UN experts recently expressed concern over the dismissal of Peruvian Judge Oswaldo Ordóñez Alcántara, who formerly served as President of the First Constitutional Chamber of Lima. This action has been described as a reprisal for his outspoken defense of judicial independence and criticism of legislative reforms threatening the rule of law in Peru. The UN experts emphasized that judges must have the ability to engage in public discourse about the judiciary’s organization and independence without fear of repercussions.
During Ordóñez’s confirmation process, a controversial line of questioning was used to probe his comments from a previous hearing. At that hearing, he suggested that certain congressmen were “destabilizing the justice system,” a sentiment perceived by some as being punitive in nature rather than investigatory. The National Board of Justice of Peru (JNJ) initiated a preliminary investigation, arguing that his remarks violated the expected impartiality of judges. Critics argue that this approach inverts accountability by treating legitimate critiques of governmental interference as misconduct.
The International Association of Judges has critiqued the proceedings against Judge Ordóñez, noting that his statements were made in his professional capacity, which should be safeguarded under the right of association. According to established precedents such as decisions by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, states must avoid retaliatory measures against individuals involved in human rights discussions.
The dismissal has sparked concern among international observers, who emphasize judicial independence as a cornerstone of any democracy. The UN experts’ statements reflect a larger call for safeguarding the judiciary from political pressures that threaten its impartial function.