Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Justice ruled against the application of the anti-picket protocol


The Federal Chamber of Buenos Aires declared today the nullity of a judicial resolution that urged the Ministry of National Security to adapt the actions of the federal police and security forces to the limit imposed by the National Constitution, by applying the so-called public order protocol.

Chamber members Martín Irurzun and Eduardo Farah also urged the judge in the case, Sebastián Casanello, to define whether he is competent to hear the case, according to the resolution of room II of the Court of Appeals to which Télam had access.

On February 6, Casanello issued a precautionary and protective measure in which he urged the Ministry of National Security to “within the framework of its jurisdiction, adapt the actions of the federal police and security forces to the limits imposed by our constitutional system of law.”

That decision was appealed by the Ministry that leads Patricia Bullrich and now the Chamber declared its nullity

In the resolution, the Court recalled that since the petition against the legality of the protocol was presented and the unconstitutionality of its application was claimed, there were different declarations of incompetence from various jurisdictions, the electoral, the Federal Administrative Litigation and the national criminal jurisdiction. instruction.

patricia-bullrich-ministra.jpg

The Minister of Security, Patricia Bullrich.

Finally the action was filed in federal court 7 in charge of Casanello, who granted habeas corpus proceedings and yesterday held a hearing to hear the parties, which Bullrich attended and then arranged an intermission on a date to be defined.

By now declaring the nullity of the resolution of February 6, the chamberlains Irurzun and Farah evaluated that “it constituted issuing from the judicial headquarters a series of declarations of general scope, with the sole purpose of making “exhortations” to another branch of the State.”

“From this perspective, also, the provisions contradict the notion that “it is not up to judges to make general or abstract statements, because it is the essence of the Judiciary to decide effective collisions of rights,” they noted.

Furthermore, from reading the decision it is clear that the judge “formulated an analysis that goes directly to the substance of the action, when the procedural steps necessary for the solution of that action have not been taken – which, it is highlighted, include the right to be heard from the defendant”

“Nor was any evidence produced or provided to prove specific departures from the constitutional and legal clauses that the judge invoked or the scope of other rights that – according to the appellant – are also at stake, nor was it analyzed in what nature or legitimation it would be possible to summon those who introduced the action, given the express provisions that law 23098 contains for these purposes,” the judicial resolution concluded.

In dissent, the third member of the room, Roberto Boico, understood that the Ministry of Security’s appeal was poorly granted because “the existence of a lien, one of those that requires resources, cannot be plausibly supported by the issuance of a judicial act. that only and exclusively “exhorts” the party to comply with the National Constitution and the law.”





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *