i
Until 1994, the court had the power of judicial review only through amparo suits. An amparo suit
allows a claimant to challenge the constitutionality of a government action or a law. The court can
resolve the individual case, but sets no precedent nor abolishes the law deemed unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court could only set a precedent if it rules the same way in five comparable cases. Amparo
suits worked to protect individual rights, but were dismissed by the court if they were too political or
directly challenged the ruling elite. Also, they tended to protect the rights of those citizens who were
well versed in the law and had the resources to initiate a suit, but not the majority of the public who did
not have the resources to file suit. Amparo suits were used largely to protect the rights of individuals
but not to challenge the legality of the system in any broader sense, and therefore were perfect to give
the illusion of the rule of law in an authoritarian setting (Domingo 2000, 718).
ii
An effective judiciary may also benefit domestic businesses, though not necessarily. The local
business sector may have a close relationship with governing elites and therefore privileged access to
the state. These connections may provide them with a greater level of certainty than an effective rule
of law.
iii
See also “Iniciativa de Reforma al Sistema de Seguridad Publica y Justicia Penal”
http://seguridadyjusticia.presidencia.gob.mx/
iv
A few of the independent variables are moderately correlated with each other, though not high
enough to cause major problems of multicollinearity. Nevertheless I reestimated the equations without
the correlated variables and the results were unchanged.
Convention