El informe desarrolla el derecho a la educación de Marleni y Elita Cieza, jóvenes de 18 y 19 años, quienes solicitaron inscribirse en el primer grado de secundaria en el colegio más cercano a su localidad. Sin embargo, su inscripción fue observada por el director de la UGEL, quien, basándose en la LGE, concluyó que debían asistir a un CEBR. Esta decisión no consideró que dicha medida vulneraba el derecho a la educación de las jóvenes, ya que los problemas de
accesibilidad limitaban su posibilidad para asistir a ese centro. El TC consideró que el caso era representativo para varias personas en condiciones similares: ruralidad y extrema pobreza y, en consecuencia, declaró un ECI sobe el derecho a la educación. En ese sentido, el problema principal del caso pretende evidenciar si la vulneración del derecho a la educación ameritaba la declaración de un ECI por parte del TC. Para ello, se hace referencia a las obligaciones del Estado sobre educación reconocidas en la Constitución y también a las características del derecho señaladas en las Observaciones Generales 13 del Comité de DESC. Finalmente, se emplea jurisprudencia relevante para definir las características y alcance del ECI. / The report explores the right to education of Marleni and Elita Cieza, aged 18 and 19, who sought enrollment in the first grade of secondary school at the nearest local school. However, their enrollment was contested by the director of the Local Education Management Unit, who, based on the General Education Law, concluded that they should attend a Regular Basic Education Center. This decision did not consider that such a measure violated the young women's right
to education, as accessibility issues limited their ability to attend that center. The Constitutional Court considered the case representative of several individuals in similar conditions—rural and extreme poverty—and consequently declared a State of Unconstitutionality concerning the right to education. In this regard, the main issue of the case aims to demonstrate whether the violation of the right to education warranted the Constitutional Court declaring a State of Unconstitutionality. To this end, reference is made to the state's obligations regarding education as recognized in the Constitution, as well as the characteristics of the right outlined in General Comment No. 13 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Finally, relevant jurisprudence is employed to define the characteristics and scope of the State of Unconstitutionality.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PUCP/oai:tesis.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.12404/28656 |
| Date | 13 August 2024 |
| Creators | Usca Quispe, Kely Grace |
| Contributors | Cruces Burga, Alberto |
| Publisher | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, PE |
| Source Sets | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Language | Spanish |
| Detected Language | Spanish |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis |
| Format | application/pdf, application/pdf, application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds