Caprarulo, with experience in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction of Concordia, currently works as interim Guarantee Judge in that town. But her appointment opens another debate, that of comprehensive parity in the Judicial Branch: a judge is retiring and the majority of the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos (STJER) considers an option in line with these times to form the local criminal chamber as “a gentlemen’s table”.
Interview with the president of the STJ
In dialogue with RADIO 2820, the president of the province’s highest judicial body, Leandro Portela, referred to the appointment: “It was not done before because an agreement could not be reached. Finally yesterday there was a majority that managed to impose the name of Dr. Caprarulo and that is how his appointment came about.
Asked if he considers that the definition fails to comply with what the regulations establish regarding Comprehensive Parity in the powers of the State, Portela was forceful: “It opposes what the current legislation indicates.”
“What happened is that the majority of the members of the body opted for Dr. Caprarulo. I can’t give you another explanation. It is not a justification, it is an explanation. I voted for a female person and the majority voted for male people. There is no deeper explanation than that. There was one of the colleagues who proposed the name of Dr. Caprarulo because he had experience in criminal law. In fact, in my opinion, several of those who had proposed had experience in criminal law and were in the same conditions as Caprarulo. But hey, I have nothing against the appointed judge, I don’t know him. But as a result of the topic you are touching on, I share the opinion that a woman should have been appointed. That’s why I voted for a woman. But hey, I have to accept the majority rule,” the STJER president explained.
Regarding whether he does not consider as contradictory the message that the highest judicial body of the province sends by failing to comply with a law approved by the Entre Ríos legislature, Portela elaborated: “An interpretation of the law prevailed that I do not share, but that exists. There are colleagues who consider that interim appointments do not have to respond exhaustively to the parity law because they are appointments that are made for a short period of time and that in many cases are due to needs or emergencies. And in Gualeguaychú, although there are several people who can occupy the place that Caprarulo occupies, in other places there are none. So this custom has been generated that interim appointments should not have this gender restriction when they are for a short time. That is an interpretation and it is the one that the majority applied yesterday to resolve the appointment of Dr. Caprarulo. I understand the questioning, to a certain point I share it, but based on that interpretation that the Superior Court has been applying that has not been questioned by anyone, I have to accept from that perspective, from that vision, the decision of the majority.”
Is there room for interpretation when the regulations are so specific? What does the Comprehensive Parity law say?
In its article 2, the law defines the “principle of gender parity”: “The principle of gender parity is established in the formation and integration of the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, Political Parties, Associations, Colleges, Professional Councils” . Article 3 deepens the concept: “Gender parity is understood as the equal representation of men and women at fifty percent (50%) for each gender in the formation of electoral lists, and in the composition of organic or organizational structures.” positions and shortlists or appointment lists”. It is from its article 5 that the regulations begin to define the “scopes of application of the principle of gender parity.”
In article 14, the Law establishes: “To appoint and remove after summary the officials and employees of the Judicial Branch, whose designation or separation is not attributed by the Constitution to another Branch and agency of the State. The designation to fill the positions must comply with the principle of gender parity”.
On the other hand, in article 15, it establishes that “the appointments of substitutes and interims will be made without competition of antecedents and opposition, and the other conditions of articles 3, 4 and 5 must be fulfilled. In all appointment processes “The principle of gender parity must be adhered to.”
But there are those who consider that, despite the specifications of the text, free interpretations can be made of it to the point of erasing its meaning…
“That is a vision of the matter that I respect, I do not question it, nor am I going to defend a designation that I do not share. I belong to a collegiate body and I cannot refuse to participate in an institutional event because I do not like how it resolves. I have no choice but to abide by the majority rule,” Portela remarked.
Regarding the majority that was formed this Tuesday, he clarified: “There were eight of us – there are 9 designated members – because one of the members was not present and four voted for Caprarulo, while the other four voted for two other candidates, so the The result of the vote was four, three and one,” Portela revealed.
“I would like to be able to answer frankly if this designation is a counterproductive message, but it seems to me that it is not appropriate for me to comment on a decision made by the body that I am a member of, because it would be indirectly criticizing a colleague who has an opinion of which I I cannot, I have no elements to doubt that there is some hidden intention. That is, I don’t want to get involved because I am personally involved,” he excused himself.
“What I can tell you, for example by giving my opinion regarding what is happening these days with the Court, and with that I think I can indirectly be giving you an answer, it seems to me that the fact that we are discussing whether they have to be men or women – those who enter – it already seems to me that it is a sign of backwardness. That that alone is a reason for discussion, that alone seems to me to be a sign of backwardness,” she concluded.
