Mexico City.- International judges and academics warned that the judicial reform promoted by Morena will end the judicial career in Mexico, is incompatible with international standards and treaties, and will be counterproductive for the incoming government.
“Prior, diligent and sufficient reflection and consideration of empirical evidence, comparative law and contributions from experts is required, without incurring in haste or partial perspectives, which, instead of providing comprehensive, consistent and effective solutions to the serious problems and challenges of the entire justice system, not just the judiciary, entails the risk of worsening impunity, corruption, nepotism, influence peddling and delays in justice,” warned José de Jesús Orozco, former president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
The above, during the International Meeting on Judicial Independence, convened by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a few days before Morena and its allies rule in the Chamber of Deputies on the initiative to elect all the country’s judges by popular vote.
Marcelo Gallo Tagle, president of the Latin American Federation of Magistrates, said that the mass dismissal of judges would retroactively affect appointments that were properly made.
“Talking about judges’ privileges is simply a media label to try to denigrate the image of the Judiciary and misinform citizens.”
Carlos Ayala, also a former president of the IACHR, said he was concerned about the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal (TDJ) proposed by the Morena reform, also elected by popular vote, since everything indicates that it is a tribunal to review sentences, not to review the conduct of judges.
The objective of greater legitimacy is not achieved with this constitutional reform, he added, because there is no clarity on how the candidates, who will be proposed by the three Powers, will be chosen.
“I don’t see citizens participating in the selection of candidates, I don’t see them contributing, making proposals, I don’t see transparency. It’s an act of electoral suffrage, I don’t see citizen protagonism,” said Ayala Corao.
Francisca Pou, from UNAM’s Institute for Legal Research, described it as “a nightmare” to have to be discussing such basic issues as judicial independence, instead of a reform that advances issues that have been raised for 30 years, such as improving prosecutors’ offices, investigative police and state courts.
“(The reform) was a campaign idea by the current president, which was based on an alternative proposal that was being prepared by his party’s candidate, and which is suddenly occupying the center of the discussions, and which is proposed to be voted on after being evaluated by a commission of the outgoing Congress, and immediately by the incoming Congress. This is nonsense, it is equivalent to the weakening and destruction of the judicial career,” added Julio Ríos, researcher at ITAM.
Ríos Farjat urges better communication from the CJF
Margarita Ríos-Farjat, a Supreme Court justice, urged the Federal Judicial Council to improve its communication processes with society, after moderating one of the panels at the Meeting.
“I think that the Judicial Council does need to communicate, for example, the sanctioning processes, the statistics. Of course corruption exists, it is a human institution,” he said.
“The Council has failed to communicate, at least statistically, how many judicial officials have been sanctioned, in what way and why, so that it can be seen that this does exist and that sanctions are imposed.”
#International #judges #academics #criticize #reform
