ANALYSIS OF MAJORITY FIRMS IN THIS JUDGEMENT, YOU SHOULD CHECK WITH POSITIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE IN THE FAILURE TROITIÑO conjugal visits ... AS THIS (WATER CRISIS) did not favor the MINIMUM VITAL DEFENSE FOR DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM, THE SAME THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE VIABILITY OF SUPPORTED writ of habeas corpus.
VOTE THE SALVAGE OF JUDGES AND MITCHELL ARE INTERESTING ARJONA.
Mgdo Entry No. 918-07. Speaker: Winston Spadafora F.
habeas corpus filed in favor of detainees in La Joya and La Joyita by lack of water in these complexes, against the Minister of Government and Justice and the Director General of the Prison System.
REPUBLIC OF PANAMA
JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPREME COURT FULL
Panama, twenty-seven (27) of December two thousand and seven (2007)
VIEW:
Meet the Plenary of the Supreme Court constitutional action of habeas corpus filed by the Vice-President of the Center for Democratic Initiatives and Executive Director of Justice and Peace Commission of the Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church in Panama, please of detainees in La Joya and La Joyita, lack of potable water supply against the Minister of Government and Justice and the Director General of the Prison System.
In the brief filed by the legal representative of the Executive Director of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church in Panama, said that the water treatment plant that supplies drinking water to both prisons is completely damaged and that the plant is the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Government and Justice and the Prison System.
Even though the authorities state that the water supplied by tank trucks is not enough, he notes, also notes that sell water to the inmates from fifty cents to one Balboa (B /. 0.50; B /. 1.00), and the deplorable and inhumane situation in which they are deprived of their liberty. Thus, they argue, the State must guarantee the conditions to ensure minimum health and integrity of detainees.
Even so, says the plaintiff, the water supply is via tank trucks is not sufficient to supply the entire population of both Prisons and yet the authorities have done nothing to solve the problem. This makes, say, that the inmates live in subhuman conditions that threatens ek other human rights, as they involve "a violation of law to physical, mental and moral, and eventually life itself .... "
concludes the plaintiff requesting that the Corporation of Justice shall order the Ministry of Government and Justice and the prison system in a firm deadline to end the conditions that prevent the supply of potable water and the increased use of tank trucks provisionally or otherwise order the provisional suspension of execution of sentence of prisoners and the implementation of precautionary measures other than detention to unconvicted (FS.1-13).
The Saldaña Luis Alberto Gordon, director general of the prison system to answer the writ of habeas corpus, stated that the prison La Joya Water is supplied through a water treatment plant Pacora River.
added that currently the product of the weather, the engines were damaged plant mechanics, but that in order to repair must wait for the river back to normal. That is why, reports, forecasts that took the case with the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewage Systems to supply the storage tanks and pumping Correctional Center to the various pavilions.
Regarding La Joyita Penitentiary also reported that the problem has been solved by means of tank trucks and Panama Fire Department. Concluded that the November 22, 2007, we installed a new engine plant that supplies La Joya (fs.20-21).
Meanwhile, Severino Mejía, Vice-Minister of Government and Justice, confirmed the statement by the Director General of the Penitentiary System, adding that he toured the Penal Center for solving the problem.
He also said that the Minister entered into a contract with Multi-Systems Co. Inc., for construction and installation of a pumping station for both prisons, coupled with the fact the installation of a new engine that can supply the vital fluids during the day (fs.22-23).
immediately should the House of the Corporation of Justice to resolve this constitutional initiative, protective of personal freedom. In this regard we note that through a writ of habeas corpus the competent court hearing the action can only come to consider whether a remand order was issued against a person, and made effective, or if has not materialized issued arrest, meets the legal requirements required by our legislation, including a habeas corpus proceed against the precautionary measures other than detention, since they do not meet those requirements, would come the declaration of illegality of the interim measure staff censored.
Basically, the legal formalities are limited to the requirements contained in Article 2152 of the Judicial Code, which states that the measure by ordering the preventive detention of a person, must state the offense charged; The closest evidence to verify the crime, and evidence contained in the proceedings against the person who ordered his arrest.
In the present case, the constitutional activists said they interposed a writ of habeas corpus, which makes us meet the existing classes of habeas corpus in our legislation. In this regard, the habeas right has aimed at ensuring that the detainee is within the constituency or seat of the tribunal jurisdiction to try and correct then the transfer made to another prison which by law, it does not. In this regard, the Plenary of the Supreme Court has stated:
"... habeas corpus is intended to stop shipments ... the commission of a crime and who are detained legally, to another prison than the jurisdiction of the court is competent to judge "(Judgement of 22 October 2001).
In this particular business, not questions whether all detainees, trial and convicted, are in a Penitentiary different from the headquarters of the competent court, but the inmates do not have potable water supply. This situation is not a matter to be addressed through a writ of habeas corpus, for which, as noted, can only be entered to examine the legality of a detention order or injunction imposed private.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court of Justice decided to give process requiring the action brought by the authorities requested a writ of habeas corpus, despite the fact that those authorities could not fully meet the answers, in accordance with Article 2591 of the Judicial Code, which states that authorities should indicate whether or not ordered the detention, the reasons of fact and law which were based and if they have the custody of the detained person, because he questioned was the lack of drinking water.
being so, what comes in is declared not viable right of habeas corpus promoted, not to fulfill the purpose for which this institution was created warranty, but considering that, fortunately, the respective authorities are compliance with drinking water supply to all inmates of those prisons.
Under the above, FULL SUPREME COURT, administering justice on behalf of the Republic and by authority of law, PLEAD NOT VIABLE the writ of habeas corpus filed by the Vice-President of the Center for Democratic Initiatives and Executive Director of Justice and Peace Commission Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church in Panama.
presents notified and filed.
habeas corpus filed in favor of detainees in La Joya and La Joyita by lack of water in these complexes, against the Minister of Government and Justice and the Director General of the Prison System.
REPUBLIC OF PANAMA
JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPREME COURT FULL
Panama, twenty-seven (27) of December two thousand and seven (2007)
VIEW:
Meet the Plenary of the Supreme Court constitutional action of habeas corpus filed by the Vice-President of the Center for Democratic Initiatives and Executive Director of Justice and Peace Commission of the Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church in Panama, please of detainees in La Joya and La Joyita, lack of potable water supply against the Minister of Government and Justice and the Director General of the Prison System.
In the brief filed by the legal representative of the Executive Director of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church in Panama, said that the water treatment plant that supplies drinking water to both prisons is completely damaged and that the plant is the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Government and Justice and the Prison System.
Even though the authorities state that the water supplied by tank trucks is not enough, he notes, also notes that sell water to the inmates from fifty cents to one Balboa (B /. 0.50; B /. 1.00), and the deplorable and inhumane situation in which they are deprived of their liberty. Thus, they argue, the State must guarantee the conditions to ensure minimum health and integrity of detainees.
Even so, says the plaintiff, the water supply is via tank trucks is not sufficient to supply the entire population of both Prisons and yet the authorities have done nothing to solve the problem. This makes, say, that the inmates live in subhuman conditions that threatens ek other human rights, as they involve "a violation of law to physical, mental and moral, and eventually life itself .... "
concludes the plaintiff requesting that the Corporation of Justice shall order the Ministry of Government and Justice and the prison system in a firm deadline to end the conditions that prevent the supply of potable water and the increased use of tank trucks provisionally or otherwise order the provisional suspension of execution of sentence of prisoners and the implementation of precautionary measures other than detention to unconvicted (FS.1-13).
The Saldaña Luis Alberto Gordon, director general of the prison system to answer the writ of habeas corpus, stated that the prison La Joya Water is supplied through a water treatment plant Pacora River.
added that currently the product of the weather, the engines were damaged plant mechanics, but that in order to repair must wait for the river back to normal. That is why, reports, forecasts that took the case with the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewage Systems to supply the storage tanks and pumping Correctional Center to the various pavilions.
Regarding La Joyita Penitentiary also reported that the problem has been solved by means of tank trucks and Panama Fire Department. Concluded that the November 22, 2007, we installed a new engine plant that supplies La Joya (fs.20-21).
Meanwhile, Severino Mejía, Vice-Minister of Government and Justice, confirmed the statement by the Director General of the Penitentiary System, adding that he toured the Penal Center for solving the problem.
He also said that the Minister entered into a contract with Multi-Systems Co. Inc., for construction and installation of a pumping station for both prisons, coupled with the fact the installation of a new engine that can supply the vital fluids during the day (fs.22-23).
immediately should the House of the Corporation of Justice to resolve this constitutional initiative, protective of personal freedom. In this regard we note that through a writ of habeas corpus the competent court hearing the action can only come to consider whether a remand order was issued against a person, and made effective, or if has not materialized issued arrest, meets the legal requirements required by our legislation, including a habeas corpus proceed against the precautionary measures other than detention, since they do not meet those requirements, would come the declaration of illegality of the interim measure staff censored.
Basically, the legal formalities are limited to the requirements contained in Article 2152 of the Judicial Code, which states that the measure by ordering the preventive detention of a person, must state the offense charged; The closest evidence to verify the crime, and evidence contained in the proceedings against the person who ordered his arrest.
In the present case, the constitutional activists said they interposed a writ of habeas corpus, which makes us meet the existing classes of habeas corpus in our legislation. In this regard, the habeas right has aimed at ensuring that the detainee is within the constituency or seat of the tribunal jurisdiction to try and correct then the transfer made to another prison which by law, it does not. In this regard, the Plenary of the Supreme Court has stated:
"... habeas corpus is intended to stop shipments ... the commission of a crime and who are detained legally, to another prison than the jurisdiction of the court is competent to judge "(Judgement of 22 October 2001).
In this particular business, not questions whether all detainees, trial and convicted, are in a Penitentiary different from the headquarters of the competent court, but the inmates do not have potable water supply. This situation is not a matter to be addressed through a writ of habeas corpus, for which, as noted, can only be entered to examine the legality of a detention order or injunction imposed private.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court of Justice decided to give process requiring the action brought by the authorities requested a writ of habeas corpus, despite the fact that those authorities could not fully meet the answers, in accordance with Article 2591 of the Judicial Code, which states that authorities should indicate whether or not ordered the detention, the reasons of fact and law which were based and if they have the custody of the detained person, because he questioned was the lack of drinking water.
being so, what comes in is declared not viable right of habeas corpus promoted, not to fulfill the purpose for which this institution was created warranty, but considering that, fortunately, the respective authorities are compliance with drinking water supply to all inmates of those prisons.
Under the above, FULL SUPREME COURT, administering justice on behalf of the Republic and by authority of law, PLEAD NOT VIABLE the writ of habeas corpus filed by the Vice-President of the Center for Democratic Initiatives and Executive Director of Justice and Peace Commission Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church in Panama.
presents notified and filed.
SPADAFORA F. WINSTON
JOSEPH A. TROJAN
Adán Arnulfo Arjona L.
(RESCUE WITH VOTING)
ESMERALDA DE TROITIÑO AROSEMENA
(RESCUE WITH VOTING)
ESMERALDA DE TROITIÑO AROSEMENA
VICTOR L. BENAVIDES P. ALBERTO
CIGARS C.
(RESCUE WITH VOTING)
(RESCUE WITH VOTING)
GRACIELA C. DIXON
HARLEY J. D. MITCHELL
(RESCUE WITH VOTING)
(RESCUE WITH VOTING)
CESPEDES SALAS
ANIBAL
(RESCUE WITH VOTING)
HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE CENTRE FOR DEMOCRATIC INITIATIVES AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND PEACE THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN PANAMA FOR THE DETENTION OF THE JEWEL AND THE LITTLE JEWEL FOR LACK OF WATER IN SUCH COMPLEXES AGAINST GOVERNMENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PRISON SYSTEM Magistrate
: Winston Spadafora F. RESCUE
opinion by Justice Adán Arnulfo Arjona L.
With the greatest respect and regard I must express my disagreement with the majority ruling for reasons which are specified below:
I. THESIS OF MOST KNOWN MANIFESTO TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In fact, one of the main reasons that compel me to dissent from the majority position is that the decision adopted a restrictive interpretation of the purposes that has the Habeas Corpus, in corrective mode.
not agree with the decision said that the habeas corpus:
"(...) is designed to ensure that the detainee is within the constituency or seat of the tribunal jurisdiction to try and correct then the transfer made to another prison which by law, does not belong. "
(...)
"In this particular business, it is questionable whether all detainees, trial and convicted, are in a Penitentiary different from the headquarters of the competent court, but the inmates do not have the supply drinking water. This situation is not a matter to be addressed through a writ of habeas corpus, for which, as noted, can only be entered to examine the legality or illegality of an arrest warrant private or measure imposed. "
The thesis is wrong is left exposed as inadequate because the figure of habeas corpus, as well as the purpose for which said the ruling could also be promoted to stop the real threats to life or certain of the accused if such hazards originating in the manner or the circumstances of where he is detained.
In this respect the third paragraph of Article 23 of the Constitution does not refer to doubts when stipulates:
"Article 23. (...) Habeas Corpus
also apply when there is a real threat against freedom or some body, or the form or conditions of detention or where the person is endangering their physical, mental or moral or violates their rights of defense. " (Emphasis added)
In this case, the promoters of Habeas Corpus are reporting precisely the presence of dangerous conditions for the lives of people who are deprived of their liberty and ensure that they are not providing an adequate supply of drinking water in the prisons of La Joya and La Joyita.
not need a special effort to warn two relevant circumstances, namely:
That the Constitution itself establishes the possibility of filing a habeas corpus when there are situations where danger to life of prisoners because of the manner or circumstances in which it verifies the deprivation of liberty. This corroborates the serious mistake incurred by the ruling majority in holding that habeas corpus can only be to discuss issues pertaining to the place where the arrest is being practiced.
That the lack of potable water in a Penitentiary is not a favorable condition for the integrity of the right to life of detainees.
This brings me to the conclusion that the Habeas Corpus which has given rise to this process in any way could be found not viable, but that the Court had ruled on the merits of the dispute.
The fact that a person is deprived of freedom in a Penitentiary does not eliminate or diminish the basic rights that are inherent to their condition of being human, much less authorizes expose situations that may threaten seriously his right to life.
The nature and purpose of habeas corpus can precisely correct the conditions of detention when they are a risk to physical integrity of detainees.
In that sense it is feasible to promote not only as the circumstances justifying this Habeas Corpus, but also to prevent the prisoner is subjected to acts of violence by gangs within the prison.
deficiencies or difficulties in supplying drinking water prisons in La Joya and La Joyita represent circumstances that can compromise the life of detainees, and in these conditions it is perfectly feasible to the filing of habeas corpus as we have tried in this case the Center for Democratic Initiatives and the Commission Justice and Peace of the Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church in Panama.
II. "HABEAS CORPUS FOR A CLASS?
This poses a particular chaos that raises a concern of interest from a legal standpoint, since the Habeas Corpus is promoted in favor of an indeterminate but determinable group of people located in two prisons.
At first glance, casual observer might think that this possibility is not supported by law and that, in current terms, the usual situation is produced to advocate for an individual. While it is true
common shares of Habeas Corpus was filed to promote the status of certain persons, I think in this case is likely to be attempted in the overall shape has been done, since the topic relevant to the case analysis is not the legal status of each detainee, but the situation or situations in which the arrest is being fulfilled in those prisons.
In this case, I have no doubt that it is legally possible to promote a habeas corpus for overcoming prevailing conditions in those prisons and threaten the very existence of the prisoners.
regret that this important issue has not even been raised or considered by the majority decision.
III. A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
regret I note finally that the Corporation has lost the valuable opportunity offered by this case to establish an effective approach and funddado to give life to an institution as fundamental as habeas corpus to deal with situations that could seriously compromise human rights of prisoners.
believe that the case merited special treatment because of the seriousness and complexity of the reality we live in Prisons.
Elsewhere, for example, Argentina, through the famous case HORACIO VERVISKY constitutional jurisprudence has had a chance to give the habeas corpus hierarchy and useful point that deserves the sentence he decided that if he ordered one of the following measures:
reaffirm that any detention should be adjusted in compliance with the Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the UN. Sort
executive authority in charge of the prison system to correct conditions in correctional facilities and the submission of a report to each of the courts to which each detainee is under the conditions concrete that meets the arrest, so it can assess the need for continued detention or replaced.
instruct the courts to have knowledge of any circumstances involving cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees take the measures necessary to halt such violations of human rights.
The foreign reference is left above is clear evidence that the effectiveness of the guarantee institutions largely depends on the sensitivity and vision of the court to decide the same cases.
the criteria I gave this case to the plenary Supreme Court the opportunity to make a decision that contributed effective solution to the serious problem facing the prison system.
How this is not a choice shared by most I have no other way to express unequivocally and categorically that, except voting.
date ut supra.
Adán Arnulfo Arjona L.
LIC. YUEN YANIXA
GENERAL SECRETARIAT
HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRATIC INITIATIVES AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND PEACE OF BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN PANAMA FOR THE DETENTION OF Joya and La Joyita FOR LACK OF WATER IN SUCH COMPLEXES AGAINST GOVERNMENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND THE DIRECTOR GENERAL PRISON SYSTEM RESCUE
opinion by Justice ALBERTO CORTEZ CIGARS
With the respect that they deserve the rest of the judges composing the Full Court of Justice to take this opportunity to express my disagreement with the decision rendered within the action of habeas corpus for detainees in the prisons of La Joya and La Joyita against the Minister of Government and Justice and the Director General of the Prison System.
The basis of my disagreement focuses on the decision handed down by the majority of the members of the Plenary of the Corporation of Justice, was not viable to declare the action of habeas corpus filed in order to inform the inhumane conditions suffered by deprived of freedom for lack of water in those prisons. To arrive at that decision, said among other considerations, "... through a writ of habeas corpus competent court can only know ... come to consider whether a remand order was issued against a person, and made effective, or if it has not materialized issued arrest, meets the legal requirements required by our legislation, including a habeas corpus proceed against the precautionary measures .... "
is added to the Habeas Corpus under study is in its mode of Corrective however, the circumstances outlined by the appellants, not related to the budgets of this kind of Habeas Corpus, as is the transfer of a person to a prison that does not belong. This is because in this case does not concern whether the detainees are in prison their part or if it is legal or not the detention order or measure different, but the lack of potable water supply.
For these considerations I have to say, can not be said that the action of habeas corpus is appropriate only in the cases described above. To accept this criterion, we would be ignoring and bypassing the new modalities of this constitutional guarantee were instituted by the constitutional reform of 2004. That is, from that year, were introduced and recognized by the Constitution, other types of Habeas Corpus can be tested before the constitutional sphere, and if it is true must comply with certain formalities and legal requirements This does not mean the impossibility or lack thereof.
I say this, because reading of Article 23 of the Constitution establishes, among other budgets as follows, "The habeas corpus shall also ... if the shape or the circumstances of the arrest or where the person is threatening physical integrity mental or moral or violates their right to defense. " It is clear from the standard transcript, the existence of other forms of Habeas Corpus out of the familiar. This reason that compels us to abandon ideas that pre-constitutional reform of 2004, we had about the different types of Habeas Corpus.
It is true that at the time and in each particular case must determine whether the right is you who promote this constitutional action, however, this is without prejudice to ignore the existence of other and new types of Habeas Corpus recognized Article 23 of the Fundamental Standard, which go beyond verifying the legality of detention order or injunction or transfer from one person to a penalty that does not belong.
In another vein we should point out that although this time she filed a habeas corpus action in corrective mode and this should be checked if the case under study met the assumptions of the same, you can not ignore it action is anti-formalist. Reason
was perfectly feasible to address and answer the concerns of the appellant, provided evidence to provide the evidence to infer that he was opposed to those requests that can be treated through a habeas corpus action, even if the person would have as a misnomer to their claim.
For the above, and reiterating my respects, EXCEPT MY VOTE.
date ut supra.
MAG. ALBERTO CORTEZ CIGARS.
LICDA. YANIXSA Y. YUEN. General Secretariat
HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRATIC INITIATIVES AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND PEACE OF BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN PANAMA FOR THE DETENTION OF THE JEWEL AND THE LITTLE JEWEL FOR LACK OF WATER IN SUCH COMPLEXES AGAINST GOVERNMENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PRISON SYSTEM RESCUE VOTE
MAGISTRATE ANIBAL CESPEDES SALAS
With all due respect, I express my disagreement with the external criterion for most members of the Plenum of the Supreme Court to declare non-viable habeas corpus action promoted as not met "... with the purpose for which this institution was created Warranty ", stating as a reason for this that the situation posed" ... not a matter to be addressed through a writ of habeas corpus, for which, as noted, can only be entered to examine the legality or illegality of an order custody or measure imposed, for reasons I discuss below.
In 2004, through Reform Acts No. 1 and No. 27 July 26 October 2, changed the wording of Article 23 of our Constitution, recognizing from the date the feasibility of bringing habeas corpus actions aimed root in check and fill the form or conditions of detention and the place where the person is endangering their physical, mental or moral.
Since this action was filed by the Vice-President of the Center for Democratic Initiatives and Executive Director of Justice and Peace Commission of the Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church in Panama, on behalf of prisoners of La Joya and La Joyita, lack potable water supply em those prisons, a situation that obviously violates the physical, mental and even moral of the detainees, I believe that this Max Corporation of Justice must have known at the bottom of it.
I believe that consideration should also need to bring the writ of habeas corpus for such action as the authorities clearly challenged in this case the Minister of Government and Justice and the Director General of the prison system could not satisfy the questions embodied in Article 2591 of the Judicial Code as being different to the purpose of such action recently incorporadad to our constitutional system.
If however, since this criterion is not shared by most respectfully, except voting. Date
ut supra, ANIBAL JUSTICE SALAS
LAWNS
Lic. Yuen Yanixsa
MGDO Secretary General. SPEAKER: Winston Spadafora ENTRY: 918-07
CORRECTIVE ACTION OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE CENTRE FOR DEMOCRATIC INITIATIVES AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE OF BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN PANAMA, FOR OF DETAINEES AND THE LITTLE JEWEL JEWEL BY THE LACK OF DRINKING WATER, FROM THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PRISON SYSTEM.
RESCUE OF VOTE
HARLEY J.
MAGISTRATE D. MITCHELL
With all due respect that they deserve the rest of the judges composing the Full Court of Justice, gave me disagree with the decision rendered in the action of habeas corpus filed by the Vice-Chair Center for Democratic Initiatives and Executive Director of Justice and Peace Commission of the Episcopal Conference of the Catholic Church of Panama, on behalf of prisoners of La Joya and La Joyita, lack of potable water supply, against the Ministry Government and Justice and the Director General of the Prison System.
In this regard, I refer firstly to the provisions of Article 23 of our Constitution, which literally reads:
"Everyone arrested outside the chaos and formalities prescribed by this Constitution and the Law, will be released on request you or another person, the writ of habeas corpus may be filed immediately after the arrest and regardless of the penalty. The action is dealt with in priority to other pending cases by summary procedure, without which the process can be suspended because of non-working hours or days .... The form or conditions of detention and the place where the person endanger their physical, mental or moral or violates their right to defense. "
note that the constitutional provision allowing the filing of the constitutional action of Habeas Corpus when the place where the detainee endangers their physical, mental or moral.
So, I'm the criterion that the lack of supply of this vital liquid, such as potable water, under conditions which are the prisons of our country and consequently deprived and deprived of liberty implies implications his health, which, given the persistence of the existing problem, causes damages to the physical, mental and moral, that fact constituted inhuman treatment. Given
as outlined, it is extremely important to point according to the doctrine, the purpose of the constitutional action of habeas corpus, which "is not to seek the release of the accused, but to amend the form or mode that marks the arrest if they are vexatious "(Quoted in Montenegro González, Rigoberto. THE HABEAS CORPUS. First Edition. June 1998, page 22)..
In that sense adds the author of the cited work, "what is intended by means of habeas corpus is therefore avoid humiliating treatment, degrading and violators of the human condition."
Thereupon habiéndose reconocido la modalidad del hábeas corpus correctivo en las reformas constitucionales a través del Acto Legislativo No. 1 de 2004, que consagra entre sus objetivos asegurar el respeto de la integridad física, mental o moral de las personas privadas de libertad, considero que este Tribunal Constitucional ciertamente esta facultado para conocer la materia in examine a través de esta acción de garantía, contrario a los sustentado en la parte motiva del …solamente permite examinar la legalidad o no de las medidas cautelares personales.
Por otro lado, cabe señalar que este Pleno ya se pronunció en este sentido a través del Fallo de 23 de mayo de 2006, que a la letra dice:
“En este sentido, it clear to the competent body, which although by this form of habeas corpus is sought among other things, ensure human rights of detainees can not claim that this action by the Constitution, be left free to all and each of the inmates in prisons referred, where it is commonly known, part of the prison population is held in preventive detention and another group of prisoners have been convicted following trial with the constitutional and legal due .
Recalling that this type of Habeas Corpus is not properly developed by the law, in terms of procedures, formalities and other aspects, we must not lose sight that is very different to promote action to improve living conditions for prisoners, serving for it to respect the laws have been adopted both domestically and internationally, and secondly, that is intended to leave the prisons without any human population, under the premise of the deficiencies in the system. " (The emphasis added)
addition to the above, we must bear in mind that the Panamanian State has ratified international human rights conventions that are binding, such as:
"American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Adopted at the Ninth International American Conference held in Bogotá, Colombia, May 2, 1948)
Article XXV.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures established by preexisting law.
Nobody can be arrested for breach of obligations of a purely civil.
Every individual who has been deprived of his liberty is entitled to the judge without delay on the lawfulness of the measure and be tried without undue delay or otherwise, to be released. Is also entitled to humane treatment while deprived of their liberty.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 Article 5
not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force March 23, 1976. (Approved by the Republic of Panama, Law No. 15 of October 28 1976)
Article 7 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 10 1. All persons deprived of liberty shall be treated humanely and with respect for the inherent dignity of human beings.
2. a) Accused persons shall be separated from convicted prisoners, except in exceptional circumstances and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons;
b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and should be taken to court justice as quickly as possible for adjudication.
3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation of prisoners. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted Panama, by Act No. 15 of October 28, 1977
Article 5. Right to Personal Integrity
1. Everyone has the right to respect for their physical, mental and moral.
2. No one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. All persons deprived of liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human.
3. The penalty shall not extend beyond the person of the offender.
4. Accused persons shall be separated from convicted prisoners, except in exceptional circumstances, and be accorded treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons.
5. When the children can be prosecuted, should be separated from adults and brought before specialized tribunals, as speedily as possible for treatment.
6. The deprivation of liberty shall have as its essential aim the reform and social rehabilitation of convicts.
found that international obligations on human rights of detainees have been taken from other standards, Act 55 of July 30, 203, which organizes the prison system to ensure human rights those who have restricted their liberty in prisons.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court empowered to administer justice while safeguarding the human rights of people, it was called in that order, to the competent authorities, such as the Ministry of Government and Justice, in coordination with the Directorate for Penitentiary System shall be implemented in a reasonable time, all remedial measures designed to amend the subhuman condition in which cross the inmates of ... drinking water, since he made that these individuals have allegedly breached or infringed the law, it implies that the inherent dignity of the human condition is impaired and consequently cause damage to physical integrity, moral and mental, since the penalty for its responsibility to society, is the deprivation of liberty over no other inhumane treatment to the detriment of their fundamental rights. For the reasons
supported EXCEPT MY VOTE.
date ut supra. HARLEY J.
D. MITCHELL MAGISTRATE
LICDA. YANIXA Y. C. YUEN Secretary General
0 comments:
Post a Comment