He May 8 The deadline for the Executive Branch to receive the adhesions and oppositions to the nomination of Judge Ariel Lijo and academic Manuel García Mansilla for the Supreme Court of Justice. Some judicial officials spoke out in favor of the appointment of the magistrate who has been in Comodoro Py for twenty years, but shortly before the closing date imposed in the decree that made the candidates official, it is estimated that a dozen representative entities of the legal community will formulate their challenges so that Lijo becomes a member of the highest court.
The administrative process of candidates to fill vacancies in the Court has been going through the last few weeks to receive support and rejections. The decree that makes official the people chosen by President Javier Milei refers to a correct assessment of their moral aptitudes, their technical and legal suitability“his career and his commitment to the defense of human rights and democratic values that make him worthy of such an important role.”
The first adhesions that were formulated in favor of Judge Ariel Lijo stand out his “career, training, seriousness and moral and personal qualities” to fill the position left vacant on the Court by Helena Highton.
The members of the Economic Criminal jurisdiction signed a statement in those same terms a week ago. One of the judges -Javier López Biscayart- said that Lijo “has proven to be a jurist of excellence, with deep knowledge of legal matters and an innate ability to analyze and resolve complex legal problems. His commitment to moral ethical principles that govern the judicial function make him stand out not only as a high-caliber professional, but also as a good man, committed to public service and the well-being of society.”
On the opposite side of these considerations are about ten representative entities of the legal community, which They are working on the challenges that they will present to the Executive Branchon the verge of expiration of the period stipulated in the decree that was published in the Official Gazette.
It will be Justice, REJIA, Poder Ciudadano, FORES, National Academy of Law, FACA, Public Bar Association of the City of Buenos Aires, Bar Association of the City of Buenos Aires, Republican Joint Action and Republican Professors -among other entities-, They are working these days on the challenges they will present.
“Each entity will make its presentations individually, depending on the legal community it represents, but there are two central aspects that bring together the criteria of all of them, which are the objective causes for presenting the rejection: the lack of technical training conditions , that is to say Weakness in legal technical background and then what refers to the assessment of their moral aptitudes,” he explained to Clarion María Eugenia Talerico who works on several of the challenges.
Some of the entities have already spoken out publicly against Ariel Lijo’s nomination. Like the Forum for Studies on the Administration of Justice (FORES), which maintained that the magistrate sparks “too many controversies” in his career through the courts and highlight the role of his brother Alfredo, defined as, “judicial operator.”
FORES, a civil association aimed at strengthening justice through research, technical assistance and training He asked the Government to withdraw the designation. The entity had already added its rejection in a statement released by the Network of Entities for Independent Justice of Argentina (REJIA). AmCham, IDEA and the Argentine Political Club spoke in the same sense.
One of the points of agreement between these entities points out that “there are too many controversies raised by the candidate, who is a member of the questioned Federal Criminal and Correctional jurisdiction of Buenos Aires. These courts often wake up too many suspicions about their management of times and the fate of the cases in which they investigate the scourge of public corruption”.
When analyzing the situation, Talerico – who supported Mariano Federicci in the Financial Information Unit (UIF) during the government of Mauricio Macri – expressed in dialogue with Clarion that Lijo “has been spreading negative news about his person and performance for years, where has a criminal complaint and others filed in the Judicial Council in which none of the accusations were advanced or clarified”.
One of the proposals formulated by the Sera Justicia space, which advises the former official, points to the “impeccability that a judge and minister of the Court must haver, which gives predictability regarding their behavior and awakens trust in society. This responds to the legal security it conveys. None of this guarantees Ariel Lijo,” he noted.
Given the four complaints against the federal judge in the Judicial Council, the space led by Elisa Carrió (ARI-CC) insisted on the request for an investigation into the magistrate’s actions. Through the national deputy Juan Manuel López, their legislative representatives asked thatThe criminal case against Lijo that ended up being archived is audited. At that time Mariano Cúneo Libarona was the judge’s lawyer and now a candidate for the Court.
What the ARI-CC seeks is to know whether the investigation was conducted correctlyif all testing measures regarding suspicion of alleged money laundering. And he does not rule out asking the Supreme Court for an audit of the complaints against Lijo that were closed in the Judicial Council due to expiration of deadlines or because elements were not found to support the accusation.
CELS, INECIP, ACIJ and other organizations, against Lijo and García Mansilla
Six other civil organizations demonstrated this Wednesday his “categorical rejection to the proposals for candidates to join the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation presented by the Executive Branch”.
These are the Civil Association for Equality and Justice (ACIJ), ELA – Latin American Justice and Gender Team, the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the Institute of Studies Comparatives in Criminal and Social Sciences (INECIP) and the Union of Users and Consumers, which released a joint statement.
“The Supreme Court has the enormous responsibility of being the ultimate guarantor of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Given the importance of this mission, it is essential that it be made up of people whose career reflects proven suitability and independenceas well as a strong commitment to constitutional principles and human rights. Unfortunately, neither Ariel Lijo nor Manuel García-Mansilla meet that standard.”say the entities.
Regarding Ariel Lijo, the associations recall the “serious complaints in the Judicial Council, some of which have been linked to the lack of investigation of causes of corruption, arbitrary delay of procedural times and illicit enrichmentas well as a criminal complaint for illicit association, money laundering, bribes and influence peddling”, and conclude that “these complaints are inappropriate for a candidate for the highest court.”
The statement reasons that these complaints “raise serious doubts about Lijo’s correct performance as a judge,” which is “almost the only relevant precedent,” since “the rest of your resume does not show any other sufficient professional or academic merit to be a magistrate of our highest court.” “This circumstance calls into question his technical suitability to reach the Court.”
For Manuel García-Mansilla there are also nones. Although he has a greater academic background. “His substantive views on certain issues are worrying, given that these could impact the adequate defense of human rights and the international commitments assumed by our country.” The objections point mainly to the candidate’s position “against the right to terminate pregnancyeven in cases of sexual abuse, a cause provided for in the Penal Code since 1921. Beyond the conclusion reached, it is worrying that their reasoning completely omits to consider the sexual and reproductive rights of pregnant people as a value to have taken into account in the discussion”.
In addition to individual challenges, civil organizations also consider “the low representation of the various sectors of society in the Supreme Court to be worrying,” both becauser the lack of women among the applicants, and of representation of people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge.
“For these reasonswe demand that the Executive Branch withdraw these candidacies and propose people who satisfy the standards that those who make up our highest court must meet and, failing that, to the Senate of the Nation that rejects the documents sent,” the statement concludes.
How the candidate nomination process continues
The nomination of the federal judge – who came to Comodoro Py with a decree signed by NéstoR Kirchner in 2004 – must go through an administrative process that includes the current deadline until May 8, so that citizens, non-governmental organizations , professional colleges and associations, academic and human rights entities, present to the Ministry of Justice, “in writing and in a well-founded and documented manner, the positions, observations and circumstances that they consider of interest to express regarding those included in the pre-selection process, with a sworn declaration of their own objectivity regarding those proposed.”
Once that deadline for objections and observations has expired, there are another fifteen days for the Executive Branch to evaluate the various presentations and decide whether to send the proposal to the Senate of the Nation.
When President Javier Milei sends the document to Congress, he must substantiate the proposal and, in turn, submit a Draft Agreement. This will be sent to the Senate Agreements Commission, where the political discussion on the Government candidate will begin.
Said commission must set a date for the public hearing and send – in turn – a copy of the document and the background information to all the senators that make up it. After the public hearing and a series of steps that must be completed, the Commission must issue an opinion recommending the approval or rejection of the document to the full Senate.
In this instance politics will begin to play with greater preponderance. Once these procedures have been completed, The document will arrive at the venue, where a special majority (two-thirds of the body) must be had, so that Lijo and García Mansilla can reach the Supreme Court.
