He President of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ), Rómer Saucedo, He assures that under his management, the Bolivian justice began to recover credibility and independence, with key decisions such as instruction to review terms of preventive detention and the closure of Commission No. 898, which, he affirms, kept the judicial body subordinate to the Executive. In an interview with El duty, Saucedo details advances, tensions, challenges and the way he prefers to be remembered by people.
– You were chosen by popular vote How do you interpret an eventual reform that changes the judicial election mechanism?
First, the fact of having arrived by popular vote is what gave us the strength, gave us the legitimacy to be able to assume the guidelines we had in mind and that we proposed, at the time, through the various forums organized by the Supreme Electoral Court in Santa Cruz, where we presented our proposals. And just one of them was to recover judicial independence. Beyond that if today it is optimal or not, I think you have to sit down to talk, analyze, to discuss ideas. If there is another way to choose new judicial authorities that is better than the current one, let’s put it on the table.
– Did the judicial elections democratized or politicized justice?
I believe that democracy was deepened in this current scenario and also gave us the necessary strength to recover institutionality, because they have had to pass three elections for people to understand and realize the importance of choosing their judicial authorities. Before people did not vote, they didn’t know the candidates. There was a campaign against the judicial election system.
In the latter he spent the other way around: people soaked, people found out about each of us (the candidates), people exposed us to the citizens and said who is Rómer? Who is Fulano? Who is Zutano? That is, there was a citizen investigation to meet their candidates.
And that allowed us to not love political structures. That has happened with most of the magistrates that we have been elected.
– Some ask that the vote be eliminated and only to meritocracy. What does it answer?
We all pass through the phase of merits. In my case I have three masters; I have finished a doctorate; I am in the exercise of judge almost six years; In the exercise of the profession I have been almost 13 years. Within those studies, I also had to go to Spain to do a master’s degree. That is, they evaluated all professional training. Meritocracy already existed. In addition, there were those who copied, and it was learned. I was not part of those schemes.
– How should the magistrates be chosen in 10 years?
It is an open debate. We can review the system, but among all: social sectors, universities, entrepreneurs. If it is concluded that there should no longer be judicial elections, let’s look for another better alternative. Everything is perfectible.
– What justice did you find when assuming and how is it right now?
There was a budget deficit, lack of personnel, normalized corruption and an organ without credibility, subordinated to the Executive. Today we recover budget, we solve causes with greater speed, we launch a pilot technological system to digitize files and strengthen transparency. There are criminal and administratively processed judges for corruption.
– Under what reflection was the decision to instruct the judges to review the terms of preventive detention?
Law 1173 talks about excessive use of preventive detention. We have different sentences of the Inter -American Court of Human Rights that tell us “are not abusive with preventive detention.” Then, after having talked internally with some magistrates, we saw how to address this issue. Commission 898, created after a Justice Summit, was a control mechanism of the Executive on the Judicial Body. Closing it was to recover independence. And the next day we issue the instructions for the judges to review preventive detention, fulfilling the law and avoiding abuse.
– This instruction resulted in the release of Áñez, Camacho and Pumari. Was it as expected?
Yes. It is not impunity: the processes continue, but with other precautionary measures. It had to be returned to preventive detention its exceptional character. We could not continue with prisons full of preventive, as if it were the rule.
– Were there political pressures after those decisions?
Of course there was. Sometimes they tried to misrepresentation saying that impunity was being negotiated. Nobody has negotiated anything. We are not from that business school, to which they were accustomed. We have demanded compliance with the law and we have also respected the powers that we have as a judicial body.
We are not from the right or from the left, so they do not see us as that playful that ceased to be one and now it will lend it to the other, we are not that. We have come to do things differently.
– How do you want your management to be remembered?
When I touch, I want to go quietly to my house, with the assurance that we did the right thing, that we did not abuse power. That we use power to do good, not to harm people. I want that peace of mind of having coffee, chatting or sharing a churrasco with my friends and not telling me “you were an abusive” or “you sold.” And that my children, when they tell them about their father, to tell them good things.
PROFILE
The most voted. Rómer Saucedo Gómez was elected magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) by Santa Cruz, with more than 730,000 valid votes.
Career. He worked five years as a judge of criminal instruction, anti -corruption and against violence against women. He was a lawyer at the Ministry of Defense. He was legal advisor to the municipal government of El Carmen Rivero Torrez.
