Alejandro Celorio, the lawyer leading the litigation against weapons in the United States: “The arms industry has blood on its hands”

Mexico has just scored an unprecedented legal victory.

In a historic decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Mexican representation and affirmed that it does have sufficient arguments to sue the giants of the arms industry in the United States, after a Boston court dismissed the lawsuit in first instance in October 2022.

The Latin American country claims that some of the biggest names in the arms industry have benefited for years from illegal arms trafficking, a monster that feeds on negligent business practices and the insatiable hunger of drug cartels to increase their power. of fire.

Mexico estimates that the damage amounts to 15 billion dollars.

The manufacturers maintain that they have immunity and that a statute promoted in the George W. Bush Administration – the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) – shields them from any claim that reaches the courts.

Alejandro Celorio, the man who coordinates Mexico's legal strategy in the litigation, talks about the importance of the ruling issued this week, which overturns for the first time the argument of the immunity of gun shops, and the battles that continue on the legal front .

“The arms industry has blood on its hands,” says the legal consultant of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“They know that their products are in our country and they have done nothing to remedy or prevent it,” he adds in an interview with EL PAÍS.

Ask.

What does this ruling mean for Mexico?

Answer.

The first legal implication is that we overcome this law of immunities for the first time.

I'm not sure, but I think there is no precedent for a ruling like this in an appeals court.

It's historic.

We are talking about a foreign government.

And we overcome this obstacle thanks to an exception that establishes, in basic terms, that Mexico will have the opportunity to prove that the defendant companies aid and abet arms trafficking.

That is capital, because it means that other countries will surely be able to analyze whether this decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals gives them a window to sue, such as Jamaica, Canada or other countries that suffer from the same thing.

The most direct and concrete implication is that our litigation will advance.

Not only will we have the opportunity to present our evidence, we will be able to ask the defendant companies to share their evidence with us.

In another case against tobacco companies, for example, emails were obtained from managers who, knowing that they caused damage to health, continued to insist on showing tobacco consumption as something fashionable.

That is the type of information we are going to obtain in litigation.

It can be a gold mine.

Q.

Why was Mexico right?

A.

The trial judge said, in general terms, that no matter how much sympathy he felt for Mexico's cause, he had to reject the lawsuit because there is a law of immunities that prohibits starting the trial.

The problem was PLCAA.

It was not a question of whether Mexico could sue or whether the forum was convenient.

When we filed our appeal brief, we did not talk about anything other than the PLCAA and why it is not applicable.

We point out that it has no extraterritorial effects, that there is a direct violation of the ban on the export of machine guns and that the defendant companies violate state and federal laws.

The Court of Appeals took up all that information and when the parties presented our arguments, on August 28, the three judges questioned the representatives of the gun stores, including one of then-President Donald Trump's lawyers, how much they knew about the sales. direct, how their trade works, who buys from them and where the weapons go.

That hearing was decisive.

We did our job by presenting the case, but I think the judges' interest in

scratching things out

a little and the inability of the defendant companies to disassociate themselves weighed more.

They said that many people participate in the production and damage chain in Mexico.

And what the judges answered is that, in terms of civil damages, it has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't matter if one or thousands participate, as long as there is a causal link, there is responsibility.

It is very important because Mexico has set a precedent.

When there are other cases of people or companies that want to disassociate themselves from their civil liability, under the argument that someone else intervened or a criminal group intervened, they will not be able to do it so easily.

If you did something negligent, then you are responsible.

That's why this is so historic and took so long.

It involved a very complex analysis.

Q.

What are the legal battles coming up?

A.

It is possible that the defendant companies may ask the appeals court for review.

That implies that all the judges of the First Circuit review the decision of the three judges who heard our case and decide whether to leave the decision final or reverse it.

That is a first obstacle.

A second scenario is that the defendants appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

They have 90 days to do so.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court does not take all cases and it is not certain that it will.

The Government of Mexico is prepared for this scenario.

When the appeals court's decision is final, the case would return to the Boston court.

But we expect many reactions from the defendants, they are going to put in more resources.

It's going to be a long process, a race of attrition.

This is just the first

round

.

Q.

Have you noticed any changes in the gun stores' practices since the case or are they still a crucial link in this chain of violence?

A.

They haven't changed anything.

What has changed is the United States Government.

We see more actions by the United States to stop and prevent arms trafficking.

In 2022, a law was approved for the first time to punish arms trafficking.

Before it was not a crime.

So, yes there have been changes, perhaps they are lucky coincidences, but it seems to me that a lot has to do with Mexico's efforts in this litigation and in other forums.

In 2009, state police presented weapons seized on the border, in Tijuana.

In 5 months of the operation, 654 weapons were seized. Guillermo Arias (AP)

Q.

Would you say that the US arms industry has blood on its hands?

A.

Without a doubt.

They have blood on their hands.

Not directly, because we cannot accuse them without evidence that they are colluding with organized crime.

Therefore, this civil lawsuit is for negligence.

They are trading a product designed to kill, injure and destroy.

They know that their products are in Mexico and they have done nothing to remedy or prevent it.

There are principles of human rights and companies, which speak of the duty of companies to evaluate the risk and mitigate it.

They know well the violence we are suffering.

Q.

What will Mexico demand from the gun stores if it wins?

A.

Three things.

The first is that they immediately cease their negligent business practices: that they stop selling to name-brands, that they make the necessary changes to prevent trafficking from being facilitated.

The second is short and medium-term measures, such as changes in their distribution decisions, self-discipline, and monitoring of who is selling their products and to whom.

The third point is, as in any civil lawsuit for damages, to request compensation.

There will be a stage in the trial to quantify the damage.

We estimate that the Government of Mexico has suffered damage that would amount to 15,000 million dollars.

Why so much?

Because there are studies that say that Mexico invests between 5% and 20% of GDP to respond to violence.

Mexico would not suffer from armed violence if we had fewer weapons and these weapons come from illicit trafficking facilitated by the negligence of these companies.

P.

Alicia Bárcena arrived last year as Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

What has changed with the new chancellor?

A.

The legal strategy continues in its same terms.

She has given an additional meaning to what we are doing.

She speaks of a consistent, congruent foreign policy, of Mexico's tradition on issues of disarmament and against arms trafficking.

She has asked us to better explain what the case is about, bring the litigation closer to people and tell them why it is important.

She has also helped us take the case to other forums.

Under her management, a request for an advisory opinion was presented to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which helped us a lot.

Next week there is another forum in England on arms trade.

She has asked us to take what we are doing to more places.

His arrival was a positive addition to what was already being done.

Q.

It is the last year of the six-year term and there are elections in June.

Are you concerned that this could affect the continuity of demand?

A.

I'm not worried.

In terms of budget, we are covered for this year and we will request resources for 2025. This must continue.

The suggestion to the next Administration will be that Mexico does not give up on this effort.

It would be giving up, but it will be the decision of the next Government.

As for any changes that may occur in the Foreign Ministry, we are replaceable.

If they ask me for my position, I will leave it to someone else who does the same or better than me.

This is an effort of the Mexican State.

And it will take time because this will surely take two or three Administrations until we have a final ruling and compensation for damages.

Q.

Can the elections in the United States and a potential return of Trump to the presidency influence the case?

A.

I hope not.

Judicial decisions are made based on the law, but in the end judges are human beings.

We have been very insistent and careful in clarifying that this is not a lawsuit against the Second Amendment [the right to bear arms in the United States].

Eventually, the campaign of the pre-candidate Trump, if he is a candidate, will surely put out a

hashtag

saying Mexico wants our weapons and the issue will become politicized.

Alright.

It's your game, don't worry.

We already have it budgeted.

If there is a point about what we are doing, what we will say is that we are appealing to your courts, in your language and under your rules, and that the appeals court said that we can sue.

Every time someone points out that Mexico wants to take away guns from Americans, we will respond that we want to take them away from the cartels, that they are empowered and that traffic in fentanyl and other substances.

And we will tell them that instead of complaining, they should help us.

American citizens have to realize that we are fighting for the same thing.

We do not interfere with your right to bear arms, what we want is for criminals not to do so.

Even the National Rifle Association and others would have to back us.

They don't do it for reasons of profit and so on.

But Mexico has won the narrative.

Subscribe here

to the EL PAÍS México newsletter and receive all the key information on current events in this country