O Que Amparo Legal

O Que Amparo Legal

President Enrique Peña Nieto explained that this new legislation obliges the Supreme Court to dismiss and prosecute any authority that does not comply with an Amparo decision. In addition, international human rights treaties to which Mexico is a party are protected. (Francisco Reséndiz, Peña Nieto Promulga Nueva Ley de Amparo, EL UNIVERSAL (April 2, 2013).) By invoking the right to the truth, habeas data will not only compel military and government officials to disclose information about desaparecidos, but will also require access to military and police records. Reynato Punos Amparo (Protection in Spanish) will prevent military officers in judicial proceedings from giving negative responses to requests for enforced disappearance or extrajudicial executions that were legally permitted in habeas corpus proceedings. [17] Amparo in Argentina is a limited, summary and merely complementary procedure that requires the prior exhaustion of administrative remedies before a judgment or injunction is issued. The decision prohibits fines and penal provisions, with the exception of contempt or declaration of unconstitutionality. [12] The 1994 Constitution enshrines the right of amparo in article 43. The purpose of amparo is to protect violated fundamental rights, the object of constitutional protection assuming different forms of conception of rights because of their «dual character» as subjective rights and as elements of an objective order. 1. Broad protection. In Argentina, any right of legal, administrative or international origin that may be recognized in the constitutional text is subject to amparo. This protection affects individual and collective rights. In Peru, all the rights set forth in the Constitution are protected by the protection of civil, political and economic rights, whether appointed or not, legal or administrative, and always by the rights deriving from international treaties.

Similarly, the 2010 Constitution of the Dominican Republic recognizes amparo in the same way as the Argentine or Peruvian model. 2. Intermediate protection. In Venezuela and Ecuador, the rights enshrined in the Constitution and international treaties are protected by amparo regulations, but not by a legal norm. In Colombia, the Tutela trial protects fundamental rights in a residual and subsidiary manner. 3. Limited Protection. In Brazil, the Mandto de segurança protects constitutional rights only if they are violated by an unlawful act or omission or if they result from an abuse of power. Although the Constitution recognizes the collective security mandate, there is considerable controversy over the judicial applicability of social rights and the role of the judiciary in protecting them. In Mexico, the amparo process protects so-called «individual guarantees of equality», freedom, legal security and property rights based on human dignity. In this way, the amparo process fulfils the main function of reviewing constitutionality, insofar as individuals are protected in the relations between the governed and the State and the authorities.

3. Each State Party undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms recognized in the present document have been violated has an effective remedy, even if the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) Ensure that any person who exercises such a remedy is established by the competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities or by any other competent authority provided for in the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) ensure that the competent authorities apply those corrective measures when they are granted. Mexican amparo has inspired many and has served as a model in other dishes. In the Philippines, Chief Justice Reynato Puno noted that the amparo model was borrowed from Mexico: the amparo order is a Mexican legal procedure for the protection of human rights. [3] Amparo literally means «protection» in Spanish. [4] Tocqueville`s Democracy in America became available in Mexico in 1837 and his description of the practice of judicial review in the United States.