President Javier Milei’s decree to appoint justices Lijo and García-Mansilla to the Supreme Court is criticized for undermining judicial independence, bypassing Senate approval processes and provoking concerns over qualifications. Critics argue this action contravenes both constitutional norms and international human rights obligations that protect judicial impartiality. Human Rights Watch insists that the Senate must uphold its role in confirming such appointments.
Argentine President Javier Milei’s decision to appoint two new Supreme Court justices through a presidential decree has raised serious concerns regarding judicial independence, according to Human Rights Watch. On February 26, 2025, President Milei appointed federal judge Ariel Lijo and legal scholar Manuel García-Mansilla after struggling to secure Senate approval for months. This bypassing of Senate confirmation is argued to stem from a controversial interpretation of the Argentine Constitution.
Human Rights Watch’s Americas director, Juanita Goebertus, emphasized the significance of this action, stating, “Appointing Lijo and García-Mansilla by decree is one of the most serious attacks on the independence of the Supreme Court in Argentina since the country’s return to democracy.” Goebertus called on the Senate to uphold constitutional processes and reject appointments made without its consent.
The Milei administration announced the appointments were necessary because Congress had not respected the government’s candidate choices. However, numerous rights organizations, citizens, and scholars previously expressed concerns regarding the qualifications of Lijo and García-Mansilla, particularly Lijo’s pending disciplinary investigations and García-Mansilla’s views on sexual and reproductive health rights.
The Argentine Constitution permits presidential appointments during congressional recesses, although legal experts question whether this applies to Supreme Court justices. The lack of clarity around this provision raises concerns over whether it should pertain only to executive branch officials or also encompass judicial positions.
Argentina is bound by international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which mandate the protection of judicial independence. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights emphasizes that judges should be appointed through adequate processes that insulate them from influence by other branches of government.
Should judges be appointed via decree, the Senate retains the power to remove them, potentially stripping away their job security and independence. Human Rights Watch advocates for the Senate to review the appointments thoroughly when it reconvenes.
In a similar instance from 2015, then-President Mauricio Macri used the same constitutional provision for Supreme Court appointments. This action received widespread criticism despite the appointed justices eventually securing Senate approval before taking office.
Goebertus reiterated the fundamental implications of these appointments, stating, “By bypassing the ordinary Senate approval process and appointing a candidate with a troubling disciplinary record, the government is undermining the very foundations of judicial independence,” thus calling for a robust defense of democratic processes in Argentina.
The appointments of Ariel Lijo and Manuel García-Mansilla through presidential decree by President Milei are considered a significant violation of judicial independence in Argentina. Human Rights Watch stresses the importance of adhering to constitutional and democratic processes in judicial appointments. The Senate is urged to reinstate its role in confirming Supreme Court justices to maintain judicial integrity and independence. The ongoing debate over these appointments reflects broader concerns about the rule of law and executive overreach in Argentina.
Original Source: www.hrw.org
