernándezIlustre Colegio de Abogados de Atlixco A.C.

Luis Castañeda S.Deforest Abogados

Luz Aurora Sánchez ZamoraInstituto de Estudios Universitarios

Mtra. María de las Mercedes Nuri Reyes VázquezUniversidad de las Américas Puebla

Mtra. María de Lourdes González RomeroUniversidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla

78

María del Rosario Arrambide GonzálezInstituto de Derechos Humanos Ignacio Ella-curía S.J., Ibero Puebla

María Elena Menéndez IbáñezInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

María Elena Villar SalcedoUniversidad Iberoamericana Puebla

María Fernanda Mendoza NavarroSecretaría de Salud

Maribel Flores SánchezInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Mauricio Baez Gonzaga

Mauricio Loranca Huidobro

Dra. Miluska Orbegoso SilvaUniversidad de las Américas Puebla

Nelly Huerta Fernández

Noel Herrera

Norma PimentelBarra Mexicana Colegio de Abogados A.C.

Pablo Carvajal RamosEstrategia Nueve S.C.

Pamela Susana Velázquez ZambranoInstituto de Justicia Procesal, A.C. y Círculo Feminista de Análisis Jurídico

Raúl Domínguez Cajica

Roberto Contreras CastilloRoberto Contreras Abogados

Rosa Elia Robles MedinaBenemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla

Rosa Karina Xochimitl Vital

Mtro. Ruben Blanca DíazRed de Abogados Puebla

Lic. Salvador Contreras Valencia

Sandra Sophia Perea Vargas

Tomás Rojas RomeroBenemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla

Lic. Viviana Castillo Luna

Vivien Vazquez

Anonymous contributors Querétaro

Abraham Amador GonzálezRepresentación Jurídica Amador y Asociados

Adrian E. Dimas Bedolla

Alina del Carmen Nettel BarreraUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Álvaro Morales AvilesUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Ana Patricia Pérez ResendizZ & C Abogados Corporativos, S.C.

Ángel Isaí Hernández EnríquezVillar & Villar Abogados

Antonio Campero ZamudioCC&N Abogados

Lic. Antonio Juan José Gutiérrez ÁlvarezCorreduría Pública Número Seis del Estado de Querétaro

Bernardo García CaminoUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Carlos Enciso Alvarado

Carlos Ricardo Velázquez de LeónVelázquez de León Servicios Jurídicos

César Rosendo Soto VázquezSoto & Asociados Abogados

Christofer Aarón Hernández CovarrubiasUniversidad de Sonora

Danahe P. Castañeda FloresInstituto de la Defensoría Penal Pública

Dr. Daniel Orozco GalvanColegio de Abogados Penalistas del Estado de Querétaro

Dante Romero TurrubiatesBasham, Ringe y Correa, S.C.

Diego Miranda MartínezUniversidad Anáhuac

Eduardo David Meu-nier

Eduardo Figueroa FloresFiscalía General de la República

Emilio Paulín LarracoecheaUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Erick GonzálezBufete González Góngora Garcés García

Erick Gustavo Soto CeballosBasham, Ringe y Correa, S.C.

Esteban Paulin PosadaHospital San José de Querétaro. S.A. de C.V.

Mto. Filiberto López DíazLópez Díaz & Asociados

Francisco Javier Balderas RodríguezVillar & Villar Abogados

Gabriela Torres Delgado

Dr. Gerardo Servín AguillónUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Dra. Hilda Romero ZepedaUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Hugo Alejandro Gerones Reyes

Javier Canseco Malloy

Javier Oviedo PuigUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Jesús García HernándezUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Jonathan Mondragon OrozcoCentro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI

Jorge CortésCortés y Cortés Asesores Jurídicos y Administrativos

José Alfonso Rodríguez SánchezBarra Queretana Colegio de Abogados A.C.

José Luis Espinosa PiñaComisión Mexicana de Derechos Humanos

Juan Carlos Alcivia GarcíaHospital Ángeles

Juan Carlos Martínez MeyColegio de Abogados Penalistas del Estado de Querétaro y VMGE Abogados

Juan Carlos VillarVillar & Villar Abogados

Juan Manuel Fraga SastríasHealth Business Intelli-gence SA de CV

Lic. Karina Herrera ChávezUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

L.I. Francisco Javier Arteaga RodríguezFiscalía General del Estado de Querétaro

Luis Antonio Dimas NavaUniversidad Humanitas

Luis Felipe Buenrostro DíazBuenrostro Abogados

Ma. Consuelo Rosillo GarfiasUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

Magali Ugalde DucoingUniversidad de las Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales

Lic. Manuel Saldaña Díaz de LeónEC Legal Rubio Villegas

Dr. Marco Antonio Juárez BritoHospital H+ Querétaro

Margarita Cruz TorresUniversidad Autónoma de Querétaro

María de la Llata SimrothAlba & De la Llata

María Leticia MonteroVillar & Villar Abogados

Mtro. Melchor Martínez CollantesEscuela de Derecho CESBA Querétaro

Mtra. Mónica Andrea Hernández MartínezHM Abogados

Paulina Alba BetancourtAlba & De la Llata

Pedro Carrasco GutiérrezEstrategia Legal Oportuna

Ricardo Martínez HernándezAboga2 | Despacho Jurídico

Roberto Gerardo López JiménezR G Estudio Legal

Victor J Hinojosa MGabinete Corporativo Anonymous contributors Quintana Roo

Adán Israel Álvarez del Castillo FuentesInstituto Universitario Puebla


Alejandra Castañón CoronadoAS&D Abogados, Playa del Carmen

Alejandro E. Nabor Valero

Alfredo Pool MartínezAbogados Cancún

Ariel Ramón Medina AlonsoUniversidad de Quintana Roo

Lic. Brenda Ramírez GoveaBrenda Ramírez & Asociados

Brenda Yazmín García EsquilianoUniversidad de Quintana Roo

Bruno Dominguez ManziDG&H Abogados

Carlos Rubén Ojeda CerónUniversidad Intercultural Maya de Quintana Roo

Daniela Ahedo Rivera"Riverant", Real Estate & Law.

Denise Yuraí Lechuga G.Universidad Anáhuac México Norte

Eduardo Velázquez

Lic. Eric Miravete GranjaFundación Genny Granja I.A.P.

Erick Mis MondragónPapaya Playa Project

Lic. Fermín Monje Montiel

Francisco Aguirre MárquezMD+Playa, "Tu Médico en Playa del Carmen"

Francisco Israel Colun-ga BecerrilColunga Abogados Laborales

Gerardo GonzálezMexlaw

Irma Archundia RiverosInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Jorge A. Clemente PérezEscuela Superior de Leyes

Lic. Jorge Alberto Carrillo Baeza

Lic. José Guillermo González Lomelí

Lic. José Luis Leal Suárez

José Luis Pineda

José PugaArîk Lex

Juan Carlos Pech RiveroEmpresa Boutique Jurídica

Karla Josefina Duarte CamachoUniversidad Autónoma de Yucatán/ Universidad del Ejército y Fuerza Aérea

Katia Noemí Carrillo MartínezDespacho Jurídico Carrillo Martínez, S.C.

Leopoldo Cruz NavarroBarra de Abogados de la Riviera Maya A. C.

Lilia Morales R.LMR & Asociados

Mtra. Lorena del Carmen Gómez PalmaJustizia3 Abogados

Lorena Tecotl GutiérrezUniversidad La Salle Cancún

Luis E. Hernández GHG Consultores

Ma. Eugenia Noriega CerveraNotaría Pública 66 Quintana Roo

Marcos Gutiérrez MartínezMG Corporativo Financiero y Legal

María Selene Sánchez UluacUniversidad Intercultural Maya de Quintana Roo

Dra. María Valeria Jiménez Baez

Martha Fabiola Lara Lara

Mtro. Marx Rodríguez Montalvo

Lic. Mauricio Chávez VelascoChávez Velasco | Abo-gados

Mtro. Omar I Baqueiro AIntegrum Asuntos Jurídicos

Lic. Raúl Alejandro Heredia AlbaHeredia & Sánchez Abogados

Lic. Roberto Fernández CastilaNotaría 52, Quintana Roo

Mtra. Rosaura del Carmen Loria FrancoEspinosa & Tzuc Abo-gados

Dr. Victor Manuelrivera Mellado FacsColegio Médico de Quintana Roo

Yunitzilim Rodríguez PedrazaUniversidad de Quintana Roo Anonymous contributors San Luis Potosí Abigail Rodríguez Alonso

Adriana José Orta C.AO Bufete Legal

Antonio Agripino Zúñiga VerásteguiCorporativo Jurídico Zuva & Asociados

Lic. Antonio Echavarria GómezUniversidad Intercultural de San Luis Potosí

Dr. Baltazar Reyna ReynosoUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí

Benjamín Rodríguez CoronadoDirectorio Jurídico del Potosí, S.C.

Mtro. Cristian Emmanuel Ruiz ContrerasVazal Corporativo Jurídico

Dr. Daniel de la Rosa MosquedaInstituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado

Daniel Jacobo MarínUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí

Daniela Varela Urbina

David Samuel Mejía CruzGarcía González y Barradas

E. Manuel Flores Salazar

Francisco Costilla Guzmán

Francisco Javier Gutiérrez Robles

Francisco Salazar SoniUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí

Gabriel de Jesús Alejo GalarzaPreventivaMente

Gerardo Vaqueiro DuránWDM Abogados

Lic. Guillermo Murillo

Héctor Omar Turrubiates FloresUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí

Lic. Hugo Sosapavón NavaHugo Sosapavón y Cia, S.C.

Jaime Arturo Gutiérrez BarriosDefensoría Pública Penal del Estado

Javier Avila Calvillo

Jorge Alberto Pérez ViletWDM Abogados

Jorge Alejandro González MitreJuventud en Libertad A.C.

Lic. José Adrián Juárez Morín

Dr. José Alfonso Castillo CabralUniversidad José Vasconcelos

José Alfredo Solís RamírezS&C Consultoría Jurídica

José Antonio Aguilar ReyesBufete De la Garza, S. C.

José de Jesús Pérez MartínezEducación y Ciudadanía, A.C.

Mtro. José Margarito Montante GarcíaCorporativo Jurídico Montante

Mtro. José Salvador Moreno ArellanoDefensa Legal

Josué Saúl Silos Rodríguez

Juan Miguel Juárez LópezBufete Ferrer Abogados, S.C.

Mtro. Juan Pedro Campos FragosoUniversidad Interamericana para el Desarrollo

Luis Cuéllar

Luis González Lozano

Luis R. Sierra

Lic. Mauricio Martínez Lozano

Mtro. Miguel Ángel Valenzuela SaldíasUniversidad San Pablo

80

Patricia Elizabeth Cossío TorresUniversidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí

Rahim Alfaro ValenciaAlfaro & Valencia Abogados

Ricardo H. Preciado JiménezAnimos Novandi A.C.

Salvador Avila LamasInstituto de Capacitación Jurídica Integral de San Luis, S.C.

Víctor Hugo Liceaga RojasAsociación de Fe y Esperanza para Víctimas del Delito Christian A.C. Anonymous contributors Sinaloa

Alan Alfonso Pérez RamosMovimiento Interdisciplinario de Estudiante y Egresados de la Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

Ana Luz RuelasUniversidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

Arnulfo Sánchez Valenzuela

Bonifacio Carrera Hernández

Carlos Jesús Patiño CabanillasCarlos Patiño Abogado

Daniel Partida FernándezDPF & Asociados

Fernando Almada Felix

Francisco Ricardo Ramírez LugoUniversidad Autónoma Intercultural de Sinaloa

Gustavo Bernal

Lic. Humberto González LazcanoSalud Digna Asociación Civil

Ilse A. Mendoza LópezEscuela Libre de Derecho de Sinaloa

Lic. Iris Lydia Ibarra RamírezValorando Mi Vida A.C.

Jazmín González Millán

Jesús Manuel López MarroquinLLM Abogados Corporativos

Dr. José Ángel Gil PinedaServicios de Salud de Sinaloa

José Antonio Quibrera MatienzoHospital Pediátrico de Sinaloa

José Jorge Salazar Rubio

José Ramón Bohon SosaEscuela Libre de Derecho de Sinaloa

Lic. Juan Alfonso Cazarez BenitezUniversidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

Lic. Juan Carlos Bautista F.BF Abogados

LD y CPC Yedid Zazueta VegaLópez & Zazueta Contadores Públicos S.C.

León Jesús Álvarez PimentelAbogados Urbanistas

Luis Fernando Ortiz Bishop

Luis René Arce GüereñaArce y Larrondo Abogados, S.C.

Lic. Marco Alejandro Valdez GilUniversidad Autónoma Intercultural de Sinaloa y Universidad Autónoma de Occidente

Dra. María Guadalupe Ramírez ZepedaUniversidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

Mario Alberto López OsunaCoppel SA de CV

Moises NoriegaEscuela Libre de Derecho de Sinaloa

Óscar Chávez CarrilloLEXDUE Asesores

Óscar Fidel González MendívilHorma, Sistemas Legales

Sara García ZamudioUniversidad Autónoma de Occidente

Taid del Rosario Leal LlanesUniversidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

Vianey Yunivia Soto LeyvaUniversidad Autónoma de Sinaloa Anonymous contributors Sonora

Adria Velia González BeltronesUniversidad de Sonora

Agustín Enrique Torres OrtizInstituto Federal de la Defensoría Pública

Lic. Alberto Bringas Cañez

Alberto Robles MendozaActio Lex

Alejandro Ríos Ochoa

Lic. Álvaro Wenceslao Corral Mariscal

Lic. Ana Otilia Avila

Ángel I. Carretas Chávez

Aníbal Gustavo Vásquez CoronadoBarra Sonorense de Abogados A. C. (Colegio)

Lic. Antonio Romero PeñuñuriRomero Peñuñuri & A sociados, Asesoría Legal Empresarial S. C.

Lic. Arturo Jiménez Ozuna

Carlos Eduardo Gorozpe ValdezGorozpe & Robles, Asesoría legal y avalúos

César Enrique Lendo Pérez

Lic. Cristian Elias Rodríguez Valdez

Cruz Rafael Carrillo OlivasAyon Abogados

Lic. Cynthia Denisse Arco Amarillo LohrCentro de Análisis y Defensa de Derechos, A.C.

Dr. Danilo M. González Román

Dante Alberto Barrza ArvizuCentro Internacional de Formación e Investigación Jurídica

Darbé López MendívilD&L Abogados S.C.

David Zubía BrownZubia Maytorena Abogados, S.C.

Efraín Martínez FigueroaEMF Consultoría Política

Eliphelet Pérez DuronCentro Internacional de Formación e Investigación Jurídica

Enrique ChaviraINACIPE

Francisco Castro Berreyez

Mtro. Francisco Javier Martín del Campo de la Colina

Gilberto Ayón ReyesAyón Abogados

Gilberto León LeónUniversidad de Sonora

Gildardo Tánori GuerreroUniversidad de Sonora/ Universidad La Salle Noroeste

Lic. Gregorio Ramírez Cerecer

Guillerm López CervantesEscuela de Medicina UNISON

Gustavo Adolfo de Unanue AguirreNotaría Pública 83

Héctor Madrid CastroUniversidad de Sonora

Hiram MartínezMartínez y Asociados

Javier Alfonso Pérez ChávezPCHTER Abogados S.C.

Lic. Javier Mejía MercadoMejía y Asociados, Asesoría Jurídica Integral

Lic. Jesús Acuña Romero

Jesús Francisco Trinidad RodríguezCorporativo Jurídico Trinidad

Jorge Luis Solís JaimeInstituto Federal de Defensoría Pública

Lic. José Alberto Guerrero LunaGC Corporativo

Mtro. José Arturo Camacho ManzoCamacho y Asociados Corporativo Jurídico

José Carlos Pérez Medina

Mtro. Jovan Leonardo Mariscal Vega

Juan Antonio Terrazas JuárezPCHTER Abogados

Juan González Flores

Juan José Duarte BravoD&L Abogados S.C.

Juan José Guzmán

C.P. Juan José Reyes CervantesReyes y Asociados


Juan Pedro MaytorenaUniversidad de Sonora

Leslie Castro InzunzaDefensoría Pública Federal

Liliana Bernal ZamoraRegino Abogados

Luis Daniel Avila GámezServicios de Salud de Sonora

Dr. Luis Enrique Mercado RodríguezUniversidad de Sonora

Marco Antonio Andrade Aguirre

Marco Antonio Velderrain RodríguezUniversidad de Sonora

María Antonieta Castellanos VázquezUniversidad de Sonora

María del Rosario Molina GonzálezUniversidad de Sonora

Lic. Mario Octavio Monroy López

Lic. Miguel Centeno Silva

Naitze Daniela González RamírezInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Pablo Martínez Burrola

Paola María Romero GamezPaullada, Guevara Asociados

Profesionista independienteJuan Pablo Acosta Gutiérrez

Rafael Ramírez VillaescusaUniversidad de Sonora

Ramón Urquijo G.

Rene Alejandro León FelixUniversidad de Sonora; Centro Universitario de Sonora

Reyna Elizabeth García MoragaUniversidad de Sonora

Ricardo Karim Sabag JiménezR.K. Sabag Asesoria Legal

Lic. Roberto Ariel Campoy Chayrez

Roxana Corral TorresConsultoría Jurídica Corral Celaya S.C.

Salus Javier Elenes SilvaUniversidad La Salle Noroeste

Psic. Dr. Sergio Oliver BurruelUniversidad de Sonora

Urbano Valenzuela VegaConfederación de Colegios y Asociaciones de Abogados de México. A.C.

Verónica Leticia Rodríguez Checa

Victor Corral Torres

Víctor S. PeñaCentro de Estudios en Gobierno y Asuntos Públicos de el Colegio de Sonora

Virginia Hinojosa Valencia

Anonymous contributors Tabasco

Lic. Adriana Arias Cruz

Alejandra Frías JiménezUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Ángel Sebastián Rodríguez ToscaUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Carlos S. Cadenas de la CruzDespacho Jurídico AJF

César Antonio Irecta NájeraEl Colegio de la Frontera Sur

Cindy Fabiola Nicoli PérezPriego Brito

Dra. Concepción López RamónInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Daniel de la Cruz CruzBufete Jurídico De la Cruz y Asociados

Diana Citlali Sánchez SeguraAMYCC Abogados

Eder Alberto Pérez Cupil

Eduardo Luciano PérezCBG Asesores

Eliseo Gordillo ÁlvarezGordillo Abogados

Elvira Alejandra Ricárdez López

Dr. Enrique Pons FrancoRomero & Pons Abogados

Dr. Eufrates Hernández NuñezHospital Regional Dr. Gustavo A Rovirosa Pérez

Fabián Pérez GonzálezCBG Asesores

Fernando Olan

Francisco Javier Pérez JiménezSecretaría de Seguridad y Protección Ciudadana

Lic. Gary González Asmitia

Lic. Gonzalo Alberto Montiel EslavaConsultorio Jurídico Montiel

Héctor Lastra ReyesLastra & Marcos Abogados

Isabel Cristina Flores Osorio

Ivonne Adriana Gaytan BertruyUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Jesús Antonio Ramos FerrerUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Jesús Cuevas ÁvalosFiscalía Especializada en Combate a la Corrupción

Jesús Jiménez JiménezCultura Jurídica de Tabasco A. C.

Joel Ernesto Cárdenas BarreraTGL Asesores S.C.

Jorge Arzubide Dagdug

Jorge Córdova Ortiz

Jorge Montaudon Blancarte

José Antonio Morales NotarioUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

José Manuel Salvador HernándezSalvador & Asociados-Despacho de Abogados

José Refugio Rosiles SánchezUniversidad Interameri-cana para el Desarrollo

Larissa Gisela Gutiérrez GóngoraUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Dra. Liliann Brown HerreraUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Dr. Lucio Heriberto Sosa CerdaCentro Mexicano de Estudios de lo Penal Tributario

Luis Alberto González Matías

Lupita OcampoServicios Jurídicos Romero Morales

Manuel Alejandro Zurita de la CruzUniversidad Olmeca A.C.

Mtra. María Elena López VazquezAcademia Mexicana del Derecho del Trabajo y la Previsión Social

María Rebeca Magdaleno Silván

Mtra. María Teresa Chablé de la CruzFiscalía General del Estado de Tabasco

Martha Beatriz Carmona NuñezSecretaría de Salud de Tabasco

Mary Isabel Rodríguez de la CruzUniversidad Vasconcelos de Tabasco

Miguel Alberto Romero PérezUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Narda Beatriz Bernal SánchezServicios Profesionales de Capacitación

Lic. Raúl A. Huerta Rodríguez

Dra. Rita Manuela López CruzISSET

M. en C.H. RoblesSS Tabasco

Mtro. Roger de la Cruz GarcíaBufete de Asesores Corporativos S.C.

Dr. Rolando Castillo SantiagoUniversidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco

Themis Carrillo GallegosUniversidad Interamericana para el Desarrollo

Tixiana Laura Toledo PeralDespacho Romero, Pons y Abogados

Víctor Manuel Barrera HernándezCBG Asesores - Colegio de Juristas Especial-izados en Derechos Humanos A. C.

82

Anonymous contributors Tamaulipas

Abraham López CastellanoUniversidad Mexicoamericana del Norte A.C.

Adalberto Guevara MontemayorGuevara Montemayor Abogados

Alex Guillermo Rios SantiagoInstituto de Cultura y Ciencias del Atlántico A.C.

Mtra. Alma R. Sánchez RodríguezSecretaría de Salud de Tamaulipas

Anselmo Hernández CavazosUniversidad del Atlántico

Antonio Aldaz RabagoBarra de Abogados de Rio Bravo

Armando Villanueva Mendoza

Artemio Figueroa LuvianoF&V Abogados

Arturo Bazaldúa GuardiolaInstituto de Estudios Superiores de Tamaulipas-Anáhuac

Carlos Alberto Carreón GutiérrezUniversidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

César Hiram Mascorro GarcíaNotaría Pública 312

Clarissa Vásquez Rodríguez

Edy Izaguirre TreviñoUniversidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

Enrique de Leija Basoria

Eustacio Reyes Hernández

Lic. Fernando del Ángel EnriquezDel Ángel Chavez Abogados

Guillermo Arturo Arredondo Gómez

Iván Karim Rocha Picazo

Lic. Javier Humberto Torres HernándezInstituto Ateneo de Ciencias Jurídicas, Politicas y Administrativas

Javier Pérez de Ayala GarcíaCoppel SA de CV

Jesús Alvarado MartínezInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social/SSA

José Aarón Whijares LunaAsesoría Legal Abogados

Lic. José Abraham Sánchez ContrerasASLAW Firm

José Francisco Rivera RodríguezFrancisco Rivera, Consultoría Jurídica y Administración Pública

José Ives Soberón MejíaSM Consultores

José Luis Ybarra SagarduyUniversidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

Mtro. José Manuel Gómez PorchiniCalmécac Asesores Profesionales, S.C.

Lic. Juan Carlos Capistrán RuedaCorporativo Jurídico Capistrán

Juan Carlos Chio UrbinaOutsorcing Legal Services

Juan Jorge Olvera Reyes

Dr. Julio César González MariñoUniversidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

Laura García SaenzSecretaría de Salud de Tamaulipas

Mtro. Luis Heraclio Mar López

María de Jesús Martínez EscobarSecretaría de Salud de Tamaulipas

Maribel Leticia García BarrientosC. E. P.

Marissa Tovar VelázquezFundación Instruyendo a México, A.C.

Marlon Alejandro Lerma CharlesLerma, Ramírez, Rocha S.C.

Lic. Noe Guerrero MaldonadoGuerrero Defensores Fiscalistas y Asociados

Patricia Rivera VazquezUniversidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

Paulo Roberto Espitia BautistaEspitia & Espitia - Con-sultores Legales

Rubí A. Pérez PonceUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Susli Karina Argüelles Reyna

Dra. Verónica Mireya Moreno RodríguezEl Colegio de Tamaulipas Anonymous contributors Tlaxcala

Austreberto Sánchez GlzSecretaría de Salud de Tlaxcala

Cristian Atonal Lara

Edgar Salazar MacíasSalazar y Asociados, Abogados

Edith Emilse Ballinas Santeliz

Fernan Carro CanoInstituto Mexicano de Regularización

Geovanny PérezCentro de Estudios y Desarrollo Humanista de Tlaxcala A.C.

Lic. Hugo Gaspar García DomínguezPlaneación Jurídica y Patrimonial H&G S.C.

Lic. Jorge Luis Ojeda MorenoSIJAD México S. A. de C. V.

Lic. José Antonio Pozos Tolentino

José Cruz Omar Zacatelco SánchezColegio Mexicano de Psicología Jurídica y Ciencias Sociales A. C.

José Luis Cruz Flores

María del Rosario Texis ZúñigaEquidad de Género, Ciudadanía, Trabajo y Familia

Mtro. Manuel Ipatzi RojasDespacho Jurídico Ipatzi y Asociados

Mtro. Marcelino Flores RojasMIGMAR Asesoría Integral

Mtro. Miguel Ángel Flores PlumaMigmar Asesoría Integral

Mireya Mendieta SaldañaDefensoría Publica del Estado de Tlaxcala

Dr. Nohe Aguilar Reynoso

Norma Alicia Suárez Castro

Onelia Heredia HernándezInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Lic. Rene Adalid Reyes QuinteroPlaneación Jurídica y Empresarial A.C.

René Elizalde SalazarUniversidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala

Rocío Ramos RodríguezUniversidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala

Verónica Pérez OlivoSecretaría de Salud de Tlaxcala

Yulian Valdepeña CoronaUniversidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala Anonymous contributors Veracruz

Mtro. Abraham Azuara ZapataUniversidad Anáhuac Xalapa / Consulta y Asesoría Legal y de Gobierno AZ

Aldo Francisco López Velázquez

Alejandro Melendez Montes de OcaColegio Nacional de Abogados Penalistas

Araceli González AponteDespacho Jurídico Laboral

Blanca S. Bello FloresCorporativo Constructor Independencia, S.A. de C.V.

Carlos Ruz SaldívarUniversidad Veracruzana

Cipáctli Colín CanoUniversidad del Valle de México

Lic. Dalia Selene Landa Santibañez

Lic. Daniel Meléndez HernándezMeléndez y Asociados

Dra. Dulce Ma. Cinta LoaizaUniversidad Veracruzana


Edit Rodríguez RomeroUniversidad Veracruzana

Edith Castellanos ContrerasUniversidad Veracruzana

Fernando Aguilera de HombreAguilera de Hombre, Protección Jurídica

Fernando Guízar Pérez de LeónGPL Asesores

Dr. Francisco Enrique Varela Ramírez

Gaudencio Gutiérrez AlbaUniversidad Veracruzana

Gloria López MoraColegio de Enfermeras (os) del Estado de Veracruz

Mtro. Hugo Ponce Figueroa

Ignacio Castillo SánchezUniversidad Popular Autónoma de Veracruz

Mtro. Jorge Arcenio H. Cerón

Lic. Jorge Madariaga Granados

José Alberto Muños HernándezUniversidad Veracruzana

Lic. José Alfredo Lucach DomínguezFiscalía General del Estado de Vera-cruz-Llave

José Antonio Pita Gómez

Lic. José Luis García BravoUniversidad Jean Piaget

Dr. José Roberto Name AcostaJ. R. Name & Asociados, S. C. Abogados

Dr. Juan Carlos Colorado HigueraUniversidad Veracru-zana

Juan M. Herrera

Juan Manuel Vicente Morales

Juan Pablo Luna LealComisión para la Defensa de Los Derechos Humanos del Distrito de Los Tuxtlas, A.C.

Lic. Julietina Rivera SotoIusforensis Abogados y Peritos con Proyección Social

Luz del Carmen Zamora RodríguezCorporativo Jurídico Colorado

Marco A. Adalid R.Castañeda, Sánchez & Adalid, Abogados

Marco Arturo Rodríguez NolascoCorporativo Caza S.C.

Marcos Eduardo Sánchez OrdazAGL Firma Legal

María de Jesús Contreras MirandaUniversidad Veracru-zana

Marisol Luna LealUniversidad Veracru-zana

Miguel Ángel Barradas CeronUniversidad Veracru-zana

Nalleli Vazquez Negrete

Proseso Ramírez García

Lic. Ramón Sosa de la CruzSosa, Ceja & Padilla Firma de Abogados

Rodrigo Hernández BarragánBufete Hernández Barragán

Rosa Hilda Rojas PérezUniversidad Veracruzana

Rosa Icela Cruz CamareroUniversidad Veracruzana

Ruy Rodríguez Gabarrón HernándezUniversidad Anáhuac Xalapa

Sandra Verónica Bonilla García

Sealtiel Armenta ArellanoInstituto de Ciencias de la Salud de la Universi-dad Veracruzana

Shunashi Jazmin Altamirano PinedaCorreduría Pública 16 del Estado de Veracruz y Colegio de Corredores Públicos del Estado de Veracruz, A.C. Anonymous contributors Yucatán

Dra. Adriana de León Carmona

Mtra. Aglaé Navih Sujey Guadalupe Corona SotoUniversidad Autónoma de Yucatán

Alberto Ramírez Jiménez

Alejandro Javier Quezada RamírezJavier Quezada y Abogados

Alexis Martha CepedaEasy Access Yucatán, LLC

Dr. Alfredo Canto SolisCentro de Especialidades Médicas

Cassandra OrtizDespacho Ortiz & Asociados

Daniel Camal CauichCamal Abogados

Lic. Diego Adan Chan VianaZion Abogados y Consultores S.C.

Eduardo J. de J. Alvizo PereraCentro Municipal de Atención Nutricional y de Diabetes

Dr. Egil Emilio Ramírez BegeranoAcademia Mexicana de Derecho

Emmanuel Raya Amaya

Ernesto C. Sánchez R.Servicios de Salud de Yucatán

Mtra. Etelvina Inés Castillo CuevasNotaría Pública #07 del Estado de Yucatán y Centro de Estudios Superiores CTM Justo Sierra O.

Dr. Filadelfo Gordillo Zepeda

Dr. Héctor Joaquín Bolio OrtizCentro de Investigaciones Sociales y Estudios Jurídicos de la Península A.C.

Hugo Ulises Graniel OrtegaUniversidad Autónoma de Yucatán

Javier Castellanos RuzLegatio Consultoría Jurídica Integral

Jesús Jahir Díaz MartínezLex Jurídica - Abogados

José Franco MonsrealUniversidad Intercul-tural Maya de Quintana Roo

Juan Cristóbal Orozco AlonsoOrzal Asesoría Inteli-gente

Mtro. Leandro Burgos AguilarUniversidad Modelo Valladolid

Lidia Moreno MacíasUniversidad Autónoma de Yucatán

Mtro. Luis Antonio Sánchez-Guzmán y Mayén

María Antonieta Pacheco PantojaUniversidad Anáhuac Mayab

Mario Alberto Ramírez CamachoUniversidad Autónoma de Yucatán

Ninette Ileana Lugo Valencia

Pablo Héctor Bolio de OcampoCentro de Investigaciones Sociales y Estudios Jurídicos de la Península A.C.

Dr. Raúl Sales TelloUniversidad Marista de Mérida

Lic. Roberto Fernando Quintal, Ma

Roberto José Ponce MontemayorCorreduría Pública Número 12 en el Estado de Yucatán

Sergio Efrain Salazar VadilloDespacho Acevedo y Asociados

Wilbert Fernando Zavala Urtecho

Anonymous contributors Zacatecas

Adriana Díaz SantacruzUniversidad Autónoma de Durango

Ana Rosa Ramírez NavaDespacho Jurídico Salazar Velázquez Nava

Argelia RodríguezComisión de Derechos Humanos del Estado de Zacatecas

Carlos Uriel Berumen de la TorreBerumen Corporativo

Crista Montoya

Despacho Jara

Edgar Adrián García RodríguezFiscalía General de Justicia del Estado de Zacatecas

84

Lic. Eduardo Vázquez Tovar

Lic. Emmanuel Alfaro Castro

Erick TinocoDraexelmaier Automotive

Esaúl Martínez BriseñoDespacho Márquez Valerio

Lic. Felipe Orozco RodríguezOrozco Rodríguez Abogados

Flavio A. Ortega Araiza

Flor de Marìa Sánchez MoralesUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Iveth Stephania Rodríguez ReyesEscaip Karam S. C.

Javier Martínez MartínezLex Ser Jurídico

Jesús Manuel Correa VenegasUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Jorge Rada LuévanoJorge Rada y Asociados, Asesores Fiscales de Zacatecas

José Manuel Padilla Medina

Lic. José Manuel Ríos MartínezUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Juan Francisco del Real SánchezUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Dr. Juan Manuel Rodríguez ValadezUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Dr. Lenin Sánchez-CalderónUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Leticia de Jesús Valenzuela RíosUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Mtro. Liborio Carrillo Castro

Noe Ortiz RojasJurídico Orna

Roberto Cordero Escamilla

Rodolfo Humberto Castro CastroUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Rodrigo de Jesús Rodríguez OlveraConciencia Social Desarrollo y Evolución de México

Lic. Rolando González HernándezLex Corporation Abogados

Santos Hernández Miguel

Susana Martínez NavaUniversidad de Guanajuato

Lic. Vladimir CamposUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Vladimir Juárez AlcaláUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas

Dr. William Humberto Ortiz BriceñoUniversidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Anonymous contributors


Data Opinión Pública y Mercados: Coordination and monitoring of fieldwork.

Buendía & Laredo: Fieldwork in Mexico City, Durango, Guerrero, State of Mexico, Michoacán, Nayarit, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, and Tlaxcala.

Parametría: Fieldwork in Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Quintana Roo, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Yucatán, and Zacatecas.

Pulso Mercadológico: Fieldwork in Campeche, Chiapas, Coahuila, Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Sinaloa, and Tabasco.

Sistemas de Inteligencia en Mercados y Opinión (SIMO): Fieldwork in Aguascalientes, Colima, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Nuevo León, and Veracruz.

SURVEY COMPANIES The survey companies that worked with WJP for the Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 were:

EXPERTS Throughout the process of designing the surveys, compiling the data, designing the conceptual framework, validating the scores, and producing the Mexico States Rule of Law Index, the team consulted with a variety of experts in subjects covered by the Index. Their comments and specific suggestions helped the WJP strengthen the Index’s content. Thank you!

Ana Dulce Aguilar (IJPP), Eduardo Bohórquez (Transparencia Mexicana), Guillermo Cejudo (CIDE), Jaime Chávez Alor (Columbia University), Alfredo Elizondo (Gesoc), José Enríquez (FICOSEC), Marco Fernández (ITESM-México Evalúa), René Flores (University of Washington), Luis Manuel Flores Lazo (COPARMEX), Gustavo Fondevila (CIDE), Luis Foncerrada (Centro de Estudios Económicos del Sector Privado), Jonathan Furszyfer (Stanford University), José Luis García Chagoyán (COPARMEX), Alejandro Garnica (AMAI), Alejandra Gómez (UNODC-Chihuahua), Alejandro González Arreola (PIRC), Kenneth Greene (The University of Texas at Austin), Ángela Guerrero (EQUIS Justicia para las Mujeres), Gustavo Hernández (Trans-parencia Mexicana), Edna Jaime (México Evalúa), Max Kaiser (IMCO), Ricardo Luévano (Artículo 19), Ana Laura Magaloni (CIDE), Beatriz Magaloni (Stanford University), Violeta Maltos (IIDEJURE), Javier Martín (CIDE), Javier Márquez (Buendía y Laredo), Cynthia Michel (CIDE), Marco Mira d’Ercole (OECD), Enrique Morán Faz (COPARMEX), María Novoa (México Evalúa), Almudena Ocejo, Pablo Parás (DATA OPM), Juan Pardinas (IMCO), Pascoe Pleasence (University College London), Julio Ríos (CIDE), Octavio Rodríguez (University of San Diego), Armando Rodríguez Luna (CASEDE), Vidal Romero (ITAM), Rogelio Salgado, Joel Salas Suárez (INAI), Rebecca Sandefur (University of Illinois), Miguel Sarre (ITAM), David Shirk (University of San Diego), Bilal Murtaza Siddiqi (World Bank), Jorge Luis Silva (World Bank), Vanessa Silveyra (Transpa- rencia Mexicana), Alberto Simpser (ITAM), Irene Tello (Impunidad Cero), Natalia Torres, Andrea Velasco (CA-SEDE), Carlos Vilalta (CentroGeo).

We also had the support of Héctor Sebastián Arcos Robles, Ana Corzo Cosme, Aritzy Sánchez Merino, Carlos Guadalupe Sánchez Avilez, Juan Ramón Moreno Flores, and Luis Fernando Ramírez Ruíz, for the de-velopment of the expert database, as well as the collaboration from Centro de Estudios para la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje del Derecho, A.C. (CEEAD), Ilustre y Nacional Colegio de Abogados de México (INCAM), and Instituto Republicano Internacional (IRI) to contact experts.

Acknowledgments

86

About the World Justice ProjectTHE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT® (WJP) is an independent, international, and multi-disciplinary organization working to advance the rule of law around the world. The rule of law is the foundation for communities of equity, opportunity, and peace - underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights. The rule of law helps fight poverty and protects people from injustices.

Founded by William H. Neukom in 2006 as a presidential initiative of the American Bar Association (ABA), and with the initial support of 21 other strategic partners, the World Justice Project transitioned into an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in 2009. Its offices are located in Washington DC, Seattle, Singapore, and Mexico City.

OUR APPROACH: Traditionally, the rule of law has been viewed as the domain of lawyers and judges. But everyday issues of safety, rights, justice, and governance affect us all; everyone is a stakeholder in the rule of law. Based on this, WJP’s mutually-reinforcing lines of business employ a multi-disciplinary approach through original research and data, an active and global network, and practical, locally-led programs to advance the rule of law worldwide. To find more information, visit our websites: www.worldjusticeproject.org y www.worldjusticeproject.mx.

HONORARY CHAIRS: The WJP has the support of outstanding leaders representing a range of disciplines around the world. The Honorary Chairs of the WJP are: Madeleine Albright; Giuliano Amato; Robert Badinter; James A. Baker III; Cherie Blair; Stephen G. Breyer; Sharan Burrow; David Byrne; Jimmy Carter; Maria Livanos Cattaui; Arthur Chaskalson;* Emil Constantinescu; Hans Corell; Hilario G. Davide, Jr.; Hernando de Soto; Adama Dieng; William H. Gates, Sr.; Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Richard J. Goldstone; Kunio Hamada; Lee H. Hamilton; Mohamed Ibrahim; Tassaduq Hussain Jillani; Anthony M. Kennedy; Beverley McLachlin; George J. Mitchell; John Edwin Mroz;* Indra Nooyi; Sandra Day O’Connor; Ana Palacio; Colin L. Powell; Roy L. Prosterman; Richard W. Riley; Mary Robinson; Richard Trumka; Desmond Tutu; Antonio Vitorino; Paul A. Volcker; Harold Woolf; Andrew Young; Zhelyu Zhelev.*

*Deceased

BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad; Kamel Ayadi; William C. Hubbard; Hassan Bubacar Jallow; Suet-Fern Lee; Mondli Makhanya; William H. Neukom; Ellen Grace Northfleet; James R. Silkenat; Petar Stoyanov.

DIRECTORS EMERITUS: President Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai

OFFICERS & STAFF: William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board; William H. Neukom, Founder and CEO; Mark D. Agrast, Vice President; Deborah Enix-Ross, Vice President; Judy Perry Martinez, Vice President; James R. Silkenat, Director and Treasurer; Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel and Secretary.

STAFF AND CONSULTANTS: Elizabeth Andersen (Executive Director), Paul Fisher (Chief Development Officer), Matthew Harman (Chief Communications Officer), Ted Piccone (Chief Engagement Officer), Alejandro Ponce (Chief Research Officer), Richard Schorr (Chief Financial and Administrative Officer), Alicia Evangelides, Amy Gryskiewicz, Tim Kessler, Sarah Chamness Long, Joel Martinez, Jason Murray, Nikki Ngbichi-Moore, Gerard Vinluan, Roberto Hernández, Layda Negrete, Miguel Contreras, Joseph Haley, Debby Manley, Priya Khosla, Leslie Solís, Emily Youatt, Erin Campbell, Killian Dorier, Josh Fuller, Kirssy González, Jorge A. Morales, Natalia Rodríguez Cajamarca, Becca Silvas, Amir Galván, Juan Salgado, Laura Aquino, Ana Cárdenas, Estefany Caudillo, Lilian Chapa Koloffon, Vianney Fernández, Lucía Estefanía González Medel, Eréndira González Portillo, Marien Rivera, Mario Rodríguez Vigueras, Marcelo Torres, Irene Heras, Courtney Babcock, Ester Arroyo, Lindsey Bock, Ayyub Ibrahim, Jaya Khetarpal, Rafael Lozano, Fernando Omedé, Emma Frerichs, and Nancy Ward.

STRATEGIC PARTNERS: American Bar Association; American Public Health Association; American Society of Civil Engineers; Arab Center for the Development of the Rule of Law and Integrity; Avocats Sans Frontières; Canadian Bar Association; Club of Madrid; Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; Inter-American Bar Association; International Bar Association; International Chamber of Commerce; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; International Organization of Employers; International Trade Union Confederation; Inter-Pacific Bar Association; Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights; Landesa; NAFSA: Association of International Educators; Norwegian Bar Association; People to People International; Union Internationale des Avocats; Union of Turkish Bar Associations; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; The World Council of Religious Leaders; World Federation of Engineering Organisations; World Federation of Public Health Associations.


Twitter: @TheWJP and @TheWJP_mxFacebook: thewjp

88

Aguascalientes 0.44 0.46 0.41 0.43 0.56 0.46 0.40 0.39 0.43Baja California 0.43 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.25 0.49 0.46 0.42Baja California Sur 0.35 0.31 0.32 0.35 0.48 0.29 0.35 0.34 0.37Campeche 0.43 0.47 0.38 0.37 0.49 0.53 0.41 0.41 0.36Chiapas 0.39 0.39 0.32 0.35 0.47 0.59 0.30 0.36 0.35Chihuahua 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.38 0.52 0.27 0.36 0.37 0.42Mexico City 0.37 0.40 0.27 0.51 0.51 0.27 0.30 0.35 0.32Coahuila 0.43 0.36 0.35 0.41 0.48 0.61 0.37 0.44 0.39Colima 0.39 0.43 0.37 0.35 0.52 0.28 0.40 0.37 0.41Durango 0.42 0.43 0.32 0.38 0.47 0.59 0.37 0.42 0.36State of Mexico 0.36 0.37 0.28 0.44 0.45 0.21 0.39 0.37 0.33Guanajuato 0.41 0.40 0.42 0.48 0.51 0.28 0.38 0.40 0.41Guerrero 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.37 0.35 0.19 0.29 0.28 0.30Hidalgo 0.42 0.44 0.38 0.36 0.48 0.57 0.38 0.39 0.38Jalisco 0.37 0.42 0.31 0.45 0.46 0.29 0.35 0.34 0.33

Michoacán 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.41 0.49 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.39Morelos 0.37 0.42 0.36 0.38 0.51 0.23 0.27 0.33 0.42Nayarit 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.33 0.48 0.44 0.28 0.31 0.35Nuevo León 0.42 0.48 0.39 0.38 0.54 0.39 0.41 0.39 0.36Oaxaca 0.39 0.44 0.34 0.33 0.49 0.42 0.35 0.33 0.39Puebla 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.34 0.44 0.37 0.40 0.32 0.31Querétaro 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.27 0.53 0.51 0.43 0.36 0.46Quintana Roo 0.36 0.41 0.31 0.40 0.46 0.31 0.37 0.33 0.33San Luis Potosí 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.36 0.50 0.44 0.34 0.33 0.37Sinaloa 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.42 0.51 0.42 0.35 0.38 0.41Sonora 0.36 0.40 0.33 0.42 0.46 0.28 0.24 0.36 0.36Tabasco 0.38 0.41 0.36 0.40 0.49 0.28 0.34 0.35 0.37Tamaulipas 0.38 0.37 0.39 0.34 0.45 0.42 0.36 0.37 0.36Tlaxcala 0.38 0.40 0.33 0.29 0.49 0.49 0.29 0.34 0.38Veracruz 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.41 0.42 0.47 0.38 0.31 0.30Yucatán 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.77 0.38 0.33 0.42Zacatecas 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.51 0.39 0.42 0.46 0.44

Results of the Mexico States Rule of Law Index, 2018 and 2019-2020The following tables show the data of Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2018 and 2019–2020 for the 32 states disaggregated by factor.

Index 2018

Factor 1 2018

Factor 8 2018

Factor 7 2018

Factor 6 2018

Factor 5 2018

Factor 4 2018

Factor 3 2018 y 19–20

Factor 2 2018

Score


Aguascalientes 0.45 0.46 0.41 0.43 0.53 0.49 0.41 0.41 0.44Baja California 0.40 0.48 0.38 0.41 0.54 0.19 0.43 0.41 0.37Baja California Sur 0.39 0.44 0.36 0.35 0.51 0.39 0.38 0.33 0.37Campeche 0.43 0.46 0.39 0.37 0.49 0.53 0.43 0.41 0.35Chiapas 0.38 0.39 0.30 0.35 0.46 0.56 0.32 0.32 0.33Chihuahua 0.40 0.44 0.36 0.38 0.51 0.30 0.39 0.40 0.39Mexico City 0.36 0.41 0.28 0.51 0.49 0.22 0.32 0.34 0.29Coahuila 0.43 0.40 0.35 0.41 0.50 0.60 0.38 0.37 0.41Colima 0.41 0.47 0.41 0.35 0.52 0.29 0.41 0.39 0.40Durango 0.43 0.43 0.31 0.38 0.51 0.60 0.37 0.42 0.39State of Mexico 0.36 0.41 0.30 0.44 0.49 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.33Guanajuato 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.48 0.52 0.21 0.43 0.44 0.44Guerrero 0.33 0.39 0.30 0.37 0.44 0.23 0.34 0.29 0.29Hidalgo 0.42 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.51 0.52 0.35 0.36 0.41Jalisco 0.37 0.43 0.31 0.45 0.48 0.27 0.34 0.32 0.33

Michoacán 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.41 0.47 0.41 0.34 0.33 0.38Morelos 0.36 0.43 0.33 0.38 0.53 0.19 0.33 0.35 0.34Nayarit 0.40 0.42 0.38 0.33 0.51 0.45 0.33 0.33 0.41Nuevo León 0.43 0.50 0.40 0.38 0.54 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.39Oaxaca 0.40 0.44 0.36 0.33 0.49 0.45 0.38 0.34 0.41Puebla 0.35 0.39 0.32 0.34 0.44 0.25 0.40 0.33 0.29Querétaro 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.27 0.53 0.41 0.45 0.38 0.47Quintana Roo 0.35 0.37 0.31 0.40 0.46 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.34San Luis Potosí 0.38 0.43 0.34 0.36 0.51 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.38Sinaloa 0.42 0.44 0.39 0.42 0.49 0.39 0.38 0.40 0.45Sonora 0.38 0.43 0.34 0.42 0.50 0.27 0.32 0.37 0.38Tabasco 0.37 0.45 0.36 0.40 0.51 0.24 0.31 0.34 0.39Tamaulipas 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.34 0.48 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.37Tlaxcala 0.37 0.45 0.32 0.29 0.50 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.35Veracruz 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.38 0.33 0.30Yucatán 0.46 0.47 0.40 0.38 0.54 0.73 0.39 0.38 0.39Zacatecas 0.43 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.51 0.34 0.41 0.40 0.46

Index 2019–2020

Factor 1: Constraints on Government Powers Factor 5: Order & Security

Factor 2: Absence of Corruption Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement

Factor 3: Open Government Factor 7: Civil Justice

Factor 4: Fundamental Rights Factor 8: Criminal Justice

Factor 1 2019–2020

Factor 8 2019–2020

Factor 7 2019–2020

Factor 6 2019–2020

Factor 5 2019–2020

Factor 4 2019–2020

Factor 2 2019–2020

Score

NOTE

Factor 3 2018 y 19–20

90

Other Publications by the World Justice ProjectFor more information, visit: worldjusticeproject.org and worldjusticeproject.mx

World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2019 (available in English and Spanish)

Memoria estadística de la transición entre dos Méxicos: Logros y retos del Nuevo Sistema de Justicia Penal(32 volumes, only available in Spanish)

World Justice Project: Rule of Law Index 2019 —Highlights and data trends from the WJP Rule of Law Index 2019

Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2018(available in English and Spanish)

Failed Justice: Prevalence of Torture in Mexico's Criminal Justice System (available in English and Spanish)

Mexico's New Criminal Justice System: Substantial Progress and Persistent Challenges (available in English and Spanish)


Realizing Justice For AllWorld Justice Forum Report 2019

World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2017-2018 (available in English and Spanish)

Global Insights on Access to Justice 2019

World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2016

Measuring the Justice Gap 2019A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World

World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2015

92 92

Photo credit: Jezael Melgoza, Unsplash

The rule of law is the foundation for communities of equity, opportunity, and peace - underpinning development, accountable

government, and respect for fundamental rights. The rule of law helps fight poverty and protects people from injustices.

Photo credit for the cover:

Woman with megaphone

https://torange.biz © CC BY 4.0

Farmers

M. DeFreese /CIMMYT, CC BY 4.0

Vendor

Ted McGrath, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Municipal palace

commons.wii, CC BY-SA 3.0

All photos were modified for the cover design

worldjusticeproject.mx

index.worldjusticeproject.mx

twitter.com/theWJP_mx

MEXICO CITY Avenida Michoacán 22 Condesa, 06100 CDMX, México

Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 - World Justice ...

Documents

Transcript of Mexico States Rule of Law Index 2019-2020 - World Justice ...