A counselor of the National Electoral Institute (INE), Dania Ravel, denounced through her X account the lack of transparency in the administrative responsibility procedure she is facing, which, she said, was notified to her almost four years after the corresponding complaint was filed.
Ravel explained that the procedure stems from a complaint filed in December 2021 by a collegiate decision of the INE's General Council, but "I was not notified until September 2025."
Upon learning of the notification, the counselor requested information from the INE's Internal Control Body (OIC) to find out if there are other complaints or complaints against her. According to her publication, the request was based on Article 6 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to information.
According to the document cited, the resolution states that "the only case in which the person under investigation can access the investigation file is when they are affected by some act of harassment that provides indications of their status in the file." It also states that "the presumption of being investigated does not generate a subjective right to access the investigation file" and that "the information is strictly confidential until the status of accused is formally recognized."
In this regard, Ravel clarified that she did not request access to the investigation, but wanted to know if there are other administrative complaints against her.
However, Ravel indicated that the OIC "considered that it should be processed as a request for access to personal data, referring it to the INE's Technical Unit for Transparency and Personal Data Protection."
Almost a month later, the counselor received a notification denying her right to access the requested information.
She questioned whether "requiring my complete work file, with personal data from my family members, for an investigation that was notified to me almost four years after it was filed, does not constitute an act of harassment," noting that this request was made before she was officially notified of the procedure.
The counselor also criticized the appeal mechanism provided for in the resolution: "If I do not agree, I can appeal... before the same OIC that denied the information!" which, in her judgment, implies that "the authority that decides also reviews its own decision."
Ravel warned that the recent extinction of the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (INAI), as well as the creation of internal oversight bodies, "dilute the principle of accountability," since "when the one who decides and the one who reviews is the same, transparency ceases to be a counterweight."
"Democracy requires the unrestricted respect for human rights and autonomous and independent authorities that guarantee the effective exercise of the right to know and to effectively defend oneself from power," concluded the counselor.
