Cross-examination in the indirect amparo proceeding: an impossibility that affects

Abstract

This article examines the recent jurisprudence of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in Mexico, which determines the impossibility of cross-examining experts in indirect amparo trials. The decision is based on a restrictive interpretation of article 119 of the Amparo Law, which only allows cross-examination in relation to testimonial evidence, but not with respect to expert evidence. Through the analysis of this resolution, the importance of expert evidence in judicial decision-making is highlighted and how the lack of cross-examination of experts can negatively affect access to justice. The work argues that, without the possibility of cross-examining the experts, the parties and the judge himself lack an essential tool to clarify the opinions and ensure that the expert conclusions are understood adequately. This can negatively impact the quality of judicial resolutions, especially in complex issues that require specific technical knowledge.
This research proposes a reform to article 119 of the Amparo Law to allow cross-examination of experts in the constitutional hearing, in order to guarantee an adequate assessment of expert evidence and improve access to justice in amparo trials.