The opinion of the judges does not only matter to the public, but there is a current of magistrates whose twitter threads have become necessary elements to understand the information of the courts, bringing many judicial decisions closer to laypeople in the matter. Now the Judicial Ethics Commission recommends that this participation of judges in interviews, colloquia or social networks be neutral. In this way, it considers that its interventions should conform to the concept of “political neutrality” that inspires the principles of impartiality, independence and integrity of the members of the Judicial Career; Likewise, they must be guided by the prudence and moderation that the ethical, national and international norms collect when they address the limits of the freedom of expression of the judges.
This body thus responds to a query regarding the way in which a judge should act publicly, either in an interview in the media, a legal colloquium or on social networks, so as not to compromiser neither its appearance of impartiality nor that of the Judicial Power and so as not to generate mistrust in the public.
The Judicial Ethics Commission in previous opinions has already called on magistrates and judges to exercise “with prudence and moderation their right to freedom of expression in order not to be affected by their appearance of impartiality and, by extension, the credibility of Justice before the citizen “.
The opinion also indicates that the judge’s obligation to provide respectful treatment to the persons involved in the process should also be extended to the extra-procedural sphere, so that the comments and interventions of the members of the Judicial career in the media, social networks or legal meetings they must be developed “with the formalities of good manners” and “without disrespectful, vexatious or harmful expressions”.
Social media training
In relation to social networks, the opinion invites the judges to demand sufficient training on their operation and use. Cites the self-directed course on Judicial Conduct and Ethics of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna, 2019), in which judges are advised “not publish anything that could undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the Judiciary, such as political opinions or controversial issues “and” not identifying as a judge on social media. “And it offers examples of codes of conduct from different States, all of which coincide in noting that judges must refrain from demonstrating their political preferences.
It also mentions the London Declaration on judicial deontology approved by the General Assembly of the European Network of Justice Councils (2010), it speaks of “moderation, seriousness and prudence” as judicial qualities.
In previous opinions, the Judicial Ethics Commission pointed out the convenience for judges and magistrates to individually assess the possibilities and ways of presenting themselves on social networks, as well as the use they make of them, in order to ensure that their neutrality not affected. Once again, it is pointed out that, according to the principles of judicial ethics, participation in social networks must be governed by prudence and moderation.
– .
