How Long Does It Take To Get Digital Copy From Ea

Marriage Migration

Migration
Note the double standards of the REFORM FOCUS

Although Mexico is the largest migration corridor in the world, the country lacks a policy to regulate this flow, experts criticize

By Martha Martinez

Mexico City (July 18, 2010) .- In migration, Mexico applies an double standards the U.S. government calls for respect for the Mexicans, but within the country, the Central Americans who enter without documents are victims of human rights violations, robberies, extortions and kidnappings.

Official figures indicate that, on average, each year more than half a million Mexicans and Central Americans moving to the northern border in an attempt to reach the United States.

Although this figure makes Mexico the largest migration corridor in the world, academics Fabienne Venet, director of the Institute of Migration Studies and Outreach, and Rodolfo Rubio Salas, a researcher at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, say the country lacks a policy regulating this flow.

Experts say that the actions implemented by the Mexican government to address the phenomenon of migration to the United States are scattered, disorganized, inefficient and lack of clear goals, which leads to their response to violations of human rights of Mexicans are warm, late and ignored.

respect to the southern border indicate that government actions are focused on flow control, which favors the criminalization of undocumented migration, abuse and corruption among Mexican border agents, the rise of robbery and kidnapping as a business of organized crime and impunity in such acts.

While these problems are exacerbated, President Felipe Calderón protest against the possible entry into force of Law Arizona on July 29 and claim the White House and Congress together to promote comprehensive immigration reform.

Crisis on the southern border

Central level, Mexico has failed to implement a strategy to control migratory flows and its methods have been criticized internationally for generating the same human rights violations that Country complaint against his countrymen.

deaths, robberies, kidnappings, rapes, extortion, abuse by police elements and no access to justice have been documented by Amnesty International, which has warned that the border of Mexico, Central American migrants face a real crisis human rights.

Official figures realize that each year more than 100 thousand Central Americans, unofficial figures indicate that more than 250 thousand, enter the country with the aim of crossing into the United States. The majority come of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

Special Report on Abduction against migrants, released last year by the National Commission on Human Rights, reveals that in 6 months about 10 thousand Central Americans were kidnapped during their transit through Mexico.

The report indicates that in the commission of these crimes are involved in organized crime gangs and authorities, who obtained about 25 million dollars in ransoms.

Although the report notes that daily are 50 American hostages until now the Mexican government has announced measures to protect migrants. By

Otherwise, the points of robbery and kidnapping are moved from one place to another with the passivity of the Mexican authorities.

Ambassador of El Salvador in Mexico, Hugo Carrillo, gives an example.

"In Rice (Chiapas), the attacks have declined substantially in the last 4 or 5 months but have moved away, in Chahuites (Chiapas)."

The diplomat described another factor hindering the comprehensive care of the problem.

"From the first day he took office as Governor Juan Sabines in Chiapas, I took the trouble to go over and started talking about the tragedy of the migrants passing, mostly by the state of Chiapas. Federal authorities were not happy for the Governor was interested in the issue of migrants because there is a zeal "he says.

Antonio Diaz, chief of staff of the National Migration Institute, admits that another problem facing Central America is corruption of some Mexican authorities.

Diaz reports so far of the administration have been dismissed from the Institute about 400 people linked with corruption, of which 30 have been jailed.

"When we received the Institute we thought we were entering an institution that had corruption, in practice there are many good people, not me doubt, a few color the work of many, "he says.

reactive U.S. policy

On 20 May, in a speech to Congress, President Calderón said:" (Arizona Law ) is a law that not only ignores a reality that can not be eliminated by decree, but introduces the terrible idea that racial discrimination can be the basis for the application of the law. "

Mexican president's criticism was one month after the passage of SB1070, known as the Arizona law, which empowers state and local authorities to investigate the immigration status of a person when suspicions are "reasonable" manner that is illegal on U.S. soil.

A week after the speech (28 May), the Mexican Hernández Anastasio was beaten by 20 agents of the Border Patrol on the American side of the Puente Isidro-Tijuana. Three days later, he died due to brain damage that caused the electric shocks were applied to agents even though he was immobilized.

On 8 June, the 15 year old Sergio Adrián Hernández Guereca was murdered in Ciudad Juárez by a Border Patrol agent who shot him from the U.S..

Fabienne Venet, director Institute of Migration Studies and Outreach, says Calderón's speech, despite being praised in several sectors, and these two facts show that far from having an immigration policy, the federal government responds to the contingencies.

"There are a number of initiatives, but most are temporary and not sustained over time, then the immigration issue is still subject to the ups and downs of the relationship with the United States on other issues and suddenly the track rises to a pitch situation which is generally deplorable.

"If Mexico does not develop a firm position to offer, with a long-term vision and does not hold that view and those actions we will continue as now, reacting to situations, "notes the expert.

Figures from 2009 indicate that U.S. 11.9 million Mexicans live. According to the National Population Council, on average each year 400 million Mexicans try to cross the northern border , the majority come from Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacán, San Luis Potosi and Zacatecas. The main causes of migration are poverty, joblessness and low wages.

Mexicans and Mexican descent represent the group of non- the largest American country in the aggregate 30 million, or 10 percent of the population.

The swaying policy Venet

immigration ensures that Mexico has failed to design a migration policy towards the U.S. because although important bilateral initiatives promoted, he held no more than six years.

Two examples: in 1997, prompted the United States-Mexico Binational Study on Migration, whose goal was to have a common basis of understanding and data to address the issue bilaterally, the study is unique in its kind, although this was not continued by subsequent governments.

In 2006, former President Vicente Fox urged Mexico to Initiative migration. This is the only document that expresses a position comprehensive and consensus on immigration between the executive, legislative, civil society and academia. The proposals were not taken up by President Calderon. Venet

warns that the "culture of six-year, Mexico has not addressed the issue of immigration in an institutional manner.

"Today it is being mandated by the Ministry of the Interior Mexican immigration policies, to me it seems an aberration, was justified at the time ... obviously the environment today has changed completely, then it can be done by a institution because it is an issue that requires the concurrence of ministries responsible for issues such as work, social development, economy, the environment, because these are the causes of migration, "he says.

A review of the sectoral programs of different ministries and the National Population Programme shows that the federal executive does not pose a coordinated effort among agencies responsible for social development, employment promotion, development of the field or environment care to address migration.

This, despite the National Development Programme, the hub of government policy recognizes that " lack of opportunity and economic asymmetries are among the root causes of the rapid departure of human capital abroad, especially United States. "

By contrast, migration policy is relegated to the secretaries of Foreign Affairs and the National Migration Institute.

The

immigration reform impossible in their bilateral relations, Mexico has committed to immigration reform is unlikely to realize at least during the presidency of Barack Obama.

Rodolfo Rubio Salas, a researcher at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, recalls that on his last visit to the White House, President Calderon called on Obama to push for a comprehensive immigration reform. The Obama's response was blunt: "I have 60 votes in the Senate."

Obama reiterated this warning during first speech on immigration reform on 1 July.

For Rubio Salas, this response is the explicit recognition of U.S. President that his government has other priorities, such as internal security, economic crisis and fiscal reform.

Scholar warns that even when Obama tried to promote immigration reform, his political capital was exhausted with the approval of the health system reform.

"I think when he said, President Obama was aware that much of his political capital he had spent on health care reform, where the Republican Party was against him, he had political capital to make up that to start trading and is also quite clear that there will be an important part of Congress who will not only be difficult to convince, but he believes it will never be able to convince, "he says.

The researcher argues that in the case of opened the debate on immigration reform in Congress, the negotiation will depend on how much Obama offers in terms of border security, because after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, migration was included in the internal security agenda that country.

Another factor against the midterm elections are Nov. 2 in the United States.

"It's an issue that can have political costs, perhaps some politicians are avoiding, but we also saw very strong stances, just from the debate that raised the Arizona law," said Fabienne Venet.

also warns that immigration reform is not the absolute solution to the problem, despite the importance he has given the Mexican government.

The specialist recommends that U.S. migration policy is not focused on the possible reform in that country, but the Mexican government to boost bilateral agreements for Mexican migrants and internally treats the causes of migration, such as poverty, unemployment and low wages. Venet

adds that Mexico and U.S. demand immigration reform should start the debate on the need to promote changes within the country to provide greater legal safeguards for American entrants allow its southern border and attempts to sketch the first State policy in this area.



Copyright © Grupo Reforma Servicio Informativo

CAN BE FOUND IN THIS NOTE:
http://www.reforma.com/enfoque/articulo/1130126/
Publication Date: 16-Jul-2010


'Yes migration policy is a '

The manager of the migration agenda in the Federation says there is congruence between what the U.S. called and offered to Central America. By Martha Martínez



Mexico City (July 25, 2010) .- According to the commissioner of the National Migration Institute, Cecilia Romero, Mexico has an immigration policy clear, consistent and advancing in the right direction.

However, recognizing that we still achieve a more responsive at all points of entry, both in the northern border on the southern border, the professionalization of migrant workers, ensuring respect for human rights of all migrants and the adoption of a law on migration that will be sent to Congress in September, nearly four years after this administration began.

Migration In response to the report: the double standard, published last week in Focus, the federal official says criticism of the Institute are respectable, but denies that there is no coordination with other government agencies to address the migration phenomenon, which lacks clear goals in this area and apply a double standard by violating human rights of Central Americans entering the country without documents while criticizing the treatment of Mexicans trying to enter the United States.

Commissioner says that it has been reduce the rate of violence in the southern border, but admits that these advances are overshadowed by the climate of hostility generated by the crimes committed by organized crime against migrants.

"We achieved that a large percentage decrease in the abuse of undocumented migrants. If we put on the other hand the rise of organized crime and international drug trafficking in persons, because sometimes all that is able to advance themselves is minimized a bit, "he says.

Beyond the effects of organized crime, the Commissioner indicates that the southern migration policy objective is "to make the border region and neighboring countries, a area prosperous, peaceful and safe. "

Among the actions that the Institute carries out to achieve that goal are the launch of a regularization program for foreigners who already have been residing in the country, implementing a form Local Visitor immigration which is free and allows foreign nationals to legally stay for three days, the immigration issue in a cross-border workers and a Memorandum of Understanding with the Southern countries of Central orderly repatriation to their places of origin.

Romero says that these measures will allow monitoring and ensure respect for human rights of Central Americans, and give "Coherence" to the immigration policy implemented by the federal government.

"These programs speak precisely of an important element in immigration policy of President Calderon: consistency. We respect the United States want to respect the human rights of Mexicans ... that we are calling for our compatriots is we are doing to foreigners who enter the southern border of Mexico, "he says.

regard to the criticism about the physical state of the 47 migratory stations in the country Romero says: "there is overcrowding, there is no lack of food, water shortages, lack of health care."


northern border
Al INM coordinate corresponds Paisano Program, where they currently attend 21 government agencies, and Humane Repatriation Program, which operates in conjunction with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "which aims to welcome the Mexican nationals who are deported by the Border Patrol.

These programs are referred by the staff as the main actions to protect Mexicans who migrate to the United States.

"The first thing we do is provide (to the nationals repatriated) water, food, shelter and the possibility of making a phone call to his family, then offer them to those who want the program Humane Repatriation ... to which the host can offer temporary shelter and even a contact through the Secretary of Labor for a minimum bonus of course, that when it comes to their place of origin may seek a delegation to see a job " indicated.

Romero announced that "soon" give lawmakers a bill developed by the INM from consultations with civil society organizations, churches, academics and experts from the Institute Advisory Board.

Romero says that the draft law will be delivered on time so that if lawmakers consider it appropriate, be discussed in September, when you start the next regular session.


Copyright © Grupo Reforma Servicio Informativo

CAN BE FOUND IN THIS NOTE:
http://www.reforma.com/enfoque/articulo/1132174/
Publication Date: 22-Jul-2010

Sperm Count 2.3 Million

Double standards and adoption As gay couples with the Constitution (first part)

marriage and adoption by homosexual couples

Under the Constitution (first part)

By: Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega

DeMarzo published 1, 2010 in the Power of Ideas in Central Axis

December 21 Mexico City made history. Do not exaggerate or dramatize. The number of cities or countries where gay people get married they have the fingers. The fact that my city I'm proud to be inclusive. It scares me that some in the name of "morals and good customs" seek to exclude. I am happy that friends who are excluded from society, everyday life and law, from March 4 to express their identity, their decision and their love. The 21 approved an amendment to the Civil Code (art. 146) that allows two people to marry, regardless of sex, gender, right or condition. That same day, PAN deputies wanted to amend one article (art. 391) to prohibit same-sex marriages could take. The reform was not, the article was as it was. Marriages in general, whether gay or heterosexual, may adopt.

By Federal Government, the Church and conservatives who follow them, not like this, thought the City would become the Sodom of the XXI century, the divine punishment perch on legislators and governors to approve such reforms, and homosexuals who practiced contrary to nature, would from now in mortal sin, "sa c Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which in the same manner as those having sexual immorality and gone after vices against nature, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. "(Jude v. 7)

Well, sort of said representatives of the Church. The federal government eased a bit and tried to translate that terror in secular arguments. A month and a couple of days later, the Attorney General's Office (PGR) surprised us with the presentation to the Supreme Court an action of unconstitutionality against (sic) amendments to the Civil Code of the City then in waterfall organized some governors, yes yes, also of PAN, to bring Constitutional Controversies paths against the reform on the grounds that a breach of its rules.

Between that January 27 and February 23, the Court has been rejected as inadmissible Disputes submitted by the states, because the Constitution is clear: Article 121 provides that acts of civil status held in another entity under valid laws must be taken as valid in all other states and will want to attach to any other entity determines the validity of legal acts to be agreed in Mexico City, is forgetting the Federal pact . Ay! Again, the PAN does not understand very well of the powers of a Federation. More on that below.

February 23 presented representatives of the Federal District Legislative Assembly (ALDF) and the Federal District Government (GDF) to the Supreme Court, in reporting that respond to the constitutional claim presented by the PGR. These two documents that call and IGDF IALDF respectively.

Unconstitutional Action

In Action Unconstitutional (hereinafter AIPGR), the PGR denounced as contrary to the Constitution reform 146 and 391 do not reform, both the Civil Code of the City, considering that violate the third paragraph of Article 1, 4 first, sixth and seventh, 14 second paragraph, 16 first paragraph and 133 of the CPEUM. Based on these articles, in AIPGR discusses two types of questions:

a) Social issues such as marriage, family and adoption by same-sex marriages. These issues are a court of law to give meaning for constitutional norms according to the Attorney violates reform. Democratic constitutions usually contain standards of openness, as the governing "family" precisely to allow this concept be given content by the legislature every time I concretized in an ordinary law. Set in the Constitution a meaning closed, static, tied to organized state under this rule to live by models or opinions of our ancestors. This is sometimes good, it is a limit to political power, but to give practical social concepts as family, marriage and parenthood should be attended to empirical data, research and studies and not personal opinion on what should be family or marriage, let alone what was in the past. This is because otherwise the rules are out of step with reality and thus lose regulation. I think this is obvious and need not dwell on it. On these issues, the PGR alleges violations of articles 1 and 4.

b) legal issues as the alleged violation of the principle of legality and motivation of the reform in question and the alleged violation of the integrity of the Mexican legal system with the entry into force of Civil Code reform. In these legal issues argued by the violations Articles 14, 16 and 133. For an authority to act, there must be a rule that grants this power or competence, that is it gives substance to that act. Under the rule of law applies the principle of legality to the acts of the authorities in the sense that they can only do what the law authorizing them, by contrast, individuals can do whatever the law does not prohibit. The PGR ALDF argues that despite having competition, not state its reasons why it amended the Civil Code. And that is to enable the authority to intervene in the sphere of rights of citizens requires not only having a base (standard), but a reason.

a) Issues of Marriage, Family and Parenting in AIPGR

In general, the PGR's argument is quite regrettable, are not relying on the law and supports scientific truth, but bases the Most of their arguments in moral standards and moral their prejudices. The positions and views of the Solicitor are truly authoritarian and homophobic. Social issues are argued based on his their perception and conceptions of what should be that in no way compatible with a democratic constitution and intended to be equally as Mexico's, much less reality family in Mexico. To support their concepts of family, marriage and parenthood, does not refer to a single study or investigation, no judicial decision, not even a scientific opinion or experience of such authority of the DIF. It merely cites the Family Law of the Italian Civil Cicu Antonio (1879-1962) for, based on this, define their concept of family and argue that the Constitution protects only an ideal model of family, this being formed by a father, mother and children.

The PGR has a concept of family that gets Through an ancient method of interpretation of the Constitution, whose "election" never justified. Based on the Branch called Spiritualists Reviewer Attorney argues that the introduction of protection of the family as constitutional protection in 1974 was based on the ideal family model, totally ignoring the historical context of the reform during the Echeverria, as evidenced in its report on GDF. Still, the cultural transformation that has occurred in Mexico in the last thirty-five to dren can not be ignored and can not claim that the Attorney remains in effect a family concept of a time when the sexual revolution continued to be suppressed, which liberalization of women just beginning, and yet a time when being gay was condemned not only socially, but in some countries like the United States, was a crime. Just in 1973 homosexuality was removed from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders . Attorney also forget that the constitutional narrative introduction to the third paragraph of Article 1 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the basis of preferences (including others), after the reform was the 4th: it was in 2001 during the government of Vicente Fox It follows that, if instead of opting for the spiritualist interpretation, Attorney opted for objective and consistent interpretation and follow Interpetación constitutional principles (unity, functionality, integration, consistency and force of law) perhaps they would arrive at the conclusions of the Federal District. But the preferred PGR torture concepts, authors and rules so that after biting them eyes, say that the marriage is same-sex adoptions by gay couples are unconstitutional.

The narrowest concept of the family of Attorney leaves out the fundamental protection to all families are not composed of a father, mother and children. According to the Attorney a single parent family is not worthy to be constitutionally protected, neither is the widowed father with children, much less one composed by a homosexual couple with biological or adoptive children (yes, if you can) want to ignore or forget which has always homosexual individuals and, since 2006, gay couples in domestic partnership together may adopt. These, according to the Attorney, are not worthy of protection families constitutional. Attorney says it recognizes that there other types of families, but the ideal is the only thing protecting the Constitution and therefore, gay marriage, unable to procreate and raise a family have no place. Yes, in his argument the Attorney denies marital status to married couples who are unwilling or unable to have children, for reasons of age, biological, psychological or physical. These, unable to procreate are not marriage and "the family is created based on marriage has offspring" are not either, family. Go! I am glad that Mr. Chávez Chávez Attorney is not Secretary of Public Education or charge of DIF.

In one passage, the Attorney speaks of "natural principles" The same right impels the constitutional and ordinary legislature to organize and regulate the domestic partnership legally to protect and guarantee their basic structure and determine all those aspects which are not defined by natural principles. (Page 17 AIPGR)

In its reasoning, if the core of the family is marriage, it is clear says, this should be heterosexual because it is the only one who can procreate, thus the Homosexual couples do not have to access an institution they can not participate, and to do so are Coexistence Societies. Attorney then clear from the concept of family, the concept of marriage, which he said should therefore also to protect the Constitution. And is that the Constitution nowhere is talking about heterosexual marriage. Well, even if they want to twist rules at their convenience, even Article 30 paragraph B fraction II speaks of the marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the O is a condition that supports various combinations disjunctive true between the separate elements to this O. And nowhere is that marriage should be between a man and a women, the Attorney must extend his argument to talk about the ideal marriage, but in fact this issue has no place in a constitutional debate in Mexico.

As far as the second sociological concept, parenting or the ability to adopt homosexual marriages, the PGR on a presumption: that a child is adopted by a homosexual couple because one day not the child and placed in a potential disadvantage compared to other children in ideal families, and would therefore be discriminated. Literally says that with the adoption of a marriage homosexual can empower "children adopted n or find more suitable environment and suitable for development, thereby generating the one adopted a position of inequality and discrimination against others adopted by married couples made up of a man and a woman. "(pp. 85, 86 et seq AIPGR)

However, reading the AIPGR not clear why arriving at this conclusion, extra ñamente the Attorney General's Office no evidence. His argument is based on demonstrating that the Mexican government is obliged to ensure the interests of the child, via Article 4 of the Constitution and through international treaties, rules have been further developed and clarified through the interpretation of the Court, whose thesis provides the AIPGR. The AIPGR is a chair on the purpose of adoption and the importance of taking into account the interests of the adopted child, the importance of respecting the rights of or Nas and children and adolescents, but never proves Attorney why you think that living with a gay or lesbian parents may involve or damages, much less why integrate a child to a gay or lesbian parents may involve not take into account the interests of the adoptee and that this is a disadvantage or discrimination.

I think no one has made argument that children come before the desire to adopt an individual or couple (homosexual or heterosexual). The ALDF has started from the idea of \u200b\u200bopening up possibilities for orphaned children that also allow gay marriages to file an application to adopt. Also forget the Attorney two things 1) to adopt must be submitted to the applicant (individual or couple) to a strict screening process, which certainly prevails in the best interests of lower and 2) be adopted by an individual or heterosexual couples is not a guarantee for the child per se.

Starting from the assumption that it would be disadvantageous, discriminatory or harmful to a child live with homosexual parents, only by parental sexual preference, is in itself discriminatory. Attorney forgets that there are many children in families homo, but intends to legally conceal homosexuality.

b) Issues on the principle of legality and integrity of the legal order

On the legal side shows the Attorney confusion in the understanding of the need to justify or warrant the objective reasonableness of the issuance of a standard. Attorney that the legislature intended to justify how he did not enjoy a right necessitates the introduction of a permissive rule. That is, in the case, the Attorney said that the reform to 146 of the Civil Code is unconstitutional because the ALDF " not establish that fundamental right is restricted to people with other orientations or preferences for same-sex pre-reform . Nor does it demonstrate how the normal law of the Federal District before generating reform discrimination, violence, prejudice, exclusion or cancellation of equality. " (page 33 AIPGR)

The PGR confuses the principle of proportionality review in interference with fundamental rights, they say, that the ALDF does not comply with it by allowing same-sex marriage. The test of proportionality or reasonableness that includes a detailed analysis of the legitimacy, constitutionality, necessity, appropriateness and proportion to other property or rights of a reform applies only when it has intervened in a right and not when it is extended as is the case for reform of the Code Civil concretized same article 1 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with the 4 on the equality of men and women before the law to ensure equal tod @ s before the law. Motivate the need for reform in the sense of justifying an invasion of rights measure, is a basic principle of the rule of law. The adoption of proportionality or reasonableness test demonstrates that the measure adopted by the legislature is not authoritative (Übermaßverbot) but even when intervening in areas of constitutionally protected rights, is legitimate, is based on a standard is necessary, appropriate and proportionate the end. In this case it is understandable if the Attorney is reform as arbitrary or if he believes her rights are violated. I do not see how a reform that includes, violates rights, and instead find themselves on the reasoning of Attorney arbitrariness in wanting to limit rights of some people for their preferences without any constitutional basis. In any case must be the PGR who apply the principle of reasonableness of their claim, as we've made repeatedly by the German Constitutional Court in its interpretation of the marriage institution as security protected by the Constitution and which excludes same-sex couples.

In that sense, it is illogical to ask the legislature or, where appropriate, the reviewer branch of the Constitution, to make a test of reasonableness when extending rights to individuals. It would be as absurd as it would have required the Power Reviewer and President Fox to demonstrate why should not discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation (amendment to article 1 of the Constitution in 2001). Still, it seems that the PGR was read or not the preamble or the opinion of the reform commissions to 146 of the Civil Code as in both documents is explained at length why the exclusion of gay couples is discriminatory.

One aspect worth mentioning is that over AIPGR of the Federal Public Ministry, relieved of the burden of proof of negative facts (obviously impossible) to ALDF. He asks that encourages such non-reform of Article 391 (ie, motivation something that did not) and claims it did not establish that adoptions by gay couples does not harm children. Instead, as I said above, the Attorney does not provide hard data only not a single evidence of the existence of injury to children who presumed, but not shown.

Finally, and for what it does to the integrity of the legal order applies to a large extent, the reasoning of the Minister disposing Valls Disputes submitted by states because 1) civil matter is a local matter and therefore the ALDF can define marriage as it sees best and the marriage is not a constitutional institution and the concept of family is open 2) the Constitution resolves the conflict in setting policy Article 121 of civil acts valid under state law, will be in everyone else.

In conclusion I think the AIPGR no legal arguments to be sustainable in a constitutional state that is serious about its Constitution.

The next installment: the arguments of the Federal District. ALDF reports and GDF.