The Supreme

In a written second, the Office of the public prosecutor it justified the lack of IU legitimation in which this one does not have the character of interested in the subject in not to have credited the legitimate interest with which it says to act. According to the public prosecutor, to be able to claim the fundamental right of meeting, is precise at least that their holder, that is to say the physical or legal person who wishes to take to effect a concentration, meeting or manifestation in public place, is he promotes who it or he summons. In the case of cars, the public prosecutor continues, it does not consist that the political formation has summoned, promoted or organized concentration, meeting or manifestation some in the days that legally are predicted for the days of reflection and voting, reason why does not have the interested character of insofar as he is not holder of the meeting right that now to try to exercise in the name of others. To first hours of afternoon, the Supreme Court had by interposed a resource of IU against the decision of the Central Electoral Meeting and he gave of term to the Public prosecutor and the Electoral Meeting until the five of afternoon presenting/displaying allegations. The resource was formulated under protection of the Law of Jurisdictional Protection of the Fundamental Rights, that it has preferred procedure. IU asked that it was suspended precautionarily the agreement of the Central Electoral Meeting. The resource corresponded to the magistrates of the Section Eighth of the Room of the Contentious thing, integrated by the president of the Room, Jose Manuel Sieira, and the magistrates Nicholas Maurandi and Pablo Lucas Murillo of the Cave, the three of progressive will. In addition they integrate the room the magistrate rapporteur, Vicente Count and Jose Thin Diaz, both of preservative will. The Central Electoral Meeting had solved at night of the past Friday that the request of emission of vote in favor of candidacies or the invitation to exclude others in the exercise of the right of the vote is a behavior not in agreement with the Electoral Law and that it exceeds the manifestation right. Source of the news: : The Supreme one rejects the resource and maintains the prohibition of the Meeting