Analisys Of The Decision Issued In The Case “The Big Brother”

  • Santiago Guarderas Izquierdo Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31207/ih.v3i0.46
Keywords: Moral Damage, Freedom Of Expression, Requiring Prejudication, Solidarity Or Several Liability, Indemnity, Freedom Of Expresision

Abstract

This article presents a brief analysis of the decision issued in the case known as “The Big Brother” with particular emphasis in the aspects in which the decision incurs in juridical errors.  It departs from an objective revision which does not anticipate an opinion regarding the responsibility determined for defendants.  On the contrary it is focused in those elements lessening merits to the decision and its grounds which are not consistent with the applicable juridical system, even independently from the main decision. Subjects such as the requirement of prejudication in matters of indemnity in case of damages derived from a crime, the nature of the liability of the co-perpetrator of a crime or quasi crime, the concept of the amount of repair in case of moral damages and its way of establishing the amount, the differences between moral damage and patrimonial damage and the necessity to use the method of carefully  consideration in the events of conflict of rights are approached by the doctrine and jurisprudence with the occasion of the opinions issued by the judge trying the case in the decision. Even though the judgment was not executed since plaintiff abandoned the action, it disturbed the judicial spheres because of the litigating parties:  the President of the Republic and two journalists.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Santiago Guarderas Izquierdo, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador
Decano de la Facultad de Jurisprudencia de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (Quito). P.O. Box: 17-01-600. smguarderas@quevedo-ponce.com

References

Alessandri Rodríguez, A. (2005). De la Responsabilidad Extracontractual en el Derecho Civil Chileno. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Jurídica de Chile.

Barragán Romero, G. (1995). Elementos del Daño Moral. Guayaquil: Edino.

Bazán, V. (2008). Confluencias y fricciones entre la libertad de información y los derechos a la honra y a la vida privada. Buenos Aires: El Derecho.

Bernal Pulido, C. (2005). El Derecho de los derechos. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Couture, E.J. (1951). Fundamentos del Derecho Procesal Civil. Buenos Aires: Depalma.


Normas:

Código Civil del Ecuador.

Ley Orgánica de Garantías Jurisdiccionales y Control Constitucional (R.O. 52 de 22-X-2009).

Código de Procedimiento Penal (Ley 134 PCL R. O. 511 de 10-VI-1983).


Jurisprudencia:

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Caso Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica, sentencia de 2-VII-2004.

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Caso Kimel vs. Argentina, sentencia de 2-V-2008.

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Caso Ricardo Canese vs. Paraguay, sentencia de 31-VIII-2004.

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Caso Consuelo Benavides vs. Ecuador, sentencia de 19-VI-1998.

Corte Suprema de Justicia del Ecuador, Primera Sala de lo Civil y Mercantil, Caso No. 79-2003 (R.O. 87 de 22-V-2003).

Corte Suprema de Justicia del Ecuador, Primera Sala de lo Civil y Mercantil, Caso 229-200 (R.O. 43 de 19-III-2003).

Corte Suprema de Justicia del Ecuador, Segunda Sala de lo Civil y Mercantil, Caso No. 6-2008 (R.O. 375 de 7-VII-2008).

Corte Nacional de Justicia del Ecuador, Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo, Caso Deifilio Larriva y Teresa González (padres de Guadalupe Larriva) et. al vs. Estado ecuatoriano, No. 139-2010, recuperado de http://www.cortenacional.gob.ec/cnj/images/pdf/sentencias/contencioso_administrativo/2012/agosto2012/Resolucion%20No.%20246-12.pdf (el 21-X-2013).

Jueza Quinta de lo Civil, Caso Rafael Correa Delgado vs. Juan Carlos Calderón Vivanco y Christian Gustavo Zurita Ron, sentencia de 6-II-2012. Juicio Ordinario No. 2011-0265 LS.
Published
2013-10-26
How to Cite
Guarderas Izquierdo, S. (2013). Analisys Of The Decision Issued In The Case “The Big Brother”. Ius Humani. Law Journal, 3, 175-188. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31207/ih.v3i0.46
Issue
Vol 3 (2012)
Section
Papers
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors publishing in our Journal comply to the following terms:
1. Authors keep their work’s copyrights, but they guarantee Ius Humani Law Journal to be the first publisher of their papers. They grant the Journal will a Creative Commons Attribution License, under which their work can be shared with the condition that it is appropriately cited.
2. Authors are aware and accept that the Ius Humani Team will try to give the greatest diffusion to the Journal, which means, among other things, that its printed and electronic editions will be distributed among different databases and scientific indexes.
3. Authors can establish further clauses for non exclusive distribution, such as publication on a separate book or placing in an institutional data-base. Nevertheless, a note should be always added to explain that the paper was originally published in Ius Humani Law Journal.
4. We permit and encourage authors to share their work through Internet before and during the editorial process to receive further recommendations and wider references (we recommend you read the article The Effect of Open Access).