Overview
- The Court unanimously denied a father’s amparo in review 397/2024 and affirmed that videorecording psychological interviews is constitutionally valid when ordered by a judge.
- Recording is permitted only under a “protective videorecording” regime that requires individualized technical justification by specialists and age‑appropriate information and hearing of the child.
- Interviews must occur in non‑intimidating settings such as Gesell chambers with only essential personnel present to minimize exposure and avoid trauma.
- The videos are classified as sensitive information that must be securely stored, accessed only under judicial supervision, never copied or disseminated, and anonymized or destroyed when the case concludes.
- Judges must explain how the video informed their decision and verify compliance with safeguards, and in the same session the Court upheld the constitutionality of Puebla’s feminicide provision (Article 338, section VI).