The Minister of the Supreme Court of Justice, Ángela Vivanco, in her office at the Palace of Courts of Santiago. Cristian Soto Quiroz
The minister and spokesperson for the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, Ángela Vivanco (Santiago, 59 years old) reiterates that the rule of law is “in check” due to the exercise of criminal gangs, but clarifies this Tuesday in her office at the Palace of Court that there is no “institutional crisis”.
She does believe that the new criminal profile must be taken seriously, who is no longer willing to only attack property, but also people's lives.
The magistrate considers it essential that the Judiciary participate, “without interfering”, in the new constitutional process.
And that this, as learning from the previous one, have more time and have a better dialogue with the institutions.
Ask.
In 10 years, Chile went from being one of the three safest countries in Latin America to one in which only 41% feel safe walking on the street. What happened?
Response.
One of the important elements is that in various parts of Latin America gangs have been developing that have experience in violence and methods that we were not used to.
In addition, there is a social situation, particularly in youth, linked to the lack of job opportunities, study, or loss of confidence in institutions.
That makes them say 'society has done nothing for me and I don't owe it anything'.
Without prejudice to the crime rate, the impression of the people is decisive.
If people feel insecure, even if technically they are not, it influences the way they see the country.
Just as in health we have had to adapt to pandemic issues, we also have to do it in crime.
P.
The figures reveal that in the first seven months of the Boric government, insecurity has increased.
What is failing?
A.
One cannot transform these processes from one minute to another.
We all want it to be fixed immediately, but fighting anything that has some power takes resources, time, and thought.
Democracies gave up the tit for an eye a long time ago and the institutional route always takes longer because it is more difficult.
P.
A group of the population has the feeling that there is impunity.
Why?
R.
In these types of impressions, there is a lack of knowledge of how justice works and of looking at the processes.
Many times people, and with good reason because of the anguish, are guided by photographs of the moment.
For example, if a criminal is released on parole, it is said that justice did not fulfill its purpose.
But the current criminal procedure seeks to prevent people from being imprisoned longer than their sentence may be, as was the case with the old system.
Nor is the solution to put them all in jail if we don't have what to do with them afterwards.
Rehabilitation is very important and the prison system has not been able to deal with it effectively for a long time.
Q.
Is the increase in the seriousness of crimes due to imported crime?
R.
It is also because, just as society strives to combat crime, criminals strive to be more effective and have come to the conclusion that the more violence, the more people tend to be more submissive.
We must take care that they are no longer criminals who are going to attack only property, but also life.
You have to take them seriously about how serious this situation is and that these people have that conviction.
P.
You said that from the point of view of security, the rule of law is in check...
A.
Criminality always threatens the rule of law.
When you say that the rule of law is in check, you don't want to be terrifying, or that there is a situation of institutional crisis or violence in the streets.
We want to say that there are groups that challenge the rule of law and it is necessary for the rule of law to react precisely because it exists and because there are authorities that have the necessary solidity to be able to confront them.
Q.
How is this threat being faced and what tools should be used to end it?
A.
The Government has adopted a policy associated with implementing greater security measures.
That there be coincidence, divisions and diagnosis by different authorities: Interior, the Judicial Power, the Public Ministry.
We have to implement legal reforms and review the funds that are assigned to matters of special importance.
From the Judiciary we try to make it as efficient as possible, considering that we have to apply the law.
We cannot invent procedures or penalties, but it is also up to us to develop processes that are as strict as possible in a short time.
We have been very emphatic about the importance of coordinating so that these efforts achieve results.
P.
One of the main reforms included in the rejected constitutional proposal was to the Judiciary.
What do you think it responds to?
A.
We try to be as participatory as possible in this process.
That was half fulfilled because the convention worked with very limited times.
We were not always able to discuss the issues that were of great concern to us.
We have the experience that hopefully there will be more time and a better dialogue with the institutions.
That does not mean that the Judiciary wants to interfere in the constitutional process, but obviously if they are going to carry out a judicial reform it is important to know what those in charge think.
In the Judiciary there are issues that can be implemented, others that are very difficult and others that must be limited.
Q.
What are those topics?
R.
There are issues that require a huge investment.
You can say you want to create multiple courts, but it's not ethereal.
That has to be confronted with the resources available for infrastructure, civil servants... Other issues, if left too open, give rise to interpretations, such as indigenous justice.
It was not clarified what matters, who was affected and how they were related to the national justice system.
Other issues have to do with semantics, such as removing the name of Judicial Power.
If one removes the norm from a State power, it generates concern, which may be unjustified, but subjectivity also matters in these things.
P.
Which country should Chile take into account for the issue of indigenous justice?
R.
Australia and New Zealand have managed very well the relationship of the original ethnic groups with the national system.
Now, we are not one of those countries, but those comparative experiences serve.
Sometimes starting with small spaces is more efficient than trying to do a gigantic process that can have problems like the ones mentioned.
A type of convenience that, on the one hand, recognizes a reality that perhaps was not recognized for a long time, but also recognizes our modality of a unitary regional State.
Q.
What aspects of the Judiciary do you think the new project should reform?
R.
Strengthen precautionary actions and the protection of people's rights.
There are many people who acquire their effective protection by going to court and it is important that these be as efficient as possible.
It is also important to divide the functions of judicial government with respect to the purely jurisdictional function to avoid overlapping or loss of functions.
But that the system that is chosen ensures impartiality and judicial independence.
It is not about improving one thing to generate other problems, such as the politicization of justice.
Subscribe here to the EL PAÍS América
newsletter
and receive all the key information on current affairs in the region.