Saturday, October 4, 2014

Judges do not accept that the government has access to processes … – Reuters

                 


                         
                     

                 

 
                         

The secretary-general of the Association of Portuguese Judges, Maria José Coast, spoke out on Friday against the computer platform of the courts be managed by the Ministry of Justice, as always happened today.


                     


                         “How can one accept that the Justice Department has access at all times to information in the process, even if it has been determined by the judge that the process is confidential? Do not understand or accept, “said the magistrate at the Tenth Congress of Portuguese Judges, which ends this Saturday in Troy.

” How do you explain that whoever manages, administers and controls the computer system of courts is the Government, through the Ministry of Justice? How can you understand that the ministry is to set the computer system to master and manage information taken this system to determine what information the system should pay? “Insisted Maria José Coast.

To the magistrates, the “information platform of the courts is a working tool more than necessary for its activity” that must now be managed by the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), the organ of management and discipline of judges. “It is urgent that the CSM take the necessary steps to put an end to this situation and arrogate to themselves the control and management of the IT platform of the courts,” argued Maria José Coast, adding, however, that this is not the right time to do so, since the courts “are in chaos for over a month,” precisely because of the crash of Citius IT platform – which did not follow judicial reform started September 1. A situation that undermines “the constitutional right of citizens to access to justice.”

Maria José Coast says that the judicial reorganization has aspects that may jeopardize the independence of judges. “This new organization, if misinterpreted and applied model can jeopardize this independence. And so much so that the law itself felt the need to clarify that the powers of the CSM and the powers of the president of the district can not interfere with the judicial independence of judges. “

The fact that the strategic objectives of courts have come to be determined not only by the CSM but also by a group that includes a member of the Government and a representative of the Attorney General’s Office is, in the opinion of associational leader, an “unacceptable intrusion that clearly affront the constitutional principle of separation of powers “

.” appalling conditions “of running some courts were also not forgotten by Maria José Coast:” I know of no sovereign body that works in containers “, criticized, demanding to parliament and government tutelage that “start treating the courts as organs of sovereignty.”

not only came from the Professional Association of Judges, an organization that organized the congress, the criticism of the new judicial map and computer collapse. Sociologist Casimiro Ferreira resorted to a war terminology to describe the side effects that the reforms cause the most vulnerable sectors of society – poor, unemployed and excluded – and even the middle class. The investigator considered it unacceptable to have advanced with measures “despite knowing that things would not work well.”

“The people who decided the validity of assuming the risks are not the same ones that suffer the consequences “judicial reform, criticized by setting the almost complete stoppage that has lived in court as” a highly disruptive time exception, terrible for the citizens. ” And also spoke of the weakening of the rights of access to justice.

Others, however, preferred batteries point for the media because of the image that gives citizens of justice. Was the case of former President of the Supreme Court Noronha do Nascimento, who rescued the words of the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper to express their ideas: “In a democracy there should be no uncontrolled power. Now the TV has now become a colossal power, perhaps the greatest of all. The TV has acquired too broad a power in the democracy; and no democracy survives if not put a stop to this omnipotence. Democracy will not exist if the TV does not submit to a control. “


                     
 
                     
                 

                     

LikeTweet

No comments:

Post a Comment