Is reelection a human right? The Inter-American Court of Justice already lists its answer

Given the proximity of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which publishes its conclusions on the indefinite election, politicians and lawyers are sure the panel will find that this number is not a human right.

The Inter-American Court of Justice plans to analyze this week and publish its conclusions on Friday June 25th. If the trend is confirmed, the decision of the Constitutional Court (TCP) to authorize Evo Morales for a fourth re-election in 2019 would again be at the center of the survey and debate.

According to lawyer Franco Albarracín interviewed by the ANF, the Inter-American Court of Justice tends to label re-election as a non-human right, as was established in Bolivia based on a constitutional ruling by the TCP.

“Then it could be demonstrated and said that the authorization (as candidates) of Evo Morales and Álvaro García Linera, the (constitutional) condemnation and the entire re-election process of the 2019 election is invalid, it is illegal, in a few words, and we can enter into many debates, “said Albarracín.

You can also read:  Bolivian Medical College says it will be "impossible" to vaccinate 90% of the population by December

Observations

The Inter-American Court of Justice decides on the opinion of the Colombian government on the number of open-ended re-elections in the American system. In this context, 62 states, agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and individuals from civil society have submitted their comments on the request for an opinion on indefinite re-election to the Inter-American Court of Justice. For the Bolivian state, it was presented by the Attorney General’s Office in July 2020.

According to Albarracín, the Inter-American Court of Justice is the supreme interpreter of the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José, Costa Rica) and its decisions are binding. He explained to the ANF that the human rights organization expresses itself in two ways: on the one hand, through judgments in cases that are brought before the court and, on the other hand, through expert opinions. Four countries submitted their comments to the court: Bolivia, Colombia, the United States and Nicaragua.

You can also read:  Only 7% of 340 municipalities have approved their charter and there are 3 referendums in August

In the case of the Plurinational State, it is a document signed on July 23, 2020 and signed by José María Cabrera, then Attorney General at the time; Alejandro Roda, former Deputy Prosecutor and Legal Representative of the State; and Yoseland César Pinto, former Director General of Defense for Human Rights and Environment.

Institutional inquiries

In addition to the four regional countries, briefs were submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; the Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro; 30 organizations, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions – including the Bolivian Academy for Constitutional Studies, the Permanent Assembly of Human Rights of Bolivia and the Qhapaj Ñan (Camino Noble) human rights training team – and 26 writings from civil society individuals.

Nicaragua was the only state that disagreed with these conclusions by ensuring that “restricting or restricting a candidacy would effectively violate the human rights of its citizens”.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here