No. Mexico does not have the death penalty. Capital punishment was abolished for all crimes in 2005, and Article 22 of the Mexican Constitution now expressly forbids it alongside torture, mutilation, and other punishments the framers considered inhumane.1Constitute Project. Mexico 1917 (rev. 2015) Constitution The ban is reinforced by binding international treaties that would prevent any future government from quietly reversing course.
When Mexico Last Carried Out an Execution
Although formal abolition did not arrive until 2005, Mexico stopped executing people decades earlier. The last civilian executions took place on June 17, 1957, in Hermosillo, Sonora. The last military execution occurred in 1961 in Saltillo, Coahuila. After 1961, no one was put to death in Mexico, even though the penalty technically remained on the books in military law for another forty-four years.
The 1917 Constitution had kept capital punishment available for a narrow list of offenses including treason during a foreign war, parricide, premeditated murder, kidnapping, piracy, and serious military crimes. Political crimes were excluded. In practice, civilian executions grew rare and then disappeared, leaving the formal law well behind actual sentencing.
What the Constitution Says Now
Article 22 of the Mexican Constitution prohibits the death penalty outright and requires that every criminal penalty be proportional to the offense.1Constitute Project. Mexico 1917 (rev. 2015) Constitution Two legislative steps in 2005 produced that result. In April, the Chamber of Deputies unanimously reformed the military penal code, replacing the death penalty with prison terms of 30 to 60 years for the most serious military offenses. On June 23, the Chamber approved a broader constitutional amendment by a vote of 412 to 0 with 2 abstentions, closing the last legal avenue for execution. President Vicente Fox signed the reform into law.
Treaties That Lock the Ban in Place
Mexico’s abolition is not just a matter of domestic law. Three international agreements make it a binding external commitment as well.
Mexico joined the American Convention on Human Rights, known as the Pact of San José, in March 1981.2United Nations Treaty Collection. American Convention on Human Rights Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica Article 4 of that convention restricts the death penalty and prohibits any country that has abolished it from bringing it back. Mexico also acceded to the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which commits signatories to never use capital punishment during peacetime.3Organization of American States (OAS). Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty – Ratifications In September 2007, Mexico acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a United Nations treaty aimed at worldwide abolition.4United Nations Treaty Collection. Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty
Together, these treaties mean that reinstating the death penalty would put Mexico in violation of both regional and global human rights law.
The Harshest Sentence Mexico Can Impose
With execution ruled out, the ceiling under the federal criminal code is a prison term of up to 60 years. Additional time can be added only if the prisoner commits a new offense while incarcerated. The 2005 military reform substituted sentences of 30 to 60 years for the offenses that had formerly carried the death penalty.
Life imprisonment without any possibility of release is also unconstitutional. Mexico’s Supreme Court has held that sentences without any prospect of eventual release violate both Article 22’s ban on cruel punishments and Article 18’s requirement that the prison system aim at rehabilitation and social reintegration.5Law Library of Congress. Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico: Assurances on Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Cases The court has enforced that rule repeatedly. In December 2024, it unanimously struck down a life-imprisonment provision in Chihuahua’s penal code, and in January 2025 it invalidated a similar provision in the State of Mexico for hate-crime homicides, ordering both replaced with finite terms.
So even for the gravest crimes, a Mexican court cannot order execution or a sentence that permanently forecloses release.
How the Ban Affects U.S. Extradition Requests
Mexico’s position has real consequences for American prosecutors. The 1978 Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico addresses the issue directly in Article 8: when the charged offense carries the death penalty in the requesting country but not in Mexico, extradition may be refused unless the requesting country provides assurances “that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.”6United Nations Treaty Collection. Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico
In practice, U.S. prosecutors who want a fugitive handed over must provide formal written assurances that capital punishment will not be sought. The documentation must bear the official seal of the Department of State and be legalized in the manner prescribed by Mexican law. Mexico has refused extradition when those assurances were not provided.
The life-imprisonment ban adds a second layer. After the Supreme Court ruled life sentences unconstitutional in 2001, the Mexican government began requiring assurances that extradited defendants would not face life without parole either. Mexico will now permit extradition in cases involving potential life sentences only if the requesting country confirms that a possibility of parole exists.5Law Library of Congress. Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and Mexico: Assurances on Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Cases
Mexico’s Defense of Its Nationals on U.S. Death Row
Mexico’s abolitionist stance extends to its citizens abroad. As of late 2025, 44 Mexican nationals sit on death row in the United States.7Death Penalty Information Center. Foreign Nationals Under Sentence of Death in the U.S.
In 2000, the Foreign Ministry created the Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program (MCLAP) to provide legal defense to Mexican citizens facing capital charges in the United States, from initial arrest through post-conviction appeals. By 2017, MCLAP had helped more than 1,000 of roughly 1,150 Mexican nationals in U.S. prisons avoid the death penalty, reversing the sentence in 88 percent of cases overall and 98 percent of cases where the program led the defense from the start.8Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. Foreign Ministry Reports on the Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program in the U.S.
Mexico also took the issue to the International Court of Justice. In 2004, the court ruled in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals v. United States that the U.S. had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to notify 51 of 52 Mexican nationals on death row of their right to contact the Mexican consulate after arrest. The court ordered the United States to provide judicial review and reconsideration of those convictions, finding that executive clemency alone was not a sufficient remedy.9International Court of Justice. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)
Could Mexico Bring It Back?
Reinstatement proposals surface periodically in Mexican politics, usually following high-profile kidnappings or cartel violence. The Green Party (PVEM) has pushed hardest for a return of capital punishment, and the Mexican Congress has debated such proposals more than once. None has come close to passing.
The hurdles are steep. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress plus approval from a majority of state legislatures. Even if that threshold were met, Mexico would have to withdraw from the American Convention on Human Rights and the two optional protocols it has joined, which would trigger a significant international legal and diplomatic rupture. The combined weight of those domestic and international barriers makes reinstatement a remote prospect under the current legal framework, whatever public opinion looks like at a given moment.