Iván Saquicela, president of the National Court of Justice, says that the world’s criminal groups seek impunity. On the other hand, he affirms that he is in favor of the referendum.
The actions of the justice system have been questioned by different processes in which irregularities have been observed and changes are sought from the Executive through a popular consultation.
For example, LA HORA published that three cases involving officials from the previous government are pending in the courts without firm sanctions. It also collected cases of judges who act outside their jurisdiction and with their decisions have favored companies.
Added to this is the controversy over the dismissal of 26 judges by the Judicial Council (CJ) who now have to be compensated after a ruling by the Constitutional Court.
Faced with these problems, LA HORA interviewed the president of the National Court of Justice, Iván Saquicela, to find out his position.
A popular consultation is announced in which justice issues would be included. Would you support this initiative?
With respect to judicial independence, as an opportunity to reform the institutional and legal design and in order to improve the justice system, of course I agree. I join that proposal and invite you to dialogue, debate the proposal.
What topics should be included?
You must discuss how the field of competence is found and always take care, above all, of the jurisdictional field, which is the essence of the judicial function. That is why, for example, I have proposed that the National Court become the Supreme Court of Justice again and hopefully even that, in order to respond more promptly and efficiently, we will once again have 31 magistrates and not 21 as we currently have.
So the Judiciary Council would no longer have a place, would it not exist?
I think that what is clear is that a Council of the Judiciary, as in other countries, to the extent that its responsibility is administrative and financial. Because precisely the idea is that an institution outside the jurisdictional cannot enter that area of competence.
In most cases of judges sanctioned by the Judiciary, the figure of inexcusable error was applied. What do you think of this figure?
There have been hundreds of sanctions. Judges can make mistakes and they can be serious, which is the concept of inexcusable error. The discussion is not that. If not, what is the mechanism with which it should be sanctioned? Personally, I believe that the defense of judicial independence implies two things: that no body other than the jurisdictional body intervenes to qualify if there is an inexcusable error. And also that, if it is in the hands of the judges, it never means esprit de corps or concealment.
After the ruling of the Constitutional Court, which does not allow these figures to be applied, what happens with cases such as that of the judge in Santa Elena who decided to go against the decision of the ANT and restore suspended frequencies to transport buses? Who acts there ? Who sanctions them?
The truth is that both institutions have limitations there. That is why this aspect has to be developed in a better way.
What aspect?
The problem is the following. A judge can declare an inexcusable error only to the extent that he is aware of it or there is a complaint. Only there a higher judge can declare an inexcusable error of the lower one. So, there are so many cases in the country and it is not necessarily up to the plenary session of the Court to resolve the inexcusable error. A reform proposal could be that the National Court or who knows if a Supreme Court should have a specialized room to hear this area of competence.
In June 2021 you were talking about a lack of budget, what about the deficit of judges, how much money does justice require?
There is a budget reduction of approximately 25%. If we want an efficient justice system, an adequate institutional and procedural design, technological and economic resources in general, and trained human resources are required.
There are none?
In the technological part, we have the computer equipment of the judicial function that is obsolete for more than a decade; We do not have the technological equipment to efficiently carry out Zoom hearings, we do not have the electronic file implemented in the country. And on the other hand, already in the area of the number of judges, it is not enough to give an answer.
What to do to prevent corruption from seeping into the justice system? There are provincial judges who interfere in cases outside their jurisdiction. a judge of Los Ríos has resolved process actions of fotomultas that are carried out in Loja and Ambato.
There are things that we can do and others that we need legal reforms. For example, one of the great concerns of the country is what has to do with what is called jurisdictional guarantees. I am referring to habeas corpus, the protection action (which is delivered by any judge). What is the approach? There should be specialized and specific judges knowing these matters. That, for example, implies a change in the normative part.
We are experiencing a wave of violence, which also affects judges. Some have police protection. How to prevent drug trafficking from tipping the scales of justice in your favor?
Organized crime in the world aspires to control the political and judicial spheres to achieve impunity. What must exist is a strong justice system that protects, protects the justice system so that judges remain impartial. further when corruption is detected, it will be sanctioned timely.
But protection is also required for some judges, because the mafias do not forgive
There must be a strengthening of the institutional framework and support for the judges so that they have the serenity to rule against whoever is necessary by law. (PD)
