Chile: Removal proceedings against 56 judges harm due process and risk judicial independence, UN expert warns

GENEVA – The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, today expressed alarm over the possible removal of 56 judges by the Supreme Court of Chile under undefined proceedings that do not appear to ensure due process and do not provide the possibility to appeal.

In June, the Supreme Court of Chile, exercising its constitutional power to remove judges, initiated 56 removal proceedings against judges whose conduct had already been examined and adjudicated through disciplinary proceedings conducted pursuant to the Court’s Act No. 108-2020.

“These judges are facing removal proceedings for conduct that did not constitute a disciplinary offence under Chilean law and after the same matters were already adjudicated,” Satterthwaite said. “The judges now find themselves compelled to defend their continued tenure by attempting to demonstrate that they meet undefined criteria of ‘suitability to continue serving in their positions’.”

The expert noted with concern that Article 80 of the Constitution does not define the content or scope of the constitutional ground of “good behavior,” nor does it establish objective criteria for determining when conduct is sufficiently serious to justify the removal. It does not regulate the relationship between this exceptional mechanism and ordinary disciplinary proceedings, opening the door to duplicative proceedings. The procedure itself appears not to meet due process guarantees and there is no appeal possible.

She recalled that international standards guarantee certain protections regarding conditions of service for judges, such as the principle of irremovability, in order to safeguard their ability to exercise their oversight functions independently.

“While ensuring judicial integrity is essential, I am concerned that the extraordinary power of removal is being used here to shut down public debate in the wake of a scandal involving misuse of sick leave by public officials,” the Special Rapporteur said.

“Chile should find more effective ways to strengthen public confidence in the judicial system, and reject retroactive and sweeping disciplinary measures. Clear rules with due process protections are essential to ensuring both judicial independence and integrity.”

Satterthwaite noted that the Supreme Court’s use of its Article 80 power to remove judges in dozens of cases would be a major departure from the traditional use of this exceptional disciplinary power. She stressed that any judicial removal proceeding should have the following minimum elements:

• Any review must focus on individual cases based on pre-established neutral criteria, rather than mass purges.
• Decisions to remove or discipline judges must be entrusted to an independent judicial body, such as the Superior Council of the Judiciary, and not to political entities.
• Judges facing removal or demotion must be guaranteed the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to seek judicial review of the decision before a court.
• Blanket removals of judges are not acceptable.

The expert has communicated her concerns to Chile.