A group of Uruguayan anti-vaccine protesters gathered Wednesday at the courthouse doorstep in support of Surrogate Judge Alejandro Recarey's decision earlier this week to request information from the Health Ministry (MSP) and the Pfizer laboratory regarding anti-COVID-19 vaccines.
In response to an injunction sought by lawyer Maximiliano Dentone, the magistrate agreed that the Uruguayan government needed to disclose the details of the agreement for the purchase of the chemicals and that the manufacturer should disclose the components of the drug sold.
Read also: Uruguayan judge demands explanations regarding Pfizer's COVID-19 vax
Congressman César Vega was among the demonstrators who showed up before the Judiciary hearing in Montevideo carrying signs in support of those objecting to the administration of experimental medication to children.
Dentone, who has also acted as Vega's lawyer in a defamation case, filed a request to halt vaccination against COVID-19 among children and the case landed on the desk of Recarey, who was on duty during the judiciary's winter recess.
According to judiciary sources, the magistrate was also interested in evaluating information from Pfizer about the drug's possible side effects.
Presidential Secretary Alvaro Delgado said that the Uruguayan government is going to give all the information it has to give about the vaccines. If there is something we have done during these two difficult years that all Uruguayans have suffered, it is to be transparent with the people, Delgado stressed.
Recarey also agreed to hear a complaint from two unvaccinated Argentine women who felt discriminated against when asked to produce a negative PCR test to enter Uruguay.
Before the hearing, the MSP and the Uruguayan Presidency argued that Judge Recarey had been biased regarding the pandemic and should not be ruling on the request to suspend the vaccination of children. They argued in a document filed Wednesday morning that Recarey was not impartial and that the case should be handled by a judge who has not issued previous value judgments, which could taint the case under debate and produce violations to due process.
They claimed Recarey had voiced previous opinions, both relativizing the effects and seriousness of the pandemic, and questioning the role of science, the Administration, health professionals, and certain companies, among which the laboratories would be included.
The Government lawyers argued that the legal requirements for an injunction had not been met, including the standing of the petitioners and the time elapsed since the start of vaccination of children, among other legal issues.
Plaintiffs have thirty days from the date on which the act, fact or omission occurred, argued the defendants, who added that Dentone had taken 13 months to do so since the first Uruguayan child was vaccinated against COVID-19 with Pfizer's drug.
The MSP legal team argued that there was an evident indetermination of the holders of the action in question and that Dentone was representing diffuse interests.”
The Government's request was turned down by the magistrate, who thus remained in charge of the case.
Top CommentsDisclaimer & comment rules
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!