Reclassification of femicide cases sparks concern, activists warn of judicial bias

A concerning trend of reclassifying femicide cases to less severe charges, such as homicide or domestic violence, is raising alarms among activists and legal experts in Mexico. This practice, they warn, represents a significant step backward in the long-standing struggle to eradicate violence against women and to properly recognize feminicidal violence plaguing the country.

Recent cases highlight the issue: Renata Palmer, a victim of femicide in October 2025, saw her attacker's crime reclassified as homicide by a judge, despite the aggressor having a relationship of trust and friendship with her and inflicting injuries considered gender-based under federal law. Similarly, Yeritza Bautista and Alejandra Suárez, survivors of attempted femicide, had their cases downgraded to attempted homicide and domestic violence, respectively.

Specialists argue that judges are often failing to apply a gender perspective during investigations, which are frequently deficient. This lack of "due diligence" results in the loss of evidence and a failure to conduct necessary investigative actions. Such shortcomings not only impede the identification of perpetrators but also compromise the ability to establish the gender-based motives crucial for a femicide conviction.

“

It is very worrying and occurs in all states: the lack of gender perspective during investigations, which are generally deficient, the lack of due diligence: evidence is lost in investigation files, they do not carry out the investigative acts they should. These failures not only prevent the murderers from being found, but also impact the accreditation of gender reasons.

Feminist lawyer Anayeli Pérez Garrido, a legal advisor for the National Observatory of Femicide (OCNF), explains that reclassifications occur when judges interpret facts without a gender perspective, leading to biased decisions. She points out that issues during evidence collection, such as failing to secure key evidence at a crime scene or the public prosecutor's office foregoing the expertise of criminalists and forensic experts, can prevent the establishment of gender-based reasons.

Even when investigations are initially adequate, the public prosecutor might falter during trial, failing to present the necessary arguments or expert testimony to reinforce the gender-based motive or prior history of violence. This can lead to the crime being reclassified. Pérez Garrido notes that resistance from judges to categorize crimes as femicide and recognize feminicidal violence has persisted since the crime was legally defined in Mexico, particularly in regions with significant organized crime presence.

“

That type of thing can happen if the investigation was done reasonably well, but in trial the MP gets desperate or deems it sufficient and gives up, or when interrogating, they don't interrogate what they should, so they no longer accredit that gender reason. In cases where that technical opinion is needed that reinforces the gender reason or the history of violence, and if they don't have it, they don't accredit it and it is reclassified.