2024-02-15 19:50:00
The Federal Chamber of Buenos Aires declared this Thursday the annulment 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.
Added to this, the waiters Martin Irurzun y Eduardo Farah They also urged the judge in the case, Sebastián Casanello, to define whether he is competent to hear the caseaccording to the resolution of Chamber II of the Court of Appeals to which he had access Telam.
Bullrich bought Espert’s “jail or bullet”: it gives the Police more freedom to shoot with firearms
On last 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 led by 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 investigation.
Finally, The action was filed in federal court 7 in charge of Casanellowho gave him 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 annulment of the resolution of February 6, chamber members Irurzun and Farah evaluated that “it constituted issuing from the judicial headquarters a series of statements of general scope, with the sole purpose of making ‘exhortations’ to another power 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 merits of the action, when the procedural steps necessary for the solution have not been completed of that – which, it is highlighted, includes the right to be heard of the defendant”
The raw story of a lawyer who lost vision in one eye due to a rubber bullet during the protests over the omnibus law
“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 capacity or legitimacy those who introduced the action could be summoned, given the express provisions that law 23098 contains for these purposes.” concluded the judicial resolution.
In dissent, the third member of the room, Roberto Boicounderstood 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“.
1708027830
#Federal #Chamber #Buenos #Aires #annulled #precautionary #measure #antipicket #protocol