-What new or brand do you think your management as President of the Court will bring?
– There can not be a soccer championship in which citizens doubt the impartiality of the referees. There can be no country where citizens doubt the impartiality of their judges. And if there is a challenge, it is to recover the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary to resolve conflicts between the Argentineans.
–And today, how's that question today? Do you think that Justice escaped from the referee's place that solves conflicts?
-No, but if you see the indexes of reputation, Justice, which must have a very prominent place, you do not have it. In part it is due to communication problems. People see the Judicial Branch much worse than the way we see it and the users of the system experience it. And also of the leadership in the country.
On the last occasion he became a national sport to revitalize the judges. Indiscriminately A sport that practiced the entire Argentine political and institutional spectrum. And they do not realize that it is to see the branch where it stands, because the Judicial Branch is here to stay.
Therefore, if we want to improve, we must commit ourselves to the need and effort to discriminate. There are good judges and bad judges. The judges do not choose the judges. And we do not eliminate them either, so they are not responsible for the bad judges. The removal of bad judges is not the responsibility of the judges.
I would like my administration to help restore legitimacy and credibility to the judiciary. I think that is something that can be done, because it is something that all the ministers of the Court are committed to.
The judiciary has the resources to do so. One of my great surprises was that when I joined the Court, I discovered the quality of the Court's officials and a large part of the Judiciary, something that does not look great from the outside. It is a feasible challenge.
-The theme of impunity is also related to the extent of legal proceedings. There are studies that indicate that the causes of corruption have been 16 years.
-We must have certain rules of circulation that in some way parameterize the duration that each of us must devote to a file. But there are records that are very complicated and therefore take longer to be studied by members.
For example, the case of retirement calculation indexes should take a year and a half in the Court, which is a very short period for the periods of the Court. The VAT return cases took ten years in the Court. There are cases whose solution is not binary.
A court is not a sum of individualities. You often think together.
Sometimes, in the previous process, before the Court, some files slept for years. How is it done so that these times do not extend?
– Often it does not depend on us. The Argentine procedural system is complicated in Argentina. I will give an example. In Argentina, the parties are in the judgments.
Much of the procedural energy that is applied in one case will attempt to identify, discover and correct the lie of the parties.
Why lie the parties? Because there are some judges that protect those who lie there is an interpretation of the Constitution, with the guarantee of non-incrimination.
Is it universal? No, in other latitudes the parties can not lie to the judge. I understand that the reform of the Criminal Code reforms this problem. This is a Copernican reform, because a good part of the resources devoted to revealing the lie will serve to determine the correct solution for the case.
There are many subtle things that can be done in this way, but that is what legislators must correct. We have to apply the rules as they are. I believe that in the interpretation of cases that require interpretative effort, a judge can not resort to his own convictions and moral and political, because they do not swear by our convictions and moral and political. We judge by the Constitution and the laws. No one swears by their own moral and political convictions.
– In the last decades in the Court there were consensual majorities. Can it continue today?
-If one analyzes how we voted in the last two years in the relevant causes, he warns that there are no stable majorities. I do not think there is any majority in the Court. And the less I think there is a Peronist majority. I do not understand very well what it means to say that there is a "Peronist majority".
-Test dinner lunch at Casa Rosada and there were judges who did not.
– We decided to have a formal lunch at Casa Rosada, and we decided that it would be the authorities of the Court, that we are the Dr. Highton and me. We all know that lunch was an instance of institutional relationship. In many circumstances, my predecessor, Dr. Lorenzetti, had meetings with the president and then informed us about those meetings.
– Do you think the salaries of judges should be reached for profit?
– I think that there is no court or any civil servant who does not agree with what you have to pay the benefits.
– So why do not they pay?
-The question is not whether you pay or you do not pay the benefit. The question is the intangibility of remuneration. The benefits are not at stake. What is at stake is whether this implies a reduction in pocket salaries of judges and officials.
-This happens with the rest of the salaries, which also reduce the salaries of the pocket. It's a matter of equality.
-No, it's not about equality. What is not wanted is that the salary is reduced to pay the benefits. But if there was a salary increase and the amount to pay the benefits would be reduced, there would be no opposition.