[ad_1]
The Sintra Court ordered an end to the isolation of a woman who had been forced by the health authority to stay home even after a negative test for the new coronavirus and without symptoms of covid-19.
In a decision, to which the Lusa agency had access today, the Sintra criminal investigation court understood that the suspension of fundamental rights, such as freedom, could not have been ordered by a simple government decree, but only by a law that He left the Assembly of the Republic, as mandated by the Constitution.
Ana M. asked the Sintra court to grant her ‘habeas corpus’ (immediate release) after being forced by a public health official in Mafra to stay at home for seven days, being informed that she would be subjected to surveillance. Police officer.
The woman had no symptoms of the disease and tested the new coronavirus with a negative result, the decision reads.
For the criminal investigating judge, “the situation in which the plaintiff finds himself since November 21, without being able to leave each one and under police surveillance, does not differ from that of a citizen who has been subjected to a coercive measure of obligation of permanence “. in housing “.
This measure of coercion, says the judge, presupposes “that there is strong evidence of the intentional crime, which corresponds to a maximum prison sentence of more than 3 years,” a fact that is not verified in this decision of the health authority.
The court held that “the right to liberty by means of a regulatory decree violates the limit of regulatory power that constitutes the reservation of law established by the Constitution in matters of rights, freedoms and guarantees” and that “the confinement / deprivation of liberty that The applicant was submitted is illegal because it is not included among the exceptions provided for in paragraph 3 of article 27 of the Constitution.
Thus, considering the detention illegal, the court decided on Thursday “to accept the present application for ‘habeas corpus'” and, consequently, to determine “the restitution of the plaintiff’s freedom.”
[ad_2]
