Spanish translation below / Traducción al español a continuación
Interview with Julissa Aguilar, Lawyer, Magistrate of the Court of Criminal Appeals with national jurisdiction in extortion matters, and professor at the Technological University of Honduras, was part of the Nominating Board for the selection process of candidates for Magistrates of the new Supreme Court of Justice in Honduras as a representative of the Faculty of the Schools of Legal Sciences.
The American Bar Association (ABA) held an interview with Magistrate Julissa Aguilar to learn about her experience as a member of the Nominating Board, as well as to learn about the effectiveness of the technical support ABA ROLI provided to the Board.
Do you consider the technical assistance provided by ABA to the Nominating Board as important? Why?
Yes, it was very important because they gave us input for technical work and that helped us broaden the panorama of various aspects that we were not very clear about at the time. For example, a protocol for marking and denouncing that we used to create our own protocol. They also provided us with the occupational profile of the Magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice, from which we took several elements and reconditioned them to our needs.
However, it was unfortunate that the support offered in the investigation of the applicants at the international level was not allowed, which could have supported the complaints and denunciations phase.
Do you consider that the technical support received contributed to a fair and transparent process?
More than fair and transparent, I consider that it was participatory. It allowed the participation and contribution of several organizations and observers. We received input from many people to improve the process, and meetings with observers and collaborators were allowed to be public, which contributed to transparency.
What are your recommendations so that the selection process to be carried out by the next Nominating Board in 2030 is successful?
This is a continuous learning process and there are many opportunities for future improvement. For example, we need reforms to the Nominating Board Law, such as establishing longer periods and preparation for the knowledge exam. The phases of the selection process are not very clear, and we had to make some interpretations, which gives way to speculation and different criteria. Meritocracy must be prioritized, and the evaluation matrix reformed since it does not have clear objective parameters of measurement and there is disparity in the evaluation. The psychometric test and the validation test were exclusive, but it does not imply that people cannot be magistrates.
What expectations do you have of the new Supreme Court of Justice?
I have high expectations. There is a problem of lack of personnel, so I hope that there will be adequate selection and appointment of personnel in places where there are none, and openness for them to offer their opinions on growth. I hope that there will be institutional strengthening and that they seek strategies that provide solutions to sensitive issues. I hope that they give legal certainty and maintain a legal criterion, harmonious with what has been previously resolved, or if not, that they do so based on law. The system needs to be changed or improved by creating new offices. And finally, it is important to advance in technology.
What are your recommendations for future selection processes for university representatives before the Nominating Board?
I recommend starting the selection process well in advance as many people could not attend the meetings because they came from other parts of the country. I also recommend the option of voting on a platform, such as Zoom, to ensure greater participation at the national level.
The American Bar Association thanks attorney Julissa Aguilar for her openness to talk about such an important topic.
This blog was prepared by staff of the American Bar Association Center for Global Programs and reflects their views. It has not been reviewed or approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the position of the Association or any of its entities. Further, nothing in this blog should be considered as legal advice in a specific case.
Learn more about ABA ROLI’s work across Latin America and the Caribbean.