La Asamblea Constituyente. Ley de Deslinde jurisdiccional. Ley N3 , December. Media and members of murisdiccional political opposition have further this confusion. The law must provide clearer guidelines for determining who can be counted as a member of these groups and thereby tried in alternative court systems.
|Published (Last):||22 October 2004|
|PDF File Size:||2.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Law 73 helps to clarify which cases and individuals can be tried in alternative judicial systems. Most importantly, the law upholds and clarifies Bolivian statutes that strictly forbid lynching or any other form of the death penalty. However, the law still contains gray areas about specific mechanisms for legal coordination and cooperation among overlapping jurisdictions and definitions of indigenous identity and territory. Follow-up guidelines or legislation for the Jurisdictional Law are crucial to clarify these issues and avoid future conflicts.
Articles 5 and 6 of emphasize that all rulings must follow national and international human rights laws and accords, as well as the national constitution. These stipulations allay concerns that recognizing indigenous and campesino judicial authorities would permit lynching, often misconstrued as part of community justice systems see On Community Justice.
While correctly differentiating between the legal practice of community justice and illegal lynching is an ongoing challenge for some Bolivian and international observers, the Clause 5 of Article 5 bans the latter entirely:.
Media and members of the political opposition have further this confusion. The Morales administration clearly identified this recent lynching a crime and demanded a full legal investigation in the central justice system.
The Bolivian constitution also forbids any form of the death penalty. As a result, the jurisdictional law strictly sanctions murder and considers the death penalty a criminal act:.
Anyone who imposes, permits, or enforces the death penalty will be tried for murder in the pre-existing central court. Although the law legally validates community justice systems, it also bans certain penalties potentially sanctioned within those jurisdictions. Prohibited punishments include land confiscation from senior citizens or physically handicapped individuals, and violence against children or women.
Article 7 defines this jurisdiction as:. Indigenous courts can only hear cases when infractions occur within their own territories, when the parties involved belong to the group in question, and when the legal matter violates a traditional and historical community justice norm.
For example, community justice authorities cannot try terrorism cases because these are considered a threat to national security. Similarly, only the central court system may process, drug, arms, and human trafficking cases. However, thus far there is no indication of when any follow-up guidelines might be released, nor does the text of the law stipulate the need for such regulations. While the law does not explicitly state how indigenous, first nations and campesino territory and identity will be defined, existing guidelines and legislation could help clarify these ambiguities.
They reside in a determined ancestral territory and through their own institutions … [x] However, it is still unclear whether these criteria or other models will determine the boundaries of indigenous legal authority. Existing models for indigenous law exist in Canada, the United States, Australia and others. In Canada, individuals entitled to membership in aboriginal groups and whose kinship status can be proven by familial lineage register in both tribal and national records.
Until , native women who married a non-aboriginal man would lose their status and band rights, while men who married a non-aboriginal woman would maintain it. Territorial claims further complicate determining membership in indigenous, first nations and campesino groups.
Not all people living within autonomous areas self-identify as part of an indigenous nation or support indigenous autonomy. Moreover, many indigenous people live in integrated, urban environments. The law must provide clearer guidelines for determining who can be counted as a member of these groups and thereby tried in alternative court systems.
The question of indigenous identity has always been complicated in Bolivia and this law may increase tension over this issue. Guidelines cannot satisfy everyone, but the Bolivian Judiciary must further define the framework for proving indigenous, campesino and first nations identity in order to successfully recognize community judicial authorities. Coordination between judicial authorities continues to be a challenge for countries with established indigenous justice systems.
For example, the U. This gives tribal courts greater sentencing authority, extending their maximum jail sentence authority from one to three years. Proponents of the law argued that many reservations are remote and it makes more sense to try first nations people within their own communities, rather than in courts that are hundreds of miles from home.
However, these stipulations also obligate federal courts to increase coordination and communication with tribal legal authorities. As demonstrated by the U. The Bolivian Jurisdictional Law also seeks to establish mechanisms for different jurisdictions to coordinate to protect human rights, enforce transparency and create effective conflict resolution strategies.
While the law outlines mechanisms such as information sharing and advisory committees, it is still unclear who will oversee these institutions and processes or the timeframe for implementation. The Jurisdictional Law resolves some issues that arose with the passage of the constitution, but may provoke future complications.
Some sections of the law, such as those forbidding death penalty, are clear, yet others, such as mechanisms for jurisdictional cooperation, remain amorphously defined.
The judicial branch, indigenous authorities and legislators must work to establish clear guidelines in order to smoothly implement and establish these laws. As a result, the legislative process still has a long way to go to clearly define most of the national laws passed in the preceding year. The strengths and weaknesses of the Jurisdictional Law cannot be truly evaluated until its broad implementation. For example, let us consider the administration of justice: at operational levels, not parallel, but mixed and multicultural authorities would be the most effective strategy.
Of course, this model should also be an essential requirement for departmental and national scope. This alternative model will be an important step toward fortifying the unity of the Plurinational State. There shall be maintained in accordance with this Act for each band a Band List in. Twitter Facebook. Law defuses controversy by forbidding lynching and other extreme penalties Articles 5 and 6 of emphasize that all rulings must follow national and international human rights laws and accords, as well as the national constitution.
Conclusions The Jurisdictional Law resolves some issues that arose with the passage of the constitution, but may provoke future complications. Indian Register 5. Band Lists 8. There shall be maintained in accordance with this Act for each band a Band List in which shall be entered the name of every person who is a member of that band. Children of band members Persons entitled to be registered 6.
Bolivian Jurisdictional Law: A Step in the Right Direction, but Requires Further Clarification