DECREE: 1189/2022 For filed, deducting amparo action; and established the domicile. ATTENTION THAT: According to art. 6 inc. 1 of Law No. 16,011, the judge can "at any time" order proceedings to better provide. Substantiating the process, otherwise, in a single hearing. Which, in analogy with the extraordinary process (art. 346 of the CGP), enables the prior processing that will be available already in this early phase of the evolution of the case. The one suggested by the plaintiff, and another arranged by judicial inquisitive initiative (arts. 14 inc.1, 24 nº 4, 25.2 and 139.2 of the CGP). Well, it is necessary to have a maximum of factual elements of judgment to elaborate the weighting pertinent to the object of the amparo. Which cannot be done with authentic validity, if it is not based on real facts, duly contrasted. First and necessarily, the reality on which it is projected must be studied. Depth of analysis that is also justified as soon as the substance of the rights eventually in conflict is appreciated. For this reason, it is that they will resort to the court's power of evidentiary initiative. RESOLVED:
Present a certified copy of each and every one of the purchase contracts (as well as any other negotiation or related agreement), of the so-called anti-Covid vaccines that you have subscribed, possess or simply are within your reach. In complete and untested versions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, state whether said instruments have contained civil indemnity and/or criminal impunity clauses for suppliers; Regarding the occurrence of possible adverse effects of the acquired drugs (all those intended to combat SarsCov-2, Covid 19 and variants, whether or not it is technically defined as a vaccine). Transcribing verbatim, if positive, the clauses in question. Provide extensive detail about the biochemical composition of the so-called vaccines against SarsCov-2 (Covid 19); in supply to the national population. As for each of them (types and brands). Especially the one aimed at the population of minors. Explain if the doses are distributed by batches or differential batches (different). And in your case, clarify: for what reason, and based on what criteria, each one would be provided to different population groups; whether the drugs in each batch are diverse in content (or for whatever reason); and how and for whom they would be distinguishable. If the real existence of different batches turns out to be, it is established that enough doses of each of them are requested -for judicial expert examination. properly separated. Specify if the so-called vaccines (or which of them), contain the substance called "messenger RNA". Being served to explain, in your case, what it means. And, more than anything, what therapeutic or extra-therapeutic consequences -adverse or not- can they entail for the person inoculated with it. It must be specified in regard to the latter, and in a negative hypothesis in terms of alleged damages, if it is indeed established -with scientific rigor- the possible innocuousness of the "messenger" RNA; or if information is simply lacking at the point. In the same way as the immediately preceding, and with the same detail of individual or collective biological implications, the possible presence of graphene oxide in the so-called vaccines available to the population is reported. Highlighting whether data is actually available in this regard or not. Exactly in the same way as what was questioned in relation to the “messenger” RNA. In addition, very specifically and beyond what has been inquired, it is requested that it be stated if it is known to you that those labeled as vaccines contain or may contain nanotechnological elements. Clarifying, if not, if such a temperament would be born from an effective verification of its absence, or from the mere ignorance of the components of the "vaccinal" substances of reference. Certify whether the substances contained in the so-called vaccines supplied in Uruguay are experimental or not. That is to say, that it exposes in detail and in detail if they are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or an equivalent body, according to the usual protocols. Or if they have some other type of emergency permit. And in this case, granted by whom and with what guarantees. And based on what regulations? In short, you must also answer if you are aware that either the manufacturer and/or supplier, or some academic or governmental body (national or foreign), have admitted -in whatever credible manner- the experimental nature of the aforementioned "vaccines". Present the information in your possession, complete and updated, about what is scientifically known -and not known- about the effectiveness of those labeled as vaccines; and its possible subsequent effects in the short, medium and long term (including possible adverse effects). Provide the official figures that demonstrate the negative or positive incidence of the so-called vaccination in the number of infections and deaths with a Covid diagnosis. From the start of the campaign to date. State whether studies have been carried out to explain the notorious increase in deaths from Covid 19 as of March 2021 (compared to the previous year). Or if there is information in your possession -with sufficient scientific and probative support- in this regard. Detail, in relation to all the deaths in Uruguay with a diagnosis of Covid 19 since the pending of the so-called pandemic, the global average age; and, in addition, how many were “due to” Covid 19 (in an exclusive causal relationship), and how many “with” Covid 19 (that is, with the presence of the virus, but not an absolute or central, main determinant of death) . Demonstrate scientifically (evidencing the national or international studies that have been carried out), if the non-vaccinated condition entails a health hazard for the population as a whole (for third parties, that is, not for themselves). Or if it isn't. In a positive case, two other things will be required: the determination and demonstration of the degree of danger, and the reason that explains why, if this were to be the case, the vaccination would not have been mandatory. Adding if both the vaccinated and the non-inoculated infect equally, or not. And if it is considered that they do it in different magnitudes, explain how this would be and in what proportions. All duly accompanied by elements that allow to prove what is affirmed. Clearly explain the reasons for the lack of informed consent, in relation to the component acts of what the government presents as a "vaccination campaign". Detail, with names and surnames, the identity of the professional technicians who have directed and direct the aforementioned campaign. Or they have provided advice at any level. Also providing the pertinent data for their location in order to their judicial interrogation (subpoena). Adding to the required information, information about whether any of them is part of any foreign government or para-government organization. Or has worked for any of them in any way. Or, in your case, journal in a multinational company with a focus on health care (or work for your benefit in any way). If so, detailing the personal names and organizations or companies involved. State whether alternative anti-Covid 19 therapies have been studied (for any of its variants). If not, please clarify why those outlets were not explored. If so, give the investigative results; realizing whether those were used in Uruguay or not. And for this last option, provide the reasons that would have been had to discard them. Adding whether or not you know that they have been used in other countries with success, even relative, or not. In the rest, it is specified to those required that: a) All requests for information must be fulfilled cumulatively. This is, completely, integrally; and with total independence of the answers of the rest. That is to say, that the global intimation that is made, supposes that it cannot be understood that the satisfaction of one of its commandments leaves without effect any other. It cannot be taken for granted that the answer of one can contain that of another. b) In the event of difficulties in preparing the pertinent answers, it is requested from now on that they explain what they could be in the same term. In extensive detail. This in order to judicial evaluation of the same. Asking, if so, the chronological forecast of a possible effective response. Being stated here, even when it is obvious, the speed that the summary structure of the amparo imposes on the decision maker; and the rigorous duties of collaboration -private and state- with the Justice. c) In the event of a directly negative response, the corresponding factual and legal justification is required. This information will be required, all together, and by identical summons to the PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH and PFIZER LABORATORY. In the rest, be intimate as requested in the lawsuit. All notifications must be answered within 48 hours or, where appropriate, before the scheduled hearing. Which is set for Wednesday, July 6 at 9 am. Enabling special hours. And summon the witnesses proposed in the lawsuit. And, by judicial initiative, to Gustavo Alberto Giacheto or Giaccheto, residing at Pza. Cagancha 1322, apt. 802. As well as responsible personnel (at the management and scientific level), of the Pfizer Laboratory in Uruguay. Very especially, PFIZER will be instructed to state within 48 hours -with the provision of documentary data if applicable- if the company has admitted, in any sphere, internal or external to it and its partners, the verification of adverse effects of the vaccines against the so-called Covid-19. In general, and also in detail regarding the child population. Everything that is committed. And the rest, keep in mind.