This provision also encompasses the principle of Strict Legal Right; in other words, federal courts must only decide on those violation concepts argued by the plaintiff and must not substitute them in its favour. Nevertheless, deficient claims can be corrected by the court in order to protect the interests of those who are in a disadvantaged position, such as in criminal matters when the plaintiff is the accused and he or she is under risk of any act against life or liberty; in labour law, when the plaintiff is the employee; in family issues in order to protect minor’s rights and in land claim matters when the plaintiff is a small rural community.
The special trial shall be used against definitive resolutions which put the trial to an end as long as against such resolutions no ordinary modifying appeal can be made. The special protective trial shall be used to appeal violations which affect individual defenses, produce effects beyond the contested trial’s result and which are committed either when the final resolution is made or during the contested trial’s development, taking into account that in the latter case and whenever the appealed trial is a civil one, the violation has to be contested by either making an ordinary legal appeal or by arguing that such an ordinary appeal is a violation itself. Such further requirements cannot be fulfilled either in those controversies involving an individual’s civil status or in those in which either public order or a family’s stability is at stake;
The special trial shall be used against violations which, after have been legally appealed, are committed during a trial, once it has been resolved or even within the trial’s context and are impossible to correct, and
The special trial shall be used against actions affecting individuals who are not parties in the trial.
These provisions are known under the name of Principle of Final decision. Ordinary judicial remedies must be exhausted except for those cases in which the law orders otherwise. In other words, ordinary and extraordinary procedures established by ordinary statutory provisions must to be exhausted before they are exercised and have access to the Constitutional control system. Nevertheless, some exceptions are considered such as claims regarding acts or procedures that put may cause real risk and endanger the life and personal freedom of the plaintiff.
The first two articles, 103 and 107, comprise the foundation for the constitutional procedure known as an Amparo trial, which means “protection”. Its main goal is to restore personal rights or immunities violated by unconstitutional laws or by official agents. On the other hand, article 113 is divided into two parts: the first is in regards to the legal responsibility of public servants in the wrongful exercise of their duty; and the second part, is the recent ability of private parties to seek damages and compensation as a result of the wrongful administrative activity of the federal government.
The Amparo trail finds its constitutional status in the Federal Constitution of 1857 as it was encompassed in articles 101 and 102. The original nature of this procedure was as a constitutional control exercised by the judiciary branch in order to prevent possible abuses of power committed by the executive or legislative branches. In the Amparo process, violations to individual rights are ventilated and it may bring about modification or revocation of the act causing a legal damage.
Provision in regards to remedial actions in the Mexican constitutional system were established in 1857 and the idea of limitation of privileges and immunities can be executed only in extraordinary cases when the Mexican Nation would face: “invasions, serious disturbance of public peace or any situation which puts society in a great danger or conflict.” (Article 29 General Constitution).
