Concerns Raised Over Supreme Court Appointments by Decree in Argentina
A UN expert cautioned that Argentinian President Javier Milei’s Supreme Court appointments by presidential decree threaten judicial independence and gender equality. Margaret Satterthwaite urged compliance with international human rights obligations and criticized the presidential bypass of constitutional appointment processes. The appointments, lacking female justices, have sparked criticisms from various human rights advocates, emphasizing the need to uphold the rule of law and democratic norms.
On Wednesday, a UN expert raised significant concerns regarding Argentinian President Javier Milei’s recent decision to appoint judges to the Supreme Court by presidential decree. This method of appointment is perceived as a threat to judicial independence, democratic values, and gender equality within the country. UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite emphasized the necessity for the Argentinian government to adhere to its international human rights obligations, stating unequivocally, “The Executive is not above the law.”
Satterthwaite discussed the detrimental effects of increasing executive or legislative influence over judicial appointments, citing potential risks such as reduced transparency, compromised separation of powers, and diminished security of judicial tenure. She criticized the president’s actions, claiming that by bypassing judicial appointment procedures outlined in the Constitution and statute, he is negating established checks and balances, asserting, “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 result in the absence of female justices on the Supreme Court, which Satterthwaite described as “a step back for the country.” She underscored that the lack of diversity and inclusiveness risks undermining the legitimacy of the judiciary and harming public trust while violating the principle of non-retrogression in gender equality standards.
The controversial appointment occurred via a presidential decree on February 26, after Milei’s failure to secure the necessary Senate votes to fill Supreme Court vacancies through conventional means. The president contended that the Senate had “chosen to remain silent” concerning his nominees, whose qualifications he claimed were evident.
This action has incited considerable backlash from various domestic and international human rights organizations. Juanita Goebertus, the Americas Director at Human Rights Watch, characterized the appointment as “one of the most serious attacks on the independence of the Supreme Court in Argentina since the country’s return to democracy,” stressing that Milei cannot circumvent institutional processes.
According to the Argentinian Constitution, Supreme Court candidates must be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate to ensure adherence to checks and balances within judicial selections. While the Constitution does grant the president authority to fill vacancies requiring Senate approval during congressional recess, the application of this provision to Supreme Court justices remains unprecedented and contentious, leading many legal scholars to question whether such vacancies truly fall under the definition of “employment vacancies.”
As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, Argentina is committed to preserving judicial independence and impartiality, necessitating appointments via suitable processes free from political influence.
The appointment of Supreme Court judges by presidential decree in Argentina has raised serious concerns regarding judicial independence and adherence to democratic processes. UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite highlighted the risks posed to gender equality and the erosion of checks and balances within the judiciary. The situation has drawn considerable criticism from multiple human rights organizations, underscoring the potential violation of both national and international legal frameworks governing judicial appointments. Overall, the developments suggest a need for strict compliance with established constitutional procedures in order to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights.
Original Source: www.jurist.org
