TSJ keeps current membership order despite threats

Despite the Justice Department’s admonition to convict members of the Supreme Court (TSJ) for possession of 19 members of the judiciary, that body decided to keep the appointments in effect, claiming that they had fulfilled their powers and that it was up to the council to do so of the magistrate to determine the validity or not.

This Monday, the President of the Supreme Court, Olvis Egüez, stated in a press conference in Sucre that this instance is fulfilling its powers, limited to the constitution and the law of the judicial authorities, since, after submitting the list of members, they appoint the members of the Council of the Magistrate approved and subsequent possession.

You can also read:  United Nations warn of mercury pollution in Bolivia

In this situation, the TSJ retains possession of the final members of the judiciary and will wait for the council of the magistrate to decide on compliance with constitutional sentence 170/2021, which overturned appeal 36/2020 by which it was appointed, and he owns it Members of seven departments in the country.

“We are aware that the constitutional judgment 170/2021 of the 26th does not have the ascription to annul any kind of subpoena,” said Egüez.

However, Justice Minister Iván Lima announced that the appointment of members of the departments’ courts had been canceled and that the convocation would have to be held again.

You can also read:  Cooperatives and transporters announce protests against the anti-legitimation law

“The designation is canceled. The judgments of the Plurinational Constitutional Court (TCP) are mandatory; it is neither debated nor discussed, it will be fulfilled, ”he wrote on his Twitter account.

However, Egüez argued that the Supreme Court did not participate in the above constitutional process either as a plaintiff or as a plaintiff.

More threats with lawsuits

Justice Minister Iván Lima warns against initiating liability proceedings against an institution of the judicial authority for the second time. The first against the Advisors to the Council of the Magistrate (CM) and now against the Magistrates of the Supreme Court (TSJ).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here