Officials, academics, experts, prosecutors, judges, and ordinary citizens all know it: impunity in Mexico is overwhelming, persistent, and pervasive.
But when it comes to sexual crimes committed against women in the military, impunity becomes even grimmer, even more desolate.
Official figures obtained through the Transparency Law confirm this: although in the last 12 years the Military Prosecutor's Office has opened 525 investigations for rape, sexual harassment, abuse, and assault, the results reveal a stark failure.
Over this dozen-year period (from January 2013 to December 2024), military prosecutors have secured only 17 convictions—a mere 3.2 percent of the cases taken to court.
The official information also reveals that the military elite—including generals accused of sexual crimes, have remained untouched. None have been definitively sentenced: they were either acquitted or the investigations were archived before reaching trial, as acknowledged by the Ministry of Defense (Sedena) in response to a request for information.
Of the 525 case files, at least eight generals were implicated. Six of them never faced trial as the accusations were archived without assigning them responsibility. In the remaining two cases, the generals involved were acquitted at the first stage of trial; those files continue to bounce between various courts, with no final ruling.
An analysis of files and statistics from military courts, the Supreme Military Court, and the Federal Judiciary reveals a consistent pattern: the few convictions for sexual crimes have involved only lower-ranking soldiers.
According to the Military Prosecutor's Office, between 2013 and 2016, investigation files were opened against 42 high-ranking officers (colonels, lieutenant colonels, and majors).
Leaked emails from the Guacamaya group along with records from the Federal Judiciary provide additional context: between 2016 to 2024, seven more cases against officers were formally processed.
But even in these cases, justice remains elusive. In the majority of the 49 cases involving high-ranking officers, there has been no final sentence. The files continue to circulate between courts without resolution.
Only one case has resulted in a final conviction: that of Major Carmelo Patiño Nájera, who was convicted four years after auxiliary soldier and hairdresser Naybeth Arzate filed a rape complaint in 2018.
Investigations by Military Prosecutor's Office
Military Bureaucracy Hinders Justice
Even in Naybeth Arzate’s case, the justice she obtained came at a high cost and caused significant strain. When she tried to report the rape that took place at the National Training Center in Santa Gertrudis, Chihuahua, she encountered a wall of military bureaucracy. She was sent from one office to another, and then to yet another. After three exhausting months of being shuffled around without receiving any meaningful attention, she decided to desert, as she explained in an interview.
Later, the Army’s General Directorate of Human Rights contacted her to provide follow-up for her case. Naybeth had been unaware that a protocol for handling cases like hers even existed. "It's not like they protected me or told me, ‘These are your rights; you can report it, and if they don't listen to you here, you can go elsewhere'; they did none of that," she complains.
According to the judicial file reviewed, the first conviction against her aggressor was issued by a military court in November 2019, sentencing him to 12 years in prison. The major's defense appealed the decision in January 2020, but a military court upheld the conviction.
Following the failed appeal, Major Patiño Nájera sought protection through federal civil justice filing an amparo (legal appeal) before the Fourth Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters. The court members overturned the military court’s ruling and ordered it to declare itself incompetent to continue with the case, transferring jurisdiction to a district judge in Chihuahua.
Ultimately, in August 2022, Federal Judge Cristina Lozoya issued a new sentence: eight years in prison. The ruling was made through a fast-track procedure, a legal mechanism that allows for a quicker resolution without a full trial.
However, the case did not end with that sentence. In January 2025, Naybeth attended a hearing after a judge granted her aggressor early release for good behavior.
Although she could have challenged the ruling, she chose not to because the process had been exhausting and re-traumatizing. "I had to relive the assault over and over again. It happens often that people keep reminding you, again and again, what happened. And, above all, many people make you feel guilty," she says.
Naybeth managed to get the judge to issue a restraining order, preventing her aggressor from coming near her or her family.
Nevertheless, with his imminent release, her fear remains.
Systematic and Structural Violence
Paloma Mendoza Cortés is an expert on military and national security issues. She has studied Mexico’s armed forces for about 15 years, and has served as a civilian professor at several Army schools.
"Violence against military women within the armed forces dates back to their historical origins," explains Mendoza Cortés.
These are state institutions that require a role of strength and valor- "commonly attributed to men, although women have actually played very important roles in armed conflicts, like the Adelitas during the Revolution."
In addition to this type of violence being historical, it is "systemic and structural." Its scope remains largely unknown.
"There is a severe underreporting of complaints," emphasizes Mendoza Cortés, currently a researcher at the Center for Studies on Security, Intelligence, and Governance at ITAM.
A graduate of the Hemispheric Studies Center at the U.S. National Defense University, she warns that even the few cases that reach the media are often disregarded by the Ministry of National Defense (Sedena), which frequently classifies the women soldiers involved as deserters. The complaints are then labeled as "negative propaganda."
And that’s it. They are not taken seriously.
Sanctions for sexual crimes
Not Even Administrative Sanctions
Military personnel who have committed acts of sexist violence toward their female colleagues have not only avoided prison but have also largely evaded disciplinary sanctions within the military.
Figures from the Internal Control Office of Sedena further highlight the extent of impunity.
Between 2013 and 2024, auditors who received complaints and gathered evidence in cases of sexual harassment or assault achieved sanctions in only 22 out of 314 cases (seven percent).
Among those sanctioned were seven high ranking officers (colonels, lieutenant colonels), but the "punishments" they received were largely symbolic: verbal reprimands, one-month suspensions, warnings, or temporary disqualifications of up to six months.
"The punishment is questionable”, says Mendoza Cortés. In most cases, "it is limited to a warning for the perpetrator, and for the victim, it leads to work-related marginalization, reassignment, or discharge."
Mendoza Cortés, who is also a member of the Network of Women in Security and Defense in Latin America and the Caribbean, concludes with a troubling assessment: "This leads to the revictimization of the complainant and the reaffirmation of the military's phallocentric culture."
Complaint with the Internal Control Organ
Revictimizing Arguments
Victims like Eugenia, Dulce, Sofía, Adarely, and Naybeth not only endure a long, tedious, bureaucratic criminal process, they must also confront a military judicial system overloaded with stereotypes and prejudices. They face lawyers who ask morbid and invasive questions, judges with sexist and re-victimizing arguments, and magistrates who issue rulings devoid of a gender perspective and often rooted in sexist and moral judgments.
In the twenty court files reviewed for this investigation, it was found that both the lawyers from the Military Public Defender's Office, and the magistrates of the Superior Military Court-- who represent the alleged aggressors, frequently sought to dismiss the accusations of the women complainants with re-victimizing arguments. Five cases clearly exemplify the revictimizing pattern:
- A young female military police soldier from Baja California, filed a criminal charge against a second-class infantry captain for raping her in the passenger seat of a car. The defendant's defense team attempted to discredit the victim's statement by asserting that her attitude toward the attack "was not highly reactive," as she did not fight or kick to avoid the attack (criminal case 495/2018).
- In Reynosa, Tamaulipas, in October 2017, a lieutenant accused of assaulting a female corporal by groping
her breasts and putting his hands inside her pants and underwear was acquitted. The judge ruled that it
could not be considered sexual abuse because the lieutenant "did not have the arousal or impulse to
satisfy a sexual desire, since if that were the case, he would have inserted his fingers into the young
woman's vagina or even had intercourse."
“In the crime of sexual abuse, not only must the lewd act (touching, rubbing, or caressing) be proven, but also that said conduct was carried out with lascivious intent… that is, the alleged touching to which the soldier refers must have been carried out with the intention of carnal pleasure or obtaining sexual satisfaction or an immoderate appetite for pleasurable sensations, a situation that did not occur in this specific case,” reads court ruling TP3-043/2019. -
A lieutenant colonel in the medical service was accused of touching the breasts of a nursing assistant
soldier with his face at the Children's Rehabilitation Center located at Military Camp 1-A. The military
commander's defense obtained the victim's medical and psychological history to portray her as a person
with a tendency to exaggerate problems.
“She perceives herself as part of a dysfunctional family, which can affect her emotional balance; she identifies as a dependent, insecure person lacking coping skills, and she perceives psychological conflicts with the male figure”, argued the defendant's attorney. -
In the case of General Francisco Camarena, who was accused of sexually abusing a female office worker at
the Headquarters of the 20th Military Zone based in Colima, the judges of a military court acquitted him
because they dismissed the psychological reports submitted as evidence.
In their ruling, the judges asserted that the psychological examinations were a subjective personal assessment based on the victim's testimony, since the specialists who conducted them did not directly witness the aggressor's behavior. Furthermore, they dismissed key evidence, such as witness testimonies, considering it "hearsay" because the witnesses had not directly observed the reported sexual acts. Therefore, the court "determined that they do not merit full probative value, since their statement is a subjective personal assessment supported only by the victim's account." -
A general was accused by three of his subordinates of raping them in the offices at the 8th Military
Zone in Reynosa, Tamaulipas. In one case, the victim reported that while she was being subdued, the
alleged attacker briefly stepped away to put on a condom and then returned to rape her.
The Military Oral Trial Tribunal initially acquitted the accused because its members considered it "illogical" for the victim not to have taken advantage of the moment to flee. Despite her testimony that she tried to break free and leave but was unable to do so due to the physical superiority of her attacker.
Instead, they stated, “It is noted that she remained at the scene of the sexual assault, waiting for her aggressor to put on the condom; so, this court doubts the veracity of the victim’s account.”
The Army “acknowledges” the Problem
Emails leaked by the hacktivist group Guacamaya revealed that the high command of Sedena has been trying for years to contain the acts of sexism that permeate through its ranks.
The emails also documented that, although the problem has never been publicly acknowledged, there is a detailed internal record of cases and containment measures to suppress them.
Although the level and severity of sexual assaults against female soldiers in previous years are unknown, Sedena began showing signs of concern in 2011.
In March of that year, it issued a statement titled "Zero Tolerance for Harassment and Sexual Abuse Conduct", a document signed by General Guillermo Galván, who held the position of Secretary of Defense during the presidency of Felipe Calderón.
Since then, every Secretary of Defense has reaffirmed the statements directives. It called on military leadership at all levels to prevent and combat gender-based violence within the institution, and outlined actions designed to "prevent" and "address" what were labeled as harassment and sexual assault (HAS) cases.
General Salvador Cienfuegos issued the same directive in 2013 and 2016, under President Enrique Peña Nieto. General Luis Cresencio Sandoval did the same in 2019, under President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, but with a more forceful tone: “There will be no impunity for those who harass, and there will be no abandonment of the victims.”
Along with the dissemination of the "Zero Tolerance" document, Sedena created a committee in 2011 to address these cases and, in 2013, established a specialized office. However, these actions proved insufficient.
The complaints continued and could not be contained.
Thus, then-Secretary General, General Salvador Cienfuegos, sent an "urgent" message, cataloged as number 50224, mandating that, as of May 21, 2013, specific guidelines be followed for addressing complaints of sexual harassment or abuse.
It outlined several measures, including acting to prevent continued work contact between the victim and the alleged harasser, as well as preventing the victim from facing retaliation or “further escalation of harassment or sexual abuse”.
The directive outlined several key measures: ensuring that victims would not be forced to maintain work contact with their alleged harassers; protecting victims from retaliation or the “further escalation of harassment or sexual abuse”; avoiding public accusations; and ensuring that neither party would be excluded from military activities. It also instructed that the cases be handled with "absolute secrecy" to protect the "honor and reputation" of both the victim and the alleged perpetrator.
One year later, the issue resurfaced in another internal communication.
Dated May 27, 2014, and labeled as "extra urgent," the message, written by the Commander General of the Military Police, emphasized that despite the recommendations and orders issued by superiors, "improper behavior" continued to be exhibited by chiefs, officers, and troops, which harmed the image of the Army and Air Force.
The message called for renewed efforts to curb such conduct, including administering surveys to detect dissatisfaction, intensifying "awareness talks", and "inviting" personnel to report any abuse, assuring that no reprisals would be taken against the complainants.
Additionally, the directive emphasized that "it is strictly prohibited for female personnel to join the security details of commanders" and urged that they are not assigned roles such as telephone operators, office workers, orderlies, or logistics personnel.
Yet despite these rules, the offices responsible for addressing "HAS cases" failed to contain the surge of "improper behaviors."
In March 2018, nine months before finishing his tenure as Secretary of National Defense, Salvador Cienfuegos sent a "confidential message" to all commanders of the Army and Air Force:
“I’m informing you that I have been made aware of several incidents in which military personnel (men) have invaded the privacy of female soldiers by entering or attempting to enter their dormitories, which constitutes a degrading act.”
In response, he ordered that signs be placed at the entrances of the women's dormitories to restrict male access, that patrols be conducted at various times, and that closed-circuit cameras be installed.
But even these measures did not quell the wave of incidents. In another "urgent message" dated March 2021, General Luis Cresencio Sandoval González again acknowledged that "complaints of harassment and sexual abuse that compromise the physical and psychological integrity" of the Army continued to be reported.
He listed some of the most frequent behaviors: "women and men of different ranks becoming overly familiar with one another, relaxing military discipline"; "dissemination of intimate photographs", "military personnel entering the dormitories of women and men at night," and "making sexual comments regarding the anatomy of women and men."
As a result, the high command intensified the measures. Displays of affection while in uniform were prohibited. Even greetings were restricted: "handshakes and kisses" were banned with only the military salute deemed acceptable within military installations.
Finally, he called for lectures on the legal consequences of creating, recording, reproducing, or disseminating sexually explicit photos and videos of a person without their consent.
Measures taken by the high command
"Reclassification" of Sexual Violence
The March 2021 directive from General Sandoval González also included a subtle but telling complaint: there was a high number of sexual misconduct reports, and commanders at various levels (Chiefs) were sending them without prior analysis. As a result, the total number of complaints increased unjustifiably, as only a portion of them were legitimate cases.
In other words, what he was ordering was that the numbers be "reclassified" in order to reduce the numbers.
Between early 2013 until the end of 2024, the Office for the Attention of Sexual Harassment and Abuse (HAS), the main body to which victims are referred, registered 509 complaints (37 were against generals and 120 against chiefs of various ranks).
According to official data from an internal presentation from Sedena found in the files leaked by the hacktivist group Guacamaya; complaints and reports of harassment and sexual abuse, domestic violence, and sexual offenses spiked during 2018 and 2019.
The fact is that in 2018, the HAS office received 77 complaints and reports, and another 77 in 2019, according to information obtained via the Public Access to Information Law.
In response to the rise in complaints, Sedena's high command ordered the General Directorate of Human Rights to conduct a "proper and objective" classification of cases categorized as HAS, as they were counting complaints that, according to them, did not fit the patterns of sexual harassment and abuse.
After re-evaluating each case, they achieved a 63.95% reduction, according to data reported by the General Directorate of Human Rights.
Among the cases excluded were those of women who reported being assigned jobs and assignments in retaliation for not giving in to sexual advances; those that occurred outside military installations; those of women who had stopped "obtaining benefits" after having consensual relationships with other military personnel; those reclassified as domestic violence and intramarital relationships; and those where they "suspicions" that the women's "statements" were false.
Official data obtained through transparency reflects that, following this instruction, the numbers showed a significant drop: in 2020 and 2021, the HAS office registered 50 and 44 cases, respectively.
Complaints and reports to the HAS office
A judicial labyrinth
On the morning of April 23, 2022, Lieutenant Adarely was requesting some documents in the archives area of the 36th Military Zone barracks in Tapachula, Chiapas, when she felt hands grab her waist and quickly run over her body, squeezing her breasts.
Surprised, she realized it was Infantry Lieutenant Colonel Dorian, a State Major, who, in the full view of several soldiers, was rubbing his body against hers.
"He grabbed me by the area where my hips are; I mean, he groped me, and he sort of grinded against me, like when you get touched on the subway, but worse. He rubbed his whole body against me," Adarely says in an interview for this investigation. The lieutenant wanted to file a complaint immediately and told Captain Guillermo, the head of the second section, what had happened, but he refused to process her report because he didn't want to "ruin" the military commander's career.
Faced with her superior's refusal, Adarely sent an email to the 7th Military Region, but also received no response. She then decided to write to the General Directorate of Human Rights of the Sedena (National Security Forces) and to the then-Secretary General Luis Cresencio Sandoval González.
Those were difficult days, as she recalls in the interview: she felt singled out by her superiors and isolated by the indifference of her colleagues.
After a while, she began receiving death threats under her office door and suspected that military personnel were following her when she went out. “On my social media accounts, newcomers were increasingly joining, seeking to obtain information about my personality, my family, my way of dressing, or how I express myself. I had no doubt that someone, following orders, was looking for something to start intimidating me,” she wrote to General Sandoval González in a letter dated May 12, 2022.
Four days later, Adarely received a response from the General Directorate of Human Rights. Her superiors formally activated the Systematic Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Prevention and Attention to Hostile and Sexual Harassment, a protocol which aims to be a “guide of action” for handling sexism-based violence with a gender-sensitive approach.
They also referred her for psychological consultations. "They gave me a letter; they supposedly activated the protocol for sexual harassment, asking ‘how I was feeling, what not,’ and referred me to psychology. It was useless. They kept sending a copy of everything I said to the general (the head of the 36th Military Zone). There was no confidentiality.” Adarely, requested that her last name to be omitted in order not to hinder the criminal process she is fighting in court. She dutifully attended the therapy sessions. But they didn’t help much. The doctors prescribed antidepressants that made her very sleepy, and what she least wanted was to sleep. She needed to stay alert and continue pushing her legal complaint through the criminal system.
Now, nearly three years since she first filed her report, her case is still mired in judicial bureaucracy. A judge ordered the case to be referred to civil jurisdiction, as the crime was not related to military service and therefore did not affect military discipline. That decision stalled progress indefinitely.
She also filed a complaint with the Internal Control Organ (OIC) but was told that the reported acts were outside its jurisdiction, as this body only handles administrative offenses.
"They put many obstacles in my way. One boss told me that there were three procedures here: they would discharge me, pretend nothing happened, or I could file a complaint, but I already knew what would happen—they wouldn’t pay any attention to me."
Therapy to “Heal” and “Forgive”
Six military women interviewed for this investigation state that the purpose of the therapy is for them to “forget,” “heal,” or “forgive” their aggressors so that they do not proceed legally against them.
Martha, whose real name is omitted to avoid putting her in a more vulnerable position, was a victim of alleged harassment by a mayor in Durango. The officer invited her to lunch in his office and always found excuses to have her close. At first, he made uncomfortable comments, to which she tried not to give much importance, but then he followed up with a series of inappropriate touches that she found increasingly alarming.
“He poked my stomach with a finger, telling me that I was very skinny, that I had lips that made him want to bite them, then he invited me to have drinks outside the office,” she recalls in an interview with the author of the investigation.
One morning at the end of 2023, while she was preparing coffee for him, he surprised her with a kiss and violently pinned her against the wall, just out of the camera's view. In disbelief, she stepped away and asked him not to do it again.
After facing numerous obstacles to reporting the incident, she managed to send her complaint to the (HAS) office’s email. “What they did was transfer me to another military zone (in the southern part of the country), while he stayed where he was, continuing to do the same to other colleagues.”
She could no longer see her two children, who had to stay with her mother in Durango. She lived like that for a while. But then, she decided to put an end to what was happening: “Until I got tired, and I left.”
Her case was never referred to the Internal Control Organ (OIC), and since she did not file a complaint with the Military Prosecutor's Office, the (HAS) office closed the file, recommending the aggressor take an emotional management course.
She was referred to psychological therapy and then became a target for the institution, as they started "monitoring her civil and military conduct" once she was transferred to Puebla.
Martha summarizes her experience: “That’s what they want: for us to heal and forget, or get tired, like I did.”
A Failed Protocol
For Adarely, and many other victims, the military’s protocol has failed to yield justice.
Although the Systematic Operating Procedure (PSO) for the Prevention and Attention of Hostile and Sexual Harassment defines the steps to follow to guide and support victims, there is no standardized procedure. Instead, there is an institutional labyrinth that makes it difficult for victims to access justice.
The first piece of the official puzzle is the Office for the Attention of Hostile and Sexual Harassment (HAS). Created on August 26, 2013, in response to increasingly frequent complaints, it is responsible for handling cases of violence and providing interdisciplinary first-contact support, However, its efforts are focused on ensuring that complainants receive medical and psychological attention, without guaranteeing that investigations will be conducted to determine if a crime occurred and hold perpetrators accountable.
According to the (PSO), and acknowledged by the Directorate General of Human Rights of Sedena, in response to an information request, this office “does not have legal powers” to refer cases to the Military Prosecutor's Office (FGJM) or the Internal Control Body (OIC) when it receives complaints.“It only coordinates with the (FGJM) in order to know the progress and resolution of the investigation files that, at the complainant’s discretion, may be filed independently.”
The (HAS) office has a committee that reviews and follows up on cases, but it cannot impose sanctions. It can only propose measures for prevention and protection for victims of sexual harassment and assault.
In a review of a dozen or so cases that went through the committee, it was found that the proposed measures focus on giving gender-awareness talks to the aggressors, having them sign the “Zero Tolerance” declaration, and in extreme cases, “avoiding” assigning them to work areas where they might have contact with women.
The cases reviewed involved women who had been victimized in different ways: physical or verbal assaults, sexual propositions, groping, sexual abuse, or the dissemination of intimate images or videos without consent.
The sexist violence was so recurrent that, after psychological and psychiatric evaluations by military doctors, women were diagnosed with emotional disorders or symptoms of sadness, anxiety, anger, fear, stress, as well as suicidal tendencies or attempts, clinical depression with sleep disturbances.
Roberto, a lawyer specializing in military law who worked in Sedena and asks not to have his last name mentioned, explains that the protocol and entities like the (HAS) office are actually a damage control mechanism designed to counteract complaints that might harm the institution's image.
“It’s to control and dissipate complaints. ‘I’ll keep you (the victim) in therapy for two years, rather than have you go outside and file a complaint against someone who is a member of my institution with an external body that will expose me or ask for reports, like the Attorney General of the Republic.’”
The second piece is the Internal Control Body (OIC), which handles administrative complaints. Its actions are contradictory: it receives complaints about sexual assaults; in many cases, it acts and “sanctions” the perpetrators, but in others, it doesn’t proceed, arguing that its competence is limited to administrative matters.
The Military Prosecutor's Office is the third piece in this confusing framework: it handles criminal investigations, but to achieve it, one must overcome numerous obstacles.
In the case of any "incident," all military personnel, including women, must follow the “official channels” and report it to their superiors.
When women report harassment or abuse to their superiors and their report is acknowledged, the victim is typically channeled to the (HAS) office. There, they are advised to wait for the resolution issued by the (HAS) office before filing a criminal complaint or approaching the (OIC).
In the few cases where women decide to approach the Military Prosecutor's Office, it is very common for the prosecutor to put up obstacles. “The first question they ask is: ‘Did you report this to your Command?’”
Power intimidates many of them, even the bravest, who listen with a certain fear to the question they would rather not hear: "Did you report it to the Command Headquarters?"
