New Constitutional Avocation Judgments 2026

Reducing the Constitutional Caseload

These rulings encourage trial judges to fully assume responsibility for conducting proceedings, reserving constitutional actions strictly for cases directly linked to the immediate protection of fundamental rights.

Ensuring Jurisprudential Uniformity

Contradictory decisions in similar cases undermine equality and weaken legal certainty. Through avocation, the Plenary Chamber establishes clear and binding guidelines for all constitutional chambers.

Constitutional Avocation Judgment 0001/2026 (February 25)

This ruling develops the duty to provide sufficient evidence to support claims raised in an action of liberty.

The Court emphasizes that generic allegations regarding violations of liberty or due process are insufficient. The claimant must submit objective elements enabling verification of the alleged act. For example, when challenging an unlawful detention, documentation evidencing the detention order, its execution date, or the specific circumstances must be attached.

This reinforces the burden of proof principle and prevents the misuse of constitutional actions without minimal factual support.

Constitutional Avocation Judgment 0002/2026 (February 25)

This decision addresses improper procedural claims within actions of liberty.

The Court establishes that the challenged act must be directly linked to the deprivation of liberty or to a threat to the claimant’s life. Not every procedural irregularity may be reviewed through an action of liberty.

For instance, if a party questions formal aspects of an indictment without a concrete impact on physical liberty or life, ordinary remedies must be pursued. This approach preserves the exceptional and urgent nature of the constitutional remedy.

Constitutional Avocation Judgment 0003/2026 (February 25)

This judgment reaffirms the principle of subsidiarity in prompt-dispatch liberty actions.

The Court requires prior exhaustion of the reconsideration remedy before resorting to constitutional jurisdiction. If a judicial authority fails to rule in a timely manner, the affected party must first file the corresponding motion within the same proceeding.

Only in the absence or ineffectiveness of an adequate remedy may constitutional action proceed. This strengthens the ordinary procedural structure and prevents constitutional jurisdiction from assuming functions assigned to the natural judge.

Constitutional Avocation Judgment 0004/2026 (February 25)

This ruling reinstates the doctrine of mootness (sustracción de objeto procesal).

The Court determines that when the claimant withdraws the action or when the alleged violation has been remedied prior to formal notification to the respondent, the case becomes moot.

For example, if an action of liberty is filed due to delay in issuing a warrant and the warrant is issued before formal notification, the controversy loses its object. In such cases, no ruling on the merits is appropriate.

This jurisprudential line contributes to the rational use of constitutional remedies and avoids unnecessary pronouncements.

Impact on Legal Practice

Avocation Judgments 0001/2026 through 0004/2026 generate concrete effects on litigation strategy for defense attorneys, prosecutors, and practitioners in general. First, they impose a stricter evidentiary standard in liberty actions, requiring thorough preparation of supporting documentation before filing a constitutional claim.

Second, they more precisely define the material scope of this remedy, preventing its use to challenge mere procedural irregularities unrelated to liberty or life. This reshapes criminal litigation planning and reinforces the use of ordinary procedural remedies.

Moreover, the emphasis on subsidiarity requires the exhaustion of internal remedies such as reconsideration motions before approaching the Constitutional Court, demanding more structured and strategic legal action.

Finally, the consolidation of the mootness doctrine avoids unnecessary constitutional rulings and contributes to a more efficient administration of constitutional justice.

In summary, Judgments 0001/2026, 0002/2026, 0003/2026, and 0004/2026 reaffirm the exceptional nature of the action of liberty, delimit its material scope, strengthen subsidiarity, and consolidate the doctrine of mootness, thereby enhancing legal certainty and systemic coherence.