El The reverse of the plot on the debate of the last jurisdictional word.

Withdrawal of the multi-level protection of fundamental rights?

Abstract

On the occasion of paying tribute to our basic legal plexu for the thirty years since its last reform, we consider addressing in this article the issue of international human rights treaties that have been incorporated into our domestic positive law through article 75, paragraph 22. and the corresponding multi‑level protection of fundamental rights within the inter‑American system.

Due to conflict situations generated by the behavior of defendants, which must be judged within the scope of the States adhering to various international agreements, difficulties have arisen to clarify who are the judges who must intervene in the last instance to resolve such disputes.

The complexity lies in the fact that these States, at the time of the trial, often rely on internal regulations that make up the so‑called “constitutional identity” of the State.

The problem arises when this “identity” comes into conflict with principles included in the treaty, but also when there are disputes as to which is the body that should resolve that issue, in such a way as to validate the decision within the internal sphere of each nation and in the scope of the international community to which it belongs.