UN expert Margaret Satterthwaite raised concerns over Argentinian President Javier Milei’s appointments to the Supreme Court via presidential decree, warning it undermines judicial independence, democracy, and gender equality. The appointments, which left the court without any women justices, provoked widespread criticism from human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, emphasizing the importance of adhering to constitutional checks and balances. As a party to international human rights frameworks, Argentina must ensure the independence of its judiciary and uphold proper appointment processes free from political influence.
On Wednesday, a United Nations expert expressed serious concerns regarding the temporary judicial appointments made by Argentinian President Javier Milei through presidential decree. This action is viewed as a potential threat to judicial independence, democracy, and gender equality within the country. UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, urged the government to adhere to its international human rights obligations, emphasizing that “The Executive is not above the law.”
Satterthwaite highlighted the detrimental effects of increased executive control over judicial appointments, which could result in diminished transparency, separation of powers, and judicial tenure security. She remarked that the President’s decision to bypass established judicial appointment processes represents an evasion of legally mandated checks and balances: “By ignoring judicial appointment processes established in the Constitution and clarified in statute, the President is evading legally-established checks and balances.”
Notably, the recent appointments will leave the Supreme Court without any female justices, which Satterthwaite considers a regressive development for Argentina. She cautioned that the absence of female representation erodes institutional legitimacy and public trust, infringing upon gender equality norms and signaling a “step back for the country.”
The appointment of a federal judge and a legal scholar to the Supreme Court occurred via presidential decree on February 26 after Milei could not secure the required two-thirds majority in the Senate. The President criticized the Senate for its silence and failure to address his nominations, citing prior demonstrations of their suitability for the roles.
This presidential decision has drawn significant backlash from various human rights organizations and legal experts. Juanita Goebertus, Americas Director at Human Rights Watch, labeled the appointment as one of the most severe assaults on judicial independence in Argentina since its return to democracy, asserting that Milei “cannot pretend to evade the institutional mechanisms.”
According to the Argentinian Constitution, Supreme Court candidates must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, ensuring a system of checks and balances. Although the Constitution grants the President authority to appoint individuals during congressional recess, the absence of precedent regarding its application to Supreme Court justices has led to legal debates among scholars.
As a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, Argentina is bound to uphold the independence and impartiality of its judiciary through proper appointment protocols, free from political interference.
The recent actions by the Argentinian government regarding Supreme Court appointments have raised significant alarms among international legal experts and human rights advocates. The temporary appointments via presidential decree are perceived as undermining judicial independence and gender equality, potentially violating Argentina’s constitutional obligations and international human rights commitments. Ensuring transparency and adherence to established judicial processes remains crucial for maintaining democracy and trust in Argentina’s judicial system. The absence of female representation in the Supreme Court further underscores the need for inclusivity and diversity to uphold the legitimacy of judicial institutions. The global scrutiny surrounding this issue highlights the vital importance of preserving judicial independence in the face of political maneuvering.
Original Source: www.jurist.org
