The debate about the convenience of the judicial enforcement of social rights is one of the major issues that theories of law and democracy are facing today. It is a very difficult discussion, because there are strong arguments in favor of both positive and negative answers. While some argue that social rights must be judicially protected or else they are not real rights, others fear this protection will unavoidably drive to an antidemocratic government by judges.

The presentation by Rodrigo Uprimny (Ph.D) in the debate organized by the Honorable House of Representatives, for the discussion of different proposals presented before the legislature on the theme of guardianships against judicial sentences (TCPJ) – Project of Legislative Act No. 133/06 House and No. 13/06 of Accumulated Senate.

César Rodríguez of Dejusticia advises of the “silencer” effect that can influence the government in the appointment of an senior official.

Speaking of guardianships against sentences, the author maintains the fairness of the plurality of interpretations is what is most attentive against legal security.

The practice of kidnapping is a tragic Latin American phenomenon. Following the leads of the Nazi’s use of abducting opposition to the violent regime, the custom has spread throughout the continent and is employed by rebel groups and peoples in power alike. In addition to causing extreme distress for the victim and their relatives, forced disappearance poses a complex web of judicial challenges. The article explores this web, calling for a reformation of law in order to protect the rights of victims, to ensure throughout investigation and to prevent the practice of this atrocious crime in the future.

The author maintains that the name “collision of trains” among the courts doesn’t justify the elimination of the guardianship against sentences but precision of regulation should be maintained.