El caso de Gustavo Petro vs. Colombia: Un estudio de convencionalidad y constitucionalidad

Translated title of the contribution: The case of Gustavo Petro vs. Colombia: A study of conventionality and constitutionality

Hugo Andrés Arenas Mendoza

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch Articlepeer-review

Abstract

At the case of Petro Urrego vs Colombia by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2022, in favour of the plaintiff, proved that the disciplinary sanctions interposed by the control bodies of an administrative nature are opposing the constitutional rights and the conventional rights, because can violet rights of the candidate and the voters, for example, the due process, the good name, the right to elect and be elected and the facility to put the same democratic institutions at risk and, as a consequence, is required to arrange the Colombian legal system forward this direction. Likewise, it proves that the judges are mandated to impose the sanctions with higher adverse effects on citizens, after due process and following the guidelines by the American Convention on Human Rights, including the decision by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights or statements without an effect for non-compliance with said precepts.

Translated title of the contributionThe case of Gustavo Petro vs. Colombia: A study of conventionality and constitutionality
Original languageSpanish
Pages (from-to)35-61
Number of pages27
JournalA e C - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional
Volume22
Issue number90
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2022

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The case of Gustavo Petro vs. Colombia: A study of conventionality and constitutionality'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this