Cruz Silva

También expreso preocupación por la reducción de las medidas de protección del magistrado Salas Arenas y su familia, pese a los riesgos denunciados y a las medidas provisionales ordenadas por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Insto a las autoridades a proteger a las juezas y los jueces frente a la intimidación y las injerencias indebidas, y a garantizar que puedan ejercer sus funciones con independencia y sin temor a represalias. Lea aquí la carta: spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMRe… (2/2)

🇵🇪 Ahora Público: mi comunicación al Gobierno del #Perú sobre las amenazas a la independencia judicial, incluidas las presiones políticas contra el magistrado de la Corte Suprema Jorge Luis Salas Arenas, las amenazas de represalias contra jueces y juezas por sus decisiones y los procedimientos disciplinarios contra quienes aplican el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos en casos de graves violaciones. (1/2)

I am also concerned by the reduction of protection measures for Justice Salas Arenas and his family, despite the risks reported and the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I urge the authorities to protect judges from intimidation and undue interference, and to ensure they can perform their duties independently and without fear of reprisals. Read the full letter: spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMRe… (2/2)

🇵🇪Now public: my communication to the Government of #Peru raising concerns about threats to judicial independence, including political pressure against Supreme Court Justice Jorge Luis Salas Arenas, threats of reprisals against judges over their rulings, and disciplinary proceedings against judges for applying international human rights law in cases involving serious violations. (1/2)

I am concerned by the public statement directed by a US Government official at Judge ad hoc Navi Pillay in connection with the pending proceedings in The Gambia v. Myanmar before the International Court of Justice. Judge ad hoc Navi Pillay’s role is expressly provided for by Article 31 of the ICJ Statute. Each party in The Gambia v. Myanmar has a judge ad hoc. Such judges undertake to act impartially and conscientiously and participate in the decision on terms of complete equality with the other judges. Courts and judges are not beyond criticism. Judicial reasoning should be scrutinized rigorously, and governments are entitled to disagree with legal arguments and judgments. But attributing a political agenda to a sitting judge, saying “we’ll be watching,” and invoking punitive measures taken against another international court goes beyond disagreement with legal reasoning. It risks intimidation and improper pressure on a judge in a pending case. International safeguards are clear: judges must be free to decide according to law, without intimidation or improper pressure. Judicial independence is not a privilege for judges. It is a protection for all. Depending on the structure and jurisdiction of a given court, judicial independence ensures fairness for litigants, for States, for victims, for accused persons, and for the public interest in ensuring that disputes are determined according to law rather than political power. The bedrock safeguard of judicial independence cannot be contingent on whether a judge's decisions satisfy powerful governments.