A UN expert expressed concerns that President Javier Milei’s appointments of Supreme Court justices by decree undermine judicial independence, democracy, and gender equality, urging adherence to international human rights obligations and constitutional processes.
A recent statement by a UN expert raised concerns regarding the appointments of Argentinian Supreme Court justices by President Javier Milei through a presidential decree. Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, emphasized that such actions threaten judicial independence, democracy, and gender equality in Argentina, urging the government to uphold its international human rights obligations.
Satterthwaite pointed out the adverse consequences of increasing executive oversight over judicial appointments, warning that this could undermine transparency, the separation of powers, and the security of judicial tenure. By bypassing the constitutionally mandated appointment processes, she stated, the President is circumventing critical legal safeguards meant to maintain a balanced government structure.
The new appointments will result in an all-male Supreme Court, which Satterthwaite deemed a regression for gender equality in the country. She argued that the absence of female justices not only threatens the credibility of judicial institutions but also contravenes established gender equality norms that promote inclusivity and diversity.
On February 26, the Milei administration issued a decree appointing a federal judge and a legal scholar as Supreme Court justices. This action followed the President’s inability to secure a two-thirds majority in the Senate for regular appointments, leading him to declare that the Senate had failed to honor his government’s choices.
The decision has garnered significant backlash from various domestic and international human rights organizations and scholars. Juanita Goebertus from Human Rights Watch characterized these appointments as a severe threat to Supreme Court independence since Argentina’s return to democracy, asserting that Milei cannot bypass institutional mechanisms for judicial selection.
According to the Argentinian Constitution, Supreme Court candidates must be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate, ensuring judicial selections align with checks and balances. Although the Constitution allows the President to fill vacancies requiring Senate approval during congressional recess, the applicability of this provision to Supreme Court vacancies remains contentious and lacks clear precedent.
As a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, Argentina is obligated to maintain the independence and impartiality of the judicial system through proper, interference-free appointment processes, devoid of political influence.
In summary, the UN expert’s grave concerns over the recent Supreme Court appointments in Argentina highlight the potential threats to judicial independence and democratic processes posed by presidential decrees. The absence of female justices within the Supreme Court raises alarm regarding gender equality and public legitimacy. The episode emphasizes the necessity for adherence to constitutional stipulations and international human rights obligations for ensuring a fair and impartial judicial system in Argentina.
Original Source: www.jurist.org
