A crucial issue that the nominating committees will have to address in their first working sessions is the possible differentiation of the route for career judges who aspire to occupy a magistracy in the Courts of Appeals or in the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) and those who practice the profession of lawyer and notary in other areas, such as litigation.
The Constitution establishes the minimum entry requirements for both courts. To be a judge of the Court of Appeals, it establishes the requirement to be over 35 years old, to have been a first instance judge or to have five years of professional experience.
To be a judge of the CSJ, the constitutional requirements are: to be 40 years old, to have served a full term as a judge of the Court of Appeals or of the collegiate courts of the same category, or to have practiced the profession of lawyer for more than ten years.
For the renewal of the courts for the period 2024-2029, the Projusticia Movement considers that the commissions “will face the challenge of complying with the Judicial Career Law, the Law of Nominating Commissions and the accumulation of international obligations, in order to guarantee a legal, legitimate selection in accordance with the need to establish an independent justice system.”
Projusticia refers to the challenge of implementing the procedures established by the Judicial Career Law, which seek to ensure that experience in the administration of justice is privileged in the integration of the courts.
An analysis by Familiares y Amigos contra la Delincuencia y el Secuestro (FADS) that reviews the legislation and related resolutions of the Constitutional Court, maintains that the Judicial Career Council must send “the list of professionals in the career, together with their files and performance reports, to the nominating committees on a timely basis.” The list is formed based on the expression of interest in accessing the magistrates expressed by judges and magistrates.
Performance evaluation
The Council is required to prepare and send these lists to the nominating committees, attaching the performance evaluations it conducts annually, which take into account experience, specialization and professional performance. At the end of June, the Association of Judges for Integrity (AGJI) asked regarding the procedure to follow and the Council responded that the expressions of interest would be received electronically and that the most recent performance evaluation that is confirmed would be sent to the committees.
The FADS analysis states that it is essential that nomination committees “focus on performance evaluations rather than applying a general grading table for those who are already part of the judicial career.” The grading table is a document that weighs the academic merits, professional experience and projection of each candidate.
Former magistrate Yolanda Pérez disagrees with the fact that career candidates should not be subject to the grading table, as proposed by the FADS analysis, because she believes that “there is no reliable career system.” It would be different, Pérez notes, if there were a robust system that evaluated judges and magistrates during each year of service under technical and objective parameters, and that all of these evaluations were transferred to the commission, not just one of them.
Pérez adds that the council still answers to the hierarchy of the CSJ and many judges are not to the liking of that hierarchy, which has been made evident by different transfer orders. Whether or not the route proposed by the FADS analysis is followed will be a decision of each of the nominating committees. According to data from the Judicial Branch, in Guatemala there are 685 trial judges and 149 magistrates of the Court of Appeals. The latter were elected by Congress in November 2023 to complete the term that expires in October 2024, so if they do not have previous experience, it is possible that the Judicial Career Council has not evaluated their performance.
#Requirements #aspire #magistrate
