El Diario reports:
Expert in International Law
The head of the MAS caucus in Deputies, David Ramos affirms that the Court can only rule if there is a “disgraceful violation” of human rights
LAST MAY, OPPOSIOTR SENATOR ÓSCAR ORTIZ MET WITH OAS SECRETARY GENERAL, LUIS ALMAGRO, WHO RECEIVED NOT ONLY AND HEARD HIS ARGUMENTS, BUT ALSO ACCESSED TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH WITH THE LOGO OF THE CAMPAIGN “BOLIVIA SAID NO”.
Karen Longaric, expert in International Law, explained to EL DIARIO that the scope of the advisory opinion that can be issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), on the scope of Article 23 of the Pact of San José, which enabled the repossession of Evo Morales, is mandatory (binding).
“In the event that the Commission accedes to the request to present the request for an advisory opinion to the Court on the scope of Article 23 of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica and if the Court says that Article 168 of the State’s Political Constitution (CPE) does not violate the scope of Article 23, then the Bolivian State has to recognize that the interpretation made by the Plurinational Constitutional Court (TCP) on the repostulation of Morales, is erroneous, biased and for ethical reasons that sentence should be annulled,” said the expert.
The director of the Human Rights and Justice Observatory Foundation (Fodhj), Rubén Darío Cuéllar, who is one of the petitioners, stated that “the advisory opinion to annul the ruling 084/2017 TCP that enabled the candidacy of the current President of the State, will be the priority during the hearing to be held in Washington-United States next December 5.
Former President Jorge Quiroga, who sent a letter addressed to Paulo Abrao, Executive Secretary of the IACHR, where he also requested the application of that measure, yesterday stated: “being a tyrant is not a human right.”
“If on December 8 the Supreme Electoral Tribunal is complicit in the coup and registers Evo Morales, there, it is requested that the IACHR submit this request for an advisory opinion to the Court of San José (Court-IDH), which is the instance that rules on whether or not perpetual re-election is a human right, it is not; being a tyrant is not a human right,” insisted Quiroga.
Meanwhile, the ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), José Alberto Gonzales, explained that “the Commission can not adopt any type of resolution or decision on reelection.” Although admitted that eventually can issue some kind of recommendation for the respect and possession of human rights, if the commissioners consider relevant.
The head of the MAS caucus in Deputies, David Ramos affirms that the IACHR can only rule if there is a “resounding violation” of human rights, “which is not the case with the ruling of the TCP on indefinite re-election,” he said.
Bolivian Thoughts opinion: This is the last instance where Bolivians could expect anything relevant from the international arena … just take into account that Maduro is rejected worldwide but Maduro remains there, while Venezuelan people continue to flee their country, where there is lack of food, security and employment. We do not, WE MUST NOT allow evo to run again, we said NO and that’s it!