The warning of UN special rapporteur for processes against 56 judges who traveled outside the country with medical license

The United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, has raised concerns over legal proceedings against 56 judges in Chile who were abroad under medical leave. The cases involve disciplinary actions initiated by the Supreme Court, which allege misconduct by the judges during their time away from the country. Satterthwaite warned that these processes could undermine due process guarantees and threaten judicial independence. According to reports, the 56 judges were traveling internationally while holding medical licenses, a situation that has sparked controversy within the judiciary. The UN rapporteur emphasized that the procedures being used to remove them from office are based on conduct already examined and resolved through prior disciplinary measures. She criticized the lack of clarity surrounding the requirement to demonstrate suitability for continued service, calling it imprecise and undefined. Satterthwaite pointed out that the legal framework governing these dismissals lacks clear definitions, particularly regarding the concept of “good behavior” outlined in Article 80 of the Chilean Constitution. She expressed concern that the current process does not provide adequate safeguards, including the right to appeal, and fails to meet international standards for fair judicial review. The rapporteur stressed that each case should be evaluated individually with objective criteria, ensuring impartial hearings and allowing for judicial review of decisions. The National Association of Women Judges and Judges (ANMM) has also voiced its opposition to the court’s actions. Judge Mariela Hernández, president of ANMM, stated that the Supreme Court's approach risks undermining judicial independence. Her comments align with Satterthwaite’s warnings, highlighting the broader implications of the ongoing legal battles for the integrity of the judiciary. Legal experts have noted that the current procedures for removing judges appear to bypass standard due process requirements. This includes the absence of a formal hearing and the lack of defined grounds for dismissal. These factors raise questions about the fairness and transparency of the disciplinary actions taken against the judges. Critics argue that such measures could set a dangerous precedent for judicial accountability. The issue has drawn attention beyond national borders, with international observers monitoring how Chile handles judicial discipline. The UN rapporteur’s intervention underscores growing scrutiny of the country’s judicial practices, especially concerning the balance between judicial independence and administrative oversight. While the government maintains that the actions are necessary to uphold judicial standards, critics insist that the methods employed fail to meet international norms. Looking ahead, the outcome of this dispute will likely depend on whether the Chilean judiciary can reconcile its internal disciplinary mechanisms with international human rights standards. The debate continues to unfold, with calls for greater transparency and adherence to procedural fairness. For now, the focus remains on the legal arguments and the potential impact on judicial independence in the country.