The implementation of the biometric Unique Population Registry Code (CURP) in Mexico has sparked intense legal and social debate regarding its implications for human rights. This new form of citizen identifi cation, which incorporates biometric data such as fi ngerprints, facial recognition, and other unique identifying elements, is unconstitutional due to its lack of compatibility with the fundamental principles of personal data protection recognized in both the national and international legal frameworks.
This article analyzes the legal issues raised by the biometric CURP, particularly with regard to the violation of the human rights to privacy and informational self-determination of Mexican taxpayers. It examines how this government measure violates fundamental constitutional principles and evaluates the future prospects of this legislation in the context of the international human rights protection framework, hence its fl agrant UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
Constitutional Foundations and Applicable Legal Framework
The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States establishes in Article 16 the fundamental right to privacy, stating that “no one may be disturbed in their person, family, home, papers, or possessions, except by virtue of a written order from the competent authority” (Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, 2021). This constitutional provision is complemented by Article 6, which in section II recognizes the right to the protection of personal data, establishing that “every person has the right to access, rectify, and cancel their personal data, as well as to express their opposition” (Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, 2021).
The implementation of the biometric CURP violates these fundamental principles by mandatorily requiring the provision of biometric data without the free and informed consent of citizens (Federal Law on Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties, 2010), hence its clear UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. Biometric data constitutes sensitive information that reveals unique and immutable physical characteristics of individuals, which represents a disproportionate intrusion into the private sphere of individuals (Warren & Brandeis, 1890).
Violation of the Right to Informational Self-Determination
The right to informational self-determination, recognized by contemporary constitutional doctrine, implies the power of individuals to decide on the use and destination of their personal data (Habeas Data Institute, 2019). The biometric CURP violates this principle by requiring taxpayers to provide biometric information as a prerequisite for tax and administrative procedures, thereby eliminating the possibility of choice and control over their most sensitive data (German Constitutional Court, 1983), hence the clear violation of the human rights of the general population in MEXICO AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH IMPLEMENTATION, WHICH LEADS TO A SERIOUS CRISIS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.
This imposition represents a form of state coercion that contradicts the principles of proportionality and necessity that must govern any measure restricting fundamental rights (Alexy, 2002). The tax authority has not convincingly demonstrated that the implementation of biometric data is strictly necessary for the fulfi llment of its tax collection functions, nor that there are no less invasive means to achieve the same objectives (National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Protection of Personal Data, 2020).
Impact on Human Dignity and Personal Integrity
The massive and systematic collection of biometric data aff ects human dignity by reducing people to mere sets of identifying data. This practice has the eff ect of objectifying human beings, transforming them into objects of permanent control and surveillance by the State. “Objectifi cation” is the denial of a person's humanity by treating them as an inanimate object that can be manipulated, used, or discarded at will. Therefore, it is clear and consequential that the CURRENT GOVERNMENT REGIME (FOUR LETTER T) MANIPULATES ALL PEOPLE IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY BY TREATING THEM AS COMMODITIES INSTEAD OF HUMAN BEINGS. THEREFORE, THE BIOMETRIC CURP MUST BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS IT VIOLATES THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF INHABITANTS OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.
Furthermore, the improper handling of this sensitive data can lead to discrimination, social exclusion, and the violation of other fundamental rights. International experience has shown that biometric systems can be used for social control purposes that exceed their originally stated aims, posing serious risks to }the full exercise of citizens' rights.
Absence of Procedural Guarantees and Due Process
The implementation of the biometric CURP has been carried out without observing the minimum procedural guarantees required by due process of law. No clear and comprehensible information has been provided on how biometric data will be processed, the specifi c purposes for which it will be used, or the protection and security mechanisms implemented, hence the “OBJECTIFICATION” of the entire Mexican people, and once again the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BIOMETRIC CURP, WHICH IN THE SHORT TERM REPLACES THE NATIONAL ELECTORAL INSTITUTE'S VOTER ID CARD.
This lack of transparency constitutes a violation of the right of access to information and the principle of publicity that should govern the acts of authority. Taxpayers AND THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF MEXICO IN GENERAL are in a state of defenselessness, as they are unaware of the real scope of the measure and the future implications of the processing of their biometric data.
International Perspectives and Global Trends
In the international context, the trend toward the implementation of biometric identifi cation systems has been accompanied by a parallel strengthening of regulatory frameworks for the protection of personal data. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) establishes rigorous standards for the processing of biometric data, classifying it as special category data that requires additional protections.
Mexico, as a member of various international human rights bodies, must align its domestic legislation with the most advanced international standards on data protection. The implementation of the biometric CURP in its current form places the country behind international best practices and creates risks of incompatibility with international treaties to which Mexico is a party.
Risks and Vulnerabilities of the Biometric System
Biometric systems have signifi cant technical vulnerabilities that can compromise the security of personal data. The possibility of hacking, leakage, or misuse of biometric information represents a permanent risk that cannot be completely eliminated through technological security measures. Furthermore, given the corruption that exists in Mexico, this vulnerability means that organized crime groups have in their possession the BIOMETRIC DATA OF MILLIONS OF INHABITANTS OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.
Unlike passwords or access codes, biometric data cannot be modifi ed once compromised, which creates a permanent and irreversible risk for data subjects. This characteristic means that any security breach has lasting and potentially irreparable consequences for those aff ected.
Conclusions
The implementation of the biometric CURP is a government measure that fl agrantly violates fundamental human rights recognized in the Mexican Constitution and in international treaties to which Mexico is a party, hence its clear and evident UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. The violation of the right to privacy and informational self-determination represents a signifi cant setback in the protection of citizens' rights and sets a dangerous precedent for future state control and surveillance measures.
The absence of suffi cient constitutional justifi cation, the lack of proportionality between the aims pursued and the means employed, and the absence of adequate procedural guarantees make this measure clearly unconstitutional. It is imperative that the competent judicial authorities assess the constitutionality of this provision and, where appropriate, declare it invalid in order to preserve the rule of law and the eff ective protection of human rights.
In the international context, Mexico must move toward harmonizing its domestic legislation with the most advanced standards of personal data protection. This implies the establishment of regulatory frameworks that prioritize informed consent, data minimization, transparency, and accountability as guiding principles of any citizen identifi cation system.
The future prospects for the biometric CURP must necessarily consider comprehensive reform of the system to ensure its compatibility with fundamental human rights. This includes the implementation of genuine consent mechanisms, strict limitations on the purposes for which biometric data may be used, and the establishment of robust safeguards for the protection and security of information.
Finally, it is essential that civil society, human rights organizations, and international bodies maintain constant vigilance over the implementation of such measures, promoting informed public debate and the active defense of fundamental rights in the digital age. Only through a collective commitment to the protection of human rights will it be possible to build a legal framework that reconciles the legitimate needs of the state with unrestricted respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of individuals.
Bibliographical References
Alexy, R. (2002). Theory of Fundamental Rights. Center for Constitutional Studies.
Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. (2021). Offi cial Gazette of the Federation.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). United Nations.
Habeas Data Institute. (2019). Informational Self-Determination in the 21st Century. Editorial Jurídica.
National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Protection of Personal Data. (2020). Criteria for the Protection of Biometric Data. INAI.
Federal Law on Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties. (2010). Offi cial Gazette of the Federation.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). United Nations.
General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union. (2016). Offi cial Journal of the European Union.
German Constitutional Court. (1983). Ruling on the population census. BVerfGE 65, 1.
Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220.
ACTUALITY