Various criticisms and reactions have prompted a recent Supreme Court ruling, which knowing in full an appeal against a suspension penalty in a sexual harassment case involving a judge, decided not to open a “removal book” by keeping it in office.
The decision – which does not stem from criminal proceedings, but one of an administrative nature – revives questions about the procedure for action for the prevention, reporting and treatment of sexual harassment in that power of the State; the question of whether or not the deployment of sexual harassment conduct is compatible with the exercise of the role of judge and whether or not existing protective and redress measures for victims are effective.
Since the National Association of Magistrates we have called for the application of the gender perspective in the trial, the principle of non-discrimination and promoted the eradication of all forms of mistreatment, in accordance with current legislation in both domestic law and human rights treaties ratified by Chile.
We have opposed the transfer of the aggressors, not only because it is not a form of sanction established by law, but because, if the facts reported, in the Labour Code itself, which does not apply to the judiciary, disciplinary dismissal is envisaged as a sanction, which makes sense because of the seriousness of the facts established and not to expose others to become potential victims.
Furthermore, it should be recalled that “correction and appearance of correction are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge” as noted by the fourth value contained in the so-called “Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct” adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and adopted in early 2003, a large catalogue of observations that, while not binding, point to the idea of a judiciary of unobjectionable integrity as a basic institution that guarantees the validity of democracy and the legality of a State.
We live in a world of signs. And at a time when citizens require their public servants to meet high ethical standards in line with the endowment they enjoy, and is adamant in the face of their misconduct, in the context of a widespread loss of trust in institutions, spaces for the occurrence and tolerance of harassment have gradually been closed as the organization itself has sought to move towards the eradication of sexual harassment based on gender equality and non-discrimination policy and its subsequent “Perhaps harassment” campaign of late 2017.
Does institutional design influence the organization’s inability to adequately treat complaints? Of course.
People who work within the judiciary, without exception, coexist daily with a vertical structure in which there are commands, obedience and submission in a similar way to what happens in the Castrenses institutions. It is explicit and distinguished between “hierarchical superiors” and “subordinates”, so that industrial relations are tinged with related codes and practices that shape character and nurture an institutional culture rich in rites that have been followed and respected since pre-Republican times.
And in addition to reviewing decisions through the appeals that rise, the higher courts and its members, as well as the courts and tribunals on their scale, are responsible for classifying the work of subordinates, decide on their career in which they naturally hope to “ascend” and discipline them if they incur any fault, among so many other manifestations of that control.
Thus, it has been said that it sets up a true “culture of sexual harassment”, on the understanding that aggressors use this configuration of power relations for the deployment of harassment behaviors; they are likely to trust that whistleblowers will receive weak support and that the host system itself will re-victimize them by questioning their testimonies, providing protection and redress measures that do not address the seriousness of the facts and will experience the social judgment of their environments, including “superiors” and “subordinates.”
It completes the picture of this insufficient institutional response that background resolutions lack the necessary gender approach and perspective, so that separation of service, removal, experiences an uncertain prognosis.
It is very complex that citizens perceive all this when they go to court, whose judge or judge exercises judicial protection of their fundamental rights, the same rights with which the institution of which they are a party is displicing towards their own civilities.
For all this, as a guild we firmly believe that in view of the seriousness of sexual harassment behaviors, neither suspension nor transfer are effective sanctions and that the Chilean Judiciary must make firm progress towards consolidating safe spaces for women’s work.
The content poured into this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.
