Release of the NGO the selection of the person responsible for the Ombudsman’s Office
“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”
The undersigned organizations in the framework of the questioned process of designation of the Ombudsman of the Nation, and taking into account the following points:
– That citizen participation is a human right, and an instrument for the adoption of better public policies.
– That it is not a matter of electing a People’s Defender, but rather of appointing the best possible Ombudsman.
– That eight (8) years ago civil society organizations have been demanding not only the selection of an Ombudsman, but the adoption of a participatory and transparent process for that purpose.
– That citizen participation can not be the victim of a hurried selection process.
– That the absence of an explicit mechanism by which a process of citizen participation is established does not mean that the bicameral commission can not adopt a procedure for that purpose.
– That the express acceptance of candidates for the postulation, made by the Bicameral Committee of the Ombudsman without any citizen participation or any argument – more than political consensus – is an insurmountable antecedent of lack of suitability.
– That the procedure adopted for the selection of the Ombudsman ignores the “Principles relating to the status of national institutions” (Paris Principles), which represent the minimum international standards for the establishment of National Human Rights Institutions (INDH), as well as the General Comments of the Accreditation Sub-Committee.
– And finally, regarding the procedure for appointing the Ombudsman, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) recommended -on several occasions- “to ensure the formalization of a clear and transparent selection and appointment process, and participatory (…) that includes wide dissemination of vacancies; maximize the number of potential candidates from a wide range of social groups; promote broad consultation and participation in the application, selection and designation process; evaluate candidates based on predetermined, objective and public domain criteria; select members to serve with their own individual capacity and not on behalf of the organization they represent.”
Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ)
Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales
Fundación Directorio Legislativo
Fundación Poder Ciudadano
Aldeas Infantiles SOS
Asociación Civil Capibara. Naturaleza, Derecho y Sociedad
Banco de Bosques
Centro Latinoamericano de Derechos Humanos (CLADH)
Comisión Argentina para Refugiados y Migrantes (CAREF)
Democracia en Red
Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia y Género (ELA)
Foro de Periodismo Argentino (FOPEA)
Fundación Conocimiento Abierto
Fundación Ciudad
Fundación Huésped
Fundación para el Desarrollo de Políticas Sustentables (FUNDEPS)
Fundación para el Estudio e Investigación de la Mujer (FEIM)
Fundación Sur
Fundación Vía Libre
Instituto de Estudios Comparados en Ciencias Penales y Sociales (INECIP)
Laboratorio de Políticas Públicas
Salta Transparente
TECHO
