[ad_1]
The Judicial Ombudsman is the body responsible for disciplinary procedures throughout the judiciary. An average of 14 new cases were filed against officials Every weekday of the year.
This is indicated by the data compiled by the same entity, which had 1,530 new admissions files as of May 31. In the past five years, there have been 17,048 pending cases. The first time it targeted judicial personnel.
To this we must add that 23 disciplinary proceedings were re-opened and 403 depositions were sent for judicial inspection. The latter are allegations from another jurisdiction. In total, There are 1,956 management processes until the date stated.
In this number, 6% of cases ended in sanctions In the first few months of this year, of the 1,742 disciplinary proceedings resolved, 55 resulted in a written reprimand or warning.
Only 53 were suspended without pay or had their appointments revoked. Overall, over the past five years, they have completed 18,408 cases, of which only 1,530 were closed In some kind of sanctions.
This is equivalent to It only accounts for 8.3% of the total documents. Most of the cases that ended in failure were because they were dismissed, declared invalid, accumulated for other reasons, transferred to disciplinary jurisdiction, or filed.
Recommended desaturation
exist The Supreme Court has recognised that the caseload handled by the Judicial Ombudsman has generated a significant workload and has transferred it to a higher level. Even the Supreme Council or the Court itself, which sometimes has to decide on certain cases or resolve issues.
To this end, Judge Luis Porfirio Sánchez, President of the Second Chamber, and Judge Jorge Leyva, President of the First Chamber, They are working on reforms to change the structure of how documents are processed. Discipline within power.
at present, The Magistrates are aware of the system of discipline for judges in cases of unreasonable delay and serious error, The Supreme Council hears appeals, while the Court of Judicial Supervision hears appeals.
As the Act was enacted, the organizational structure and even the name changed: Now renamed the Judicial Organs Administrative Disciplinary TribunalIn addition to the Disciplinary Appeal Court, it would also save the higher authorities from being saturated.
“We will use the same resources that we have today. In this way, the courts will no longer have to hear disciplinary proceedings on matters of serious errors and unjustified delays, nor will the High Commissions have to hear appeals. That can only be the responsibility of specialized bodies,” explained Judge Sánchez.
As far as the Internal Affairs Office of the Judicial Investigation Bureau, the Ministry of Public Affairs and the Public Defender’s Office are concerned, They can only impose sanctions for 15 days at most. The remaining cases were referred for judicial review.
With the change, these internal agencies will be able to issue sanctions for up to a month, meaning they will be able to deal with a wider range of issues.
“It also means a slight decongestion of the Judicial Inspection Courts, since all these proceedings are handled within the OIJ, the Public Defence Department or the Public Ministry, with an estimated sanction time of more than 15 days, Finally entered judicial review We need the Judicial Supervision Court to focus more on corruption rather than some minor issues that the institution has no interest in,” the Second Chamber President added.
Judge Leyva stressed that these proposed reforms are aimed at allowing higher authorities to focus on combating corruption and the intrusion of organized crime in the judicial sector. This is because it is becoming increasingly common for criminal groups to hire officials. judicial.
“The purpose of this court is to tell the technical institutions that in everything they must do, Prioritize fighting corruption. When the entire corruption issue is resolved, tell the disciplinary body immediately and now let us resolve the judicial delays and procrastination,” the senior judge said.
In a bill the court is preparing to overhaul the entire institution’s disciplinary system, it also intends to Adjusting the deadlines and tools of investigative officers A person who commits a crime within or outside the performance of his or her duties.
[ad_2]
Source link
