84 law.” 298 Other domestic courts have also referred to the limits of democracy in relation to the protection of fundamental rights. 299                                                          298 Supreme Court of Justice del Uruguay, Case of Nibia Sabalsagaray Curutchet, supra note 163: [...] The ratification which took place in the referendum appeal brought against the Law in 1989 does not project any significant consequence in relation to the constitutional analysis to be performed [...] Moreover, the direct exercise of popular sovereignty by way of a derogatory referendum derogatory of the laws sanctioned by the Legislature only have the aforementioned possible range, but the rejection of the waiver by the public does not extend its effectiveness to the point of providing coverage to a rule of constitutional law flawed "ab origine" for violating rules or principles laid down or approved by the Charter. As Luigi says Ferrajoli, constitutional rules which establish the principles and fundamental rights guarantee the material dimensions of the "substantial democracy," which refers to that which can not be decided or is to be decided by the majority, linking the legislation, under penalty of invalidity, with the enforcement of fundamental rights and other axiological principles established by it [...] The author characterizes as the metajuridical fallacy the confusion between the paradigm of the rule of law and a political democracy, in which a rule is legitimate only if it is desired by the majority [...].” 299 Because domestic tribunals have ruled, based on international obligations, with respect to the threshold value of, be it, the legislative Branch or the mechanisms of direct democracy, as in the cases of: a). The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica, on August 9, 2010, stated that it was not constitutionally valid to subject to popular vote (referendum) a bill that would allow for civil unions between persons of the same sex that was pending before the Legislative Assembly, because such a means could not be used to decide issues of human rights guaranteed in international treaties. In this regard, the Constitutional Court noted that "the human rights enshrined in the instruments of public international law -declarations and conventions on the matterare a substantial bulwark of freedom configuration of the legislature, both ordinary and eminently popular through the referendum. [...] The reforming or constituent power-derived –in regard to the constituting power- is limited by the essence of human and fundamental rights, so that, by way of partial amendment of the constitution, can not reduce or curtail the essence of those [...]. It is necessary to add that the rights of the minorities, because of its undeniable nature, are an eminently technical legal issue that must be held by the ordinary legislative majorities and not prone to denial "Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica, Judgement No 2010013313 on August 10, 2010, Case File 10-008331-0007CO, Considering clause VI. b). The Constitutional Court of stated that a democratic process requires certain rules that limit the power of the majority expressed in the polls to protect the minority: "the old identification of the people with the majority expressed in the polls is not enough to attribute a democratic nature to a regime that, in actuality, is also based in the respect of the minority […] The institutionalization of the people prevents soveriegnty that lies within from functioning as a pretext for the exercise of its power unknown to any legal limit and detached from any form of control. The democratic process, if genuine and truly is so, requires the establishment and maintenance of rules that channel the manifestations of popular will, and prevent a majority from speaking on behalf of the people to the exlcusion of some [...].” Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-141 of 2010 of February 26, 2010, M.P. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, where it decides on the constitutionality of Law 1354 of 2009, of the summons to a constituitonal referendum. c) The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation in Article139.3 states that "when a popular initiative does not respect theprinciple of unity of form, the unit of matter or the mandatory provisions of international law, the Federal Assembly will declare it totally or partially void." The Swiss Federal Council, in a report by March 5, 2010 on the relationship between international law and domestic law, ruled on the norms it considered as imperative to international law. In that regard, it noted that these standards are: rules prohibiting the use of force between states, the prohibitions on torture, genocide and slavery as well as the core of international humanitarian law (prohibition of attack on physical integrity, hostage taking, attacks on the dignity of persons and carrying out of executions without trial by a regularly constituted court) and the intangibles of the guarantees of the European Convention of Human Rights. http://www.eda.admin.ch/etc/medialib/downloads/edazen/topics/intla/cintla.Par.0052.File.tmp /La%20relation%20entre%20droit%20international%20et%20droit%20interne.pdf, last accessed on February 23, 2011.(translation of the Secretariat of the Court).