{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-193770", "citation": "Res. 05657-1999 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Protocolo de San Salvador — Consulta de constitucionalidad", "title_en": "Protocol of San Salvador — Constitutional review", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional evacuó la consulta legislativa preceptiva sobre el proyecto de ley para aprobar el Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de derechos económicos, sociales y culturales, conocido como Protocolo de San Salvador. La Sala examinó tanto el procedimiento legislativo como el contenido del instrumento internacional. Encontró que el procedimiento se ajustó a la Constitución y al Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, sin vicios que lo invaliden. Respecto al fondo, determinó que el Protocolo constituye un adendum a la Convención Americana, no un protocolo de menor rango según el artículo 121 constitucional, por lo que su aprobación corresponde a la Asamblea Legislativa conforme al artículo 124. Destacó que los artículos 4 y 5 del Protocolo refuerzan el principio de no regresividad y sujeción del orden interno a estándares superiores en derechos como trabajo, salud, seguridad social y medio ambiente sano. La Sala no encontró roces de constitucionalidad y evacuó la consulta en ese sentido.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber reviewed the mandatory legislative consultation on the bill to approve the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, known as the Protocol of San Salvador. It examined both the legislative process and the instrument's content. The Chamber found the procedure complied with the Constitution and the Legislative Assembly's rules, with no flaws. On the merits, it determined the Protocol is an addendum to the American Convention, not a lower-rank protocol under Article 121, so its approval falls to the Legislative Assembly under Article 124. It highlighted that Articles 4 and 5 reinforce the principles of non-regression and subjection of domestic law to higher standards on rights such as work, health, social security, and a healthy environment. No constitutional conflicts were found, and the consultation was resolved accordingly.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "21/07/1999", "year": "1999", "topic_ids": [ "art-50-constitution" ], "primary_topic_id": "art-50-constitution", "es_concept_hints": [ "consulta legislativa preceptiva", "Protocolo de San Salvador", "Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos", "artículo 121 constitucional", "artículo 124 constitucional", "no regresividad", "derecho a un medio ambiente sano" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Protocolo a la Convención Derechos Económicos Sociales San Salvador", "article": "all", "doc_id": "norm-44205", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7907", "article": "all", "doc_id": "norm-44205", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "Protocolo de San Salvador", "consulta legislativa", "constitucionalidad", "derechos económicos", "derechos sociales", "derechos culturales", "Convención Americana", "Sala Constitucional", "no regresividad", "medio ambiente sano" ], "keywords_en": [ "Protocol of San Salvador", "legislative consultation", "constitutionality", "economic rights", "social rights", "cultural rights", "American Convention", "Constitutional Chamber", "non-regression", "healthy environment" ], "excerpt_es": "Desde esta perspectiva, queda claro que no obstante el nombre que se le ha dado a la modificación \"protocolo-, no se trata de uno de menor rango a los que alude el inciso 4) del artículo 121 constitucional, sino un addendum al Convenio original y en razón de ello, corresponde a la Asamblea Legislativa su aprobación, de conformidad con lo que establece el artículo 124 constitucional. Desde el punto de vista del orden interno del país, dos normas son de especial relevancia, porque implican, desde luego, la sujeción del ordenamiento jurídico a normas de rango superior. Los artículos 4 y 5 disponen:\n\n\"Artículo 4.- No admisión de restricciones.- No podrá restringirse o menoscabarse ninguno de los derechos reconocidos o vigentes en un Estado en virtud de su legislación interna o de convenciones internacionales, a pretexto de que el presente Protocolo no los reconoce o los reconoce en menor grado\".\n\n\"Artículo 5.- Alcance de las restricciones y limitaciones.- Los Estados Partes sólo podrán establecer restricciones y limitaciones al goce y ejercicio de los derechos establecidos en el presente Protocolo mediante leyes promulgadas con el objeto preservar el bienestar general dentro de una sociedad democrática, en la medida que no contradigan el propósito y razón de los mismos\".\n\nPor lo expresado en estos textos, resulta evidente que las materias cubiertas por el Protocolo, no podrían ser restringidas, ni limitadas, ni disminuidas, sino por una ley ordinaria y en la medida que la normativa no contradiga el propósito y la razón de los derechos protegidos: trabajo, derechos sindicales, seguridad social, salud, medio ambiente sano, alimentación, educación cultura, constitución y protección a la familia, derecho de la niñez, protección de los ancianos y minusválidos", "excerpt_en": "From this perspective, it is clear that despite the name given to the modification 'protocol', it is not one of lower rank as referred to in Article 121(4) of the Constitution, but an addendum to the original Convention, and therefore its approval corresponds to the Legislative Assembly, in accordance with Article 124 of the Constitution. From the standpoint of the country's domestic order, two provisions are of special relevance, as they entail the subjection of the legal system to higher-ranking norms. Articles 4 and 5 set forth:\n\n\"Article 4. Non-admission of restrictions. No right recognized or in force in a State under its domestic legislation or international conventions may be restricted or diminished on the pretext that this Protocol does not recognize them or recognizes them to a lesser degree.\"\n\n\"Article 5. Scope of restrictions and limitations. The States Parties may establish restrictions and limitations on the enjoyment and exercise of the rights set forth in this Protocol only by laws enacted for the purpose of preserving the general welfare within a democratic society, insofar as they do not contradict the purpose and reason of those rights.\"\n\nAs expressed in these texts, it is evident that matters covered by the Protocol may not be restricted, limited, or diminished except through ordinary law, and only to the extent that the regulation does not contradict the purpose and reason of the rights protected: work, trade union rights, social security, health, a healthy environment, food, education, culture, family formation and protection, children's rights, protection of the elderly and the disabled.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Constitutionality confirmed", "label_es": "Constitucionalidad confirmada", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber found no procedural or substantive flaws in the bill approving the Protocol of San Salvador, declaring it consistent with the Constitution.", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional no encontró vicios de procedimiento ni de fondo en el proyecto de ley del Protocolo de San Salvador, declarando que se ajusta a la Constitución." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "it is not one of lower rank as referred to in Article 121(4) of the Constitution, but an addendum to the original Convention", "quote_es": "no se trata de uno de menor rango a los que alude el inciso 4) del artículo 121 constitucional, sino un addendum al Convenio original" }, { "context": "Artículo 4 del Protocolo", "quote_en": "No right recognized or in force in a State under its domestic legislation or international conventions may be restricted or diminished on the pretext that this Protocol does not recognize them or recognizes them to a lesser degree", "quote_es": "No podrá restringirse o menoscabarse ninguno de los derechos reconocidos o vigentes en un Estado en virtud de su legislación interna o de convenciones internacionales, a pretexto de que el presente Protocolo no los reconoce o los reconoce en menor grado" }, { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "matters covered by the Protocol may not be restricted, limited, or diminished except through ordinary law", "quote_es": "las materias cubiertas por el Protocolo, no podrían ser restringidas, ni limitadas, ni disminuidas, sino por una ley ordinaria" }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "no constitutional breach is observed, therefore the consultation is resolved in this sense", "quote_es": "no se observa quebranto constitucional alguno, por lo que procede evacuar la consulta en este sentido" } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-193770", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": true, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Expediente 99-004946-0007-CO\n\nExp: 99-004946-0007-CO\n\nRes: 1999-05657\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas con cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintiuno de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve.-\n\nConsulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad formulada por el Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa, sobre el proyecto de Ley \"Aprobación del Protocolo adicional a la Convención Americana sobre derechos humanos en materia de derechos económicos, sociales y culturales \"Protocolo de San Salvador\", suscrito en la Ciudad de San Salvador el 17 de noviembre de 1998\", que se tramita en el expediente legislativo número 13.197.-\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- La consulta legislativa sobre el proyecto de Ley \"Aprobación del Protocolo adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de derecho económicos, sociales y culturales, \"Protocolo de San Salvador\", fue recibida en la Secretaría de la Sala a las catorce horas veinticinco minutos del doce de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, con una copia certificada del expediente legislativo número 13.197.\n\n2.- Mediante resolución de las catorce horas cinco minutos del trece de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, la Sala dispuso tener por presentada la consulta, que se formula en cumplimiento de lo que establece el inciso a) del artículo 96 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.\n\n3.- La consulta legislativa se evacua dentro del término establecido en el artículo 101 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.\n\nRedacta el magistrado Sancho González; y,\n\nConsiderando:\n\nI.- Sobre el procedimiento legislativo.- De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 98 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, la consulta legislativa deberá formularse después de aprobado el proyecto de ley en Primer Debate y antes de la aprobación definitiva. Al evacuar la consulta, la Sala dictaminará sobre la constitucionalidad de los trámites legislativos del proyecto consultado, en los términos del artículo 101 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. En consecuencia, de previo al estudio sobre el fondo del proyecto consultado, procede el análisis del procedimiento legislativo respectivo, para lo cual efectuar una síntesis cronológica de lo actuado, indicando, cuando procede y entre paréntesis, el número de folio del expediente legislativo: a) el proyecto de Ley fue presentado por el Poder Ejecutivo y puesto a conocimiento de la Asamblea Legislativa el veinticuatro de junio de mil novecientos noventa y ocho (folios 1 y 24); b) una copia fiel del proyecto fue remitido al Departamento de Estudios, Referencias y Servicios Técnicos, de conformidad con el artículo 118 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, el treinta de junio siguiente (folio 24); c) la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Sociales recibió el proyecto para su trámite, el veinte de julio de mil novecientos noventa y seis (folio 25) y el dieciséis de ese mismo mes, recibió el informe técnico que corre agregado a los folios 26 a 39; d) el Departamento de Servicios Técnicos emitió el informe jurídico el 21 de octubre de 1966, oficio S.T.466. (folios 25 y siguientes); e) la Comisión, de conformidad con lo que establece el artículo 80 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa, solicitó el 29 de setiembre de 1998, una prórroga de hasta sesenta días hábiles para rendir el dictamen final sobre el proyecto, la que le fue concedida por el Presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa (folio 73); f) el proyecto fue aprobado por unanimidad en Comisión en su sesión número 92 del once de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y ocho (folio 224), en la misma fecha en que fue presentado el dictamen afirmativo unánime (folios 232 a 249); g) la Comisión entregó el proyecto a la Dirección Ejecutiva el 24 de noviembre de 1998 y ésta lo envió a la Secretaría del Directorio, el 25 de ese mismo mes (folios 256, 257 y 258); h) protección que les da la Convención. Desde esta perspectiva, queda claro que no obstante el nombre que se le ha dado a la modificación \"protocolo-, no se trata de uno de menor rango a los que alude el inciso 4) del artículo 121 constitucional, sino un addendum al Convenio original y en razón de ello, corresponde a la Asamblea Legislativa su aprobación, de conformidad con lo que establece el artículo 124 constitucional. Desde el punto de vista del orden interno del país, dos normas son de especial relevancia, porque implican, desde luego, la sujeción del ordenamiento jurídico a normas de rango superior. Los artículos 4 y 5 disponen:\n\n\"Artículo 4.- No admisión de restricciones.- No podrá restringirse o menoscabarse ninguno de los derechos reconocidos o vigentes en un Estado en virtud de su legislación interna o de convenciones internacionales, a pretexto de que el presente Protocolo no los reconoce o los reconoce en menor grado\".\n\n\"Artículo 5.- Alcance de las restricciones y limitaciones.- Los Estados Partes sólo podrán establecer restricciones y limitaciones al goce y ejercicio de los derechos establecidos en el presente Protocolo mediante leyes promulgadas con el objeto preservar el bienestar general dentro de una sociedad democrática, en la medida que no contradigan el propósito y razón de los mismos\".\n\nPor lo expresado en estos textos, resulta evidente que las materias cubiertas por el Protocolo, no podrían ser restringidas, ni limitadas, ni disminuidas, sino por una ley ordinaria y en la medida que la normativa no contradiga el propósito y la razón de los derechos protegidos: trabajo, derechos sindicales, seguridad social, salud, medio ambiente sano, alimentación, educación cultura, constitución y protección a la familia, derecho de la niñez, protección de los ancianos y minusválidos en sesión número 183 del Plenario, se dio lectura a la nota que contiene el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 27.745-MP, mediante el cual el Poder Ejecutivo amplió la convocatoria número 13.197 (folios 259 a 262); i) los días uno y tres de mayo de 1999, la Comisión dictaminadora solicitó y se aprobó que el proyecto fuera puesto a despacho (folios 263 a 265); j) el día uno de julio, en sesión No. 33 del Plenario, se aprobó la moción de varios Diputados Jefes de Fracción, para que se alterara el orden del día y se conocieran, entre otros, el proyecto de ley consultado a partir de las dieciocho horas de ese día (folio 266) y en la sesión No. 35 del seis de julio en curso, se aprobó el proyecto en Primer Debate (folio 276). La Sala estima, con vista del expediente y la secuencia de hechos anotados, que no existen violaciones en el procedimiento de aprobación del proyecto de ley.\n\nII.- Naturaleza del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Como se indica en el expediente \"el protocolo se inspira en la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, la Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, la Carta de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos de 1969, así como en el acervo de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, la Organización Internacional de Trabajo y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud\". El Departamento de Servicios Técnicos señala que el protocolo es desarrollo del artículo 26 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y de los artículos 43, 44, 45, 46 y 47 del Protocolo de reformas a la Carta de la Organización de los Estados Americano, aprobado por la ley 4080 de 16 de febrero de 1968, de manera que lo que se hace es adicionar la Convención Americana para reforzar una serie de derechos fundamentales (económicos, sociales y culturales), quedando, así bajo el régimen de .\n\nIV.- Conclusión. Luego de una revisión cuidadosa de los procedimientos y del texto del instrumento la Sala declara que el procedimiento legislativo relativo a este proyecto de Ley se ajusta a los requerimientos establecidos en la Constitución Política y el Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa sobre la formación de leyes. En cuanto al fondo de las normas contenidas en el proyecto examinado, tampoco se observa quebranto constitucional alguno, por lo que procede evacuar la consulta en este sentido. Lo anterior, sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el párrafo final del artículo 101 de la Ley de la Jurisprudencia Constitucional.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nSe evacua la consulta formulada en el sentido de que la Sala no advierte roces de constitucionalidad en el proyecto de ley consultado.\n\nLuis Fernando Solano C.\n\nPresidente a.i.\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Eduardo Sancho G.\n\nCarlos Ml. Arguedas R. Ana Virginia Calzada M.\n\nSusana Castro A. José Luis Molina Q.", "body_en_text": "Exp: 99-004946-0007-CO\n\nRes: 1999-05657\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hours and forty-five minutes on the twenty-first of July, nineteen ninety-nine.-\n\nMandatory constitutionality consultation submitted by the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly, regarding the bill of Law \"Approval of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of economic, social, and cultural rights 'Protocol of San Salvador',\" signed in the City of San Salvador on November 17, 1998, processed under legislative file number 13.197.-\n\nConsidering:\n\n1.- The legislative consultation on the bill of Law \"Approval of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of economic, social, and cultural rights, 'Protocol of San Salvador',\" was received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at fourteen hours and twenty-five minutes on July twelve, nineteen ninety-nine, with a certified copy of legislative file number 13.197.\n\n2.- By resolution at fourteen hours and five minutes on July thirteen, nineteen ninety-nine, the Chamber ordered the consultation to be deemed as submitted, which is formulated in compliance with subsection a) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.\n\n3.- The legislative consultation is issued within the term established in Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.\n\nDrafted by Justice Sancho González; and,\n\nRecitals:\n\nI.- On the legislative procedure.- In accordance with the provisions of Article 98 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the legislative consultation must be formulated after the bill of law is approved in First Debate and before final approval. When issuing the consultation, the Chamber shall rule on the constitutionality of the legislative procedures of the consulted bill, under the terms of Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. Consequently, prior to the study of the substance of the consulted bill, an analysis of the respective legislative procedure is appropriate, for which a chronological summary of the actions taken shall be made, indicating, where applicable and in parentheses, the folio number of the legislative file: a) the bill of Law was presented by the Executive Branch and made known to the Legislative Assembly on June twenty-four, nineteen ninety-eight (folios 1 and 24); b) a faithful copy of the bill was sent to the Department of Studies, References and Technical Services, in accordance with Article 118 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly, on June thirtieth of the same year (folio 24); c) the Permanent Commission on Social Affairs received the bill for processing on July twentieth, nineteen ninety-six (folio 25), and on the sixteenth of that same month, it received the technical report attached to folios 26 through 39; d) the Department of Technical Services issued the legal report on October 21, 1966, official communication S.T.466. (folios 25 and following); e) the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly, requested on September 29, 1998, an extension of up to sixty business days to issue the final opinion (dictamen) on the bill, which was granted by the President of the Legislative Assembly (folio 73); f) the bill was approved unanimously in the Commission during its session number 92 on November eleven, nineteen ninety-eight (folio 224), the same date on which the unanimous affirmative opinion (dictamen) was presented (folios 232 to 249); g) the Commission delivered the bill to the Executive Directorate on November 24, 1998, and the latter sent it to the Secretariat of the Directorate on the 25th of that same month (folios 256, 257 and 258); h) protection afforded by the Convention. From this perspective, it is clear that despite the name given to the modification \"protocol\"–, it is not one of a lesser rank as referred to in subsection 4) of Article 121 of the Constitution, but rather an addendum to the original Convention and, for this reason, its approval corresponds to the Legislative Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution. From the point of view of the country's internal order, two rules are of special relevance because they imply, of course, the subjection of the legal system to higher-ranking norms. Articles 4 and 5 state:\n\n\"Article 4.- Non-admission of restrictions.- None of the rights recognized or in force in a State by virtue of its internal legislation or international conventions may be restricted or curtailed on the pretext that this Protocol does not recognize them or recognizes them to a lesser degree.\"\n\n\"Article 5.- Scope of restrictions and limitations.- The States Parties may only establish restrictions and limitations to the enjoyment and exercise of the rights established in this Protocol through laws enacted for the purpose of preserving the general welfare within a democratic society, to the extent that they do not contradict the purpose and reason for those rights.\"\n\nBy what is expressed in these texts, it is evident that the matters covered by the Protocol could not be restricted, limited, or diminished, except by an ordinary law and to the extent that the regulation does not contradict the purpose and reason of the protected rights: work, union rights, social security, health, a healthy environment, food, education, culture, constitution and protection of the family, children's rights, protection of the elderly and the disabled in session number 183 of the Plenary, the note containing Executive Decree No. 27.745-MP was read, through which the Executive Branch extended the call for session number 13.197 (folios 259 to 262); i) on May first and third, 1999, the reviewing Commission requested and it was approved that the bill be placed on the agenda (folios 263 to 265); j) on July first, in Session No. 33 of the Plenary, the motion of several Deputies, Heads of Parliamentary Groups, was approved to alter the order of the day and to take cognizance of, among others, the consulted bill of law starting at eighteen hours on that day (folio 266), and in Session No. 35 of July sixth of the current year, the bill was approved in First Debate (folio 276). The Chamber considers, in view of the file and the sequence of events noted, that there are no violations in the approval procedure for the bill of law.\n\nII.- Nature of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights. As indicated in the file, \"the protocol is inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the Charter of the Organization of American States, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations Organization, the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969, as well as the acquis of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Labour Organization and the Pan American Health Organization.\" The Department of Technical Services points out that the protocol is an elaboration of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights and of Articles 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 of the Protocol of Amendments to the Charter of the Organization of American States, approved by law 4080 of February 16, 1968, so what is being done is adding to the American Convention to reinforce a series of fundamental rights (economic, social, and cultural), thus falling under the regime of .\n\nIV.- Conclusion. After a careful review of the procedures and the text of the instrument, the Chamber declares that the legislative procedure concerning this bill of Law conforms to the requirements established in the Political Constitution and the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly regarding lawmaking. As for the substance of the rules contained in the examined bill, no constitutional breach is observed either, and therefore, it is appropriate to issue the consultation in this sense. The foregoing, without prejudice to the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisprudence.\n\nTherefore:\n\nThe consultation formulated is issued in the sense that the Chamber finds no constitutional issues in the consulted bill of law.\n\nLuis Fernando Solano C.\n\nActing President\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Eduardo Sancho G.\n\nCarlos Ml. Arguedas R. Ana Virginia Calzada M.\n\nSusana Castro A. José Luis Molina Q.\n\nCONSTITUTIONALITY CONTROL MATTERS\n\n**Exp: 99-004946-0007-CO**\n\n**Res: 1999-05657**\n\n**CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes on the twenty-first of July, nineteen ninety-nine.-\n\nMandatory constitutional consultation (consulta preceptiva de constitucionalidad) submitted by the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly, regarding the bill \"Approval of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 'Protocol of San Salvador', signed in the City of San Salvador on November 17, 1998\", processed under legislative file number 13.197.-\n\n**Whereas (Resultando):**\n\n1.- The legislative consultation on the bill \"Approval of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 'Protocol of San Salvador',\" was received at the Clerk's Office of the Chamber at fourteen hours twenty-five minutes on the twelfth of July, nineteen ninety-nine, with a certified copy of legislative file number 13.197.\n\n2.- By resolution at fourteen hours five minutes on the thirteenth of July, nineteen ninety-nine, the Chamber deemed the consultation submitted, which is made in compliance with the provisions of subsection a) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).\n\n3.- The legislative consultation is answered within the term established in Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).\n\nDrafted by Magistrate **Sancho González**; and,\n\n**Considering (Considerando):**\n\nI.- On the legislative procedure.- Pursuant to the provisions of Article 98 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the legislative consultation must be submitted after the bill is approved on First Debate and before its final approval. In answering the consultation, the Chamber shall rule on the constitutionality of the legislative procedures of the consulted bill, in accordance with the terms of Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). Consequently, prior to the substantive review of the consulted bill, the analysis of the respective legislative procedure is in order, for which purpose a chronological summary of the actions taken is provided, indicating, where appropriate and in parentheses, the page number of the legislative file: a) the bill was presented by the Executive Branch and brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly on June twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-eight (pages 1 and 24); b) a faithful copy of the bill was sent to the Department of Studies, References and Technical Services, in accordance with Article 118 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly, on the following June thirtieth (page 24); c) the Permanent Commission on Social Affairs received the bill for processing on July twentieth, nineteen ninety-six (page 25) and on the sixteenth of that same month, it received the technical report attached from pages 26 to 39; d) the Department of Technical Services issued the legal report on October 21, 1966, official communication S.T.466. (pages 25 et seq.); e) the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly, requested on September 29, 1998, an extension of up to sixty business days to render the final opinion (dictamen) on the bill, which was granted by the President of the Legislative Assembly (page 73); f) the bill was unanimously approved in Commission at its session number 92 on November eleventh, nineteen ninety-eight (page 224), on the same date the unanimous affirmative opinion (dictamen afirmativo unánime) was presented (pages 232 to 249); g) the Commission delivered the bill to the Executive Directorate on November 24, 1998, and the latter sent it to the Secretariat of the Board of Directors on the 25th of that same month (pages 256, 257 and 258); h) protection afforded to them by the Convention. From this perspective, it is clear that despite the name given to the amendment—\"protocol\"—it is not a lower-ranking instrument as referred to in subsection 4) of Article 121 of the Constitution, but rather an addendum to the original Convention and, therefore, its approval corresponds to the Legislative Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution. From the standpoint of the country's internal order, two provisions are of special relevance because they imply, of course, the subjection of the legal system to higher-ranking norms. Articles 4 and 5 provide:\n\n*“Article 4.- Non-admission of restrictions.-* None of the rights recognized or in force in a State by virtue of its domestic legislation or international conventions may be restricted or curtailed on the pretext that this Protocol does not recognize them or recognizes them to a lesser degree.”\n\n*“Article 5.- Scope of restrictions and limitations.-* The States Parties may only establish restrictions and limitations to the enjoyment and exercise of the rights established in this Protocol through laws enacted for the purpose of preserving the general welfare in a democratic society, to the extent that they do not contradict the purpose and reason thereof.”\n\nBased on what is expressed in these texts, it is evident that the matters covered by the Protocol may not be restricted, limited, or diminished, except by an ordinary law and to the extent that the regulations do not contradict the purpose and reason of the protected rights: work, trade union rights, social security, health, a healthy environment, food, education, culture, the constitution and protection of the family, the rights of children, and the protection of the elderly and disabled, in session number 183 of the Plenary, the note containing Executive Decree No. 27.745-MP was read, whereby the Executive Branch expanded the convocation number 13.197 (pages 259 to 262); i) on May first and third, 1999, the reviewing Commission requested and obtained that the bill be placed on the docket (pages 263 to 265); j) on July first, in Session No. 33 of the Plenary, the motion by several Deputies, Heads of their parliamentary groups (Fracción), was approved, to alter the order of the day and to hear, among others, the consulted bill starting at eighteen hours that day (page 266), and in Session No. 35 of the current July sixth, the bill was approved on First Debate (page 276). The Chamber finds, in view of the file and the noted sequence of events, that there are no violations in the approval procedure of the bill.\n\nII.- Nature of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights. As indicated in the file, \"the protocol is inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the Charter of the Organization of American States, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations, the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969, as well as the body of work of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Labor Organization, and the Pan American Health Organization\". The Department of Technical Services points out that the protocol implements Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 of the Protocol of Amendments to the Charter of the Organization of American States, approved by Law 4080 of February 16, 1968, so that what is being done is to supplement the American Convention to reinforce a series of fundamental rights (economic, social, and cultural), thus falling under the regime of .\n\nIV.- Conclusion. After a careful review of the procedures and the text of the instrument, the Chamber declares that the legislative procedure relative to this bill conforms to the requirements established in the Political Constitution and the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly regarding the formation of laws. Regarding the substance of the norms contained in the examined bill, no constitutional violation is observed either, and therefore the consultation is to be answered in this sense. The foregoing is without prejudice to the provisions of the final paragraph of Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisprudence (Ley de la Jurisprudencia Constitucional).\n\n**Therefore (Por tanto):**\n\nThe consultation submitted is answered in the sense that the Chamber finds no conflicts with the constitution in the consulted bill.\n\nLuis Fernando Solano C.\n\nPresidente a.i.\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Eduardo Sancho G.\n\nCarlos Ml. Arguedas R. Ana Virginia Calzada M.\n\nSusana Castro A. José Luis Molina Q." }