The central piece of evidence is a WhatsApp message she shared with an acquaintance. The case centers on a complaint for Political Violence based on Gender (VPG) initiated by Almendra Negrete Sánchez, a local deputy from Morena, against María Emma Zermeño López, a human rights activist and public servant in Sinaloa. During 2024 and 2025, Emma Zermeño held private conversations via WhatsApp with a friend. Last December, the Regional Chamber reversed the Sinaloa court's ruling, considering that it had failed to conduct a comprehensive and contextual analysis of the facts, taking into account the gender perspective and the rights of the LGBTTTIQA+ community to which the complainant belongs. The complainant: Almendra Ernestina Negrete Sánchez. The Regional Chamber determined that the screenshots are indeed admissible and valid evidence. In these messages, she allegedly made statements claiming the deputy did not work, that the achievements of the LGBTTTIQNB+ community were not the result of her efforts, and that she had obtained her party position solely for being 'the only available woman and lesbian'. Sometime later, Emma's friend began working with the deputy and handed her screenshots of these private conversations, which were used to file the complaint. In a first instance, the Electoral Tribunal of the State of Sinaloa ruled the infraction non-existent, arguing that it could not take into account or value the WhatsApp screenshots because they were private communications, stating that admitting them without the consent of all participants would violate the right to privacy and the inviolability of communications. The complainant appealed this decision before the Guadalajara Regional Chamber of the Federal Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF). The Electoral Tribunal must now define a case in which a citizen is accused of political violence based on gender. The Chamber explained that the inviolability of private communications is lifted (the secret is lifted) when one of the interlocutors themselves voluntarily provides the messages, as happened in this case when they were taken before a notary public. The Regional Chamber ordered the local Sinaloa court to retry the case, admit the WhatsApp evidence, conduct further investigations if necessary, and issue a new resolution within ten days, while maintaining the protective measures for the complainant. From the perspective of the defense of the accused citizen, this ruling sets an extremely serious precedent as it is the first case in the history of electoral justice where a citizen is sanctioned for private messages. The Electoral Defense office argues that this decision violates private communications and freedom of expression, putting at risk any person of being punished for intimate or confidential conversations that are leaked to the authorities. If this precedent stands, any person risks being sanctioned for mere conversations they have with friends, family, partners, groups, or acquaintances that take place in an environment of full trust. It implies a serious limitation on the freedom of expression of all people in the most private and intimate sphere, as everyone will be under the threat that their conversations could be leaked and handed over to the authorities. The conversation contains no violence, which shows that the purpose is to restrict criticism, even in the private sphere, and the risk of using the state apparatus to violate the free expression of citizens.
