The cross-fertilization of jurisprudence and the principle of proportionality : process and result from a canadian perspective

Modern comparative constitutionalism traces back at least to the practice of some states in the post-World War II era of adopting democratic regimes as well as constitutionally entrenched bills of rights. It has since been fueled by the proliferation of international human rights instruments, which has increased with the end of the Cold War. Significant attention was first paid to comparative constitutional structure, but many states have now reached another stage. As notably witnessed by the works of the Council of Europe and especially those of the Venice Commission in the domain of constitutional justice, the question now is no longer about constitutionalism, including whether rights should be constitutionally protected, as much as it is about constitutional justice: how to effectively implement constitutions. Both on a regional and a global level, mutual inspiration is increasingly drawn from the case-law of peer Courts of other countries and even other continents, which gives rise to a cross-fertilisation phenomenon. One constitutional principle that emerges from, and which is still being forged by, such cross-fertilisation is the principle according to which the limitation of human rights and freedoms must be proportional to states’ objectives, that is, the principle of proportionality. More specifically, our topic is about both the historical process of jurisprudential cross-fertilisation and its functional result as far as the principle of proportionality is concerned. We speak from a Canadian perspective. The aim here is to be able to distinguish between what is common and what is distinctive about the Canadian approach

Epidemiological role of humans, dogs and cats in the transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi in a central area of Argentina

Trypanosoma cruzi prevalence rates of human, dog and cat populations from 47 households of 3 rural localities of the phytogeographical Chaqueña area of Argentina were determined both by serological and xenodiagnostic procedures. Human prevalence rates were uniform and ranged from 49.6 to 58.7%. Overall prevalence rate in dogs (75.0%) was significantly higher than in humans (51.0%). The overall proportion of parasitemic individuals assessed by xenodiagnosis was significantly higher in either dog (64.2%) or cat (63.6%) populations than among humans (12.5%). Although both the average number of resident as well as infected individuals per household was higher for people than for dogs (6.5 vs. 3.3, and 3.4 vs. 2.4, respectively), the reverse was recorded when parasitemic individuals were considered (1.0 vs. 2.1). Results are discussed in relation to dog between dogs and people, and dogs and bugs. In the light of present data, dogs must be considered as the major donors of parasites to vector bugs and thus, principal contributors to transmission in this region of Argentina