7493
Impeachment constitutes an instrument of control in a democratic republic. There are differences in the appraisal of the "bad performance" cause for such trials, depending on whether it is the prosecution of political officials or judicial magistrates. That is because the guarantees of jud...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Departamento de Publicaciones
2023
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=juridica&cl=CL1&d=HWA_7493 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/juridica/index/assoc/HWA_7493.dir/7493.PDF |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Impeachment constitutes an instrument of control in a democratic republic. There are differences in the appraisal of the "bad performance" cause for such trials, depending on whether it is the prosecution of political officials or judicial magistrates. That is because the guarantees of judges are also guarantees of citizens to be judged by independent and impartial magistrates. The Supreme Court is under siege from the emerging political power of popular elections. Impeachment was sometimes used as an effective means to retain power by controlling the judiciary. It occurred in 1946/47 with the dismissals of three judges of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General, and between 2003 and 2005 with two judges of the Court. New attempts to dismiss the Supreme Court began in 2023. The challenges that the first proceedings received affected the subsequent legitimacy of the Court. The second trials were judicially challenged, but controls over those prosecutions were lax. The main objection to both political processes was that they revolved around the interpretation of the law made by the judges, using a type of legislative cassation on judicial rulings. We also observed some violations of due process that must be guaranteed to the magistrates. What emerges clearly is the disagreement of legislators with judicial decisions and the notorious non-compliance with defense assurances, especially in the treatment of summoned witnesses, violating constitutional and conventional guarantees. These can find their way in the challenges and judicial controls available. |
|---|