The cross-challenges in the María Teresa Day case complicate a way out, while the government does not cease in its dispute with Omar Palermo over another issue: the constitutionality of preventive prisons. An internal agreement that would allow the Court to vote in the case of the judge is hanging by a thread.
Several months after the serious institutional crisis between the Government and a group of Supreme Court judges unleashed by the appointment of María Teresa Day, the conflict is still far from being resolved. And a forthcoming public hearing called by the highest court for another issue that generated rispidences, the debate over the constitutionality of preventive prisons, added more tension between the Courts and the Government House.
A few days ago, the Human Rights organizations, which had gone to the highest court in June to try to stop the assumption of the judge proposed by Rodolfo Suarez, presented a request for disqualification against the president of the Court, Dalmiro Garay, considering that his intervention in the case “constitutes a flagrant violation of the principle of impartiality and a clear and manifest example of the deterioration of the republican institutions that shames the society of Mendoza.”
Garay is suspected of “partisanship” and that his challenge is “evident because he cannot intervene in cases where the interest of the government of which he has been the main political operator is in dispute , a role that he evidently continues to fulfill as Minister of the Court” .
To this episode is added the tension that generated another latent conflict. In the previous public hearing that the Court convened for October 22, within the framework of the debate on the constitutionality of preventive prisons, some leaders close to Alfredo Cornejo began to show a strong presence in social networks in that hearing . Another conflict with Omar Palermo who returns, after several years.
What happened made noise to a weak agreement that was being woven inside the highest court: the magistrates are trying to agree to reject all the challenges in the Day case, from both sides, so that they are the same judges of the Court those who vote and thus resolve the differences in this conflict that goes beyond the legal.
In their onslaught, the agencies also requested that chambermaid Alejandra Orbelli, called to join the Court after Day left voting, excuse herself as a consequence of understanding that her appointment is outside the law, beyond the fact that it is so surrogacy has been established since 1947. And furthermore, this judge is suspected of partiality as she voted in line with Day in the first sentence that she signed as supreme, in a ruling that had a political background.
That episode occurred days before the new judge was sworn in. There it was sought that Day , very quickly, began to do useful acts as a magistrate and stamped her signature on a sentence that increased the sentence for the murderer of Micaela Tati, the 13-year-old girl who was murdered from 8 to 26 years in prison. bullets in 2012 in the La Gloria neighborhood of Godoy Cruz.
This cause had a very particular journey in recent years. The condemned man is called Jorge Barroso, initially the Sixth Chamber of Crime imposed 26 years in prison for “aggravated homicide by the use of a firearm” for being responsible for that death. However, in 2015 a court ruling lowered his sentence to 8 years, with the votes of Palermo and Mario Adaro. The judges understood that Barroso had no intention of killing Micaela and that it was a “reckless homicide”, since the accused shot the girl's uncle. The Attorney General's Office appealed the ruling before the Supreme Court of the Nation, which declared that Palermo and Adaro ruling void and ordered that the provincial court issue a new one.
Day and civil judges Orbelli and Marina Isuani (who had intervened because the other members of the provincial court who had already acted could not do so) confirmed the initial sentence and ended up condemning Barroso to 26 years in prison. There were several official legislators who that day came out to celebrate on the networks as “it was worth it for Mendoza to support Day ” and to sing victory because in Mendoza “ultra-guaranteeism is over”, in a clear message for Palermo.
As is already known, at the request of opposition legislators and human rights organizations , a group of judges led by Palermo advanced and called for a vote in a plenary session of Court judges on the issue that has been shaking the country for four months. Government and Justice leaving them on the edge of the institutional abyss. That is, how should it be interpreted and what are the scope of the constitutional requirement to exercise the profession to be a minister of the Court? And in this case, whether or not Day meets the requirements of the Magna Carta of ten years of practicing the legal profession to have been appointed a judge.
All the challenges raised, and those that were also made against the judges closest to the Government, will delay the times of the plenary ruling that the Court will issue to resolve the questions about Day and, if they are effective, could drastically change the panorama of favorable votes so that the magistrate can legally establish herself in her position and clear all doubts.
The reason for this last statement is clear: the result would end up being three to three, in case, as supposed, Palermo, Adaro and Julio Gómez maintain that it does not meet the requirements. And that Garay, José Valerio and Pedro Llorente, as is ruled out, vote yes. Orbelli would thus become the decisive vote.