Administration of justice
It refers to the resolution of controversies through a process that may be carried out by judicial or administrative bodies, depending on the case. This function is intended to prevent individuals from doing justice for themselves, becoming "judges and parties."
According to article 17 of the Constitution, the administration of justice corresponds to the courts, which "will be ready to administer it within the time limits and terms established by law", issuing their resolutions promptly, completely, impartially and free of charge (see Procurement of justice and Judiciary).
The main functions assigned by the General Assembly to the head of the OHCHR are the promotion and protection of human rights, including the right to development; perform the tasks assigned by the competent bodies of the United Nations System; provide advice and technical assistance to States that request it and to regional human rights organizations;education and public information programs UN in the field of human rights around the world; engage in dialogue with governments; coordinate the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the United Nations System; rationalize and simplify the UN in the field of human rights to increase its effectiveness, and assume the general supervision of the OHCHR, based in Geneva (Villán Durán 2002: 151) (see Universal System for the Protection of Human Rights , definition and structure).
It is the intervention (written or oral) of an authorized third party (NGOs, natural persons) who appears before a Court in order to offer information and/or arguments to be considered in favor of any of the parties involved in a judicial proceeding. These writings are only considered as collaborations and at no time force the Court to make a decision (Faúndez Ledesma, 1999: 462-463).
Faúndez Ledesma, Héctor (1999). The Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. San José, Costa Rica, Inter-American Institute of Human Rights.
Faúndez Ledesma, Héctor (2004). The Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. Institutional and procedural aspects. Third edition. San José, Costa Rica, Inter-American Institute of Human Rights. OHCHR (2004). Diagnosis of the situation of human rights in Mexico. México, OACNUDH, pp. 161-189.
Amparo, judgment of
A legal institution for the defense of the rights recognized by the CPEUM, as well as constitutional and legal control of the actions of judicial, administrative and even legislative authorities, as long as there is current, personal and direct damage against a person determined, whether physical or legal.
The amparo trial was introduced for the first time, at the initiative of Mariano Otero, in the Act of Reforms to the Federal Constitution of 1824, published in 1847. This institution was included, definitively, without substantive modifications, in the Constitution of 1857. However, during the decades that followed, and until the beginning of the 20th century, it underwent significant changes (Institute of Legal Research, 2000: 157-160).
In the original conception of the amparo trial, it was intended to protect the constitutional rights of the governed. However, after the course of time, and to a large extent due to the influence of social and cultural factors, this institution gradually expanded to allow the protection of the rights recognized not only in the Constitution, but also in the Constitution. laws. This "control of legality" materialized, especially, in the possibility of challenging judicial decisions (Institute of Legal Research, 2000: 157-160).
In the 1917 Constitution, in force to date, the amparo trial was recognized in articles 103 and 107 of the Constitution, formally introducing the new breadth and complexity of the institution by including both constitutional and legal control. Subsequently, the Amparo Law was promulgated, which regulates articles 103 and 107 of the Constitution (of December 30, 1935), the Organic Law of the Judiciary (of the same date) and the Federal Code of Civil Procedures (of December 31, 1942). , which completed the legal framework that governs this process to this day (Institute of Legal Research, 2000: 157-160).
The purpose of the amparo trial is to restore the person to the enjoyment of the violated rights, restoring them to their previous state or forcing the authority to take some action, in the event that the violation was the result of an omission. Due to the foregoing, the Mexican amparo trial has maintained one of the oldest principles of this institution: the principle of relativity, which, in other words, means that the sentence issued by the judicial body will only protect the rights of the person (or persons ) that have actually filed the amparo action and will have no effect, at least directly, on the rights of third parties.
The parties to the process, in accordance with article 5 of the Amparo Law, are:
- Complainant. The person who files, or in whose name the application for amparo is filed, considering that he aggrieved or by an act of authority;
- Responsible authority. That authority "[...] that dictates, promulgates, publishes, orders, executes or tries to execute the law or the act claimed" (Amparo Law: article 11)
- Injured third party. That individual whose interests are or may be affected by the judgment of the amparo trial and who has, in principle, an interest in the subsistence of the claimed act (González Cosío, 2001: 64). The way in which the injured third party could participate in the trial depends on the nature of the act of authority (see Amparo Law: article 5, section III);
- Public Ministry. It has the power to intervene in any amparo trial and to promote the resources regulated by the law of the matter – with the exception of indirect protections that in civil and commercial matters exclusively affect private interests in which it will not be able to promote said resources. –. The Public Ministry participates in the trial as a guarantor of the "purity of the trial" and of social interests, also serving, at relevant moments, as a balancing party in the process, so as to ensure the "[...] [clarification of the ] law in controversy and [that the Constitution that structures community life be] defended” (González Cosío, 2001: 68).
The act that is the subject of the trial must, in general terms, emanate from a public power acting in its sovereign power, and may consist of an action or an omission by an authority or a law (whether the affectation is produced by the own enactment of said law or by its specific application in a specific case) (Noriega, 2000: 127-175).
The amparo proceeding takes place before the courts of the Federal Judiciary. Their jurisdiction is defined in the regulations of the Amparo Law itself and various agreements of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.
Broadly speaking, it is possible to classify amparo trials in various ways; however, for the purposes of this brief review, only the main classification will be taken up, which is established based on the nature of the act claimed. Thus, amparos may be filed against:
- Acts of authority (i) that endanger the life or integrity of a person; (ii) when an individual is in danger of being deported, banished or detained without a warrant; (iii) when a person is subject to infamous punishments such as mutilations, whipping or other types of torture; (iv) for the confiscation of property, and (v) any other acts indicated in article 22 of the Constitution (Institute of Legal Research, 2000: 157-160). This type of amparo has been commonly known as criminal amparo.
- Laws issued by the Congress of the Union, the state legislatures and even against regulations of the President of the Republic or the governors of the entities of the Republic. This protection is known as protection against laws (Institute of Legal Research, 2000: 157-160).
- Final judicial sentences issued by federal or local courts in all matters (civil, commercial, criminal, administrative and even with respect to labor awards). This type of protection has received the name of judicial protection or cassation (Institute of Legal Research, 2000: 157-160).
- The actions or omissions of the administrative authorities, whether federal or local, when the law does not provide for the possibility of attacking said act through the courts, this protection is known as the administrative protection.
- Acts that directly affect ejidatarios and comuneros. In the processing of this trial, known as agrarian protection, the judge who hears it is obliged to make up for the errors or deficiencies incurred by the ejidatarios or community members themselves (Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, 2000: 157-160).
The judicial or cassation amparo must be presented before the collegiate circuit courts or before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (which will hear only those processes that have a particular economic, political or social importance), and “[ …] is processed in a single instance, [so] it has also been classified as direct amparo” (Institute of Legal Research, 2000: 157-160).
The application for amparo for the other categories described will be presented before the District courts, whose resolutions may be known in appeal for review by the unitary or collegiate Circuit courts (and exceptionally by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation). ). In this way, said amparos are known as indirect amparos.
It is important to highlight that the amparo trial is not a resource within a judicial process; In other words, it is not a stage within the same trial, in which the hierarchical superior pronounces on what was resolved or acted on by his inferior. On the contrary, the amparo trial is, precisely, an independent trial or process that has the specific objective of determining the constitutionality or unconstitutionality, legality or illegality, of the actions of officials who may have violated the rights of any citizen or any other person. that is within Mexican territory, in such a way that the aggrieved party is vindicated in his rights.
Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Any updated edition.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Office of the
Official Appointment of the highest UN in matters of promotion and protection of human rights (Valencia 2003: 7). The OHCHR was established after the United Nations Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993. The head of the OHCHR is appointed by the UN, for a renewable four-year term, and has the “responsibility