– Bidart Campos, Germán José. 1961. Derecho de amparo [Buenos Aires]: EDIAR. According to a Canadian legal dictionary, a reverse decision (decision in cassation) annuls©©an illegal or unjust decision (Dictionnaire de droit quã©bã cois et canadien 1994, 76). An Amparo action may challenge a procedural decision rendered by a court, an injunction or a final decision (US n.d., Section II.b.3). This type of amparo can be used, for example, to challenge illegal expropriations by federal agencies (Almanza Vega 1994, 41). Lawyer, former judge in the Amparo cases for the Federal District, Mexico. 7 December 2007. Telephone interview. – Diáz Solimine, Omar Luis. 2003.
Juicio de amparo. Buenos Aires: Hammurabi. – Fix-Zamudio, Héctor and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor. 2006. El derecho de amparo en el mundo. México, D.F.: Editorial Porrúa. 3. Amparo administratif (amparo administrativo) (Mexico 5 February 1917, 107.III.a; Zamora 2004, p. 267; Brewer-Carãas, Oct. 2007, p. 11).
In some countries, amparo pleading can be conceived as a procedural resource that depends on ordinary processes and, ultimately, codes of civil procedure, or in other countries it is understood as an autonomous judicial process with special or autonomous standards. For some, it can be unilateral and subjectively protect fundamental rights; And for others, their essence may be a bilateral process of an objective nature. There is a link between the rights to liberty and the powers of authority or others that are intended to protect constitutional values. However, private cases are excluded from amparo actions (lawyer 7 Dec. 2007; Mexico 10 January 1936, art. 1). For legal action against Amparo to be justified, a government body recognized by law or having public authority due to factual circumstances must be responsible for the violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution (Zamora 2004, 264; Baker, 1971, p. 94). Specifically, the prosecuting party must prove that an authority is responsible for the violation committed against it (Zamora 2004, 265; Baker 1971, 95) and that the harm is not irreparable (Mexico 10 January 1936, 73.IX). A forced death sentence therefore does not permit such acts (Baker 1971, 95). Mexico`s „recurso de amparo“ is found in Articles 103 and 107 of the Mexican Constitution – judicial review of government action – to empower state courts to protect individuals from state abuses. Amparo was divided into five legal departments: 3.
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) to ensure that every person whose rights or freedoms are violated as recognized in the present Covenant has an effective remedy, notwithstanding the fact that the violation was committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person who lodges such an appeal is determined by the competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities or by any other competent authority provided for in the legal order of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) ensure that the competent authorities apply those remedies when they are granted. Judicial amparo is an example of direct amparo (Zamora 2004, 267), unless an injunction or procedural decision is challenged (US n.d., Section II.B.3). Amparo is an extraordinary constitutional complaint that can be filed in federal court, by Mexicans and foreigners. It is often referred to as „action for the protection of the Constitution“, which is essentially regulated by articles 103 and 107 of the Federal Constitution. The Amparo procedure can be used for several purposes: (1) to defend the individual guarantees provided for in the Constitution; (2) against unconstitutional laws; (3) review the legality of judicial decisions; (4) against final administrative decisions, arbitral awards and decisions concerning private parties; or (5) to protect municipal law of an agricultural nature. (<?Id.) According to the same source, Amparo cases related to torture and arbitrary detention were the most common type of Amparo prosecution until the establishment of human rights commissions which, since 1990, have been responsible for making recommendations in cases of torture and arbitrary detention (Avocat 7 December 2007). Amparo against arbitrary detention is an example of indirect amparo (Zamora 2004, 267). Depending on the purpose, amparo sets can be: 1. Wide protection. In Peru, the subject matter of the judgment is in principle not compensatory and is intended only to replace the right to its state before the violation. In Colombia, the judgment of Judge Tutela` orders the defendant to act or abstain immediately, the penalty is not compensatory, unless the person concerned has no other legal means.
2. Intermediate protection. In the Mexican Amparo trial, the judgments protect only the requested case and produce effects that depend on the type of sentence dictated. In Brazil, the Mandato de segurança is considered immutable, but if it were the other way around, the security mandate will not prevent the injured party from protecting his or her respective rights and property acts. President Enrique Peña Nieto explained that this new legislation provides that the Supreme Court must revoke and prosecute any authority that does not comply with a decision of Amparo. In addition, international human rights treaties to which Mexico has acceded will be protected. (Francisco Reséndiz, Peña Nieto Promulga Nueva Ley de Amparo, EL UNIVERSAL (April 2, 2013).) If a judge upholds a legal action against Amparo, section 76 of the Amparo Act limits the effect of the decision on applicants for protection (Mexico, 10 January 1936, p. 76). The decision is made without making a decision on the law or action that triggered the procedure (Mexico, February 5, 1917, 107.II). This provision is also known as the Otero clause (FÓrmula Otero) (Zamora 2004, 262; US n.d., Section II.B.2; Almanza Vega 1994, page 21 President Peña Nieto stressed that the new law would speed up the settlement of Amparo trials and strengthen the judicial system. The new law has been debated in Congress for more than two years. President Peña Nieto signed it during a ceremony in the reception hall of the National Palace, in the presence of the President of the Senate, Ernesto Cordero, and the President of the Supreme Court, Juán Silva Meza.
(Id.) The Constitutional Decree or „Amparo“ is one of the legal concepts defining the Mexican legal system. For many years, the abuse of this procedural order has been discussed in academic and legal circles. The purpose of the Amparo document is to guarantee the rights of Mexican citizens against abuses committed by government agencies. The Mexican Ordinance of Amparo is a unique figure in the world, although it has been compared to other legal instruments that protect the rights of citizens, such as habeas corpus, and other rights contained in the Spanish legal system. Over the past thirteen years, there have been discussions in Mexico about the need to amend the Amparo Law („Ley de Amparo“) in order to modernize it and avoid abuses in its application, as well as to ensure the application of other laws or regulations that have been thwarted by the inappropriate use of Amparo procedures.
