The Minister of Public Health, Daniel Salinas, reported last week via Twitter that the portfolio was notified that the 6th Civil Court of Appeals revoked the sentence of Judge Alejandro Recarey that suspended vaccination for children from 5 to 13 years.
Recarey’s Resolution
As recorded by Montevideo Portal, the Administrative Law Judge Alejandro Recarey had ordered the provisional suspension of inoculation for children under 13 years of age on July 7, after the appeal filed by the lawyer Maximiliano Dentone.
The ruling resolved to suspend vaccination, under penalty of contempt, until certain conditions were met. These were: Publish in full and without being tested, all vaccine purchase contracts, as well as any document attached to them (especially those detailing the composition of the doses); as well as to prepare a text to provide those vaccinated with “complete information” about the composition, benefits and risks of the vaccine and that also clarify the “adverse effects” and that the substance “has only emergency authorization and not definitive”. The Government filed an appeal four days later, on July 11. Legal teams from the Presidency and the Ministry of Public Health (MSP) worked for this appeal. Previously, on the same Thursday, the portfolio had reported that vaccination was suspended “until further disposition”, a measure that became effective after 24 hours. In the ruling, the Court revoked “the final judgment of the contested first instance and instead dismissed the claim in all its terms.” At the same time, it is ordered to personally notify the parties and send “full testimony of these proceedings to the Supreme Court of Justice, officiating to its effects.” Having made room for the challenge, the court could forward the file to the shift (with the titular judge in office), send it to the court of the previous shift (so provided by law) or consider that due to the urgency of the amparo it must resolve everything in the same act and rule on the merits of the matter. In this case, the Court established that it be “returned to the Headquarters of origin”. In these cases, it is not possible to annul the sentence, that is, to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court of Justice. For this reason, the decision of second instance is final.
Court Arguments
By defining that the court must revoke the final judgment of first instance “in all its terms”, the Court argued that Dentone’s allegation that the “vaccination process” was “manifestly illegal and dangerous”.
“No injury, restriction or threat to any right or freedom was proven in these actions since vaccination was never mandatory and always was and is optional”
In the sentence, in addition, it is stated that “the Court considers that Dr. Dentone does not have legitimacy to promote this action, neither by himself in his capacity as lawyer and citizen, nor in representation of the diffuse interests of minors under thirteen year old”.
“In systems like ours, in which there are organizations that are responsible for ensuring the rights of children, such as the Public Ministry, INISA, and various non-governmental organizations, it does not seem reasonable to promote an action of amparo by citizens. or inhabitants of the Republic, invoking representation of ‘diffuse interests’, alleging hypothetical dangers that are not proven, “says the judicial resolution.
«It is not enough to invoke the quality of ‘interested’ without explaining it and even less providing proof of it. The law speaks of ‘any interested party’, it does not speak of any subject, no matter how much citizen responsibility is invoked. And in the lawsuit he limited himself to indicating his status as an inhabitant of this country, with minor relatives and due to strict citizen responsibility”, the Court deepens, indicating that “it does not seem reasonable that any subject could appear claiming to represent the diffuse interests of all children under the age of thirteen.
The Court does not give rise to “the note of manifest illegitimacy that the amparo action requires.” «There is no illegitimacy and much less ‘manifest’ in the conduct (action or omission) carried out by the health authorities in order to preserve the health of the inhabitants in what constitutes their exclusive and exclusive competence, not being able to interfere an organic system in what constitutes the exclusive jurisdictional sphere of another system”, indicates the ruling. The ruling states that “no injury, restriction or threat to any right or freedom was proven in these actions since vaccination was never mandatory and always was and is optional.”
“In order for the amparo claim to prosper, the illegitimacy must be clear, evident and rude, practically proven immediately,” the members of the Court maintain.
It is respectable, although difficult to understand, that there are parents who do not want to vaccinate their children, which is totally inadmissible, and there was no reason for it, it is that a voluntary, non-compulsory vaccination was interrupted, an aspect that fortunately was reversed , so that parents who want to vaccinate their children can do so…putting things in order.
Juan Prandi
