Sunday , October 2 2022

After the failure of the 2×1, Rosenkrantz asked to be "independent even of convictions" – 04/12/2018



[ad_1]

On one of the hottest days since he arrived at the head of the Court, Carlos Rosenkrantz defend her vote yesterday in the case "Batalla", he was left alone in front of his court colleagues who refused the controversial 2×1 application to a person convicted of human offenses during the illegal surrender. The judge warned that "the Court and Judicial Power of the Nation have to improve and must do so urgently." "

"It's about rejuvenating judicial culture. There are no powerful judges, but judges with authority," he said. "And we will never get authority if we do not operate independently. The idea of ​​independence also requires themselves to be independent moral, ideological and political convictions ", Rosenkrantz explained, in a clear direction to his individual vote. "The ideal of independence requires the distribution of what one considers moral, politically or ideally desirable to decide only on the basis of what one and I think it's legally correct. " In the event of suspicion, the judge explained that he intended to offer a "autobiographical example," and recall that last year, following the Court's ruling that benefited the 2×1 to another generator of the name Luis Muiña, was "an extended social reaction of repayment, which in my opinion was healthy. The presence of people in the streets was evidence that we all believed in Nevermore for barbarism. But at that moment I can I believe and I still believe that now the commitment expressed in Never Again can not be implemented in any way and at any cost. Because there is no respect of the law and the Constitution, "it came to an end.

Then Rosenkrantz reviewed the rapid sanction in the Congress of "explanatory" law that left 2×1 offenders of human offenses and that was because of that law yesterday "the rest of my colleagues decide that the 2×1 does not apply to these crimes. Voting disagree because, in my opinion, the law is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of not being the most burdensome criminal law back activity. She was not in Muiña than today, it was easy for me to decide how that was done, "the judge, before an audience of ministers, governors, critics and prosecutors, he listened to him under complete silence.

As I had to do in front of Clarin In a recent interview, Rosenkrantz remembered his work with Raúl Alfonsín and the jurist Carlos Nino, "intellectual father of human rights in Argentina." "But I had to establish a clear difference between my personal obligations and my role as a judge. Judicial independence is the only way to be faithful to the Constitution. And this is the only way to achieve progress, justice and well-being. Our steering letter, no matter how amazing the waters should, "came to the conclusion. The fuse of controversy was still burning.

[ad_2]
Source link