OPINION: A curtain of suspicion in Supreme Court

Hoy por Hoy, La Prensa, on October 3 put Supreme Court President, Ayu Prado firmly  in the center of it editorial sights and then let go:

“The judge is obliged to refrain from intervening in those cases in which his impartiality is compromised or that a reasonable observer understands that there is reason to think so.”

This is the text of Article 13 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, approved by the Supreme Court in 2008. For any observer, the actions performed as Attorney General of the Nation, in matters relating to Financial Pacific (FP) , shed the impartiality of the  presiding judge of our highest corporation of justice. Why do you insist on ignoring the causes that justify your  disability? Day by day, more actors of civil society, ex-justices of the Court, and different voices from all sectors claim that you withdraw   as Judge  of Guarantees  in the FP  case.

To be effective, the judiciary needs to have legitimacy, due to the credibility of those who act in it. The participation of the President of the Court in the FP case raises a curtain of suspicions that the country cannot tolerate. Keeping  this course of action,  leads righteousness to a dead end.