Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research
La acción de amparo en Uruguay. Complemento de investigación
| 2020 | |
|
writ of mandamus human rights State constitutional law Constitution Law 16.011 protection of human rights acción de amparo derechos humanos Estado derecho constitucional Constitución Ley 16.011 garantía de los derechos humanos |
|
| Español | |
| Universidad Católica del Uruguay | |
| LIBERI | |
|
https://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/revistadederecho/article/view/2246
https://hdl.handle.net/10895/4212 |
|
| Acceso abierto |
| _version_ | 1815178718555930624 |
|---|---|
| author | Risso Ferrand, Martín |
| author2 | Garat, María Paula Rainaldi, Stefanía Guerra, Martín Kazarez, Melanie Pintos, Emanuel |
| author2_role | author author author author author |
| author_facet | Risso Ferrand, Martín Garat, María Paula Rainaldi, Stefanía Guerra, Martín Kazarez, Melanie Pintos, Emanuel |
| author_role | author |
| collection | LIBERI |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv | Risso Ferrand, Martín Garat, María Paula Rainaldi, Stefanía Guerra, Martín Kazarez, Melanie Pintos, Emanuel |
| dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv | 2023-09-13T13:12:43Z |
| dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv | 2023-09-13T13:12:43Z |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv | 2020-11-12 |
| dc.description.en-US.fl_txt_mv | The purpose of this publication is to adjunct a research, already published on Revista de Derecho n. 16 (July-December, 2017). In said research, it was made apparent that the vast majority of petitions for writs of mandamus were denied by the courts. This follow-up research aims to verify if said tendency remained unaltered and methodize the reasons given by the judges to deny the petitions, in order to, in the end, propose an amending act which intends to allow the writ of mandamus to achieve its intended purpose, that is, to be a remedy for cases where human rights are violated. So as to achieve that, all final decisions from a Civil Court of Appeals regarding a writ of mandamus petition between October 2018th and September 2019th were collected. Then, all decisions regarding “medical writs of mandamus” were discarded, as well as all petitions not aimed against the State. The decisions that were left, were then divided by its result and, finally, each was scrutinized on the reasons given by the court for its judgement. In total, three hundred and sixty decisions were issued, of which only twenty-two were “not medical writ of mandamus”. Twenty of them were rejected based on a strict interpretation of the requirements of the law N° 16.011, with no regards of the constitutional principles on the matter nor the hermeneutical rules in cases involving human rights. |
| dc.description.es-ES.fl_txt_mv | El propósito de esta publicación es complementar una investigación publicada en Revista de Derecho n.º 16 (julio-diciembre, 2017), en la cual se constató que la inmensa mayoría de acciones de amparo en las que no se reclama asistencia médica eran rechazadas por los tribunales. Se pretendió verificar si la tendencia permanecía incambiada, así como sistematizar las razones esgrimidas por los jueces para desestimar los amparos y, en definitiva, proponer modificaciones legislativas que le permitieran a la acción de amparo observar su verdadera finalidad, que es ser la principal garantía para los derechos humanos lesionados. Para ello, se relevaron todas las sentencias definitivas dictadas en un proceso de amparo por los Tribunales de Apelaciones en lo Civil entre octubre de 2018 y setiembre de 2019 y se descartaron aquellas en las que el Estado no fuera parte demandada o se reclamase un medicamento o tratamiento médico. Luego se las dividió por resultado, para finalmente analizar los argumentos de cada una de ellas. En total, se dictaron trescientas sesenta sentencias, de las cuales solo veintidós correspondían a acciones de amparo “no médicos”, siendo en última instancia rechazados veinte de ellos en una aplicación errónea de los requisitos previstos en la ley 16.011, prescindiendo de los preceptos constitucionales y las pautas hermenéuticas en materia de derechos humanos. |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv | application/pdf |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv | https://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/revistadederecho/article/view/2246 10.22235/rd22.2246 |
| dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv | https://hdl.handle.net/10895/4212 |
| dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv | spa |
| dc.publisher.es-ES.fl_str_mv | Universidad Católica del Uruguay |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv | https://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/revistadederecho/article/view/2246/2239 |
| dc.rights.es-ES.fl_str_mv | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.source.en-US.fl_str_mv | Revista de Derecho; No. 22 (2020): Revista de Derecho ; 160-177 |
| dc.source.es-ES.fl_str_mv | Revista de Derecho; Núm. 22 (2020): Revista de Derecho ; 160-177 |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv | 2393-6193 1510-3714 10.22235/rd.vi22 reponame:LIBERI instname:Universidad Católica del Uruguay instacron:Universidad Católica del Uruguay |
| dc.source.pt-PT.fl_str_mv | Revista de Derecho; N.º 22 (2020): Revista de Derecho ; 160-177 |
| dc.subject.en-US.fl_str_mv | writ of mandamus human rights State constitutional law Constitution Law 16.011 protection of human rights |
| dc.subject.es-ES.fl_str_mv | acción de amparo derechos humanos Estado derecho constitucional Constitución Ley 16.011 garantía de los derechos humanos |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv | Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research La acción de amparo en Uruguay. Complemento de investigación |
| dc.type.es-ES.fl_str_mv | Ensayo e investigación no evaluado por pares |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv | info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.version.none.fl_str_mv | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| description | The purpose of this publication is to adjunct a research, already published on Revista de Derecho n. 16 (July-December, 2017). In said research, it was made apparent that the vast majority of petitions for writs of mandamus were denied by the courts. This follow-up research aims to verify if said tendency remained unaltered and methodize the reasons given by the judges to deny the petitions, in order to, in the end, propose an amending act which intends to allow the writ of mandamus to achieve its intended purpose, that is, to be a remedy for cases where human rights are violated. So as to achieve that, all final decisions from a Civil Court of Appeals regarding a writ of mandamus petition between October 2018th and September 2019th were collected. Then, all decisions regarding “medical writs of mandamus” were discarded, as well as all petitions not aimed against the State. The decisions that were left, were then divided by its result and, finally, each was scrutinized on the reasons given by the court for its judgement. In total, three hundred and sixty decisions were issued, of which only twenty-two were “not medical writ of mandamus”. Twenty of them were rejected based on a strict interpretation of the requirements of the law N° 16.011, with no regards of the constitutional principles on the matter nor the hermeneutical rules in cases involving human rights. |
| eu_rights_str_mv | openAccess |
| format | article |
| id | LIBERI_c5d71973377701b0c91271b8b5077b05 |
| identifier_str_mv | 10.22235/rd22.2246 |
| instacron_str | Universidad Católica del Uruguay |
| institution | Universidad Católica del Uruguay |
| instname_str | Universidad Católica del Uruguay |
| language | spa |
| network_acronym_str | LIBERI |
| network_name_str | LIBERI |
| oai_identifier_str | oai:liberi.ucu.edu.uy:10895/4212 |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| reponame_str | LIBERI |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv | franco.pertusso@ucu.edu.uy |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv | LIBERI - Universidad Católica del Uruguay |
| repository_id_str | 10342 |
| rights_invalid_str_mv | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
| spelling | Risso Ferrand, MartínGarat, María PaulaRainaldi, StefaníaGuerra, MartínKazarez, MelaniePintos, Emanuel2020-11-122023-09-13T13:12:43Z2023-09-13T13:12:43Zhttps://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/revistadederecho/article/view/224610.22235/rd22.2246https://hdl.handle.net/10895/4212The purpose of this publication is to adjunct a research, already published on Revista de Derecho n. 16 (July-December, 2017). In said research, it was made apparent that the vast majority of petitions for writs of mandamus were denied by the courts. This follow-up research aims to verify if said tendency remained unaltered and methodize the reasons given by the judges to deny the petitions, in order to, in the end, propose an amending act which intends to allow the writ of mandamus to achieve its intended purpose, that is, to be a remedy for cases where human rights are violated. So as to achieve that, all final decisions from a Civil Court of Appeals regarding a writ of mandamus petition between October 2018th and September 2019th were collected. Then, all decisions regarding “medical writs of mandamus” were discarded, as well as all petitions not aimed against the State. The decisions that were left, were then divided by its result and, finally, each was scrutinized on the reasons given by the court for its judgement. In total, three hundred and sixty decisions were issued, of which only twenty-two were “not medical writ of mandamus”. Twenty of them were rejected based on a strict interpretation of the requirements of the law N° 16.011, with no regards of the constitutional principles on the matter nor the hermeneutical rules in cases involving human rights.El propósito de esta publicación es complementar una investigación publicada en Revista de Derecho n.º 16 (julio-diciembre, 2017), en la cual se constató que la inmensa mayoría de acciones de amparo en las que no se reclama asistencia médica eran rechazadas por los tribunales. Se pretendió verificar si la tendencia permanecía incambiada, así como sistematizar las razones esgrimidas por los jueces para desestimar los amparos y, en definitiva, proponer modificaciones legislativas que le permitieran a la acción de amparo observar su verdadera finalidad, que es ser la principal garantía para los derechos humanos lesionados. Para ello, se relevaron todas las sentencias definitivas dictadas en un proceso de amparo por los Tribunales de Apelaciones en lo Civil entre octubre de 2018 y setiembre de 2019 y se descartaron aquellas en las que el Estado no fuera parte demandada o se reclamase un medicamento o tratamiento médico. Luego se las dividió por resultado, para finalmente analizar los argumentos de cada una de ellas. En total, se dictaron trescientas sesenta sentencias, de las cuales solo veintidós correspondían a acciones de amparo “no médicos”, siendo en última instancia rechazados veinte de ellos en una aplicación errónea de los requisitos previstos en la ley 16.011, prescindiendo de los preceptos constitucionales y las pautas hermenéuticas en materia de derechos humanos.application/pdfspaUniversidad Católica del Uruguayhttps://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/revistadederecho/article/view/2246/2239http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRevista de Derecho; No. 22 (2020): Revista de Derecho ; 160-177Revista de Derecho; Núm. 22 (2020): Revista de Derecho ; 160-177Revista de Derecho; N.º 22 (2020): Revista de Derecho ; 160-1772393-61931510-371410.22235/rd.vi22reponame:LIBERIinstname:Universidad Católica del Uruguayinstacron:Universidad Católica del Uruguaywrit of mandamushuman rightsStateconstitutional lawConstitutionLaw 16.011protection of human rightsacción de amparoderechos humanosEstadoderecho constitucionalConstituciónLey 16.011garantía de los derechos humanosWrit of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up researchLa acción de amparo en Uruguay. Complemento de investigacióninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionEnsayo e investigación no evaluado por paresinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion10895/42122023-09-13 10:12:43.981oai:liberi.ucu.edu.uy:10895/4212Universidadhttps://www.ucu.edu.uy/https://liberi.ucu.edu.uy/oai/requestfranco.pertusso@ucu.edu.uyUruguayopendoar:103422023-09-13T13:12:43LIBERI - Universidad Católica del Uruguayfalse |
| spellingShingle | Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research Risso Ferrand, Martín writ of mandamus human rights State constitutional law Constitution Law 16.011 protection of human rights acción de amparo derechos humanos Estado derecho constitucional Constitución Ley 16.011 garantía de los derechos humanos |
| status_str | publishedVersion |
| title | Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research |
| title_full | Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research |
| title_fullStr | Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research |
| title_full_unstemmed | Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research |
| title_short | Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research |
| title_sort | Writ of mandamus in Uruguay. Follow-up research |
| topic | writ of mandamus human rights State constitutional law Constitution Law 16.011 protection of human rights acción de amparo derechos humanos Estado derecho constitucional Constitución Ley 16.011 garantía de los derechos humanos |
| url | https://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/revistadederecho/article/view/2246 https://hdl.handle.net/10895/4212 |
