"It's political opportunism": Judge Valerio spoke on Aconcagua Radio and questioned calls for harsher sentences.

Thus, he addressed recent statements by Governor Alfredo Cornejo, who criticized judicial actions and called for harsher sentences following a case of urban violence that shocked the province. Speaking to a local radio station, Valerio emphatically defended the independence of the judiciary and asserted that these requests "respond to personal criteria" that deviate from the current legal framework.

"At this moment, the demand for harsher prison sentences is political opportunism," the judge stated. The statement directly echoes the statements of Cornejo and other officials, such as the Minister of Security and the Attorney General, who publicly criticized the judges' actions after a criminal brutally attacked a newsstand owner in Mendoza.

Valerio explained that judges must apply the law as established, without being influenced by external pressure. “It's one thing to demand that judges apply sentences based on personal criteria, rather than having judges rule according to the law. That goes against the constitutional system,” he said.

The judge noted that criminal law is defined in the Penal Code, particularly in Articles 40 and 41, which establish the parameters for determining the seriousness of a crime and the amount of the penalty. "It's not a matter of personal or occasional taste. The mandate of judges is the mandate of society through the law," he maintained.

Asked whether the governor's statements represent interference in the judiciary, Valerio was categorical: "Logically, if there's an attempt to dictate the way for judges, there's interference. If that's not the intention, there won't be any, but it's not appropriate anyway."

The controversy intensified when Cornejo asserted that his intention was not to "discipline" the judges, but the judiciary interpreted his remarks as direct pressure. "He may know what his intention was, but I know how judges should act. There is a very precise separation of powers," Valerio stated, citing Article 12 of the Mendoza Constitution, which clearly establishes the functions of each of the three branches of government.

During the interview, Valerio also highlighted the advances in the adversarial criminal justice system being implemented throughout the country, a model pioneered by Mendoza. This model gives the parties—the prosecution and the defense—the central role in the litigation, limiting the judge's role to that of an impartial arbitrator.

“The old investigating judge had all the power and decided according to his knowledge and understanding. That's not judicial independence. In an adversarial system, judges rule based on the actions of the parties, and that guarantees impartiality,” Valerio explained. He added: “Without impartiality, there is no justice.”

The judge is currently in Corrientes, participating in meetings with provincial courts to strengthen this system. "I'm working on adversarial justice, which is one of the strongest guarantees for citizens," he said.

Another point Valerio clarified was the functioning of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Mendoza. He noted that, by law, prosecutors have functional autonomy and are accountable to the Legislature, not to judges.

"The oversight of prosecutors rests with the Bicameral Commission of the Legislature. They can't come now and ask judges to keep a close eye on prosecutors. That's inappropriate," he stressed.

Law 8008 and its subsequent amendments establish that the Attorney General must annually submit a criminal prosecution plan and then report on its implementation. Thus, the State's criminal policy remains in the hands of the Public Prosecutor's Office and under legislative, not judicial, oversight.

Every Monday, Valerio coordinates meetings with criminal justice judges to assess the system's progress. When asked if the governor's statements would be addressed at the next meeting, the judge responded that it would likely be a topic of discussion.

"I suspect there may be concerns. My colleagues know where I stand on judicial independence and the adversarial model. We don't work with a fixed agenda, so if anyone raises the issue, it will be discussed," he said.

Regarding a possible institutional reaction from the Court to Cornejo's remarks, Valerio did not rule out that possibility, but noted that so far there have only been public statements from various officials. "We'll see what is ultimately proposed," he concluded.

His colleague on the Court, Judge Mario Adaro, also expressed his disagreement with the provincial government's statements. While there has been no official statement yet, the issue is expected to generate further repercussions in the coming days.

Valerio's intervention sets a clear limit to any attempt at pressure from the executive branch. "Judges cannot delegate functions to other branches of government, nor can they delegate functions to us. They cannot interfere," he insisted.

Thus, Judge Valerio positions himself as one of the staunchest defenders of judicial independence in Mendoza, in a context in which the relationship between branches of government is once again strained. The discussion promises to remain open, and with it, the debate on how justice is guaranteed in a democratic system.

Listen to the full article here, and you can listen to the radio live at www.aconcaguaradio.com