In Coahuila, judicial harassment puts the Vanguardia newspaper in check.

SALTILLO, Coahuila ( Proceso ).- Because he is already leaving, Judge Edgar Humberto Muñoz Grajales did not want to wait for the Supreme Court of Justice's ruling to take up the case and close it. Thus, a collegiate court rejected by majority the injunctions filed by the newspaper Vanguardia and approved the seizure of assets for an alleged commercial debt.

According to the media outlet, the embargo favors the interests of former Coahuila governor Humberto Moreira Valdés, who has not yet commented.

In the session of Thursday, August 14, of the Collegiate Court in Civil and Administrative Matters of the Eighth Circuit, the four files were addressed in which the newspaper Vanguardia de Saltillo, in addition to being affected by being guarantors, sought protection against the sentence issued by the Civil Chamber of the Judiciary of Coahuila in December 2024 within the criminal case 222/2024, after 15 years since the process began, since it was in 2008 when the case began in the local instances for the alleged debt contracted in 1994.

The Inter-American Press Association and the Media Alliance have questioned the irregularities in the case, which the newspaper Vanguardia has described as judicial harassment due to previous coverage of the former national leader of the PRI.

"This case reflects a worrying pattern in the region: the use of legal mechanisms to intimidate, undermine, and censor the media," and emphasized that the rulings of the Collegiate Court that discussed the matter yesterday "are not an isolated commercial matter, but rather a controversy that directly impacts the fundamental right to freedom of expression," the Media Alliance states.

Relief in a collegiate court

At the start of the session, the president of the Federal Collegiate Court, Héctor Alejandro Treviño de la Garza, noted that two notifications had been received, one of which requested a postponement of the discussion of the files due to the media outlet's request that the SCJN take up the case, and which he agreed to, because "I don't see the matter being so significant if it takes a little longer."

However, Muñoz Grajales pointed out that these are legal loopholes and that they "intend to affect the administration of justice," since the SCJN does not hear commercial cases because they are matters between private individuals.

“Years have passed, and everything has been resolved; we're now in the final stages, and as you know, I'm no longer going to be here. I've already studied this matter and everything, so it will be resolved, and it's being resolved in accordance with the evidence, in accordance with jurisprudence, and in accordance with everything. I can't predict what will happen, but it will be resolved as it is. There's nothing more to it than the minds of the people involved,” he said, referring to the newspaper's accusations about his bias in acting and his responding to the interests of the other side. The judge will leave office at the end of August.

The other notification was intended to prohibit García de la Fuente from participating in the discussion, as it also affected his impartiality, but the judge ruled that it was inadmissible and lacked an objective argument. In the vote, Muñoz Grajales and the official called for the motion to be dismissed as inadmissible, and Treviño de la Garza called for it to be processed.

After the majority vote on both petitions, the discussion of the four files began, one of which (62/2025), corresponding to the notice that should have been issued regarding the resources delivered, generated one of the main arguments that the ruling lacks grounds.

Treviño de la Garza emphasized that he would have a concurring vote because the concept of violation is well-founded and would be more beneficial to the protection, since the executive order itself "does not provide liquidity and certainty regarding the debt, but rather is a link to an account statement," and in which deficiencies are also noted.

However, Muñoz Grajales pointed out that it was a loan processed for a remodeling project, and García de la Fuente added that it was also for a restructuring project "that was carried out" and that it was not a banking institution, and a certificate of the release of the funds was delivered. However, Treviño de la Garza reiterated his position that the rights of the petitioners of the injunction are indeed being violated.

“It strikes me as odd that the complainant points out that the Civil Court had to presume when the amounts were delivered, based on this, and how they were disposed of, which was on December 7 or 8, 1994, but the bank had to give notice. Registration of the public deed in the Public Registry wasn't enough; that was a requirement, but there was another, independent requirement, according to the contract clauses, which was notice, and this notice is being presumed; it's not proven. Therefore, I reiterate that there is no enforceability on the part of the title or its annexes, which have contradictions regarding the date of disposition and other aspects that are handled by the concept of violation.”

On Friday the 15th, the newspaper Vanguardia stated in its print edition and online that the case was fabricated to favor Moreira Valdés.

“Today at Vanguardia , we are going through one of those moments in which the practice of critical journalism takes its toll. A federal court, bent on defending the ideal of justice that should guide its work, but committed to the personal interests of a former governor of Coahuila, issued the final judgment against us in a commercial case artificially constructed with the sole purpose of financially crippling us and, subsequently, silencing us.”

They also reiterated that it was a shameful hearing for the judicial system, because a distorted approach was upheld to construct the commercial lawsuit, and the Coahuila Judiciary participated in it. The court defeat means they will lose material assets, but not their commitment to journalism, the newspaper stated in its statement.