UN experts on Friday condemned the dismissal of Peruvian Judge Oswaldo Ordóñez Alcántara, formerly the President of the First Constitutional Chamber of Lima, from his post, in a move described as a reprisal for his defence of judicial independence and his public criticism of legislative reforms that could weaken the rule of law in the country.
The experts commented on the gravity of the issue, saying:
‘Judges must be able, individually and collectively, to participate in public debate on the organization, functioning and independence of the judiciary, in accordance with their duties of discretion and responsibility, without fear of pressure, deterrent measures or proceedings that could impede the exercise of their institutional functions.
In particular, the experts criticized the line of questioning used to inquire about his participation in a previous hearing focused on preserving the sanctity of judicial independence during the final stage of Judge Ordóñez’s confirmation process as an anomaly. During the previous hearing, Judge Ordóñez had allegedly stated that a group of congressmen ‘have been destabilizing the justice system and, in turn, weakening the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Peru’, a sentiment that appeared designed to penalize, rather than probe.
This led the National Board of Justice of Peru (JNJ) to initiate a preliminary investigation on its own initiative, stating that such statements contravene the ‘appearance of impartiality’ expected of magistrates. Critics raised concerns that this type of questioning treats a legitimate critique of institutional interference as if it were prima facie evidence of judicial misconduct, thereby inverting the logic of accountability and intimidating judicial figures.
The International Association of Judges (IAJ) recognized the flawed manner in which preliminary investigations were brought against Judge Ordóñez, stating that his alleged comments were made in his capacity as a representative of the profession, instead of as an individual judge. The right of association, such as carrying out duties in the name of the profession, as Judge Ordóñez did, is a protected right, and the decision to launch proceedings against him constitutes a direct attack on that right.
According to the case of Cuya Lavy v. Peru and Urrutia Laubreaux v Chile, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established that states have a binding obligation to refrain from adopting measures that are either directly or indirectly retaliation against individuals who participate in human rights discussions. In light of such existing case law and the fact that judicial independence is codified under the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, the rights group termed the proceedings as unlawful.
