- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 9,188
- 0
- 6
A UN expert on Wednesday warned that Argentinian President Javier Milei’s temporary judicial appointment by presidential decree would undermine the country’s judicial independence, democracy, and gender equality.
UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Margaret Satterthwaite urged the Argentinian government to comply with its binding international human rights obligations, stating: “The Executive is not above the law.”
Satterthwaite noted the negative impacts of the improper increase of executive or legislative control over judicial appointments, emphasizing that it may erode transparency and separation of powers, degrade the security of judicial tenure, and restrain space for public scrutiny and contestation. She said: “By ignoring judicial appointment processes established in the Constitution and clarified in statute, the President is evading legally-established checks and balances.”
Moreover, no women justices will serve in the Supreme Court after the appointment, which Satterthwaite viewed as “a step back for the country.” She highlighted that the lack of inclusiveness and diversity might diminish the judicial institutions’ legitimacy and public trust and also violate “the rule of non-retrogression in relation to gender equality norms.”
The Milei administration issued a presidential decree on February 26 to appoint a federal judge and a legal scholar as Supreme Court justices. The decree came after Milei failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds Senate majority votes to fill the vacancies under normal procedures. The president stated that the Senate “chose to remain silent” and “had avoided respecting the decision of this government” regarding nominees whose “suitability for the positions had been demonstrated.”
The decision sparked extensive criticism from numerous domestic and international human rights groups and scholars. Americas Director at Human Rights Watch Juanita Goebertus described the appointment as “one of the most serious attacks on the independence of the Supreme Court in Argentina since the country’s return to democracy,” stressing that Milei “cannot pretend to evade the institutional mechanisms.”
The Argentinian Constitution requires candidates for Supreme Court appointments to be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, aiming to ensure that judicial selections are subject to checks and balances and adhere to the rule of law. Although the constitution empowers the president to “fill employment vacancies that require Senate approval and that occur during a congressional recess,” there was no precedent on how this provision applies to Supreme Court justices. Hence, many scholars questioned whether Supreme Court vacancies fall into the scope of “employment vacancies” in the provision normally referring to ambassadors, members of the military, and other executive branch officials.
As a contracting party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, Argentina is obliged to safeguard the independence and impartiality of the judicial system by appointing judges through an adequate process without interference from political branches of government.
The post UN expert expresses concerns over Argentina Supreme Court appointments by presidential decree appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Margaret Satterthwaite urged the Argentinian government to comply with its binding international human rights obligations, stating: “The Executive is not above the law.”
Satterthwaite noted the negative impacts of the improper increase of executive or legislative control over judicial appointments, emphasizing that it may erode transparency and separation of powers, degrade the security of judicial tenure, and restrain space for public scrutiny and contestation. She said: “By ignoring judicial appointment processes established in the Constitution and clarified in statute, the President is evading legally-established checks and balances.”
Moreover, no women justices will serve in the Supreme Court after the appointment, which Satterthwaite viewed as “a step back for the country.” She highlighted that the lack of inclusiveness and diversity might diminish the judicial institutions’ legitimacy and public trust and also violate “the rule of non-retrogression in relation to gender equality norms.”
The Milei administration issued a presidential decree on February 26 to appoint a federal judge and a legal scholar as Supreme Court justices. The decree came after Milei failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds Senate majority votes to fill the vacancies under normal procedures. The president stated that the Senate “chose to remain silent” and “had avoided respecting the decision of this government” regarding nominees whose “suitability for the positions had been demonstrated.”
The decision sparked extensive criticism from numerous domestic and international human rights groups and scholars. Americas Director at Human Rights Watch Juanita Goebertus described the appointment as “one of the most serious attacks on the independence of the Supreme Court in Argentina since the country’s return to democracy,” stressing that Milei “cannot pretend to evade the institutional mechanisms.”
The Argentinian Constitution requires candidates for Supreme Court appointments to be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, aiming to ensure that judicial selections are subject to checks and balances and adhere to the rule of law. Although the constitution empowers the president to “fill employment vacancies that require Senate approval and that occur during a congressional recess,” there was no precedent on how this provision applies to Supreme Court justices. Hence, many scholars questioned whether Supreme Court vacancies fall into the scope of “employment vacancies” in the provision normally referring to ambassadors, members of the military, and other executive branch officials.
As a contracting party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, Argentina is obliged to safeguard the independence and impartiality of the judicial system by appointing judges through an adequate process without interference from political branches of government.
The post UN expert expresses concerns over Argentina Supreme Court appointments by presidential decree appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.