The court rejects a complaint against the practice of Rosario Piedra Ibarra at the head of the National Council for Human Rights – El Sol de México

The second room from The Nation’s Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN), rejected the Senator’s complaint Emilio Alvarez Ikaza Set against Rosario Piedra Ibarra, Head of National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), Because the legislator could not prove his legitimate or legal interest in this matter.

In this Wednesday session and unanimously by five votes, the draft bill of Minister-Rapporteur Luis Maria Aguilar Morales was approved, leaving the lawmaker’s complaint unfounded, as he could not verify that the election of Pedra Ibarra affected his legal field or reasons. You no direct harm.

The senator, who from 2001 to 2009 was chair of the Human Rights Commission of the Federal District, provided protection against the election of Pedra Ibarra, which was rejected by the Eleventh Administrative Court of Mexico City.

On September 19 of last year, the Second Chamber of the Court appealed the judicial protection case filed by the independent Senator, Emilio Alvarez Ikaza Longoria, against the appointment of activist Rosario Pedra Ibarra, Chair of the National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH).

The President of the Eleventh District Court for Administrative Affairs, Agustín Tello Espendola, declared that the Supreme Court wielded its power of gravity.

It is noteworthy that the election of Piedra Ibarra has been legally challenged by other members of the Senate, individuals and opposition NGOs, but none of these remedies have succeeded.

▶ ️ Stay up to date on our Google News Channel

Minister Aguilar asserts in his draft that due to the nature of the actions he alleges, it is clear that he is not doing so in defense of any human right that has been violated as an individual or a convicted person.

See also  AIFA spends 25 million pesos for 9 months of medical insurance

He insists that “because of the vices resulting from the procedures for electing the President of the National Council for Human Rights, which, according to Articles 1 and 5, Section II, the second paragraph of the Constitutional Protection Law, fall outside the scope of constitutional oversight; and what is more, as mentioned earlier, that the granting of protection Ultimately it will not in any way translate into a specific benefit to the complainant. “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *