1E9Ct5D

330C H A P T E R X X INevertheless, this reform was just the first step to accessing the benefits established bythis new regime. It was still necessary to have a law regulating and implementing theapplication of Article 113 of the Constitution.With this in mind, the Permanent Constitutional Convention (Congreso ConstituyentePermanente) established a maximum term of two years from the entrance in force of thereform for the federal and local authorities to issue the necessary laws to regulate andestablish the effective enforcement of the reform.Having this deadline, the Congress of the Union issued the law entitled Federal Lawof State Liability (Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Patrimonial del Estado), published in theOfficial Federal Gazette on December 31, 2004.As can be inferred, this law is of great relevance to all private parties, Mexican or foreign,that for some reason may have suffered harm or losses caused by the State. This lawattempts to clarify the ambiguous terms in which the constitutional reform was draftedand, above all, attempts to make effective a right that for many years was denied to privateparties in our country: the right to be indemnified for the damages and losses causedby the State. It is necessary to determine in what cases, to what extent, in what terms,how, and when this right can be asserted.2. Statutory Presumptions for IndemnificationThe State is only liable for the payment of damages and losses caused by administrativeacts, regardless of the state body that engages in them, whether Executive, Legislative,Judicial or any other public entity.This limitation excludes the damages and losses caused by acts materially legislativeand judicial, and therefore private parties may not demand an indemnification for damagesand losses caused to them by a law or a court decision.Despite the criticisms that can be made of it this limitation was introduced in the Constitutionitself, which eliminates the possibility of the validity of an amparo proceeding. Thereasons on which the Permanent Constitutional Convention based said limitation were fundamentallythat the immense majority of the acts by which harm is caused to private partiesoccur in the administrative sphere, in addition to the fact that, for budget reasons, itwould be very difficult to attend and satisfy all the claims filed against damages and lossescaused by judicial decisions and, above all, by the laws, given their general nature.In addition, for the State to be obligated to respond for the damages and losses itcauses to private parties through its administrative activity, there is an additional requirement:this activity must be irregular.This concept of irregular administrative activity raises some doubts with respect to thescope of State liability, since it would seem that the concepts of irregular and unlawful aresimilar, thereby basically erasing the strict nature of State liability.