The Hungarian government proposed a Russia-style bill that would effectively ban our organisation, the Rights Reporter Foundation.

The new law, introduced by the ruling party on May 14, would blacklist NGOs that the government labels as “foreign agents,” prohibit them from accepting foreign funding, and make it impossible to raise domestic funds. This law threatens the very existence of 

, the project we have dedicated the past 20 years to — a project we have built our lives around. And it wouldn’t stop at NGOs: independent press organisations would also be targeted.

This is not only an existential threat to us and our families. It won’t just destroy the lives we’ve built — it’s 

In poker, “all in” means a player is betting all of their remaining chips on a single hand. This law sends a clear message to the EU from Hungary’s wannabe dictator: 

. I dare to risk everything. I challenge your authority. I challenge your values. Because I can.

We call on EU institutions, member states, donors, and the international community to stop this rampage and support Hungarian civil society in its fight for freedom.

 will survive. They will not silence us. Not only because our servers are hosted abroad, beyond their reach. Not only because we will continue our work from exile if necessary. But because we — the people behind 

We are not afraid. We will fight this madness. 

 was created six years before this regime came to power — and it will still be here long after the regime is gone.

Péter Sárosi and István Gábor Takács

Hungary: Drugreporter will not be silenced

Delivered at the 5th Brandenburg Forum in Geneva : “Expanding the Conversation on the Human Rights Implications of Drug Policy”

Excellencies,
Distinguished participants,
Colleagues,

It can stigmatize and isolate people, or it can help heal connections with others.

More and more, we see that it’s human connection and evidence-based approaches – not punishment – that transform and uplift the lives of people affected by drug use disorders.

Those same policies reinforce social bonds and create healthier, more resilient communities and societies.

I welcome the growing acknowledgement by States that discussions on drug policy must take into account States’ human rights obligations.

This forum is an important part of our efforts to exchange views and best practices, and demonstrate how human rights offer us a path towards a more humane and effective approach to drugs.

Distinguished participants, dear friends,

That new path is desperately needed, because the so-called war on drugs has failed. It has neither reduced drug use, nor the illicit drug trade, nor the production and consumption of a growing range and quantity of illicit substances.

Some 292 million people around the world used narcotic drugs in 2022 – the latest year for which we have figures. That represents a 20 per cent increase over a decade.

New, increasingly potent drugs are emerging in several high-income countries, resulting in an increase in overdose deaths.

Not only has the war on drugs failed; the militarization of drug control continues to lead to many unnecessary deaths, and to the excessive and disproportionate imprisonment of certain groups, including vulnerable people.

Some of those deaths are state-sponsored killings. Thirty-four countries still retain the death penalty for drug offenses, killing hundreds of people every year. More than 40 percent of state executions in 2023 were for offences related to drug offences. This proportion has also risen sharply over the past two years.

Punitive and militarized drug policies are also linked with corruption and illicit financial flows. The profits from drug trafficking may be used to finance violence, terrorism, and armed conflict.

Economies based on illicit drugs are also having a large and growing impact on our climate and environment, from water stress to deforestation and the dumping of toxic waste.

This forum’s focus on the negative impact of drug policy on economic, social and cultural rights is a very important one.

It is increasingly clear and documented that the war on drugs is harming public health, and people who use drugs are not getting the help they need. Though an estimated 64 million people worldwide suffer from drug use disorders, only one in 11 is in treatment.

Women are particularly affected. Only one in 18 women with drug use disorders is in treatment, compared to one in seven men.

Fear of arrest and widespread stigma have deterred people from seeking drug treatment, healthcare and support, including medical care for HIV/AIDS.

Homelessness is both a cause and consequence of drug use, and contributes to poor health among people who use drugs. Programmes such as Housing First that prioritise stable housing as the basis for recovery have proven their value in a number of countries. I encourage States to share their experiences and explore how such initiatives can be established and expanded.

Poorly designed drug policy also harms other human rights. In some countries, evidence of drug use or a criminal record for drug-related crimes can disqualify people from social benefits or restrict access to education or employment.

Blunt, punitive approaches have disproportionately affected some of the most marginalized communities, and perpetuated cycles of exclusion.

For example, States often overpolice Indigenous Peoples who cultivate drug crops to make a living.

The illicit drug economy also undermines the rights of people who are vulnerable to exploitation, including farmers, women, minorities, people of African descent and Indigenous Peoples. As States make efforts to curb the illicit drug trade, they must invest in viable and sustainable economic alternatives, in consultation with those affected. I welcome the recent resolution on alternative development by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs which supports this approach.

Excellencies,
Distinguished participants,

Looking forward, we must continue pursuing humane drug policies that advance all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights.

This requires concerted action by all – primarily by States, but also civil society, and the United Nations system, among many others.

First, I encourage all States to integrate the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy into their national laws and policies, including with regard to housing, employment, harm reduction and protecting marginalised communities.

I welcome the decision by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to prepare a new General Comment on States’ legal obligations around drug policy. This should provide important additional guidance.

Second, harm reduction measures, such as needle exchange programmes, safe consumption sites, and access to information and healthcare, are crucial. States need to tackle shame and stigma around treatment for drug use disorders, and remove legal and policy barriers to access these services. We must show that they save and improve lives, for people, communities and societies at large.

Third, decriminalising drug use – accompanied by harm reduction measures and support for social reintegration - is another key element. Criminalizing people with a drug use disorder deters them from seeking treatment and creates further stigma and isolation.

Fourth, there is an urgent need to abolish the death penalty for drug-related offences. Executing people for these offences does not comply with international human rights law, which specifies that the death penalty can only be imposed for the most serious crimes involving intentional killing. The United Nations, as a matter of policy, opposes the death penalty in all circumstances.

Fifth, responsible regulation should aim to take control of illegal drug markets, eliminate profits from illegal trafficking, criminality and violence, and protect the environment.

Sixth, it is essential to include those most affected by drug use disorders in all decisions, policies and laws. The Scottish Charter of Rights for People Affected by Substance Abuse is an example of a policy developed through a multistakeholder process, reflecting the unique needs of different groups, including people who use drugs. I hope it can serve as inspiration to other countries around the world.

My Office and I personally will continue to do everything in our power to ensure coherence across the United Nations system on this issue, which affects hundreds of millions of people around the world.

Together, with your support, we must - and will - keep human rights at the centre of global drug policy, as we work for dignity, justice and equality for all.

'We must continue pursuing humane drug policies that advance all human rights' - UN Human Rights Chief

In 2025, the European Union will adopt a new EU Drug Strategy that will define priorities for 2026–2030. As this critical moment approaches, we call for a shift towards a balanced, health-focused, and human rights-based approach to drug policy.

To support this effort, we are launching the 

, coordinated by C-EHRN in collaboration with the 

Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA)

International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC)

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)

. The campaign is accompanied by the publication of a new 

Support Don’t Punish Global Day of Action

 outlines urgent recommendations for the EU and Member States, including:

Ensuring a balanced EU Drug Strategy 2026–2030

Establishing dedicated EU-level funding for harm reduction

Prioritising decriminalisation and responsible regulation

This toolkit supports civil society and national stakeholders to engage with policymakers at both the EU and national levels. It includes:

A Canva template for translating the policy paper

Ready-to-use social media content and visuals

Customisable email templates for outreach

Advocacy tips and ideas for national action

We will present the campaign’s goals and share ways civil society organisations and allies can get involved.

EU drug policy campaign 2025: A call to invest in a european health-based drug policy

Thirty-five years since the first International Harm Reduction Conference in Liverpool, United Kingdom, in April 2025 we as a global collective of front-line health workers, academics, advocates, policy-makers, politicians, UN representatives, people who use drugs, sex workers and people working in the criminal legal justice system, gathered in Bogota, Colombia to build momentum towards a more just, fair and rights-based drug policy architecture that protects lives and restores dignity for all. Over four days, we platformed thought leaders, amplified advocacy for change and shone a light on local innovations in harm reduction.

This year’s conference theme ‘Sowing Change to Harvest Justice’ draws inspiration from Colombia’s efforts to reform drug policy and from the region’s shift towards addressing drug-related issues through public health, social justice, and environmental sustainability. HR25 spotlighted the ways in which prohibitionist drug policies drive and are derived from racism, patriarchy and colonial control, whilst elevating Global South leadership and the decolonization of drug policy.

Colombia’s courage in speaking out against a drug policy system that engenders violence and harm has created a fracture in the once seemingly intractable prohibitionist agenda. This, along with its efforts coordinating a 

coalition of member states and civil society organizations that are pushing for a review of the international drug control regime

, has created the conditions for change. On 14th March 2025, Colombia and its allies secured the adoption of an unprecedented resolution at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), initiating the first ever independent external review of the international drug control system. The Independent Expert Panel is tasked with developing a set of recommendations to enhance treaty implementation and international obligations of relevance for drug policy. 

Delegates of HR25, and as part of a global community of harm reduction and drug policy reform advocates and practitioners and of communities most impacted by punitive drug policies:

We recognize this independent review as an historic opportunity to critically assess the impact of current drug policies, that have included devastation and destruction, on people, communities and ecology. Such an opportunity cannot be wasted or left to wither away.

The strong calls from the international community to actively listen to the Colombian experience with the war on drugs, need to be matched with clear commitments and funding for reform opportunities. We request that the Colombian government, in reaffirming its leadership, provide funding for the setup, establishment, and operation of the Independent Expert Panel. We strongly urge other member states to co-sponsor the Panel, which must be fully funded to succeed in its mandate.

We stress the importance of ensuring that the Independent Expert Panel is diverse, transparent, interdisciplinary and technically robust, and that it centres the voices and experiences of the most affected communities, serving as a turning point for global drug policy transformation.

We affirm our commitment, as communities, civil society, academics and researchers, to work productively with the Panel, as well as with member states and other relevant actors, to ensure that the review process is meaningful, transparent, substantive and powerful.

We reaffirm our commitment to fight for a rights- and evidence-based drug policy framework that is fair, equitable and just; for a system that empowers people whose lives include drugs and facilitates innovative harm reduction approaches that are people-centered, respect autonomy, are fit-for-purpose and free from morally driven prejudice and discrimination.

On behalf of HR25, we thank Colombia for its unwavering courage, its commitment to drug policy reform, and for hosting HR25. Let HR25 be a pivotal chapter where words are translated into action, and where we, all together, make the most of this historical, once in a lifetime opportunity to change the course of drug policy: from prohibition to liberation, from enacting harm to restoring justice, from generating destruction to empowerment and community-building.

The Harm Reduction International Conference has come to an end: what happens next?

In 2019, Andrea Siclari was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer. Alongside medical treatments, he participated in a LSD-assisted therapy in Switzerland within a clinical trial programme to address his deep anxiety. Andrea’s experience showcases a scenario in which a patient suffering from one of the most commonly known terminal illnesses was able to greatly improve his outlook and quality of life through psychedelic-assisted therapy. LSD has shown great results as a potential treatment for common conditions such as anxiety, depression, PTSD, addiction, and existential distress at the end-of-life. But access remains out of reach for most Europeans. 

 to foster equitable, timely, affordable, safe, and legal access to innovative psychedelic-assisted therapies.

How LSD saved my mind - Andrea's healing story

Harm reduction has long been a cornerstone of European public health, minimising drug use risks like overdose deaths or preventing the spread of infectious diseases. These interventions have been instrumental in improving the health and wellbeing of people who use drugs (PWUD).

However, in the last few years, the financial sustainability of many harm reduction initiatives has been under serious threat. A growing funding crisis, driven by shifting political priorities and a 

 to drug policy within the European Union (EU), is threatening to dismantle decades of progress. 

This shifting landscape in harm reduction funding has hit at a critical time. Europe is facing an increasingly complex drug landscape, with hundreds of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) and synthetic opioids 

Speaking to TalkingDrugs, Alexei Lakhov, Executive Director of the 

European Network for People Who Use Drugs (EuroNPUD)

 highlighted that “this complexity often increases the demand for specialised harm reduction services”, further straining service providers.

European harm reduction has historically been financed through national health funds, international aid and EU-wide grants. Yet, a 

 from Harm Reduction International (HRI) into harm reduction funding has underscored how national and international donors have scaled back many of their financial commitments to harm reduction. European countries, particularly those classified as high or upper-middle income, are 

 for key international funding sources such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. While understandable, this shift has left critical harm reduction programmes struggling with severe budget shortfalls.

Political shifts toward right-leaning governments across Europe have further amplified this crisis, as policymakers shift their focus to drug-related security concerns and supply side interventions over harm reduction. While the 

 continues to support harm reduction, national concerns around drug-related insecurity have prioritised law enforcement-based approaches, leaving many harm reduction services with reduced resources.

pioneer of European harm reduction since the 1970s

, is one of the many countries facing funding cuts that threaten its services’ stability. For over 35 years, 

 has played a key role in conducting research on harm reduction and providing updated information on drug trends and alerts to PWUD across the Netherlands through their 

. Now, however, they are facing serious cuts.

European harm reduction is facing a funding crisis

Between 24 February and 4 April 2025, the Human Rights Council held its 58th session. This briefing highlights key debates, decisions, and documents in which drug control and its impact on human rights were analysed and addressed.



BIENNIAL HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON DEATH PENALTY


This high-level panel analysed the contribution of the judiciary to the advancement of human rights and the question of the death penalty. Providing examples of good practices, the panel explored how the judiciary has contributed to reducing the application of the death penalty and discussed how the Council and its mechanisms can support states to abide by their international human rights obligations regarding the death penalty.

There was consensus among the speakers about the incompatibility of the death penalty with human dignity and rights and about the key role that the judiciary can play in limiting the use of the death penalty as a key step towards abolition. In his opening remarks, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, expressed his concern over the surge in executions over the years, largely driven by drug offences, and urged states that have yet to adopt a moratorium on capital punishment to take decisive steps toward its full abolition. Türk also encouraged members of the judiciary to “redouble their efforts towards abolition of the death penalty in practice, by using their discretion to impose alternative sentences.”

Panellist Ramkarpal Singh (member of parliament and former Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department of Malaysia) provided insights into the 2023 legal reform that resorted to judicial discretion in death penalty cases, and the resentencing of people on death row (most of whom were convicted for drug offences). After the reviewing process, 860 out of 936 resentencing applications were approved, including all drug-related cases, with death sentences replaced by imprisonment and whipping.

The panel discussion was followed by an interactive dialogue. The majority of member states recognised the crucial role of the judiciary in upholding human rights and limiting the use of capital punishment. Delegations from Australia, Belgium (on behalf of the Death Penalty Core group), European Union, Iceland (on behalf of Nordic Baltic countries), Sierra Leone, among others, expressed their concern for the use of the death penalty in cases that do not meet the legal threshold of most serious crimes; including drug crimes. Malaysia reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring the implementation of safeguards in capital cases in line with human rights obligations.

Civil society made valuable contributions, including HRI, which emphasised that drug offences are driving executions globally and that drug policy reform is instrumental to achieving total abolition of the death penalty. HRI expressed concern over drug control laws restricting judicial discretion by prescribing mandatory death sentences or legal presumptions; and called for a coordinated international response to halt executions, promote moratoria on capital punishment for drug offenses, and protect civil society’s role in the reform.


58th Human Rights Council: Drug policy highlights

Legal amendments that make cannabis smokers 

 if a neighbour reports them and claims they can smell the drug, have infuriated two NGOs.

"The new cannabis amendments demonstrate a government that has lost all sense of direction and is now a hostage to the cannabinoid industry," ReLeaf Malta and Moviment Graffitti said in a statement on Sunday.

"The violation of privacy and anonymity reduces personal rights and gives fresh impetus to a culture of stigma against thousands of cannabis consumers and cultivators in Malta and Gozo," they added.

The new, stricter regulations against people who smoke and cultivate cannabis were approved by parliament earlier this month.

NGOs infuriated by new regulations on cannabis smoke that annoys neighbours

“I lost two children. They were shot dead. My family has never been the same.”

The story of Sarah Celiz, who lost her sons in extrajudicial killings (EJKs), resurfaced on the day the former president Rodrigo Duterte was arrested and detained at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague where he now awaits trial for crimes against humanity over his bloody anti-drug campaign.

Recalling how her sons, Almon and Dicklie, were gunned down six months apart in deadly crackdowns in their neighborhood in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City over seven years ago, Celiz broke down during a news conference.

When she tried to file a complaint, the police asked her for evidence.

“My evidence were the bodies of my sons. They were killed without due process,” Celiz declared.

“I want (Duterte’s) family to feel what we felt. I want them to feel the same way I feel about what happened to my sons,” she cried out.

Celiz and other family members of victims of drug war killings had kept vigil in shock and disbelief as they watched on TV and on their phones the arrest as Duterte was hauled off to a chartered plane by police escorts and flown out of the country he once ruled with an iron hand.

“I had tears of sadness because our loved ones are gone, and joy because Duterte is in the place where he belongs”, she said.

In the succeeding weeks, more families came out in the open, with tears of sadness and relief, to demand for accountability and justice for what they suffered during Duterte’s term from June 2016 to June 2022.

“My hope and that of the families of EJK victims is that we find justice so that we can move on with our lives,” Celiz said.

Duterte arrest inspires continuing drive for humane approach to anti-drug campaign

A French law is set to unleash invasive new police surveillance powers.

 Fuelled by absurd rhetoric, the government is proposing what has been dubbed “the worst surveillance law in the EU”. Experts warn that it will fail to achieve its aims. However, the broad scope of the law means the powers can be used against migrants, their supporters, and to crack down on dissent. As official reports have made clear, dealing with drug use and trafficking requires long-term, low-tech policies – not high-tech police surveillance powers.

The French government is stepping up its war on drugs, combining absurd rhetoric (with smoking a joint compared to shooting a child in the head) and new legislation.

This repressive approach is similar to that favoured in many other countries around the world, where it has also failed to reduce drug trafficking or use.

The French government’s proposal includes some particularly invasive surveillance measures, including:

remote activation of phones by the police; and

mass surveillance of internet and telecoms traffic.

The broad scope of the law means these powers can also be used against irregular migrants, those providing them with aid or support, and political dissidents.

There may soon be similar measures proposed at European level, as part of the EU’s new internal security strategy.

In 2014, the French government warned that the country was at a “tipping point” and called for the fight against drug trafficking to become “a national cause”. The government’s latest plan to address the problem has two components. First, try to shock the public. Second, pass new legislation on ‘narcotraffic’.

This attempt to shock people has led to a stream of ridiculous statements from officials. If there is a competition amongst them, then Bruno Retailleau, the interior minister, is the clear winner. He has warned that smoking a joint is akin to “two bullets in the head of a five-year-old kid; this is a youth who has been stabbed 50 times with a knife and burned alive.”

Over the years, there has been an undeniable rise in violence. A book published last year looked at the phenomenon of young “shooters” – children and young adults who become involved in gun violence. The authors argued that young shooters were similar to 

, Mexico’s notorious killers for hire. The parallel between France and the world’s most violent country for drug trafficking quickly spread. Retailleau, the interior minister (yes, him again), claimed there had been a “Mexicanisation” of France.

The comparison is absurd. Mexico holds the record for disappearances and deaths related to the war on drugs. Amnesty International, citing Mexican government data, says that some 30 people disappear every day in the country. This equates to more than one person every hour, and a total of almost 11,000 people annually. In France, there were 110 deaths linked to drug trafficking in 2024, according to interior ministry data.

France is just one of many countries taking an ever-more repressive approach to drugs. 

, a global network of over 190 NGOs that promotes person-centred, rights-affirming drug policies at the national, regional and international levels, told 

“The reality that we see across the globe is that repressive measures have comprehensively failed to suppress the drug trade and have instead led to the drastic erosion of fundamental rights. This move in France is unfortunately no exception.”

These quick fixes get their proponents headlines in the press, but they provide few positive long-term results. The French Court of Auditors recently warned that the entire system of youth assistance is screaming for survival. It requires long-term human and financial investment. Instead, resources are directed elsewhere.

A government report on limiting children’s involvement in drug trafficking proposed a number of potential solutions to the problem. They include proposals for better follow-up from local services in providing care, and improved social services for the youth and their families. They do not include proposals to give the police military-grade surveillance powers. That, however, is precisely what is happening.

France: How the “war on drugs” is turbo-charging surveillance powers

In the past two decades, HIV-related deaths have been reduced by more than half, and millions of people have gained access to life-saving treatment. Scientific breakthroughs, strong political commitment, and community leadership have transformed the HIV response. Yet, despite these remarkable achievements, the path to ending AIDS is still full of challenges.

Today, the HIV response is at a crossroads. Persistent inequalities, financial constraints, and emerging health threats risk derailing progress. The hard-won gains of recent decades must not only be safeguarded but accelerated. This is why UNAIDS is launching the development of the new Global AIDS Strategy 2026-2031, an ambitious, inclusive, and action-driven plan that will guide the global HIV response for the next five years and help end AIDS as a public health threat.

"To end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030, we must act with urgency, ambition, and innovation," said Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS. "This strategy is an opportunity to rethink and strengthen the HIV response by listening to communities, addressing inequalities, applying the science, ensuring equal access to new innovations and leaving no one behind."

UNAIDS has dedicated 2024 to laying the foundation for this new strategy. A mid-term review of the current Global AIDS Strategy has highlighted the urgent need to accelerate HIV prevention, address societal barriers, and sustain progress in treatment. UNAIDS convened a Global Task Team, composed of experts from governments, civil society, multilateral organizations, and public health, to recommend bold, measurable, and evidence-informed targets for 2030.

UNAIDS launches the development of the new Global AIDS Strategy 2026-2031

La siguiente es una crónica sobre el cannabis en México a partir del siglo XXI, precedida por algunos antecedentes de contexto.

México es un país cuya formalidad -legal, política- raramente coincide con lo que sucede en la realidad del mercado o en la relación cotidiana del ciudadano con la ley; y la cannabis es un buen ejemplo de ello.

 llegó por primera vez a lo que ahora es México con los conquistadores españoles, para ser utilizada como cáñamo, a finales del siglo XV.

Debido en buena medida a la sofisticada relación de los pueblos originales con el mundo natural, así como a sus amplios conocimientos botánicos, la planta pronto fue adoptada –y utilizada– también por sus efectos psicoactivos, incorporándose a la cultura popular.

Muy pronto, también, esas prácticas fueron notadas y reprobados por la Iglesia católica, si bien las propias autoridades virreinales también impulsaron el cultivo del cáñamo, por lo que durante los siguientes siglos la mariguana no desapareció de la cultura popular, pero el 

 psicoactivo fue un asunto confinado únicamente a los segmentos más pobres de la sociedad, del submundo criminal, o de algunos artistas díscolos.

La Revolución Mexicana de (1910-1920) tuvo como resultado un sistema presidencialista y de partido hegemónico –el Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) que mantuvo relativamente pacífico al país hasta fines del Siglo XX, pero con libertades civiles limitadas en los hechos.

, antes incluso que en los Estados Unidos, y si bien el régimen conoció, toleró y gestionó siempre el tráfico y su comercio local, nunca fue asunto de debate público o de interés político.

A pesar de ello, el Dr. Leopoldo Salazar Viniegra, entonces Jefe del Hospital Psiquiátrico y el mayor especialista nacional en toxicomanía, logró la despenalización de todas las drogas -

 incluida- durante 5 meses de 1940, con el argumento de que la prohibición dificultaba los esfuerzos nacionales en materia de salud pública. Previsiblemente, el experimento fue cancelado por presiones de Estados Unidos.

Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y de la firma y ratificación de México a la Convención Única de Estupefacientes de 1961, así como los dos tratados posteriores sobre sustancias psicoactivas de 1971 y 1988, la 

 se inscribió en los artículos 234, 235, 235 bis y 238, 237 y 238 del apartado “Estupefacientes”, en la Ley General de Salud de 1984.

En ellos se establece la prohibición absoluta del 

 en todas sus formas, el cáñamo incluido: “

Siembra, cultivo, cosecha, elaboración, preparación, acondicionamiento, adquisición, posesión, comercio, transporte en cualquier forma, prescripción médica, suministro, empleo, uso, consumo y, en general, todo acto relacionado con estupefacientes o con cualquier producto que los contenga

Para fines del Siglo 20 el sistema político del país se agotaba. Obligado por las circunstancias, el partido hegemónico debió tolerar reformas democráticas que ampliaron paulatinamente el espacio de la oposición política, pero también el de la sociedad civil. Causas antes consideradas como extrañas a la sociedad mexicana, como los derechos de ciertas minorías, comenzaron a ver la luz pública. La 

News