i carry your heart with me it's not about being impressed; it's about being captivated...

Ekmedjian v. Neustadt Argentina S.Ct. 1988 ~opinions expressed on TV >-> politics ? right of reply -> religion ? right of reply, collective need to balance free speech & dignity of private persons -Am Conven on HR Art 14 : violate treaty by (A) legislative proscriptions of violations, or (B) legislature fails to establish mechanisms necessary to met the treaty’s requirements -> international law haw precedence over domestic law (Vienna Convention on Treaties) -self-executing = only if presently apply in concrete context *Ct. : Art 14 is free & precise : “anyone has the right” ... right to reply, using same communications outlet \ -> ratified treaties automatically are valid domestic law: Art 31, Argentina Constitution => Inter-American Court of Human Rights interprets Art 14(1) to give broad right of reply - “ideological interests” = “affirmation of moral/religious principles” - intent to slander/insult not required - offense of substantial gravity - must impact victim’s most intimate feelings >> collective representative Siri v. Police Commissioner Argentina S.Ct. 1957 ~newspaper closed down -lack of reason ? amparo *Ct. : P never requested habeas corpus particularly, thus Ct. not limited to ruling on such grounds; judgment for P/newspaper -> individual’s rights exist because they are in the Constitution, independently of whether/not the legislature has enacted remedies for violations of those rights -Art 33 of Constitution Kot v. Fistein Argentina S.Ct. 1958 ~workers occupying factory because of labor dispute w/ employer ? amparo - right to property and to work *Ct. : judgment for P/employer -> amparo protects constitutional rights as against private parties, not just against state (gov’nt) action Avon v. Labor Court Dominican Republic S.Ct. 1999 ~labor dispute ? amparo (writ of protection) *Ct. : writ of protection comes from Art 25(1) of Am Conven on HR and it DR domestic law - constitutional right - as against private parties / administrative officials / judges / gov’nt - S.Ct. may establish procedure individuals participate in societal debates, as well as assert rights Yecapixtla v. Congress Mexico S.Ct. 2002 ~indigenous rights ? constitutional controversy: challenge to procedure of constitutional amendments \ Art 105(I)(i) - local sued state & fed *Ct. : dismissed; unreviewable -> constitutional controversy may not target the amendment procedure under Art 135 Fed Dt Legislature v. Articles 334(III)& 131(b) Mexico S.Ct. 2002 ~abortion statute ? unconstitutionality action :: Art 131(b) grants Public Ministry authority to grant abortion w/o confirming rape \ Art 105(II)(e) - exculpatory excuse : wrong but do not punish *Ct. : Art 334(III) constitutionality confirmed (7-4 vote) -focus on national public health -regulated social relation (illegal abortions) -specific in when not to punish Art 131(B) unconstitutional* (6-5 vote) *BUT dismissed because needed 8+ votes -> Mexican Constitution protects the life of the product of conception - displaces any inconsistent local statute -> international treaties subordinate only to the Constitution \ thus, international treaties protect the child’s life upon conception -> 334(III) : affirmative & absolute defense to punishment; pardon Rio Bravo v. Governor of Tamaulipas Mexico S.Ct. 1996 ~position-filling of public officials ? constitutional controversy : state statute in conflict w/ Fed Constitution \ Art 105(I)(i) *Ct. : unconstitutional, therefore invalid (unanimous 11 votes) - invalidate Art 21 - invalidate measures - validate city’s appointments \ binding only as to parties, since not (c), (h), (k) and because municipality v. state -> municipalities control : (1) public safety & traffic (2) state interferes only as necessary & by law -> Mexico S.Ct. -cannot go beyond relief framed by the parties -cannot go beyond facts framed by the parties -is obligated to correct law, legal principles applicable