-Again I ask Mr. Bravo why he is not complying with the minimum rules of formality that must be observed in a hearing before a jurisdictional body regarding his personal appearance.
-I was especially worried regarding my personal appearance today. I wear a jacket, a matching vest and a shirt. It is not my intention, under any circumstances, to disrespect this court.
-Look, Mr. Bravo, formal attire in Chile still includes a tie.
The dialogue corresponds to an exchange held on Tuesday by the president of the Court for the Defense of Free Competition (TDLC), Nicholas Rojaswith the lawyer Mario Bravowho appeared without the accessory at a hearing in which the main open television channels analyzed the provider that will measure the rating.
Far from making news because of the content of the background discussion, The instance once once more put on the table the debate on the supposed dress codes that apply to lawyers in jurisdictional bodies in national territory.
Bravo, in conversation with The Third PMrevealed that he had never faced a situation of this nature, and although he says that for him it did not mean an impairment and that it did not bother himin social networks several users reacted with indignation and recalled the episode where the former conventional Jaime Bassa was also reproached for his clothing in the Chamber of Deputies.
“What happens is that The tie makes me very uncomfortable, but I prepared myself especially for the occasion and I think I dressed with the respect that a court deserves. Now, the important thing is that I have no doubt that this incident is not going to cause any harm to my client -in this case, TV+- and I have no doubt that the court is going to rule in accordance with the law independent of the incident ”, commented attorney Bravo.
And he stressed that “There is no express rule in this regard and obviously one has to dress reasonably and with respect. But there is no standard as such.”
The head of the Ombudsman for Children, Patricia Muñoz, also agreed on this, who through her Twitter account also ruled out that there was a rule in this regard, for which she even questioned Nicolás Rojas to formally cite the rule to which alludes.
Third tried to contact Rojas to get a version, but as of press time there was no response.
Ricardo Loyolalawyer and academic of Law History at Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, explained that in Chile “there is no rule regarding how a person should dress on the bench or how they should carry out their activity, especially that of a lawyer”.
The professor, who a few years ago did his postgraduate thesis on the dress of lawyers in Chile, recalled that there was a rule, “but until before Independence, in colonial times, where the Spanish rules did indicate the way of dress of each of the trades and professions, but that is understood to be repealed, unless we want to maintain the custom”.
Regarding the arguments outlined by Rojas, Loyola explained that traditionally “what is argued in the Judiciary is with the matter of the so-called ‘judicial decorum’, that has to do with forms of respect, appearances and ways of how things should be done”.
One of the examples regarding that decorum, he detailed, is related to the “treatments of excellent or illustrious when referring to the Supreme Court or with the ways in which one should go to the bench. Now, it is understood that judicial decorum means the maintenance of a certain standard of respect, but that standard of respect at no time says that one cannot walk without a tie”.
The lawyer recalled thatEven when women began to enter the world of law and began to dress in pants and not skirts, it was also an issue. The male judges did not allow the lawyers to wear pants because ‘men use them’ and that changed, the same case with the tie”.
What does exist is a agreed order of 2009, in which the plenary session of the Supreme Court instructed the magistrates to ensure the clothing of those who participate in the hearings. “That this Supreme Court has learned that some magistrates in the hearings they direct or actions they carry out do not observe in their manners and clothing and dealings with lawyers, witnesses and the public the demands of the exercise of their ministry as judges of the Republic”, points to part of the text.
Given this, it mandates all “judges in the sense of observing especially during their hearings in which they participate the demands required by the dignity of his magistracy in his clothing and dealings with lawyers and other participants in the proceedings, as well as their subordinates and the general public, avoiding any attitude or action that undermines such condition. Along with assigning the Court of Appeals of the respective places to be in charge of enforcing this ordinance, without further details being made explicit.
Away from Chile, traditions lean towards the use of a toga, a black tunic that has been used by magistrates in different parts of the world for more than 324 years as a symbol of formality and authority during a court trial, although mainly for the uniformity of the clothing of those who participate during the hearings, since the magistrates can wear any clothing under it.
This tradition also introduced the use of wigsas in the case of the courts in England or in other magistracies such as the court of The Hague.
How did it get to that? History says that this custom became popular as a disguise that allowed judges not to be attacked in criminal convictions by relatives of the condemnedalthough the same goes for the traditional red cloaks, white scarves and black cloaks, the latter in honor of Queen Mary II of England.
The material was originally given to the judges as a grant from the Crown, and in 1635 the definitive guide published in the Judicial Regulations was established, seeking to convey an image of dignity and impartiality in trials. However, this did not introduce any new costumes; it simply states which robes are to be occupied and when.
Still, this tradition It is in withdrawal and in no case is it an obligation. In 2011, Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova, of the court in The Hague, asked the lawyers to leave the wigs and robes aside, reaffirming the idea of a custom that falls into oblivion.
