Hernán Rivas’s first-instance conviction and eight-year prison sentence could be used by former judge Tania Irún as new evidence in a constitutional challenge pending before the Supreme Court of Justice over her dismissal by the Jury for the Trial of Magistrates (JEM), the body responsible for trying and removing judges in Paraguay. Irún intends to expand the case once the ruling against the former senator becomes final; it remains appealable.
Dismissed in 2021, Irún says Rivas’s vote was decisive in her removal. She told ABC TV that the JEM decision drew five votes in favor of her dismissal and three against. She also said that, after the members’ opinions were made public, she discovered that Rivas’s written opinion recommended acquitting her, but he voted for her removal. In the former judge’s view, the discrepancy indicates that he did not properly examine the case.
The case that led to Irún’s trial before the JEM involved a judicial ruling related to the so-called Moon Sect and a criminal charge of malfeasance in office. She was acquitted unanimously on that charge, while the ruling she had issued was upheld on appeal and the action she filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed. Irún told ABC Color that she has been waiting since December 2021 for her constitutional challenge to be considered. If Rivas’s conviction becomes final, she wants to add it to the case, along with her acquittal, and seek to have her dismissal overturned. She is also considering seeking reinstatement to the bench or compensation.
Irún also said Rivas took part in nearly 180 administrative proceedings and trials of judges and prosecutors before the JEM. That figure is her estimate, not a list of decisions already challenged. The former judge argues that each person who was harmed should go to court individually.
Senator Mario Varela, a member of the JEM, shares that view. Speaking to El Nacional, he maintained that Law 6,814/2021 does not provide for an automatic review of all the body’s decisions: anyone who considers themselves harmed must appeal individually. Varela said the conviction is not yet final and acknowledged the damage to the Jury’s credibility. He also admitted voting to select Rivas as its president, saying he felt deceived. In Varela’s assessment, the Chamber of Deputies’ designation of Rivas as its representative on the JEM gave him institutional legitimacy and influenced how the other members viewed him.
Varela said that before Rivas became president, he had proposed Senator Derlis Maidana for the body, but the possibility did not advance. As questions mounted, he said, he changed his position and joined Enrique Kronawetter, Alejandro Aguilera and Óscar Paciello in arguing that Rivas should step down from leading the JEM. Varela said he warned him about the consequences of remaining in the position. Rivas requested leave, later stepped down from leading the body, and subsequently left the JEM.
Prosecutor Patricia Sánchez told El Nacional that the case could still lead to new investigations involving former officials of Universidad Sudamericana and the Ministry of Education and Sciences (MEC). Those named include Euclides Acevedo, the university’s former rector; Óscar Rodríguez Kennedy, its former dean of law; and Eduardo Petta, a former education minister. Sánchez also said that information concerning possible false testimony given during the trial had been referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office sought a 12-year prison sentence, and one of the judges on the trial court proposed 14 years; the sentence imposed was eight years, for acts related to producing and using public documents with false content. Sánchez described the penalty as severe for crimes against documentary evidence. The judiciary will decide whether to enforce the sentence once the conviction becomes final. According to the prosecutor, the court found that the existing precautionary measures were sufficient to ensure Rivas remains subject to the proceedings and can serve his sentence once the conviction becomes final. Any requests for house arrest or benefits will be assessed during the enforcement phase.