It may not create power out of technical convenience or bypass due process merely because an operation takes place through software.
Title III · primacy of the person · proposed internal rights
Rights, freedoms and safeguards
The proposed constitutional order starts from a simple and demanding idea: the person comes before the account, the system, property and the institution. Fundamental rights are not a decorative catalogue; they are legal limits on the State, parameters for technology and, in defined situations, protection against systemic private power.
Proposed Constitution · reference text · not promulgated
In brief
A right is not an abstract promise: it constrains concrete decisions.
Title III turns dignity, equality, liberty, fair process, expression, press freedom, conviction, association, property, family and access to effective remedies into criteria for the validity of power. Some rights may admit proportionate limitations; others have a non-derogable core or an absolute prohibition. Because the constitutional proposal remains proposed and has not been promulgated, this library explains the project’s constitutional architecture without pretending that constitutional force already exists.
A person-centred architecture
Art. 14 defines the human person as the original subject of rights and duties and rejects the idea that an account, digital wallet, credential, avatar, persona or automated agent can replace that person’s legal personality. This changes the logic of a digital State: losing technical access cannot mean disappearing in law.
Art. 35 makes dignity inviolable; Art. 36 requires equality and prohibits arbitrary discrimination; Art. 37 protects life, integrity and bodily autonomy. The rest of Title III builds procedural safeguards and freedoms that make those principles enforceable.
Rights as architectural limits
It is infrastructure. It must implement rights, evidence, challenge procedures, continuity and competent authority — not redefine them.
It explains, documents and routes. It does not decide a judgment, appeal, property right or identity in place of the competent sovereign module.
How to read this library
Each page below starts from the constitutional text, translates its consequences into concrete situations and states its limits. The content helps explain what a right prevents, what it requires and which question to ask when a public decision affects someone.
DignityThe person does not become an object of the system.EqualityEqual protection and non-discrimination.Life and integrityBody, mind, consent and safety.Torture and civil deathAbsolute prohibitions.LibertyCustody, movement and personal security.Due processDefence, the lawful judge and presumption of innocence.ExpressionCriticism, information and thresholds for restriction.PressJournalism and protection of sources.Conscience and religionTo believe, not believe, change belief and manifest convictions.AssociationAssembly, organisation, trade unions and strike.FamilyFamilies, children and evolving capacities.PropertyLegal title, contracts and expropriation.Constitutional remediesUrgent and collective protection, and reparation.Limits on rightsProportionality and non-derogable safeguards.Digital rightsData, automation, biometrics, autonomy, security and surveillance.
What this means for you
Practical consequences
An interface, ban or technical failure must not erase legal personality or permanently block access to essential rights.
When restricting a right, the State must identify the legal basis and constitutional purpose and justify why the measure is necessary and proportionate.
When harm has a systemic source, the Constitution permits collective and structural responses instead of forcing thousands of people to repeat the same claim.
Limits and institutional honesty
What this safeguard does not authorise
This library does not claim that the rights already have constitutional force: the constitutional proposal remains proposed and has not been promulgated.
Fundamental rights do not mean the absence of rules; several freedoms may be subject to general and proportionate regulation, while absolute prohibitions cannot be relativised.
The GOV summary does not replace the constitutional text or a decision by the competent authority.
Continue reading