The Judicial Guardianship of Fundamental Rights in Mexico. Accessibility and Relativity of the Judgments of the Amparo Trial

Abstract

The objectives of this reflection consist, on the one hand, in identifying the impact on the fundamental legal sphere that the reduced accessibility to the amparo trial has, caused by the legal-procedural technicalities that its filing and development demand; and on the other hand, to identify the contradiction that arouses declaring unconstitutional a rule on amparo matters. The method used to achieve the results is systematic. The results of this reflection focus on sustaining deprivation in the practical sphere of an accessible jurisdictional tool with general effects. Although it is true that the general declaration of unconstitutionality constitutes an advance in the field, it is still far from promptly resolving the demands of affordable justiciability, since it does not consider successfully overcoming the exacerbated technical, legal and procedural guidelines. necessary to access justice for the people who claim for it, and that, in many cases, these imperatives constitute material obstacles to obtaining it, which makes the amparo trial a complex, costly guarantee, whose relative judgments provoke inequality and legal uncertainty.