The Mexican Supreme Court V. Chief Justice John Marshall

more+
less-

The Plaintiff was a legitimate candidate to occupy the office of Mexican Ombudsman. He presented thinking he was participating, as the Mexican Constitution states, in a reelection of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, based in a Secondary Law, was ratified. The legitimate Candidate pleaded through “Juicio de Amparo” (a Mexican resource similar to the “Injunction”) that both the Federal Law and the ratification were unconstitutional. The Mexican Supreme Court denied the petition based in an inexistent exception to the “Juicio de Amparo.” The Inter-­-American Commission on Human Rights is about to emit or not to emit a recommendation. The Inter-­-American Court of Human Rights could accept jurisdiction.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Carlos Gil | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

more+
less-

Carlos Gil on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×