¡POR FIN! Se anuncia el veredicto sobre el caso de la 'Acción de Protección' en Guayaquil, Ecuador.
HOW ARE YOU, MY DEAR FRIENDS?
TODAY THE PROVINCIAL COURT FINALLY PRONOUNCED THE VERDICT REGARDING OUR ´ACTION OF PROTECTION´.
A RESOLUTION MORE OR LESS WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING, A RESOLUTION AGAINST OUR CASE AND WHAT THE PROVINCIAL COURT SAYS IN ESSENCE IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO FILE THE LAWSUIT THROUGH A LAWSUIT OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
THIS IS NOT TRUE BUT, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO DOWN THIS AVENUE BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES ARE SAYING, IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE VERDICT, THAT OUR RIGHT TO GO TO THE CORRESPONDING DEPARTMENT TO SEEK COMPENSATION FOR OUR ´ALLEGEDLY´ VIOLATED RIGHTS IS LEGITIMATE AND CONSTITUTIONAL STIPULATED WITHIN THE ´CONCEPT OF ACTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY´, AS PROVIDED FOR BY OUR CONSTITUTION.
THAT IS TO SAY, SINCE THIS IS A RULING, A DEFINITIVE RULING OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT THAT HEARD THIS APPEAL, THIS DOCUMENT GIVES US THE GREEN LIGHT TO GO BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TO ADDRESS THE MATTER FURTHER.
NOW, APART FROM THAT, THE RULING IS FLAWED BECAUSE ARTICLE 24 OF THE ´LAW OF JURISDICTIONAL GUARANTEES AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL´ ESTABLISHES THAT, ONCE THE COURT HEARS THE APPEAL, IT HAS TO ISSUE A VERDICT WITHIN 8 DAYS, AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN 80 DAYS.
THAT IS ALREADY A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS BUT, APART FROM THAT, THEY ARGUE THAT BECAUSE THE COE´S RESOLUTIONS WERE NOT TARGETING INDIVIDUALS BUT RATHER UNIVERSALLY AFFECTING EVERYONE, IT IS NECESSARY TO GO THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT FILILNG A LAWSUIT OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
BUT THE THING IS… THIS WAS NOT A UNIVERSAL ACT AS THEY PUT IT, AN ACT THAT APPLIED TO EVERYONE.
IT WAS AIMED AT A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT TARGETED A SPECIFIC COMMUNITY WITHIN SOCIETY, THOSE WHO CHOSE NOT TO GET VACCINATED.
AND WITHIN THE ARGUMENTS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT WHAT THE FORMER OMBUDSMAN OF GUAYAQUIL HIMSELF, DOCTOR VIEJO, STATED IN HIS INTERVENTION AS AMICUS CURIAE, WHEN HE EXPLAINED VERY CLEARLY THAT OUR CASE HAD LEGAL GROUNDS AND SHOULD PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
WHAT IS MORE, IN THE VERDICT ITSELF, IN THE SENTENCE OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT, THEY TELL US ON THE ONE HAND THAT THEY ACCEPT OUR CASE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THEY TRY TO ERASE WITH THEIR ELBOW WHAT THEY WRITE WITH THEIR HAND, CLAIMING THAT IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT THAT AFFECTS EVERYONE, THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE FILED AS A LAWSUIT OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
IN ANY CASE, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY TO APPEAL FURTHER REGARDING THIS MATTER, THE CASE DIES HERE.
WHAT WE CAN DO IS, ON THE ONE HAND, PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF KEEPING YOU, THE PEOPLE, INFORMED.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT WE WILL BE DOING IS TO IMMEDIATELY FILE A CASE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, A CASE THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE MENTIONED AS A POSSIBILITY IN THE SENTENCE.
AND WE WILL KEEP GOING, WE WILL KEEP PLOWING AHEAD.
THIS CANNOT DISCOURAGE US AT ANY MOMENT, ON THE CONTRARY, WE ALREADY HAVE A TOOL THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE PROVIDED US WITH, A TOOL THAT ENABLES US TO FOLLOW A DIFFERENT PATH, A PATH THAT THEY HAVE POINTED US TOWARDS.
SO LET’S NOT GET TOO DOWN-HEARTED, WE CONTINUE THE GOOD FIGHT.
