Siri
During the Peronist regime, police in the Province of Buenos Aires proceeded to the closure of the newspaper Mercedes, which was operating out without clarifying the reasons why the measure. Consequently, Angel Siri, director and manager of the newspaper, appeared in court claiming violation of their rights of freedom of the press and work embodied in Arts. 14, 17 and 18 of the Constitution
The editor of the newspaper claimed, first, he retired from police custody in the place where the newspaper was printed, and second, to lift the closure imposed. Siri
was filed with the court requesting the police be required to Buenos Aires a report on who had ordered the closure and the rationale of the measure. Requested the report, the Commissioner informed that a warrant had been issued by the "Directorate of Security Police" and that the motive was unknown. In these circumstances, the judge requested reports to the Chief of Police of the Buenos Aires Province, the National Investigation Committee and the Ministry of Government of Buenos Aires Province. All expressed ignore the causes of the closure and the authority that had been available.
judge, interpreting the request of Syria as a writ of Habeas Corpus, did not rise to the same reason that no violation of physical liberty of any person. Having appealed the decision of the court of first instance, the Chamber of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision Mercedes therefore concluded that the extraordinary remedy concerned making it clear had not filed a writ of habeas corpus, but it was a call to the authorities for violation of constitutional guarantees.
The Court reversed the decision of the Appeals Chamber ordered the police authorities to "cease with the restriction" stating that the constitutional guarantees invoked by Siri were restricted without a warrant or just cause and that these reasons were sufficient to were reestablished in full by the judges, "there are individual rights and protect individuals simply by virtue of being enshrined in the Constitution." Dissent
Dr. Herrera upheld the lower court decision the grounds that although the appellant had filed a writ of habeas corpus, had not indicated what action it was, and therefore the handling of the case had been carried out, with his agreement, according to the established legal procedures for habeas corpus. He also said that if it comes to protecting the Constitution should take account of the first paragraph of Article 14 which states "all inhabitants of the Nation enjoy the following rights under the laws which regulate the exercise ..." in these laws include defense, so that it can not accept a defense whose procedure is not According to current legislation. The judiciary can not ignore the text of the laws affected by accepting the defense because it would be trivialized breaking legislative division of judicial powers on behalf of
resource is created as a writ of amparo judicial remedy for protect all the rights enumerated by the Constitution, except those already protected by the writ of Habeas Corpus.
It confirms the supremacy of the Constitution to protect the rights enunciated by the Arts. 14, 17 and 18.
0 comments:
Post a Comment