Challenge to gender parity measures in Mexican public service appointments dismissed

Facts

The author is a Mexican citizen who participated in the 2014 selection process for electoral councillors conducted by Mexico’s National Electoral Institute. The process advanced the top 25 male and top 25 female candidates based on exam scores. The author took the exam and scored higher than 18 of the 25 selected women but did not advance, as he was not among the top 25 men. He filed a lawsuit, arguing that separate gender-based lists violated his rights to non-discrimination and equality under the Covenant. On 26 August 2014, the High Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal dismissed his case, with no right to appeal. Despite his higher score, two women with lower scores were later appointed as councillors. Therefore, the author claims that the State party by the parity design violated his right to equality before the law under articles 3 and 14, violation of the pro personae principle under article 5, as well as the equal access to public service under article  25 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee declared the author’s claimed violation of article 2 and 5 of the Covenant to be inadmissible, as the provisions lay out general obligations for State party’s and cannot be invoked independently. Furthermore, the author failed to substantiate how the proceedings before the national court violated his right under article 14 (1) and was therefore subsequently declared inadmissible.The Committee also held that the author failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims of gender based discrimination under articles 3, 25 and 26 (read alone or in conjunction with article 2 (1), (2) and (3)) of the Covenant and is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee reiterates its jurisprudence that article 25 (c) of the Covenant grants only equal access to public service on general terms and that not every differential treatment constitutes discrimination under article 26, insofar as it is based on reasonable and objective criteria and serves a purpose that is legitimate under the Covenant. Additionally, it emphasizes that States parties must ensure that the law guarantees women the rights contained in article  25 of the Covenant on equal terms with men. The Committee rejected the author’s argument that parity quotas constituted differential treatment, as the same selection rules applied to both genders. It also dismissed the claim that educational equality makes parity measures unnecessary, reaffirming that affirmative action is a legitimate tool under the Covenant to address historical discrimination. The Committee noted that women remained underrepresented in decision-making roles despite educational parity and that, during the relevant period, fewer women took the exam. It emphasized that structural factors—such as social and economic inequalities, power dynamics, and stereotyped roles—contribute to gender disparities. Finally, it found that the absence of gender parity in other sectors does not justify its absence in the electoral context.