If the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Inter-American Court) had to hear about the abuse of the dismissal of National Court Judge Walter Macías, it would have enough reason to conclude that the hasty Decision of the Judicial Council at the session held on Saturday ignored one of the main objectives of the division of public powers. I mean respecting the guarantee of independence of judges and, specifically, strict procedures, both for their appointment and for their dismissal.

The hearing on the protection suit filed by former judge Walter Macías against the judiciary was adjourned. Diligence will resume on September 14

The Inter-American Court reiterated the fundamental principles of the United Nations regarding the independence of the judiciary, among which is the duty of the state to guarantee it, ensuring that it is respected by all government institutions. Proclaiming such independence in the Constitution or in the country’s legislation is not enough. He also said that when the procedure for dismissing judges is carried out, “the body that conducts the dismissal procedure (…) must act impartially in the procedure established for this purpose”.

It is very obvious that the decision to dismiss Judge Macías from office, which was made by two members of the Judicial Council (CJ) out of a total of five members of the plenary session, grossly did not respect the legal norms of a higher hierarchy than that of the Rulebook on Sessions of the SP Plenary Session and the same regulations, which affects the prescribed legal procedure of the dismissed person.

With the votes of Wilman Terán and Xavier Muñoz, the extension of the mandate of six judges of the National Court to nine years was approved

According to Fausto Morillo, a member of the CJ, who abstained from voting on the unusual dismissal, he was called by phone on the same day, August 20, a few hours before the virtual session. For this reason, he asked the president of the Association to postpone, so that the members of the plenary session would have enough time to review the documentation of the administrative file of the case. That was not heard and the session was arranged with five members; among them one in an obvious state of intoxication, member Muñoz. That, in fact, the decision to dismiss was made with two votes and three abstentions present, and with the immediate certification of the secretary that the decision was not reached.

It is about the fact that Article 264:14 of the Organic Law on Judicial Function (higher in the hierarchy than the Rules of Session) establishes that the dismissal must be approved by the majority of the members of the plenary session.

Furthermore, Member Muñoz was unable to join the quorum because he was out of the country, enjoying his vacation days, according to Member Faust Morillo. In fact, the Rules of Procedure itself, in Article 11, disqualified him. He could participate electronically in the session, from the United States – where he was – if he was on official duty, but this was not his case, so his substitute had to intervene.

There is material for another lawsuit against the state and I hope that this time there will be a repeat of the compensation, so that the guilty can take it. (OR)