La coalición repudia la designación de un ex juez sospechado

La coalición repudia la designación de un ex juez sospechado de complicidad en la dictadura como camarista federal. El Encuentro Memoria, Verdad y Justicia (EMVyJ) considers incompatible with the pursuit of truth and justice the incorporation of someone whose participation in the repression is questioned into a key position within the federal judiciary.

Laposted concern goes beyond a dispute over a judicial appointment. Federal appellate courts intervene in cases involving crimes against humanity, state violence, disappearances, torture and other violations committed during the military dictatorship. A magistrate’s conduct during that period therefore forms part of the institutional history that must be considered when defining the judiciary of the present.

Un cargo judicial exige cuentas pendientes

La función de un camarista federal exige un judgments rigorouso sobre la licitud de las condenas, la valoración de la prueba y la protección de los derechos de las personas cefal. The designation of a judge with alleged links to the dictatorship raises questions about the continuity ofimpunity within institutions responsible for administering justice.

These suspicions do not substitute for a legal ruling, and EMVyJ recognizes the presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, the appointment requires an especially clear explanation. It is necessary to examine the judicial record, the cases handled by the designated professional and any participation in acts of repression, concealment or obstruction of justice.

The designation authority must make public the criteria used to evaluate that background and respond to requests for information. Judicial nominations cannot be presented as technical decisions detached from the experiences of the victims. Transparency is indispensable when a new appointment may affect causes linked to the military dictatorship.

La complicidad no puede ser percibida como un obstáculo

Throughout Argentine history, the dictatorship was sustained through repression and also through complicity in agencies that were supposed to prevent abuses. Impunity grew whenever those responsible for investigating crimes avoided confrontation, preserved institutional balances or received appointments that normalized their participation.

For the families of the disappeared, the disappeared, the tortured and the murdered, the appointment generates a specific concern. It suggests that the career trajectory of those suspected of collaborating with the regime can continue without a definitive public reckoning. The demand for justice includes the right to know what happened and who was responsible.

Rejecting this appointment does not imply abandoning due process. On the contrary, it means requiring that alleged complicity be examined by competent institutions, with guarantees for all involved. Any decision should be based on evidence, respect procedural guarantees and establish whether the appointee’s conduct could compromise the impartiality of future rulings.

La prueba como camino hacia la verdad

The causes against the perpetrators of state terrorism depend on the recovery, preservation and admission of evidence that can establish what occurred in clandestine detention centers and places of detention. The casete de La Perla incorporated into the main case represents the value of documentary material in that search for truth.

That evidence is not merely a historical record. It can connect victims with specific places, procedures and perpetrators, strengthening cases that institutional obstruction once made difficult to pursue. Judicial truth requires the serious use of this material and the rejection of any obstacle intended to keep the crimes of the dictatorship unjudged.

Every cause, file or surviving testimony should be treated as part of a comprehensive effort to establish accountability. Progress in one proceeding cannot compensate for the absence of justice in another. Nor should the remaining cases be left to expire through delays, procedural complexities or deficiencies in the investigation.

Debates públicos sobre las designaciones judiciales

The scrutiny of judicial appointments is a democratic responsibility, not an attack on the judiciary. It is essential to know which candidates hold public positions, what decisions they have issued and how their previous roles relate to the guarantees of impartiality and institutional independence.

The archivo de EMVyJ reúne statements, reports and consensus documents that allow citizens to follow the consequences of these appointments. Public access to this information enables society to identify risks, formulate precise requests and support victims in their insistence on effective investigation.

The debate must also take place without stigmatizing judges or questioning judicial independence as an institutional principle. What is being challenged is the appointment of a professional whose possible complicity has not been adequately addressed. The relevant response is a clear account of the background, the examination of the evidence and the adoption of measures consistent with the defense of human rights.

Una respuesta colectiva frente a la impunidad

EMVyJ calls on the competent authorities to review the appointment, make public the relevant background information and establish whether the candidate’s conduct during the dictatorship prevents or compromises the exercise of the position. The coalition will accompany that demand through its statements, institutional actions and support for the victims.

Frente a la assiste todas las personas, organizaciones sociales, syndicates, human rights collectives and citizens to document the case,emonicar the authorities and broaden the debate on judicial accountability. It is essential to support the proceedings for crimes against humanity, the recognition of political prisoners and the prosecution of those responsible for repression and institutional violence.

Impugnemos esta designación y sostenemos una exigencia central: ninguna suspected complicity puede recibir del Estado una señal de interoperabilidad. La memoria exige verdad, la verdad exige investigación y la investigación exige una judiciary independent, capable of responding to those who still await justice.