MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

Judiciary corruption: several Latam countries named

Corruption is undermining judicial systems around the world denying citizens' access to justice and the basic human right to a fair and impartial trial, sometimes even to a trial at all, according to the Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems issued Thursday by Transparency International, the global coalition against corruption.

"Equal treatment before the law is a pillar of democratic societies. When courts are corrupted by greed or political expediency, the scales of justice are tipped, and ordinary people suffer," said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International. "Judicial corruption means the voice of the innocent goes unheard, while the guilty act with impunity." The new Global Corruption Report concludes that a corrupt judiciary erodes the international community's ability to prosecute transnational crime and inhibits access to justice and redress for human rights violations. It undermines economic growth by damaging the trust of the investment community, and impedes efforts to reduce poverty. Judicial corruption usually falls into two categories: political interference in the judicial process by the legislative or executive branch, and bribery. The importance of an independent judiciary cannot be over emphasised. Everyone loses when justice is corrupted, in particular the poor, who are forced to pay bribes they cannot afford. Several Latinamerican countries are specifically named in the report, Peru, Mexico, Argentina and Venezuela. According to TI Argentina's judicial council, meant to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, has been gradually politicized. President Nestor Kirchner has reduced the size of the council, ensuring that political representatives on the body make up the majority. The quorum was reduced, giving the politicians veto power over the body's decisions. TI also cites the example of a judge appointed by the former President Carlos Menem who ruled that excessive campaign spending by the ruling party had not broken the law. TI's latest global survey of attitudes towards corruption reveals that in more than twenty-five countries, at least one in ten households had to pay a bribe to get access to justice. In a further twenty countries, more than three in ten households reported that bribery was involved in securing access to justice or a "fair" outcome in court. In Albania, Greece, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Peru, Taiwan and Venezuela, the figure was even higher. Petty bribery and political influence in the judiciary erode social cohesion: one system for the rich and another for the poor fractures communities. "If money and influence are the basis of justice, the poor cannot compete," said Akere Muna, TI's Vice Chair and president of the Pan African Lawyers' Union. "Bribery not only makes justice unaffordable; it ruins the capacity of the justice system to fight against corruption and to serve as a beacon of independence and accountability." According to a 2002 survey, 96 percent of respondents in Pakistan who had contact with the lower courts had encountered corrupt practices, while in Russia, an estimated 210 million US dollars in bribes is thought to be spent on law courts annually. Corruption in the judiciary includes any inappropriate influence on the impartiality of judicial proceedings and judgments' and can extend to the bribing of judges for favorable decisions, or no decision at all. Judicial corruption includes the misuse of judicial funds and power, such as when a judge hires family members to staff the court or manipulates contracts for court construction and equipment. It can also play out in biased case allocation and in other pre-trial procedures, such as when bribed court clerks "lose" files and evidence. It can influence any trial or court settlement, and the enforcement - or not - of court decisions and sentences. The Global Corruption Report 2007 finds that despite decades of reforms to protect judicial independence, the pressure to rule in favor of political interests remains intense. Though many judges around the world are indeed acting with integrity, problems remain. Erosion of international standards is evident in countries such as Argentina and Russia, where political powers have increased their influence over the judicial process in recent years. And for judges who refuse to be compromised, political retaliation can be swift and harsh. Unfair or ineffective procedures to discipline and remove corrupt judges can end up being used instead for the removal of independent judges. In Algeria, judges considered too independent are transferred to remote locations. In Kenya, as part of an anti-corruption campaign that was widely perceived as politically expedient, judges were pressured to step down without being told of the allegations against them. Failure to appoint judicial officials on merit can lead to the selection of a pliant, corruptible judiciary. "Problematic" judges can be reassigned or have sensitive cases transferred to more pliable judges, a tactic used by former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori. Interference from politicians or civil servants can also buy "legal" cover for embezzlement, nepotism, cronyism and illegal political decisions. Such interference can be as blatant as physical threats and intimidation, and as subtle as the manipulation of judicial appointments, salaries and conditions of service. Bribery, the other dark thread of judicial corruption, can occur throughout the fabric of the judicial process. As 32 country reports in the Global Corruption Report demonstrate, judges may accept bribes to delay or accelerate cases, accept or deny appeals, influence other judges or simply to decide a case in a certain way. Court officials may seek bribes for services that should be free; lawyers may charge additional "fees" to expedite or delay cases, or to direct clients to judges known to take bribes. Factors affecting a judge's susceptibility include but are not limited to poor salaries. Insecure working conditions, including unfair promotion and transfer processes and a lack of continuous training, make judges and other court personnel vulnerable to bribery. Opaque court processes that foster bribery can also prevent the media and civil society from monitoring court activity and exposing judicial corruption. The report finally makes a number of recommendations to strengthen judicial independence and combat corruption: â€Ã‚¢ Judicial appointments should be made by independent bodies â€Ã‚¢ Judges should be appointed on merit â€Ã‚¢ Judicial salaries should reflect experience and performance â€Ã‚¢ Judges should be liable to prosecution if corruption is suspected â€Ã‚¢ Allegations against judges should be investigated by an independent body â€Ã‚¢ Judges should be removed or transferred in a transparent manner according to fair standards