The second room from The Nation’s Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN), rejected the Senator’s complaint Emilio Alvarez Ikaza Set against Rosario Piedra Ibarra, Head of National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), Because the legislator could not prove his legitimate or legal interest in this matter.
In this Wednesday session, unanimously by five votes, the bill was approved by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Luis Maria Aguilar Morales, leaving the lawmaker’s complaint unfounded, as he could not verify that the election of Pedra Ibarra affected his legal field or reasons. You no direct harm.
The senator, who from 2001 to 2009 was chair of the Human Rights Commission of the Federal District, provided protection against the election of Pedra Ibarra, which was rejected by the Eleventh Administrative Court of Mexico City.
On September 19 of last year, the Second Chamber of the Court appealed the judicial protection case filed by the independent Senator, Emilio Alvarez Ikaza Longoria, against the appointment of activist Rosario Pedra Ibarra as Chair of the National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH).
The President of the Eleventh District Court for Administrative Affairs, Agustín Tello Espendola, declared that the Supreme Court had exercised its power of gravity.
It is noteworthy that the election of Piedra Ibarra has been legally challenged by other members of the Senate, individuals and opposition NGOs, but none of these remedies have succeeded.
Minister Aguilar asserts in his draft that due to the nature of the actions he alleges, it is clear that he is not doing so in defense of any human right that has been violated as an individual or a convicted person.
He insists that “because of the vices resulting from the procedures for electing the President of the National Council for Human Rights, which according to Articles 1 and 5, Section II, the second paragraph of the Constitutional Protection Law, are outside constitutional oversight; moreover, as mentioned earlier, the granting of legal protection Ultimately it will in no way translate into a specific benefit to the plaintiff. “