Judge Dina Marchuk Santacruz, popularly known as the "No Tears" judge, is guaranteed to remain in office until the age of 75 since November 2025, when the full bench of the Supreme Court of Justice unanimously approved the declaration of irremovability for 31 magistrates who met the constitutional and legal requirements to receive the benefit.
The proposal was submitted by Justice Manuel Ramírez Candia Martínez Simón, who reported that, following a review by the Court's General Secretariat, magistrates, prosecutors, and public defenders with two confirmations in their positions and more than ten years of service had been identified. In addition to the 31 magistrates declared irremovable, the Court granted job stability to six fiscal agents and three public defenders.
The judge once again sparked public debate by posting her academic credentials on social media in response to questions that arose after it became known that she holds a degree registered by the Ministry of Education and Sciences issued by Universidad Sudamericana, an institution currently under investigation for alleged irregularities in the issuance of academic certificates. In one of the images shared on Threads, Marchuk displayed a master's degree in Criminal and Procedural Law with an emphasis in Adversarial Litigation from Universidad Columbia del Paraguay, accompanying the post with the phrase: "For you, crybaby!"
The expression "No Tears" had already gone viral previously, when the judge responded to comments linked to questions raised by former senator Kattya González against Court Justice María Carolina Llanes. The phrase became a trademark associated with the judge, both among her critics and her supporters.
While the debate over the academic credentials under investigation and over magistrates' conduct on social media continues, Dina Marchuk's situation presents a particularity: since November 2025, she has held the declaration of irremovability that guarantees her stay in the Judiciary until the age of 75. On the other hand, the Court's Ethics Tribunal has not, as far as is publicly known, taken any action against the judge.