UN experts on Friday sentenced the dismissal of the Peruvian judge Oswaldo Ordóñez Alcántara, former president of the First Constitutional Chamber of Lima, has resigned from his position. The move is described as retaliation for his defense of the independence of the judiciary and his public criticism of legal reforms that could weaken the rule of law in the country.
Commenting on the seriousness of the problem, the experts said: “Judges must be able, individually and collectively, to participate in the public debate on the organization, functioning and independence of the judiciary, in accordance with their duty of discretion and responsibility, without fear of pressure, deterrent measures or procedures that could hinder the exercise of their institutional functions.”
The experts particularly criticized the line of questioning used to inquire about his participation in one Hearing on the “State of Judicial Independence in the Americas” before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in November 2024. During the hearing, Judge Ordóñez stated that a group of congressmen “destabilized the judicial system and in turn weakened Peru’s judiciary and prosecution.”
This prompted Peru’s National Judicial Office (JNJ) to open a preliminary investigation, finding that such statements contradict the “appearance of impartiality” expected of judges. Critics expressed concerns that this type of investigation would treat a justified criticism of institutional interference as if it were prima facie evidence of judicial misconduct, thereby upending the logic of accountability and intimidating judicial officials.
The International Association of Judges (IAJ) has recognized this incorrect way in which a preliminary investigation was opened against Judge Ordóñez on the grounds that his alleged statements were made in his capacity as a representative of the profession and not as an individual judge. The right to organize, such as carrying out duties on behalf of the profession, as Judge Ordóñez did, is a protected right and the decision to initiate proceedings against him represents a direct attack on this right.
In the case of Cuya Lavy against Peru and Urrutia Laubreaux against ChileThe Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that States have a binding obligation not to take any action that directly or indirectly constitutes retaliation against persons participating in human rights discussions. Given this existing case law and the fact that judicial independence is codified by the United Nations Basic principles Regarding the independence of the judiciary, the human rights group described the procedure as unlawful.
