Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Villanueva, C., (2023). Informe Jurídico: Pleno Sentencia N°676/2020, “Caso Ugarteche” [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25663
Villanueva, C., Informe Jurídico: Pleno Sentencia N°676/2020, “Caso Ugarteche” []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25663
@misc{renati/537534,
title = "Informe Jurídico: Pleno Sentencia N°676/2020, “Caso Ugarteche”",
author = "Villanueva Pérez, Claudia Sofía",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2023"
}
Title: Informe Jurídico: Pleno Sentencia N°676/2020, “Caso Ugarteche”
Authors(s): Villanueva Pérez, Claudia Sofía
Advisor(s): Smith Castro, Pamela Solanch
Keywords: Derechos fundamentales--Perú; Matrimonio del mismo sexo; Minorías--Derechos civiles; Tribunales constitucionales--Jurisprudencia--Perú; Derecho constitucional--Perú
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Issue Date: 8-Aug-2023
Institution: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract: El presente informe jurídico analiza la decisión del Tribunal Constitucional
recaída en el Pleno Sentencia N° 676/2020 (EXP. N° 01739-2018-PA/TC) que
declara la improcedencia de la demanda de amparo presentada por Óscar
Ugarteche Galarza. En este caso, el ciudadano alegó la vulneración a sus
derechos fundamentales a la igualdad y no discriminación y al libre desarrollo
de la personalidad frente a las resoluciones denegatorias del RENIEC para
inscribir su matrimonio igualitario celebrado en el extranjero. En ese sentido,
cuestionamos la decisión del Tribunal Constitucional al no pronunciarse sobre
el fondo de la controversia en un caso de especial relevancia constitucional y
sobre el que poseía plenas facultades. Asimismo, sostenemos que la
inscripción del matrimonio del recurrente no supone una violación al orden
público internacional. También defendemos la posición de que existe protección
de rango constitucional en el Perú para el matrimonio entre personas del
mismo sexo, al aplicar el estándar de protección internacional de derechos
humanos para la comunidad LGBTIQ+, así como los métodos de interpretación
sistemática y evolutiva. Por último, concluimos que, en efecto, los derechos
fundamentales del recurrente fueron vulnerados. Cabe decir que la presente
investigación fue realizada en base a la investigación de las más recientes
fuentes doctrinales sobre la materia, así como de la legislación y jurisprudencia
internacional para el estándar de protección de derechos humanos.
This legal report analyzes the decision of the Constitutional Court handed down in the Plenary Sentence No. 676/2020 (EXP. No. 01739-2018-PA/TC) which declares the inadmissibility of the amparo claim filed by Oscar Ugarteche Galarza. In this case, the citizen alleged the violation of his fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination and to the free development of personality in the face of the refusal resolutions of the RENIEC to register his equal marriage celebrated abroad. In this sense, we question the decision of the Constitutional Court by not ruling on the merits of the controversy in a case of special constitutional relevance and over which it had full powers. Likewise, we maintain that the registration of the appellant's marriage does not constitute a violation of international public order. We also defend the position that there is constitutional protection in Peru for marriage between people of the same sex, by applying the standard of international protection of human rights for the LGBTIQ+ community, as well as the methods of systematic and evolutionary interpretation. Finally, we conclude that, indeed, the fundamental rights of the appellant were violated. It should be said that the present investigation was carried out based on the investigation of the most recent doctrinal sources on the matter, as well as international legislation and jurisprudence for the standard of protection of human rights.
This legal report analyzes the decision of the Constitutional Court handed down in the Plenary Sentence No. 676/2020 (EXP. No. 01739-2018-PA/TC) which declares the inadmissibility of the amparo claim filed by Oscar Ugarteche Galarza. In this case, the citizen alleged the violation of his fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination and to the free development of personality in the face of the refusal resolutions of the RENIEC to register his equal marriage celebrated abroad. In this sense, we question the decision of the Constitutional Court by not ruling on the merits of the controversy in a case of special constitutional relevance and over which it had full powers. Likewise, we maintain that the registration of the appellant's marriage does not constitute a violation of international public order. We also defend the position that there is constitutional protection in Peru for marriage between people of the same sex, by applying the standard of international protection of human rights for the LGBTIQ+ community, as well as the methods of systematic and evolutionary interpretation. Finally, we conclude that, indeed, the fundamental rights of the appellant were violated. It should be said that the present investigation was carried out based on the investigation of the most recent doctrinal sources on the matter, as well as international legislation and jurisprudence for the standard of protection of human rights.
Link to repository: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25663
Discipline: Derecho
Grade or title grantor: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Derecho.
Grade or title: Abogado
Juror: Marciani Burgos, Betzabé Xenia; Smith Castro, Pamela Solanch; Cornejo Amoretti, Oswaldo Leandro
Register date: 8-Aug-2023
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.