The Constitutional Court reaches its final evaluation with an un-encouraging outlook. The Council of Transitional Participation will review the nine judges tomorrow but, as newspaper EXPRESO knew, there are more cons than pros on each official. The evaluation report, which has 259 pages, highlights the irregularities in the judgments, rectifications, political connections and even financial anomalies of the magistrates.
From the analysis, for example, it appears that more than 90% of the judges were illegitimately appointed because during their appointment they were awarded more points than they really deserved. Even doctorates that do not exist were qualified.
This newspaper acceded to the management report of the Constitutional Court and the evaluations of each judge. The following points stand out in the observations.
Finance and inquiry.
- Three of the judges of the Constitutional Court (Manuel Viteri Olvera, Tatiana Ordeñana and Roxana Silva Chicaiza) are investigated by the Attorney General’s Office for unusual operations. The Financial and Economic Analysis Unit (UAFE) detected the movements and reported them to the authorities.
According to the report of the Transitory Council, the fiscal investigation must be valued when deciding whether the judges remain in office or not. Administering justice with questioning of economic income could be counterproductive.
Affinity to the correísmo.
- The judgments of the Court, which analyzed the commission of the transitory Council, show an alleged affinity of the magistrates with former President Rafael Correa. In addition, the text continues, the delays in legal decisions benefited the former president and his relatives. A behavior that “attempted” against human rights.
The most recent case, due to the implications in the current government, was the support to the constitutional amendments proposed by Alianza PAIS (movement of which several judges are adherents). In 2015, the green light was issued and this month the Court itself dropped the changes to the Constitution that raised, among other aspects, that communication was a service and not a right.
- The Court is also questioned for errors in the method for ruling judgments. According to the evaluation report, there is no concordance or logic in the decisions of the highest legal entity in Ecuador.
The treatment of the demands of the indigenous people is an example. The document shows that in decisions of 2010 it was decided on the basis of international law but, a year later, the ruling came by legislation against supranational norms.
- The most recurrent complaint received by the Participation Council is that the Court operates with selective slowness. “The Court does not maintain a stable opinion about what is constitutional and what affects the system,” the document said, referring, for example, to cases that have not been answered for more than seven years. Judges like Mirien Segura have processes that affect communities and social sectors, but they do not process.
- The link with the previous Government and the slowness in specific cases are not the only observations. The Council considers that the Court affected the citizenship for failing to fulfill its function of ensuring the rights of the majority. Not acting under Decree 813 (which allows the purchase of resignations) is an example that affected 1,121 public servants. (I)