As Mexico grapples with escalating violence and the persistent threat of organized crime, a new judicial reform proposed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has sparked intense debate. Central to this reform is the reintroduction of “judges without faces,” a controversial measure aimed at protecting judges by granting them anonymity in high-risk cases involving organized crime.

This reform comes at a time when the safety of judges is a critical concern. The murder of Uriel Villegas, a judge who prosecuted members of the powerful Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación, in 2020 shocked the nation and highlighted the dangers faced by those in the judiciary. In response to such threats, the Mexican government is considering the implementation of anonymous courts, a strategy previously employed in Latin American countries like Peru, Colombia, and El Salvador.

The concept of anonymous judges is not new to the region. Colombia was the first in Latin America to introduce this measure in the 1990s during its war against the Medellín Cartel. Later, under President Alberto Fujimori, Peru adopted similar measures to combat terrorism. However, the use of anonymous judges has been widely criticized for leading to human rights abuses, arbitrary detentions, and a lack of transparency in the judicial process.

Critics argue that while the intention is to protect judges, the measure also undermines the rights of the accused, who are often denied a fair trial. Legal experts warn that the anonymity of judges could lead to abuses of power, lack of accountability, and further erosion of trust in the judicial system.

Despite the concerns, the proposal has gained traction in Mexico’s Congress, where it has been approved by the lower house and now awaits Senate consideration. As the debate continues, the question remains whether the protection of judges can be balanced with the preservation of fundamental human rights, or if this measure will repeat the mistakes of the past.