VZCZCXYZ0005
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLP #1948/01 1942205
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 132205Z JUL 07
FM AMEMBASSY LA PAZ
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4319
INFO RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION 6926
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 4274
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 8162
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 5407
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 2637
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 2797
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 4719
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 5268
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 9874
RUMIAAA/USCINCSO MIAMI FL
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 0407
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/HQ USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL

UNCLAS LA PAZ 001948 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL ECON PHUM BL
SUBJECT: SOME TRANSPARENCY AND MAS COMPROMISE IN NEW 
SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) After nearly two months of deliberations, Bolivia's 
congress successfully voted on the appointment of four new 
supreme court judges in a process that while not fully 
transparent, was a marked improvement over the past. 
Historically the congressional approval process was opaque, 
based on political deals in which the main political parties 
held closed door sessions and each party negotiated for its 
judicial candidates.  Despite much rancor between the 
Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) and PODEMOS (the main 
opposition party), the two sides reached an accord and 
developed a mostly transparent and merit based approval 
process based on ten basic criteria as well as written and 
oral exams.  Civil society representatives from the USAID 
supported "Citizens' Participation and Justice Network" were 
allowed to observe the process.  Voting began on July 10, and 
after six rounds, congress reached the required two-thirds 
majority for each of the new judges on July 12.  To reach the 
two-thirds, some back room deal-making between MAS and 
PODEMOS was still necessary.  The cooperation between the MAS 
and PODEMOS, the inclusion of civil society observers, and 
the relative transparency of the process in general is a 
positive precedent for Bolivia, despite the last minute 
deal-making.  End Summary 
 
----------- 
The Context 
----------- 
 
¶2. (U) The supreme court, which is made up of twelve 
justices, has been short four justices for over a year. 
Throughout 2006 congress never reached the two-thirds 
majority required to fill the vacancies so President Morales 
filled them with interim appointments during congress' 
December 2006 recess.  Morales was handed a setback when the 
constitutional tribunal deemed that his appointees could not 
serve for more than 90 days, again leaving the supreme court 
with four vacancies. (Note: In response to the constitutional 
tribunal's decision, Morales instigated impeachment 
proceedings against four of the five constitutional tribunal 
magistrates. End Note).  In the past, the congressional 
approval system was based on "cuoteos" (political deals). The 
main political parties held closed door sessions and each 
party negotiated for its judicial candidates based more on 
party loyalty than on experience or merit.  Since the system 
was neither transparent nor based on a nominee's particular 
merit confidence in the judicial branch suffered. 
 
------------------------------ 
The Initial Selection Criteria 
------------------------------ 
 
¶3. (U) Despite much rancor within congress, including 
marathon insult sessions between the MAS and the opposition, 
the two sides reached an accord and developed a seemingly 
transparent and mostly merit based approval process.  On May 
22, the parties reached an agreement to only allow candidates 
from the departments of La Paz, Cochabamba, Oruro, and Tarija 
as these departments had no justices on the supreme court. 
While not a rule, customarily the bench is filled with a 
judge from each of the nine departments.  On May 30, congress 
approved ten basic criteria for considering potential 
nominees.  To be considered eligible a nominee could not have: 
 
¶1. Served as a public servant during military regimes; 
¶2. Defended narco-traffickers in a judicial proceeding; 
¶3. Defended the privatization of state-run companies; 
¶4. Defended an embassy or foreign entity against the GOB; 
¶5. Violated the rights of another person; 
¶6. Any legal cases pending against him/her; 
¶7. Any disciplinary sentences for serious offenses; 
¶8. A close blood tie to a congress member or high level GOB 
employee; 
¶9. Served as a political activist; or 
¶10. A politically affiliated position that offers a stipend. 
 
 
---------------- 
Making the Grade 
---------------- 
 
¶4. (U) Congress requested information on each candidate from 
four institutions as well as the general public to see how 
each candidate stacked up against the ten criteria.  The 
national election court verified each candidate's political 
activism (or lack thereof).  The judicial council checked on 
any pending cases against each candidate.  The state 
prosecutor investigated each applicant's police record. 
Finally, the Judiciary's Disciplinary Committee researched 
whether or not applicants had ever received disciplinary 
sanctions.  Congress also asked the general public to come 
forward with documented accusations against any of the 
candidates.  Of the initial 179 candidates only 15 nominees 
remained on July 3, the day in which each had to complete a 
written and oral exam.  Each candidate also had to deliver a 
fifteen minute presentation covering three topics; his/her 
view of the Bolivian justice system; the judiciary's 
function; and what aspects of the system need improving. 
Based upon all the aforementioned criteria each candidate was 
assigned a score based on his/her merit. 
 
--------------------------- 
Civil Society Participation 
--------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Civil society representatives from the "Citizens' 
Participation and Justice Network" acted as observers in the 
selection process.  The network, a group of over 100 Bolivian 
non-governmental organizations supported by USAID through 
Partners of the Americas, provided volunteers that observed 
the final selection process.  The network's oversight 
included supervising the written and oral exams and the 
ranking of the candidates.  Although the GOB was initially 
reluctant to grant the network access, the Congressional 
Joint Constitutional and Justice Committee thanked the group 
for its participation. 
 
------------------ 
The Results are In 
------------------ 
 
¶6. (U) The first round of voting started on July 10.  No 
candidate received the necessary 105 of 157 votes, despite an 
earlier agreement by both parties to vote for the most 
meritorious candidates (per the candidates' scores).  An 
additional five rounds followed.  After the first four 
rounds, congressmen from the MAS and PODEMOS got together and 
forged an agreement in which they would split the four 
justices, two for the MAS, two for PODEMOS.  Representatives 
from the National Unity (UN) and National Revolutionary 
Movement (MNR) parties denounced the back room deal as a 
return to the quota system of the past.  (Note: It is ironic 
that the MNR representatives should denounce the quota system 
as the MNR was one of the primary architects of the system. 
End Note). On the evening of July 12, congress reached the 
necessary two-thirds votes for the four appointees.  The 
candidates selected by department are: 
 
(a) La Paz -- Teofilo Tarquino Mujica, 63 years old with 36 
years of legal experience, received 114 votes in the fifth 
round of voting.  He answered four out five questions 
correctly on the written exam.  Tarquino was selected over 
Marlene Teran who received the highest merit score of all the 
candidates. 
 
(b) Cochabamba -- Jose Luis Baptista Morales, 74 years old 
with 34 years of legal experience received 129 votes in the 
fifth round of voting.  Despite having the highest merit 
score of the nominees from Cochabamba, he only answered one 
of five questions correctly on the written exam (!). 
 
(c) Oruro -- Angel Irusta Perez, 61 years old with 27 years 
of legal experience, received 126 votes in the sixth round of 
voting.  Mr. Irusta answered four out five questions 
 
correctly on the written exam.  Mr. Irusta was selected over 
Rodolfo Fuentes Borda who had a higher merit score. 
 
(d) Tarija -- Hugo Suarez Calvimontes, 50 years old with 26 
years of legal experience, received 120 votes in the sixth 
round of voting.  Mr. Suarez had the highest merit score 
amongst the Tarija nominees and answered all five questions 
correctly on the written exam. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶7. (SBU)  While the selection process was relatively 
transparent and based on the candidate's relative merits, 
some observers noted that the candidate pool overall did not 
reflect the best Bolivia could offer in terms of 
qualifications and expertise.  Critics argue that more highly 
qualified lawyers chose not to participate as candidates due 
to the continuing uncertainties of the selection process and 
recent threats to both the supreme and constitutional courts. 
 However, the improvements in the selection process may 
encourage better candidates to participate in the future. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The cooperation between the MAS and PODEMOS, the 
inclusion of civil society observers, and the relative 
transparency of the process in general is a real precedent 
for Bolivia.  Civil society organizations from the Citizens' 
Participation and Justice Network plan to continue advocating 
for transparent merit-based selection processes for justice 
sector officials.  Meanwhile, PODEMOS is quietly claiming a 
political victory as this was the first time the MAS has had 
to compromise and strike a deal with them.  End Comment. 
GOLDBERG