The principle of “res judicata” is a legal figure that implies that once a ruling becomes final and immovable, the same matter can no longer be tried again, which guarantees the legal security of the parties.
That principle was called into question with the Court’s resolution regarding a fund for victims that disappeared during the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador and that was challenged by Centro Prodh, a human rights defense organization, for its restitution.
In 2024, the members of the old Court endorsed continuing to allocate resources to this fund, but with the arrival of the new ministers this was reversed.
According to Jesús Segovia, lawyer for the Prodh Center, the situation that looms goes beyond victims, since he estimates that with the type of decisions of the Court other rights are at risk.
“Decisions that were already res judicata, arguments that could no longer be touched upon, the Court is reopening them and is reopening them to decide some issues politically, such as this: victim budget.”
We believe that the principle of res judicata is being violated, that is, when something has already been decided or something has already been closed, it cannot be reopened. And the Court is doing it through various types of interpretations, such as the General Declaration of Unconstitutionality.
Jesús Segovia, lawyer of the Pro Center.
A fund for victims
In 2013, after social pressure, the approval of the General Law of Victims (LGV) was approved, which included a Fund for Aid, Assistance and Comprehensive Reparation (FAARI) that was required to have a fixed annual allocation of 0.014% of the programmable expense in the Expenditure Budget of the Federation and the resources could not be used for operational expenses of the Executive Commission for Attention to Victims (CEAV).
But in 2020, in the López Obrador government, reforms were promoted to extinguish several funds, including the FAARI. The Prodh Center acted and promoted an amparo in which it denounced the unconstitutionality of this.
Thus, on March 13, 2024, the First Chamber of the SCJN and final instance recognized the legitimate interest of the Pro Center, declared the reform unconstitutional and resolved that Congress should reestablish a specific budget guarantee for help, assistance and comprehensive reparation of the victims, at least equivalent to 0.014% of the programmable expenditure.
But Congress did not modify the law and the matter came again before the full Court on November 18, 2025where the resolution taken by the previous ministers was reversed.
The Prodh Center lawyer explained that the Court “decided to go beyond the discussion of the general declaration of unconstitutionality” and reopened the merits of the protection by analyzing the constitutionality of the reform, a matter that had already been discussed by the First Chamber of SCJN.
For Fundar and a group of more than 100 organizations and activists and victims, such as searching mothers, who for years have sought support from that Fund for their work, they considered that the Court allowed “an enormous setback in matters of human rights, since opens the door for victims to see their rights diluted.
“Without a budget and a robust constitutional regulatory framework, the measures of attention, monitoring, memory, truth and guarantee of non-repetition lose effectiveness and are reduced to good wishes in the law without any impact on reality,” they noted.
Segovia explains that the decision would have an impact on the relatives of the victims, since the resources are required to follow up on investigation files, for the payment of funeral expenses when a deceased person is identified, for the travel expenses with which search mothers carry out search actions or when a person who is a victim of torture needs psychological or medical attention at the time.
