Personal Liberty Rights Under the Spanish Constitution
What Items Are Recognized in the Constitution of Personal Liberty?
In Article 1.1 of the Spanish Constitution (EC), personal liberty is recognized as a legal value and, higher in Article 17 CE, as a fundamental right.
What Faculty Recognizes This Right?
It recognizes the autonomy to choose among various options presented throughout life; liberty makes men human.
Who Is the Active Subject of This Right, Whom Does It Preach?
It corresponds to all common citizens’ libertatis status compared to the government.
If the Constitution Recognizes the Right to Freedom of Person, What Is the Reason It Would Restrict This Right in the Area of a Prison?
Article 17.1 of the Constitution preserves “the common libertatis corresponding status, against the authorities, to all citizens. Such status, however, may be amended within a special situation like this [referring to the case of a prisoner], so that, within the penal institution, the management regime that inmates are subjected to is not limited by the scope of a fundamental right which has already lost, in this specific field, their own content. The freedom that is the subject of legitimate and fundamental right was denied by the content of the decision of conviction, ruling that, therefore, determined the temporary restriction of fundamental rights.
What Assumptions of Imprisonment Are Referred to in Art. 17.1 CE?
It refers both to cases of deprivation prior to conviction, as those determined by the same, and that must be carried out thereunder. In other words, the mandate of the much-quoted constitutional provision also includes the right not to be deprived of liberty by a final sentence only in cases and in the manner provided in the Act.
What Is the Scope of the Reservation of Art. 17.1 CE?
The rules establishing punitive custodial sentences must be of legal status and have an organic character.
Explain the Requirement of Law in Criminal Matters.
Article 81.1 EC states organic laws are expected to be “those relating to the development of fundamental rights and civil liberties.” The rules are a development of the right to freedom.
In this sense, the Penal Code and criminal laws are general security and development of the right of liberty within the meaning of Art. 81.1 EC and need fixing because the assumptions can legitimately deprive a person of liberty. Of HI that must have an organic character.
Does It Constitute a Deprivation of Liberty, Within the Meaning of Art. 17.1, If a Police Officer Invites Us to Go to the Police Station in Order to Be Identified, If We Voluntarily Accept Such a Request?
Within the meaning of Art. 17.1 of the Constitution, it involves a deprivation of liberty. Neither a spontaneous nor voluntary appearance excludes, in principle, any hint of imprisonment, although this could arise from the moment the subject is unable to leave those premises. Deprivation of liberty is not to be left alone by the mere fact that the concerned accepts.
Is It Enough to Limit the Right to Freedom From the Restrictions Prescribed by Law? What Are the Criteria to Be Observed to Limit the Right?
The law could not, of course, set up situations of deprivation of liberty that do not meet the objective of protecting property rights and constitutional values recognized or whose degree of indeterminacy created insurmountable insecurity or uncertainty about its mode of enforcement and could not, in the absence of proportionality. Proportionality should be required on the right to freedom and restriction of this freedom, so as to exclude imprisonment not to be violated, break the balance between the right and its limitation.
Can You, at Any Time, Ask a Policeman to Accompany Him to the Police Station in Order to Be Identified?
Deprivation of liberty for identification purposes may only affect people not identified where it, reasonably and justifiably, can be assumed that they are in the current provision of committing a criminal offense (not otherwise understood the legal expression “to prevent the commission of a felony or misdemeanor”) or those, equally unidentifiable, they have already incurred an ‘offense’ management, establishing the law an instrument for use in cases where the need for identification arises from the need to prevent a crime or misdemeanor or to recognize, to sanction, a violator of the law… The Art. 20.2 is not contrary to the Constitution have foreseen this when deprived of liberty because, as stated in the STC 178/1985 (legal basis 3. ยบ), “the EC Art. 17.1 sees individual freedom as a right absolute and free of restrictions.”
The measure in police identification under Art. 20.2 of the Protection Law of Public Safety, is by the circumstances of time and place (displacement required to close police stations in which people will remain for as long as required), a situation that goes beyond a mere immobilization of the person instrumental in preventing or inquiry, and therefore must be considered as a form of deprivation of liberty. Quite obviously, we are therefore faced with one of the ‘cases’ referred to in Art. 17.1 EC, whatever the disposition of the person before the order received, a fact which, incidentally, gives meaning to the character of the Organic Law of the Art. 20.2 (third final provision of the Organic Law of Protection of Public Safety.
Official Interpretation of Treaties and International Agreements on Fundamental Rights.
Article 10.2 EC gives constitutional status to the rights and freedoms internationally proclaimed, as also are not enshrined in our constitution, but forced to interpret the relevant provisions in accordance with the content of agreements and international treaties as well. Such conventions or treaties considered as a fundamental norm would breach Art. 53.2 EC because, out of our constitution, should not accept that a fundamental rule.
The Writ of Amparo
The writ of amparo is a further instance. El Amparo is an extraordinary remedy, aimed at the protection of fundamental rights and public freedoms (Arts. 53.2 and 41 EC OLCC), which has autonomy of action procedure developed in the instance. It requires a clear and precise approach to the claim of constitutional legality. To be able to be initiated right in the previous trial, this requirement is a dual purpose for a portion of that judicial bodies have the opportunity to rule on the possible breach and establish a constitutional right based on an ordinary court (remember in this context that judges and magistrates are ordinary guarantors of fundamental rights) and, secondly, to preserve the alternative of jurisdiction under the Constitution. But not only the remedy of amparo has this feature, it also acts of parliament, because if a parliamentary act affects a right or freedom as are protected by constitutional protection is beyond the sphere of jurisdictional immunity inherent in the internal record corporis and becomes an act subject, in regard to that end, to the trial court corresponding to the TC, it must be said that the writ of amparo is not a judicial review of the facts. The Constitutional Court cannot come to appreciate the facts because that function is solely for judges and courts.
We also have to add, in relation to challenging the provisions of protection, Recurso is never intended to elucidate the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of laws or regulations. The purpose of Amparo is the protection and preservation of fundamental human rights within Arts. 14, 29, and 30 of the EC. The constitutional court’s power to prosecute the regulations is limited to cases alleging rights and freedoms recognized in Arts. 14, 29, and 30 EC, and that violation of the rights and freedoms referred to above arises directly from the provision or legal act.
To appeal for protection, it is essential to meet the requirement to substantiate the claim of the constitutional significance of the request for protection. This means that resources must first pass under the admission procedure. For admission, it must meet the impairment of a fundamental right of the appellant under guardianship, a special constitutional significance of the case. This reasoning is somewhat different from the existence of the violation of a fundamental right; non-compliance with this requirement is irremediable.
They Effectively Effectiveness European Court of Human Rights.
The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are essentially declarative and leave the state’s decision to use media in their domestic legal order to comply with Article 35. What this same, that the agreement will not be attributed to the European Court of Human Rights competition or to cancel the national court’s decision not to order the government to reopen the proceedings which led to a final and enforceable judgment.