Failure: Ekmekdjian vs Sofovich (1992)
Topics: Right of reply
§ § Action Complaint under §
special appeal denial of §
international treaties and conventions (American Convention on Human Rights San Jose, Costa Rica)
Facts:
This failure became important because the Court decided in a manner contrary to how the case was resolved Ekmekdjian vs Neustadt.
On Saturday June 11, 1988 Dalmiro Mr. Saenz said some phrases involving Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary
Miguel Ekmekdjian to feel "deeply hurt their religious feelings" by such phrases derived an amparo directed the driver to cycle-Gerardo Sofovich-so in the same program to read out a letter to document the alleged grievances answered Dalmiro dumped by Saenz.
The refusal of the host of the document read the letter, the plaintiff brought an action for amparo founded on the right of reply by relying on Article 33 of the CN and in 14 of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. CN
Section 33 (rights and guarantees implied): "The declarations, rights and guarantees enumerated in the Constitution, not be understood as a denial of other rights and guarantees not set ..." Section 14 P SJ
CR (right of reply): "Any person injured by inaccurate or offensive statements injury through media legally regulated and targeted to the general public, is entitled to perform the same communications outlet reply or correction under the conditions established by law. "
Resolution:
How it came to the Supreme Court:
In the first instance the judge dismissed the suit with the same arguments used by the Court to resolve the cause Ekmekdjian vs Neustadt: "does not reply right not to have mediated an affectation of personality" and "right of reply can be regarded as internal positive law because it has not yet been regulated "
The Appeals Chamber ruled as the trial judge with the same arguments. Following the actor
concluded special appeal to the House but was not granted. This prompted Ekmekdjian submit a complaint for denial of special appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of the Nation:
1. Rise to the complaint yesterday declaring the appeal extraordinary
Because the Court of Appeals dismissed the deduction for the actor, the first issue to be resolved by the Court was: "it is up to the Supreme Court to rule on this issue?
Given this question, the Court decided it had to solve because it is a Federal issue as soon as the question clauses of the Constitution (art. 33) and the Pact of San José de Costa Rica (art. 14)
2. The right of reply integrates our legal system.
On this point, the Supreme Court resolves the opposite way from what I had done years before in the case Ekmekdjian vs Naustadt.
The Court interpreted that to express the Pact of San José (art. 14): "in the manner prescribed by law" refers to issues such as the space in which they must respond or they may be exercised within the right time , and not considered in the above case, in which the lower court interpreted this phrase referred to the need to pass a law to establish that the right of reply would be considered domestic positive law.
"Therefore, there is a right of reply and integrates our legal system without any law to be delivered."
For this, the Court relied on the art. 31 of the CN and the provisions of the Convention Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which gives primacy to international law over domestic law. Article 31
CN (supremacy of the Constitution, national laws and international treaties): "This Constitution, the laws of the nation in pursuance thereof, enacted by Congress and treaties with foreign powers, are the supreme law of the Nation ... "
Important: The main reason for the Supreme Court has ruled differently from what I had done for Neustadt vs Ekmekdjian be sought in the different interpretations given to the phrase" under conditions established by law "in both cases.
3. The actor is entitled to act on deeply affected in their religious sentiments
"Mr. Dalmira Sáenz interfered in the private sector Mr. Ekmkdjian shaking their deepest convictions, which represents a true insult to an individual right."
Accordingly, the Court decided to place the right of reply by ordering the immediate clarification and free in the same medium.
"the defendant is convicted, Mr. Gerardo Sovfovich, to read out the letter paper to the first audition to lead the defendant"
Dissent: Petracchi; Moline O 'Connor, Levene, Belluscio
They rise to the complaint, declared admissible the special appeal and confirmed the original ruling.
Consequences:
w is implemented the right of reply without a law that would allow
w prevents abuses of freedom of expression is recognized w
priority to international law over domestic law
w states that "due individual exist and protect individuals (protection of constitutional guarantees)
Topics: Right of reply
§ § Action Complaint under §
special appeal denial of §
international treaties and conventions (American Convention on Human Rights San Jose, Costa Rica)
Facts:
This failure became important because the Court decided in a manner contrary to how the case was resolved Ekmekdjian vs Neustadt.
On Saturday June 11, 1988 Dalmiro Mr. Saenz said some phrases involving Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary
Miguel Ekmekdjian to feel "deeply hurt their religious feelings" by such phrases derived an amparo directed the driver to cycle-Gerardo Sofovich-so in the same program to read out a letter to document the alleged grievances answered Dalmiro dumped by Saenz.
The refusal of the host of the document read the letter, the plaintiff brought an action for amparo founded on the right of reply by relying on Article 33 of the CN and in 14 of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. CN
Section 33 (rights and guarantees implied): "The declarations, rights and guarantees enumerated in the Constitution, not be understood as a denial of other rights and guarantees not set ..." Section 14 P SJ
CR (right of reply): "Any person injured by inaccurate or offensive statements injury through media legally regulated and targeted to the general public, is entitled to perform the same communications outlet reply or correction under the conditions established by law. "
Resolution:
How it came to the Supreme Court:
In the first instance the judge dismissed the suit with the same arguments used by the Court to resolve the cause Ekmekdjian vs Neustadt: "does not reply right not to have mediated an affectation of personality" and "right of reply can be regarded as internal positive law because it has not yet been regulated "
The Appeals Chamber ruled as the trial judge with the same arguments. Following the actor
concluded special appeal to the House but was not granted. This prompted Ekmekdjian submit a complaint for denial of special appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of the Nation:
1. Rise to the complaint yesterday declaring the appeal extraordinary
Because the Court of Appeals dismissed the deduction for the actor, the first issue to be resolved by the Court was: "it is up to the Supreme Court to rule on this issue?
Given this question, the Court decided it had to solve because it is a Federal issue as soon as the question clauses of the Constitution (art. 33) and the Pact of San José de Costa Rica (art. 14)
2. The right of reply integrates our legal system.
On this point, the Supreme Court resolves the opposite way from what I had done years before in the case Ekmekdjian vs Naustadt.
The Court interpreted that to express the Pact of San José (art. 14): "in the manner prescribed by law" refers to issues such as the space in which they must respond or they may be exercised within the right time , and not considered in the above case, in which the lower court interpreted this phrase referred to the need to pass a law to establish that the right of reply would be considered domestic positive law.
"Therefore, there is a right of reply and integrates our legal system without any law to be delivered."
For this, the Court relied on the art. 31 of the CN and the provisions of the Convention Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which gives primacy to international law over domestic law. Article 31
CN (supremacy of the Constitution, national laws and international treaties): "This Constitution, the laws of the nation in pursuance thereof, enacted by Congress and treaties with foreign powers, are the supreme law of the Nation ... "
Important: The main reason for the Supreme Court has ruled differently from what I had done for Neustadt vs Ekmekdjian be sought in the different interpretations given to the phrase" under conditions established by law "in both cases.
3. The actor is entitled to act on deeply affected in their religious sentiments
"Mr. Dalmira Sáenz interfered in the private sector Mr. Ekmkdjian shaking their deepest convictions, which represents a true insult to an individual right."
Accordingly, the Court decided to place the right of reply by ordering the immediate clarification and free in the same medium.
"the defendant is convicted, Mr. Gerardo Sovfovich, to read out the letter paper to the first audition to lead the defendant"
Dissent: Petracchi; Moline O 'Connor, Levene, Belluscio
They rise to the complaint, declared admissible the special appeal and confirmed the original ruling.
Consequences:
w is implemented the right of reply without a law that would allow
w prevents abuses of freedom of expression is recognized w
priority to international law over domestic law
w states that "due individual exist and protect individuals (protection of constitutional guarantees)
0 comments:
Post a Comment