“Presunto Culpable” offers an insight into the corrupt and unjust judicial process that exists in Mexico. Mexico's judicial process declares a person guilty until proven guilty, which is the exact opposite of the United States where the person is innocent until proven guilty. Mexico is a “civil law” country; focuses more on the text of actual laws rather than using previous judicial decisions. In Mexico the judge has the final decision regarding the person prosecuted. In contrast, the United States is a “common secular” country, which allows it to focus on previous cases. In “Presumed Culpable”, Antonio Zúñiga, was convicted of the murder of Juan Carlos Reyes Pacheco in 2005. Despite the lack of evidence linking him to the murder and the lack of valid legal representation; Pacheco was sentenced to 20 years in prison. His unfair trial, lack of evidence, and lack of good legal representation are what made his case controversial. This type of case occurs frequently in Mexico due to the country's judicial system, but this particular case arose and stood out thanks to the tenacity of his family who managed to contact two young people who became interested in the case. The film crew is able to capture many anomalies in court trials. They manage to prove the lack of evidence and the defense lawyer obtains Zúñiga's release. This case focuses on the lack of justice and fair trials, many of which are due to the civil law practiced in Mexico. Mexico has since made some major structural changes to stop police brutality and coercion and to improve the investigation process, but no direct policies to encourage good behavior have been adopted. Accusations continue to be made without a reliable means of paper… essential to achieve this goal. The STF challenges the system to maintain a fair and legal balance. These institutional changes appear to be proactive and appear promising for driving change in the legal reality of certain social groups. The groups that might be most affected would be the upper-middle class and perhaps the elites. This is due to the fragmentation of the Brazilian system and court rules aimed at stopping the influence of voting rights by party members and other influential individuals. The changes in Latin America are, overall, promising. Changes in the separation of powers and the judicial system appear to lead towards a more beneficial path towards impartial justice; human rights are also starting to play a role in the courts and are being taken into consideration. I believe that the new effectiveness of the courts seen so far is the main result of cultural and institutional changes.