The inquisitorial-mixed criminal process in Mexico is characterized as bureaucratic, slow, and reliant on extensive written records only accessible to those with legal interest . Preventive detention is commonly applied rather than being the exception, and the Public Prosecutor monopolizes the criminal action process, controlling investigations and determining outcomes at their discretion . This leads to delayed investigations and findings . Only the investigative police are authorized to conduct investigations, and a confession before the Public Prosecutor holds full probative value . The process is further criticized for the excessive delays, heavy workload leading judges to delegate tasks, and the use of arraigo, which allowed for discretionary abuses of authority . Furthermore, the distinction between serious and non-serious crimes restricted provisional release options, often leaving the accused deprived of liberty throughout the process .

In Mexico's inquisitorial-mixed criminal process, the Public Prosecutor holds substantial power and influence over the proceedings. They have a monopoly over exercising criminal action, making autonomous decisions regarding the course and outcome of investigations . The Public Prosecutor is responsible for compiling pre-trial investigations and is deeply involved in every aspect of the case until its progression to the trial stage . Their authority in determining whether legal actions move forward significantly impacts the pace and transparency of the justice process, often resulting in procedural delays due to their workload . Additionally, confessions obtained in their presence are given full evidentiary value, further enhancing their control over case outcomes .

The Mexican criminal process consists of several key stages, beginning with the preliminary investigation conducted by the Public Prosecutor to establish the existence of a crime and leading to the decision to exercise criminal action . The next stage involves the judge, overseeing the judicial inquiry upon receiving an individual from the prosecutor till the determination of formal imprisonment or release due to insufficient evidence . During the instruction stage, initiated by formal imprisonment or process constraint, the judge carries out or orders necessary legal actions . The trial stage commences with the prosecution's accusation, leading to a judgment deciding on the accusation . The execution stage handles the enforcement of sanctions and is managed by the executive authority .

In the Mexican criminal justice system, the preliminary investigation phase is critical as it sets the foundation for potential criminal proceedings. Managed by the Public Prosecutor, this phase involves determining whether a crime has occurred and identification of suspect liability, culminating in the decision of whether to exercise criminal action . Proper handling during this phase can influence the trajectory and effectiveness of subsequent prosecution efforts, making it pivotal in ensuring procedural integrity and just outcomes . Its thoroughness directly impacts the credibility and strength of the case as it moves to later phases, highlighting its essential role within the legal framework .

Differentiating between serious and non-serious crimes in Mexico's criminal process has significant implications for the accused, primarily regarding provisional liberty. Serious crimes preclude the possibility of temporary freedom during the legal process, resulting in prolonged detention for the accused . This classification affects defendants' rights to a fair trial by entrenching detainment irrespective of the eventual trial outcome, possibly affecting those wrongfully charged . The lack of provisional liberty for serious crimes can overburden prison systems, impact detainees’ socio-economic status, and question the proportionality and fairness of pre-trial detention practices .

Preventive detention in the Mexican criminal justice system is a standard practice rather than an exception, where the suspect remains detained throughout the legal proceedings, especially for serious crimes . This practice implies that the accused may spend extended periods in custody without a conclusive trial, impacting their presumption of innocence and often leading to their inability to access provisional liberty . This approach raises issues of potential human rights violations, increasing the burden on judicial resources, and prolonging the time within which the accused remains incarcerated without a resolution on their guilt or innocence .

The Mexican criminal proceedings involve several key legal actors, including the Public Prosecutor, investigative police, judges, and defense attorneys. The Public Prosecutor initiates legal action and controls the investigation phase, influencing the investigation's direction and outcome . Investigative police execute investigative tasks exclusively . Judges oversee the judicial inquiry, making pivotal decisions like orders of formal imprisonment or release, and conduct the trial and instruction stages . Defense attorneys represent the accused, ensuring their rights are upheld and facilitating the gathering and presentation of evidence during the trial . Each actor plays a critical role in maintaining the balance of the judicial process, impacting the fairness and efficiency of legal outcomes .

The procedural limitations posed by restricting investigative tasks solely to the investigative police can slow down the criminal process and limit the scope and effectiveness of investigations . This monopoly can result in biases and restrict the diversity of investigative approaches since other entities, such as defense teams or independent agencies, are excluded from gathering evidence . Consequently, this can affect case outcomes by potentially leading to incomplete evidence presentation and reliance on police reports, reducing the likelihood of fair trial processes and accurate findings .

The heavy reliance on documentation within Mexico's inquisitorial system affects both the efficiency and accessibility of justice. The process is bureaucratic, leading to lengthy delays as parties navigate extensive written records . Only individuals with legal standing can access these records, potentially limiting transparency and broader public scrutiny . This documentation-heavy approach exacerbates case backlogs, contributing to protracted investigation durations, averaging from several months to years . Such processes can deter timely justice and undermine confidence in judicial outcomes, illustrating significant inefficiencies within this legal framework .

In Mexico, the concept of 'fe pública' attributed to actions taken by the Public Prosecutor significantly impacts the criminal process by giving their actions inherent credibility and legal validity . This presumption of truthfulness can strengthen the prosecutorial case while challenging the defense's ability to contest evidence and assert alternative interpretations . While it aims to streamline judicial proceedings by upholding the prosecutor's findings, it also risks overshadowing the adversarial role of defense representation, potentially skewing judicial impartiality . The effect of 'fe pública' underscores fundamental debates regarding fairness, balance, and the equitable execution of justice in the Mexican system .