Carlos Felipe B.Managing partner and founder
The consolidation of the contemporary constitutional state has required the creation of mechanisms to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution over all other sources of law , including international law . In the Dominican Republic , this objective is achieved through the preventive review of the constitutionality of international treaties, the relevance of which has been reaffirmed in Constitutional Court Ruling TC/0171/26.
This decision constitutes a paradigmatic example of the role played by the Constitutional Court as guarantor of the coherence between the State's international commitments and the internal constitutional order .
The preventive control of constitutionality is based on Articles 6 and 185.2 of the Constitution, as well as Law No. 137-11. This mechanism requires that every international treaty signed by the Executive Branch be submitted to the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court before its approval by the National Congress , in order to verify its compatibility with the supreme law.
As the Court itself points out, this control aims to prevent the Dominican State from assuming international obligations contrary to the Constitution, thus preserving the rule of law and the normative hierarchy.
In the case under review, the Court examined the agreement signed between the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Azerbaijan concerning visa exemptions for holders of diplomatic, official, and service passports. This international instrument aims to facilitate the mobility of certain officials and strengthen bilateral relations between the two States.
One of the central aspects of the analysis was the impact of the agreement on the fundamental right to freedom of movement. The Court recognized that the elimination of the visa requirement constitutes a measure that facilitates the exercise of this right by removing administrative barriers and promoting the international movement of people under specific conditions.
However, it was clarified that freedom of movement is not an absolute right, but rather can be regulated by law without affecting its essential core. In this sense, the agreement is compatible with the Constitution, as it establishes reasonable limits, such as the maximum length of stay and the obligation to comply with the domestic legislation of the receiving state.
Another key element addressed by the Court was respect for the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. The Dominican Constitution establishes the inviolability of national sovereignty and prohibits any form of external interference in the internal affairs of the State.
The Court found that the agreement incorporates sufficient safeguards to guarantee these principles, such as the power of each State to deny entry or stay to persons considered unwelcome, as well as the possibility of suspending the treaty for reasons of national security, public order or health.
Furthermore, the principle of adherence to domestic law is reaffirmed, establishing that the beneficiaries of the agreement must respect the laws and regulations of the host country. This provision ensures that international openness does not imply a waiver of the State's regulatory authority.
Regarding the dynamics inherent in treaties, the judgment also addresses aspects such as the possibility of amending the agreement, the resolution of disputes through diplomatic mechanisms, and the conditions for entry into force and termination. On all these points, the Court concludes that the international instrument conforms to constitutional standards and applicable international law.
Of particular importance is the reiteration of the principle that any future modification that creates new obligations for the State must be subject to preventive constitutional review again. This reinforces the continuous nature of this control mechanism and its function as a permanent filter for constitutionality.