The abstention vote “should not be interpreted as Mexico's position in the face of conflict”

The UN Assembly suspended Russia from the Human Rights Council on April 7 after the massacre in Bucha, a Ukrainian city. Given this, of the 193 members of the assembly, 93 voted in favor of the suspension, while 24 voted against and 58 abstained.

Mexico was one of the countries that abstained during the meeting. For teacher teacher Gabriela Naranjo Guevara, Ibero León Law Coordinator, this indicates that the federal government is applying the non-intervention principles card.

He added that this does not mean that this should not be interpreted as Mexico's position in the face of the conflict.

“I think that many of the positions are going to be reduced to the fact that Mexico is wrong because it is not positioning itself in the face of the major events that are happening in Ukraine. For that we would have to analyze the speech that our ambassador made at the time of presenting the position in the General Assembly,” he explained.

Based on this, lawyer Gabriela Naranjo assured that Mexico continues to take a stance against the armed conflict.

However, as the expert on criminal matters explained at the same time, this does imply that the country does not value the decision to expel Russia from the body as an effective measure in terms of punishment.

“It is an act, at the end of the day, of pressure on the country, like other measures we have seen, but from Mexico's position it is not considered an effective measure to combat the conflict,” he explained.

It should be noted that, according to Gabriela, this is not an expulsion from either the organization (UN) or the Security Council.

He explained that the Human Rights Council “is like a chapter or agency within the United Nations to work on the issue of human rights from this international perspective.”

It is from this entity that the human rights council itself can evaluate a State in the area of the development and protection of human rights through the Universal Periodic Review, an exercise that is intended to monitor in order to issue recommendations to countries on individual guarantees.

“This is where recommendations are derived to strengthen the exercise of human rights. So, from the outset, I would have to point out that it would be a paradox for Russia to remain in this section of the United Nations organization when it is carrying out actions, at least from the appearance, constitute serious violations of human rights in the international framework, “said the interviewee.

Thus, the lawyer reiterated that Russia's suspension from the UN Human Rights Council implies for the State that, properly “no longer participate in a group of countries working on the subject of Human Rights”, being outside the council they could no longer participate in international matters and could also entail a disadvantage to establish relationships of different kinds, such as commercial.

KEEP READING: