A district judge granted an injunction to the organization Article 19 and declared the crime of 'cyberstalking' unconstitutional under the Penal Code of the state of Puebla, ruling that its wording is vague, imprecise, and contrary to human rights, particularly freedom of expression. In a press release, the organization detailed that the resolution stems from the amparo case 825/2025, filed by the organization with the support of PROJUC, whose constitutional hearing was held in early January of this year. They also noted that this lack of clarity has a chilling effect on the freedom of expression of the general public, with particularly severe impacts for journalists, communicators, and searching mothers, who could face criminal proceedings simply for publishing criticisms or demands directed at authorities or political actors. According to the organization, the judge agreed with these arguments and concluded that the criminal offense violates the principle of legality in its aspect of specificity, as it does not clearly define what conduct is prohibited. In this sense, the Congress of the State of Puebla did not incorporate sufficient elements to guarantee the legal security of citizens, leaving excessive discretion to the authorities responsible for enforcing the law. Article 19 pointed out that the judge also noted the lack of clarity regarding what should be understood as 'repeated' or 'systematic' conduct, nor how many times or to what degree of planning an action must be carried out to be considered a crime, which allows for arbitrary interpretations and makes it difficult for people to anticipate the legal consequences of their expressions. Additionally, the judge highlighted the lack of clarity on how a conduct classified as 'cyberstalking' could cause harm to physical integrity, which also makes it difficult for people to anticipate the legal consequences of their expressions. The injunction will remain in effect as long as article 480 exists in the Penal Code of Puebla. Article 19 and PROJUC qualified the ruling as 'an important precedent for the protection of freedom of expression and journalism in the state.' They stated that the ruling is based on essential standards and principles of fundamental rights and contributes to encouraging citizen participation by allowing the free exercise of rights. The ruling was issued by Judge Horacio Óscar Rosete Mentado, Third District Judge in Criminal Matters in the State of Puebla. The litigation originated from the reform to article 480 of the Penal Code of Puebla, challenged by the organizations in August 2025. This provision criminalizes 'cyberstalking' and establishes that it is committed by whoever, 'through the use of information and communication technologies, social networks, email, or any digital space, repeatedly or systematically carries out acts of surveillance, harassment, intimidation, or offense against another person, and as a consequence alters their daily life, disturbs their privacy, or harms their physical or emotional integrity.' In the amparo lawsuit, Article 19 and PROJUC argued that the norm is imprecise and ambiguous, which opens the door for its arbitrary application by authorities. Both organizations affirmed that they will continue to work to protect individual autonomy and the collective space for public deliberation. The sentence also questions that the article requires analyzing the 'context of the facts' without providing clear criteria or objective standards to carry out said analysis. The organization mentions that the judge pointed out the ambiguity of the exceptions provided for in the norm. Although article 480 mentions that certain acts of 'public interest' do not constitute a crime, it does not define what should be understood as 'public interest' or 'democratic development,' which prevents knowing with certainty whether a publication or expression will be protected or sanctioned. 'The ruling highlights that the norm has a deterrent effect on democracy, as people may choose to stop expressing themselves and stop participating in public debate for fear of being subjected to a criminal process that lacks legal certainty,' the communiqué states. The judge also addressed in his considerations the impact of the provision on the functioning of the internet, highlighting that it is a decentralized, free, and open network, and that critical or provocative expressions that may cause annoyance or offense should not, in themselves, be considered abusive behavior. 'The court concluded that the measure is not proportional, as it uses the most severe restriction—prison—to limit a fundamental human right (freedom of expression), and does so with a wording so confusing that it does not meet the minimum clarity standards required by the Constitution,' Article 19 points out. Therefore, said article may not be applied against the organization in the present or in the future, which includes all people who were already part of the organization at the time of the ruling, as well as those who join later and carry out activities in accordance with its statutes. The protection also extends to journalists and communicators who are accompanied or defended by Article 19 as a human rights defense organization, as no authority, including judges or public ministries, may apply this crime to them.
