The Supreme Court of Justicia (TSJ) ratifies that the S-state absolutely sovereign, reason why cannot be put under foreign courts in as much does not exist a valid manifestation, it express and unequivocal to dissolve his conflicts in foreign jurisdictional organs " and remembers a sentence of the Constitutional Room on a denunciation of the Inter-American Convention to evade of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of DDHH.

In a writing of the maximum court he ratifies himself that the State “cannot be put under foreign courts” without a valid manifestation, it express and unequivocal”. He relativizes the effects of the arbitrations and remembers that a sentence of the Constitutional Room recommends to denounce the Inter-American Convention to evade of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court

“All decision or international award, can be object of constitutional control, if it is tried to execute in Venezuela, as it seated the Constitutional Room in a failure on the case referred to the Inter-American Court of Human rights versus. Judges of the Court First of the Contentious Office staff”, assured in an official notice press the Supreme Court Justice.

The text, entitled “consolidates the immunity of Venezuela in front of foreign courts”, indicates that “it is false that (...) to afir me who the Venezuelan Judicial Power does not have sovereign power to decide the controversies on contracts of public interest subscribed by the Republic or puts under the controversies derived from the same the foreign courts

The TSJ refers four sentences (Nros. 97/09, 1,942/03, 1,541/08 and 1,939/08) to assert that “the S-state absolutely sovereign, reason why cannot be put under foreign courts in as much does not exist a valid manifestation, it express and unequivocal to dissolve their conflicts in foreign jurisdictional organs”.

The maximum court of the country denies the interpretation in agreement with which, according to such failures, the consent of a civil servant so that Venezuela is judged and the condemned by foreign referees or courts in agreement with foreign laws would be enough. In contrast, he adduces: “The submission to foreign courts is not competition of any civil servant and, its exercise finds limitations of form - procedures and bottom - matters that can be put under foreign courts who guarantee the integrity of the Republic against the international interests”.

The sentences, according to the high court, indicate that in the case of investment arbitrations or the approval of any other mechanism that supposes the submission to an international jurisdiction - as the Penal Court the International, Cuts Inter-American of Human rights, subregional Courts like the Andean Court, centers of arbitration, conciliations, among others, “its validity and effectiveness requires, not only of the manifestation of will of the President of the Republic, but besides an approving law of the treaty on the part of the National Assembly”.

It stresses the possibility that the Republic, in carrying out its sovereignty and self-determination, can denounce an international treaty that considers harmful to its interests. “Sample of it, is the sentence N° 1,939/08, in which the Constitutional Room exhorted the National Executive so that it denounced the American Convention on Human rights, that put under the Republic to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of the Human rights, before the evident usurpation of functions that the same incurred”.