The Supreme Court's ruling in the Wallace case opens the door to reviewing more convictions.

Morelos (apro) .- The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) in favor of Juana Hilda González Lomelí represents a crucial precedent for the Mexican justice system, as it reveals serious flaws in the administration of justice and respect for human rights in the Wallace Case, said Sofía de Robina Castro, technical secretary of Combating Torture at the Federal Public Defender's Institute (IFDP).

On June 11, the First Chamber of the SCJN ruled to grant a direct amparo to Juana Hilda, who was sentenced to 78 years in prison for kidnapping and spent nearly two decades in prison.

The decision, approved by a majority and based on a project by Minister Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena, implies their immediate release and opens the door to a review of the sentences of the other five people implicated in the case: Brenda Quevedo Cruz, Jacobo Tagle Dobin, Tony Castillo Cruz, Albert Castillo Cruz, and César Freyre Morales.

The case reached the Court through the last available legal recourse, after Juana Hilda exhausted lower courts without success.

The SCJN determined that several pieces of evidence critical to his conviction were obtained through torture and other human rights violations, thus invalidating the basis for the accusation.

Sofía de Robina explained that "the Court, in its role as a constitutional tribunal, analyzed the trial as a whole and identified the violations that we, the defense, denounced."

According to the IFDP official, Juana Hilda was arrested in January 2006, months after the complaint was filed for a kidnapping allegedly committed in July 2005, and was placed under house arrest, a measure already declared a violation of human rights by the Inter-American Court.

During her arraignment, Juana Hilda was forced to testify for nearly eight hours, without legal counsel at all times, and under direct threats against her family. This statement was the basis for charging not only her, but also the other co-defendants.

Subsequently, searches were carried out at various related homes. The first, carried out days after the complaint was filed, yielded nothing. More than a year later, following the arrest and the confession obtained under torture, a second search was carried out in an unguarded apartment that had been inhabited by someone close to the indirect victim.

A drop of blood and a license plate were found there, but the Court ruled that this evidence could not be used because it was derived from an illegitimate confession.

Similarly, other evidence found at Brenda Quevedo Cruz's home was dismissed. A computer containing photographs was seized without chain of custody or guarantees of reliability.

As for Brenda Quevedo Cruz, who remained in pretrial detention, her precautionary measures were amended in 2024 and she was placed under house arrest.

The Court's draft law clearly states that "a crime as serious as kidnapping does not justify a conviction at any cost," the IFDP official noted. On the contrary, it maintains that "without a fair trial, there can be no just punishment."

Furthermore, De Robina emphasized that this ruling represents a strong warning to the country's prosecutors' offices, as it demonstrates their inability to conduct effective investigations that respect human rights. "They failed to maintain a valid case and provide evidence to justify the accusation," she stated.

The ruling not only has a direct impact on the life of Juana Hilda, who will be able to reunite with her daughters after nearly two decades of confinement, but also paves the way for a review of the cases of her co-defendants, whose files could be affected by the exclusion of illegitimate evidence.

Juana Hilda has now been released after official notification to the Federal Center for Women's Social Readaptation (CEFERESO) No. 16, located in Coatlán del Río, Morelos.

Finally, Sofía de Robina concluded that this ruling is "a very important precedent for the Mexican justice system, as it reaffirms that convictions should only be upheld when there is certainty that the evidence was obtained in a manner that respects human rights."