We have submitted to the National Ministry of Justice our observations regarding the nominations proposed by the Executive Branch for the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN). We believe the proposed candidates’ profiles are incompatible with the required standards to serve on the highest court.
On April 15, the Executive Branch nominated Ariel Lijo and Manuel García-Mansilla as members of the Supreme Court. As part of the selection process, we submitted to the National Ministry of Justice our concerns about their profiles, which fail to meet the criteria for suitability and commitment to human rights. Additionally, we pointed out that nominating two male candidates, resulting in an all-male Court, contravenes the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, to which Argentina is a signatory.
Ariel Lijo’s candidacy
Ariel Lijo’s background is largely limited to his role as head of the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 4 in the City of Buenos Aires, a jurisdiction accustomed to operating under its own rules where various powerful economic and political groups intersect.
Among the most concerning aspects of his career are serious allegations at the Council of Magistrates, related to his failure to investigate corruption cases, excessive delays in handling various cases, and illicit enrichment. Furthermore, the candidate faced criminal charges for conspiracy, money laundering, and bribery. Many of these allegations remain unresolved.
We also highlight the delays in the investigation into the cover-up of the AMIA bombing, from which he was removed by the Federal Chamber in 2016, and in a case investigating—among other former public officials—former minister Oscar Aguad, for crimes related to Correo Argentino, in which former president Macri is involved. Lijo summoned Aguad for questioning in 2018, and six years later, the resolution of his procedural situation is still pending.
In other instances, Lijo ordered the pre-trial detention of former public officials following the so-called “Irurzun doctrine,” an arbitrary criterion that deviates from the principles and criteria established by the American Convention on Human Rights.
García-Mansilla’s candidacy
García-Mansilla has a long academic career. In his writings, he rejects the constitutional hierarchy of international human rights treaties included in the 1994 reform, which poses an obstacle to the effective protection of human rights in Argentina.
Furthermore, he holds very regressive views on women’s rights and legal abortion. He asserts that the Constitution recognizes life beginning at conception in the womb, and therefore, abortion is unacceptable and the 2020 law 27.610 is unconstitutional.
Similarly, García-Mansilla opposed the F.A.L. ruling, through which the SCJN, in 2012, provided legal certainty about the legality of termination in the cases provided by law, defined the standards of the protection of intrauterine life and its arrangement with the international commitments and defined the responsibilities of the State. In his view, women who are raped—and do not have any type of mental disability—do not have the right to access legal abortion and should be criminally prosecuted.
Regarding energy issues, García-Mansilla opposed the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling that mandated public hearings, with citizen participation, for setting gas tariffs. He described it as a product of “judicial populism” that “invented” non-existent rights.
The profiles chosen by the Executive Branch run counter to the clear need for a profound reform of the federal justice system and the integration of the Supreme Court with judges firmly committed to democracy, equality, transparency, and human rights.
access to legal abortion