[ad_1]
“This challenge is not the end of my career, but the beginning of a new way of exercising the judiciary, in which I commit myself to try, with all my talents, to provide better justice and try to regain reliability. of citizenship in the Judiciary ”.
This is how the Minister of the Court of Appeals of Santiago, Adelita Ravanales, after being unanimously ratified by the Senate to integrate the Supreme Court in the quota left by former magistrate Hugo Dolmestch.
Unlike the failed nomination of the Minister of the Court of Appeals of Valparaíso, Raúl Mera -whose appointment was not ratified by the Upper House due to the objections presented by the opposition-, Ravanales had broad support in all parliamentarians.
“We want to appreciate this fact of a unanimous appointment made by the Senate to approve a woman whose credentials are very simple, but also very remarkable. She is a great judge, and that helps that, through dialogue, unanimity is achieved to have a great judge as a minister of the Supreme Court, ”said the Minister of Justice, Hernán Larraín, after the vote.
The new member of the Supreme Court entered the Judiciary in 1990 as secretary of the San José de la Mariquina Court of First Instance. Later she was rapporteur for the Valdivia Court of Appeals and titular judge of the 19th Civil Court of Santiago. Since June 2007, she has served as Minister of the Santiago Court of Appeals, where she was appointed by then-President Michelle Bachelet. At the same time, Ravanales has performed teaching duties at the Judicial Academy and at the Chilean Police School.
The first step for its ratification in Congress was the last Monday, before the Senate Constitution Commission. That day, all the members of the instance suggested to the Upper House that it approve his name, and Ravanales herself gave some personal opinions related to the contingency.
During her initial presentation, the magistrate stressed the importance of participation of women in institutional spaces. In this regard, she argued that. “As of June 30 of this year, of the national total of members of the Judicial Power, 15.9% more women than men are registered. In the first instance, women outnumber men by 20.2%. In the Courts of Appeals, it is men who surpass us and they do so by 12.9% ”.
“Same situation in the Supreme Court, where the gap is 26.3%, with two vacant positions, in terms that of the 19, 12 are held by men and seven by women. When I joined the Court of Santiago, I did so as the sixth woman out of 31 vacancies at the time. Today we are 34 and 16 women, “the judge stressed.
Later, after consultations with the senators of the instance, Ravanales maintained, in relation to the conflict in La Araucanía, that “there was an indigenous parliament to which authorities were invited and which was held on September 9 last. I celebrate it because It caught my attention that it is an invitation made by the Mapuche people to the authorities, and in it the three powers of the State converged ”.
“It is about disagreements, and the conversation has to be dissenting but not offending. And beyond, have that look that allows us to recognize a common past history and move towards the future “, he sentenced.
He was also asked his opinion in relation to the possible conflict of powers that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court would have, a discussion that it took up last year regarding some sentences of the Third Chamber of the highest court.
The minister pointed out that “one cannot ignore that recent experience reveals an eventual conflict between the courts that is related to the eventual overlap or coincidence that they may have in some matters. Given the constitutional debate that exists today, it would be good to assume it and try to establish the limits of one and the other. The existence of these friction spaces does not help, and this new constitutional debate opens the possibility of discussing the distribution of powers ”.
In relation to the difficulties that the judicial service has presented regarding the Covid-19 pandemic that affects the country, Ravanales affirmed that “I think it is a good idea to extend deadlines, but also the issue of alternative exits seems to me to be prudent under these conditions. The extension of terms will undoubtedly be an important tool, but we will always find limits in the courts ”.
