The presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) and the Federal Judiciary Council (CJF) announced that It will be the plenary session of the High Court that decides what will happen with the complaint against the former minister, Arturo Zaldívar.
Through a joint statement, in which They omitted to mention the name, Norma Piñathe judiciary indicated that this occurred after by agreement of the president they gave entry to an anonymous complaint against the former judge.
“On April 9, 2024, the president of the SCJN and the CJF processed an anonymous letter in which various officials were denounced, including a former minister, for the alleged commission of conduct that could constitute administrative offenses. In said agreement, it was considered that The CJF does not have the authority to investigate and, where appropriate, punish the acts attributed to a former minister.“, noted the institutions
This was notified by the Administrative Responsibilities Unit of the CJF to the Supreme Court, so the General Secretariat of Agreements of the SCJN incorporated this anonymous claim to other facts against Zaldívar at other times.
Based on this, the judiciary indicated that it will be “The plenary session of the Supreme Court will resolve what is appropriate” regarding this complaint.
Likewise, the CJF and the SCJN announced that They will seek to find out how this agreement reached the media last Friday.
“It is reported that, by agreement of the president of the CJF, an ex officio investigation has been initiated due to the leak of a file that contained the proposed Agreement signed electronically by the Head of the General Investigation Unit of Administrative Responsibilities of the CJF “, they pointed out.
The former minister is being accused of having “violated” the autonomy and independence of operators of the judicial system to “satisfy personal or third-party interests.” In addition, he was accused of exerting pressure on the heads of jurisdictional bodies.
These accusations against Zaldívar They are based on 283 testimonies collected since 2019of which 259 correspond to judges and magistrates.
