OPINION

Mandate No. 13:
an issue in favor of the Isaias

“The decision not only violates rights, it’s absurd, abusive and inconvenient for the country since it creates an expeditious road for those affected to go before any international institution for the protection of rights”. Farith Simon.

Diario La Hora


Mandate No. 13, “opportunely” approved by the Assembly determined that the confiscation measure to seize the assets of the Isaias was “entirely legally valid”; the resolution was not susceptible to any act of constitutional protection or of any other special nature and if an appeal were presented as to the validity of the resolution it should be put aside while the judges and magistrates were threatened with dismissal if they heard any matter related to this mandate.  Furthermore, it orders the AGD to apply the same measure to all persons in similar situations and “forewarns” the stability of the employees of the confiscated companies (except for the news directors of the confiscated media).


I do not want to argue the validity, legitimacy, legality, opportunity or justice of the decision made by the AGD; what’s important is to examine the implications of the Mandate.


When the Assembly interpreted the scope of plenary powers (certainly, Mandate No. 1 will always be arguable), it was understood that it was doing so in the framework of a precarious independence of powers (since the other powers could not review this declaration).  It was implicit, or at least that was how some assemblymen argued for it, that it upheld the right of all persons to seek recourse, acts or measures foreseen in the current Constitution, if they believed they were threatened or their rights were violated. Of course it was understood that these acts should be resolved by the existing authorities in accordance to the current legal framework.


Mandate 13 totally destroys this illusion, it makes perfectly clear that the plenary powers are of such a nature, that the Assembly could resolve the legal validity of a particular act, attributing itself the function of judges.  It limits the protective recourses of certain people and certain cases of current rights in the country, thereby violating the principle of equality before the law and threatens those called upon to resolve these acts with dismissal or criminal sanctions, violating the principle of an independent justice.


The decision not only violates rights, it’s absurd, abusive and inconvenient for the country since it creates an expeditious road for those affected to go before any international institution for the protection of rights.


Particularly, it opened an enormous passageway to the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights based upon two certain facts: it violated the right of “all persons” access to a speedy and simple recourse to protect their rights from being violated and eliminated the requirement of exhausting domestic recourses since it impedes the “alleged injured party of their right to access the recourses of domestic jurisdiction” (Articles 25 and 46 of the San Jose Pact).
I hope the assemblymen (or should I say the political bureau of Alianza Pais?) think this through and regain their common sense. Everyone is entitled to their rights and guarantees, regardless of their condition or the accusation against them.

fsimon@lahora.com.ec

Fuente: Ecuador en vivo
http://www.lahora.com.ec/index.php/noticias/show/746151/-1/Mandato_No._13:_un_punto_a_favor_de_los_Isa%C3%ADas.html#.U3JHni_TaEu http://farithsimon.blogspot.com/

http://abcproyectoconstitucional.blogspot.com/

All audiovisual and photographic resourses used within this website, are used for editorial purposes only