A UN expert criticized President Milei’s judicial appointment decree, asserting it threatens Argentina’s judicial independence and gender equality. The constitutionally required Senate approval was bypassed, raising concerns about transparency and public trust. The appointments have drawn significant criticism from human rights organizations, citing potential violations of international law obligations.
On Wednesday, a UN expert raised alarms regarding Argentinian President Javier Milei’s judicial appointments made via presidential decree, warning that such actions threaten the independence of the judiciary, democratic principles, and gender equality within the system. UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, emphasized that the government must adhere to international human rights obligations, declaring, “The Executive is not above the law.”
Satterthwaite pointed out the potential repercussions stemming from heightened executive control over judicial appointments. This approach could compromise transparency and the separation of powers, diminish judicial tenure security, and limit public scrutiny, underscoring, “By ignoring judicial appointment processes established in the Constitution and clarified in statute, the President is evading legally-established checks and balances.”
Additionally, the appointment process will result in a completely male Supreme Court, which Satterthwaite referred to as “a step back for the country.” The absence of diversity and inclusiveness in the Court could result in a loss of legitimacy and public trust, violating the principle of non-retrogression concerning gender equality norms.
The controversial decree, issued on February 26, appointed a federal judge and a legal scholar to the Supreme Court, after Milei was unable to secure the requisite two-thirds Senate majority. The President commented that the Senate had “chosen to remain silent” concerning his nominee selections.
Responses to this decision have been vocally negative, with criticism from various human rights organizations. Juanita Goebertus of Human Rights Watch characterized the appointments as one of the most severe attacks on Supreme Court independence since Argentina’s return to democracy, asserting that Milei cannot circumvent institutional mechanisms.
The Argentinian Constitution mandates that Supreme Court candidates must be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, establishing a system of checks and balances to safeguard the rule of law. While the President has the authority to address vacancies that occur during congressional recess, the application of this provision to Supreme Court judicial vacancies remains unclear, raising significant legal questions regarding precedent.
In summary, the unilateral judicial appointments by President Milei have raised serious concerns regarding judicial independence, democratic integrity, and gender equality in Argentina. The decree’s implications challenge established constitutional processes and have sparked considerable backlash from human rights advocates. This situation emphasizes the necessity for adherence to the rule of law and proper judicial appointment protocols to maintain public trust in judicial institutions.
Original Source: www.jurist.org
