He claims a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (e), as no witnesses were called to testify against him, and no witnesses were tendered for cross-examination by counsel appearing for the author.

The authors regard the fact that, in the amparo proceedings before the Constitutional Court, they were denied the opportunity to appear without being represented by counsel to be contrary to article 14, paragraph 1, and article 26 of the Covenant, since article 81, paragraph 1, of the Constitutional Court Organization Act allows a lawyer, but not a lay person, to represent himself or herself or to appear without counsel, thus exonerating the lawyer from expensive private correspondence.

3.2 The author considers it contrary to articles 14, paragraph 1, and 26 of the Covenant that, in the amparo proceedings in the Constitutional Court, he was denied the possibility of appearing without being represented by counsel, since article 81.1 of the Court's Organizational Act enables persons who hold law degrees to appear in amparo proceedings without counsel, whereas persons who do not hold law degrees must be assisted by counsel.