A UN expert criticized Argentinian President Milei’s decree to appoint Supreme Court justices, warning it undermines judicial independence, democracy, and gender equality. The lack of women justices and bypassing constitutional processes sparked widespread condemnation from human rights organizations. The appointments raised questions about their compliance with Argentina’s obligations under international human rights conventions.
On Wednesday, a UN expert raised alarms regarding Argentinian President Javier Milei’s use of a presidential decree to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, argued that this action could threaten judicial independence, democracy, and gender equity in Argentina. She urged the government to honor its international human rights commitments, stressing that “The Executive is not above the law.”
Satterthwaite elaborated on the detrimental effects of excessive executive control over judicial appointments. She indicated that this could compromise transparency, weaken the separation of powers, jeopardize judicial security, and limit public oversight. Furthermore, she remarked, “By ignoring judicial appointment processes established in the Constitution and clarified in statute, the President is evading legally-established checks and balances.”
Significantly, the appointments resulted in the absence of women in the Supreme Court, which Satterthwaite deemed as “a step back for the country.” She emphasized that a lack of gender diversity might undermine the legitimacy of judicial institutions and violate established gender equality norms, contributing to a perception of non-inclusiveness within the judicial system.
The Milei administration enacted a presidential decree on February 26 to appoint a federal judge and a legal scholar to the Supreme Court, after failing to secure a two-thirds Senate majority through conventional means. President Milei criticized the Senate, claiming they had “chosen to remain silent” regarding judicial nominees.
This decree sparked widespread condemnation from various human rights activists and organizations. Juanita Goebertus, Americas Director at Human Rights Watch, described the action as “one of the most serious attacks on the independence of the Supreme Court in Argentina since the country’s return to democracy,” asserting that Milei “cannot pretend to evade the institutional mechanisms.”
According to the Argentinian Constitution, Supreme Court nominees must be proposed by the President and require Senate approval to ensure checks and balances are retained. While the President is indeed empowered to fill vacancies during congressional recessions, there is ambiguity concerning whether Supreme Court vacancies fit this designation. This has led numerous scholars to question the appropriateness of this procedure for such high-ranking judicial appointments.
As a signatory to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, Argentina must ensure the independence and impartiality of its judiciary, mandating that judges be appointed through an appropriate process devoid of political influence.
In conclusion, the recent appointment of Supreme Court justices by presidential decree in Argentina has raised significant concerns regarding judicial independence, democratic principles, and gender equality. The UN expert’s criticisms highlight the implications of such actions for the integrity of the judicial system and the urgent need for adherence to constitutional processes. As Argentina navigates these challenges, the importance of safeguarding judicial impartiality and ensuring inclusive representation becomes increasingly pressing.
Original Source: www.jurist.org
