BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE ARBITRAL AMPARO. CASE: SPECIAL PROJECT PICHUS PALCAZU-ELGO RÍOS NUÑEZ. EXP. Nº. 02383. ARBITRATION PROCESS-CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Abstract

Before the file EXP. No. 142– 2011 – PA / Tribunal Constitutional, they introduced new criteria when considering the resource as a way by which the fundamental rights to due process and effective procedural guardianship attacked could be successfully restored. arbitration process Although this is a first attempt, the High Court only managed to determine the appeal as an equally satisfactory route, but it did not delve into its meaning and the criteria that would define it as such. This lack of foundation, however, can be considered as overcome if the Constitutional Court's ruling on the EXP is in sight. No. 02383–2013 – PA / TC, in which he developed in detail the assumptions and criteria, which should be met to determine when a route can effectively be considered equally satisfactory. These criteria were formulated from two perspectives, the objective perspective (positive condition) and subjective perspective (negative condition), from which the four requirements demanded copulatively were formulated to have an ordinary route as an equally satisfactory route: that there is a suitable structure in the ordinary process regarding the amparo process; that the ordinary process lend an appropriate guardianship like the one that would grant constitutional protection; that in the specific case there is urgency for irreparability of the aggression of the fundamental right; and that in the specific case there is urgency for the magnitude of the good involved or the damage caused.