Monday, May 17

The Madrid justice confirms the prohibition of the 8-M marches

The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) confirmed this Sunday the prohibition of commemorative marches of 8-M, Women’s Day, scheduled for this Monday in different parts of this autonomous community, a decision adopted days ago by the Government Delegation. The main reason given for rejecting the petitions presented by different associations is the irreparable risk they would pose to public health, as already argued on Saturday by the Prosecutor’s Office and the State Attorney during a judicial hearing.

Specifically, the five judgments signed by five members of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TSJM correspond to the appeals filed on Friday by various groups and individuals, convening various acts that were to take place this Monday, the 8th. court that the aforementioned prohibition “is not contrary to law” after examine the required police reports on these marches and also another from the director of Community Public Health from Madrid.

«In the current circumstances and under the conditions in which the exercise of the fundamental right of assembly, whose protection is demanded “, the magistrates consider that “Said exercise conflicts with constitutional assets and values, such as public health and, more specifically, the health, physical integrity and life of the people who must prevail against it”. They justify this consideration “under the protection of the provisions of article 21.2 CE and I 1.2 ECHR, in relation to article 10.3 CE, which establishes the principle of interpretation of fundamental rights and public freedoms that the Constitution recognizes in accordance with the treaties and international agreements on the same matters ratified by Spain ”.

The Madrid justice anticipates the prohibition of the 8-M demonstrations

The judges also indicate in their resolutions, according to Europa Press, that the right of assembly is not absolute but subject to limitations, especially when it collides with other fundamental rights. In this sense, they add that “public health reasons can justify the limitation, modification or prohibition of the fundamental right, as a broad interpretation of the concept ‘well-founded reasons for disturbance of public order with danger to people or property’ referred to in article 10 of LO 10/1983 ».

The Chamber also brings up in its argumentation the precautionary or precautionary principle that has its origin in the European norms of protection of the environment, and that later they were extended to other sectors such as health protection. “It is a principle – he points out – applicable in all cases in which there are indications of a potential serious risk, for the environment or human health. For its application, it is not necessary that the scientific community has verified that it is a real risk and its scope ».

Prevent before cure

Along the same lines, the magistrates consider that «the mere verification of well-founded indications of serious risk obliges the public powers to take the necessary protection measures to eliminate or reduce the risk, as if it had already been confirmed «. »In other words, it is about preventive measures to avoid having to cure, or what would be worse, the death of people«, They point out in their rulings, where the rationale is the same to prohibit all demonstrations related to 8-M in Madrid.

In addition, they warn that the situation of the covid-19 pandemic within the scope of this autonomy, despite the relative improvement in epidemiological data, “continues to be extremely risky”. In this regard, they highlight that this community is currently one of the three whose cumulative incidence rate of infections continues to be the highest in the entire country, without forgetting the effect on all this of the new strains of the coronavirus.

On Saturday, this same court dismissed the appeals on the feminist protests called for this Sunday in Madrid for the same reasons. In their resolution, they replied to the appellants that said prohibition is not a consequence of gender discrimination, as those argued in their writings, but that “the basic reasons for refusing the concentration are focused on reasons of public health.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *