TEPJF Protects Privacy of WhatsApp Conversations in Political Violence Case
Last week, the Superior Chamber of the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación (TEPJF) issued a landmark ruling affirming the constitutional protection of the inviolability of private communications, specifically those exchanged via WhatsApp. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a local representative against a public servant in Sinaloa, alleging gender-based political violence. The allegations were supported by screenshots of WhatsApp conversations between the public servant and a third party.
The Case Background
The complainant alleged that the WhatsApp conversations minimized her legitimacy as a deputy and discredited her professional abilities, suggesting her position was solely due to her status as a woman and a lesbian. The Sinaloa Electoral Court initially determined there was no evidence of political violence. However, this decision was overturned by the Guadalajara Regional Chamber of the TEPJF, which ruled that the WhatsApp conversations did constitute symbolic gender-based political violence.
The Superior Chamber’s Ruling
The public servant then filed a reconsideration appeal before the Superior Chamber of the TEPJF (SUP-REC-52/2026). The Superior Chamber ultimately revoked the Regional Chamber’s ruling, siding with the public servant. The central reasoning behind this decision hinged on the constitutional right to privacy and the evidentiary standards required for digital communications.
Constitutional Protection of Private Communications
The Superior Chamber determined that WhatsApp conversations are protected under Article 16 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which guarantees the inviolability of private communications. Crucially, the court found that the origin of the WhatsApp conversations was not proven to meet constitutional and legal requirements, rendering them inadmissible as evidence.
Evidentiary Concerns: Voluntariness, Traceability, and Authenticity
The court identified several key evidentiary issues:
- Voluntariness: It was not demonstrated that the conversations were provided voluntarily, with no direct interest in the sanctioning procedure from any of the participants.
- Traceability: The origin of the screenshots was not definitively established, creating uncertainty about their source.
- Authenticity: The authenticity of the communications was not verified, and there was no proof that the screenshots had not been altered or manipulated. A notarial instrument only confirmed the appearance of a person and the existence of screenshots, but not their direct extraction from the application.
Implications of the Ruling
The Superior Chamber concluded that neither the legal origin nor the veracity of the WhatsApp conversations had been proven, as they pertain to the private sphere of individuals. These communications held no evidentiary value in proving the alleged conduct of gender-based political violence.
This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional and legal standards for evidence in electoral proceedings and safeguards fundamental rights, ensures the authenticity of digital evidence, and strengthens evidentiary requirements in the electoral field.
Keep reading