Epistemic Violence and Revictimization in the Mexican Judiciary Against Academic Freedom

This paper provides an analytical and legal-forensic audit of review judgment Amparo en Revisión 104/2019, rendered by the Second Collegiate Circuit Court of the Ninth Circuit in Mexico, which upheld the administrative expulsion of an independent scholar from a university postgraduate program. Grounded in propositional logic, Miranda Fricker’s theory of epistemic injustice, and Inter-American standards on conventionality control, this study demonstrates how the Mexican Federal Judiciary failed as a protective counterweight against administrative violence. The forensic examination reveals four structural flaws: (1) the institutionalization of testimonial injustice through the pathologization of rational dissent, degrading formal arguments into "subjective ailments"; (2) the manufacturing of procedural fraud by transmuting asymmetric coercion into "tacit consent" while destroying res judicata; (3) the breakdown of logical validity (A ⊬ B) through begging the question fallacies and impossible chronological demands (ad divinandum); and (4) the abdication of ex officio conventionality control under the shield of university autonomy. Ultimately, this study establishes the terminal inefficacy of domestic remedies under Article 46.2.a of the American Convention on Human Rights, serving as both a strategic litigation model before the Inter-American System and an act of rational memory against judicial arbitrariness.