The Executive initiative to review the transfer of ten judges, most of them carried out during macrismo, will become the focus of the debate in the Council of the Magistracy, where oficialismo and opposition have a tie that would define the deputy Graciela Camano, head of the commission that must deal with the issue.
Today, the legislator questioned those decisions made by the Council of the Magistracy during the previous government but at the same time stated: “Here we are not going to do anything to favor anyone.” “I am not a macrista or kirchnerista. They are not allied with my presidency to get judges friends. We are trying to have clear rules ”, assured Camano.
The issue would be discussed next Thursday in the Selection Commission, as anticipated Infobae last Saturday when revealing the presentation of the representative of the Executive Gerónimo Ustarroz. It was not yet formalized and will be defined today, but Camano has already made known in the Council his will to deal with the issue on Thursday.
However, before Thursday, the deputy of the PRO Pablo Tonelli, convinced that it is “an onslaught against independent justice”, Will answer the questions to the transfers that were made during the macrismo.
“I am going to make a presentation this week in the Council to answer the Ustarroz proposal,” Tonelli told Infobae-. The proposal is one more of the attacks against independent justice that the oficialismo is carrying out. It is no coincidence that at the same time the idea of the political trial of the Attorney General was known Eduardo Casal. They are actions that are added to other previous ones, which is to control the independent justice and to be complicit with the officials who have been prosecuted. ”
When talking about the transfers that were made during the management of the macrismo, Tonelli said: “The transfers are in accordance with the guidelines of those agreed by the Supreme Court. If someone believed that there is something irregular, the only way to back down is to make a judicial proposal and they can only be annulled in that way because they are firm decisions that were made by the Executive Power, they are administrative acts that have generated effects ” .
One of the ideas was to sign new decrees repealing those acts, but in Tonelli’s opinion that option would not be valid either.
For his part, the President of the Council Alberto Lugones, a judge allied with the ruling party, affirmed: “There were appointments that are not legal; it is not the proper procedure to appoint judges “and he warned:” perhaps those who today defend the stability of those magistrates, should ask themselves why the previous government did not ask them for the agreement for these judges “.
“There is said to be an attempt to remove independent judges; I don’t know if they are independent, but the truth is that they cannot supply with the passage of time a vice of origin ”, he maintained.
The Council is made up of 13 members, including lawyers, judges, deputies and national senators, and the votes are beginning to count on how the issue of transfers could come up. The ruling party has six votes and the opposition with another six. The key vote is that of Camano. In both sectors they give it close to the move of the Executive “If not, they would not have attempted this move,” A member of the opposition bloc told this media off the record.
The controversy revolves around transfers, a mechanism that existed for 20 years so that a judge can change the court to which he was assigned. You must meet a number of requirements. Kirchnerism claims that Macrism used this practice to form “lawfare” courts. Ustarroz, representative of the Executive, made a list of all the magistrates who have been transferred during the last 20 years and have been put together by three categories: those who have fulfilled all the requirements; those who did not meet some requirement but the Constitution was not violated (they did not have the 4 years old in office for example) and those who did not meet the requirements and violated the Constitution.
In that list he placed two magistrates of the Federal Chamber to whom Kirchnerism specially pointed: Leopoldo Bruglia and Pablo Bertuzzi, which confirmed prosecutions against Cristina Kirchner; to Germán Castelli, that it integrates the oral court that has the cause of the notebooks; and three judges who review electoral issues. Also figure Federico Villena, the magistrate who until a few weeks ago had the cause for the so-called “espionage M”; and of Eduardo Farah |, who was in the Federal Chamber of Commodore Py and asked for his departure after signing a ruling that momentarily released the businessmen Cristóbal Lopez and Fabián De Sousa.
Of the thirteen members of the Magistracy, the ruling party is guaranteed six favorable votes. The opposition and its allies would add another six. The key to the tiebreaker would be held by Deputy Camano, the head of the Selection Commission in the Council, the body that has to review these transfers. And also define if they notice irregularities, how to proceed.
The deputy gave a message this morning when she was consulted on the issue on La Red radio. On the one hand, Camano assured that during the macrismo the Council of the Magistracy exceeded its powers when authorizing transfers, but at the same time affirmed : “Those who are worried have to stay calm; here we are not going to do anything to favor anyone”.
As he explained, “we had requests for transfers of judges and there is no clear norm”, beyond the two rulings of the Supreme Court. “In some there are excesses that the Council committed. The advisors decided. Not that one day Ustarroz got up and sent a literary contribution to the Council. The advisers asked him (Ustarroz) that since he comes from the Executive, to make a report of how the transfers were. What Ustarroz did is present the report. What we are going to do in the Council is to begin to discuss ”.
When asked if judges investigating or investigating Kirchnerism could move, the deputy replied: “Those who are so worried and speculate that sometimes they are not true, they have to stay calm and see where they are because there is something called a natural judge. “ “Here we are not going to do anything to favor anyone. We are going to try to agree on the necessary majorities that tell us how the judges move. We have to consider the type of transfer to see if the Council can do it. Because there are transfers that cannot be made. The Council is not a free thinker who, under most circumstances, does what it has, it does what it wants, ”he added.
In another section of the interview, Camano affirmed: “I am not a Macrista or Kirchnerista. They are not allied with my presidency to bring in friendly judges. We are trying to have clear rules. ” That is why they began debating the appointment of deputies. And when the judicial reform project was consulted, Camano affirmed that they have not yet seen any project but only titles, so he prefers to wait. Yes, however, she remarked that it was necessary to be “careful” with the proposal to expand the Supreme Court.
As published Infobae Based on judicial sources, if the disputed transfers are considered irregular, one option would be to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion. Precisely, the Court issued a series of guidelines on the subject in 2018, when it revoked the federalization of an ordinary court, but the criterion was established after several of the transfers carried out. Another option is to make a statement to the Executive so that eventually they send the names to the Senate to see if they approve them. Courts complain about that option. Cristina Kirchner is the President of the Senate.