MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 21st 2024 - 17:32 UTC

 

 

Paraguayan Supreme Court receives unconstitutional appeal on Lugo’s removal

Thursday, July 12th 2012 - 02:03 UTC
Full article 1 comment
Attorney General Javier Diaz has 18 days to decide on the case of Lugo Attorney General Javier Diaz has 18 days to decide on the case of Lugo

The Paraguayan Supreme Court accepted on Wednesday an unconstitutional appeal against the removal of President Fernando Lugo which requests the annulment of the political impeachment undertaken and voted by Congress.

The document presented by the solicitors of Lugo was admitted at the Constitutional Chamber and immediately addressed for consideration of the country’s Attorney General Javier Diaz who will dictate whether the higher court must rule on the annulment request.

He has 18 working days to take a stand before the Supreme Court goes ahead with the case.

Solicitors Adolfo Ferreiro, José Enrique García and Emilio Camacho requested the Court to declare inapplicable resolution 881 which was instrumental in removing Lugo, given “the defects and other shortcomings it contains”. The counsel for the defence argued that the charges for the removal of the president were not founded and violated the leader’s rights.

The presentation attacks the Legislative branch decision arguing that in the course of the impeachment instruments that are in violation of the Paraguayan Constitution were applied and also in violation of the guarantees of Mr Lugo, since the removal was arbitrary, unfounded and violates the principle of incongruity.

The solicitors advanced that if they do not have a favourable ruling from the Paraguayan highest court, “the majority of whose members belong to the political parties supportive of the Legislative decision”, they will then appeal to the Inter American Human Rights Court with the same case.

The impeachment process was started according to the Paraguayan constitution in the Lower House with the support of 76 to 1 and later in the Senate 39 to 4 with two abstentions.
 

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • British_Kirchnerist

    I take it that its an appeal saying (rightly, in my view) that the impeachment was unconstitutional, not an “unconstitutional appeal” as otherwise why is it being heard? So a misleading headline; was it just bad grammar?

    Jul 12th, 2012 - 12:33 pm 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!