Law of Archives of Guanajuato incurs in several omissions: SCJN

After the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (inai) has warned that 17 states have laws on archives that are deficient and contrary to the Constitution, the plenary session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) analyzed the case of Guanajuato.

In this regard, the Court ruled that the Local Archives Law it incurs various omissions, such as establishing a prohibition for the General Director of the State Archives to hold another job, position or commission; and guarantee the participation of the President of the Council of Archives or his substitute in the sessions.

Likewise, it determined that it was unconstitutional to grant this General File the nature of a Specialized Administrative Unit, since it must be a decentralized non-sectorized body.

The SCJN declared it unconstitutional to integrate the Interdisciplinary Group by representatives and non-holders of the various areas that comprise it; that the obligated subjects be empowered to determine the documents that constitute the documentary heritage of the state, since it is a competence that corresponds to the local Archive; and that sanctions be established for not publishing the opinion and the record of documentary removal authorized by the Interdisciplinary Group, since that power to authorize actually also corresponds to the local Archive.

The plenary session of the Supreme Court noted various inconsistencies in the State Archives Council; for example that the local law omitted to integrate the Archival Technical and Scientific Councilas its existence was not contemplated in the General Archive, derived from the fact that it was characterized as an administrative unit.

It also attributed ownership of the Technical Secretariat to the head of the President of the State Transparency Institute, since according to the General Law, the Technical Secretary will be appointed and removed by the President of the Council. This issue, since the qualified majority of votes was not reached to declare the total invalidity of article 66, the ministers decided to join the partial invalidity of the normative portion “who will act as head of the technical secretariat.”

For the rest, the unconstitutionality action 231/2020, promoted by the inaisince the vote required by article 105 of the General Constitution was not reached, the omissions were declared unfounded and the validity of the challenged rule of the Constitution was recognized. Transparence law.


Leave a Comment