Amid systemic corruption, Amazon countries struggle to fight environmental crime – Mongabay

Report on Judicial Corruption in Pan-Amazon Nations and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

High levels of judicial corruption in Pan-Amazon countries present a significant impediment to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The prevalence of corruption within the judiciary prevents substantial legal reforms, undermines the rule of law, and obstructs progress towards environmental and social justice, directly contravening the targets set forth in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Manifestations of Judicial Corruption and Failure to Uphold SDG 16

The methods of corruption vary across the region, but all serve to weaken judicial integrity and deny justice, undermining SDG Target 16.3 (ensure equal access to justice) and Target 16.5 (substantially reduce corruption and bribery).

• Andean Countries: Judicial corruption often manifests as crimes of commission, including bribery and extortion. These practices are frequently linked to the facilitation of environmental crimes, demonstrating a direct failure to protect natural resources and uphold the law.
• Brazil: Judges are more commonly implicated in crimes of omission. The use of delaying tactics allows legal cases, including those related to environmental and corruption offenses, to remain suspended for years, effectively denying justice and accountability.

Systemic Flaws and Ineffective Oversight Mechanisms

Efforts to reform the judiciary and ensure accountability are consistently undermined by flawed and opaque oversight systems. The entities responsible for monitoring judicial conduct often fail to impose meaningful sanctions, which is a critical failure in developing the effective and transparent institutions called for in SDG Target 16.6.

Country-Specific Analysis of Judicial Failures

1. Brazil

   The Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ) is responsible for judicial oversight but lacks transparency in its disciplinary actions. Statistical analysis reveals a system that fails to deliver accountability.

   • A 2012 review of CNJ data showed that of 5,917 cases processed, only 205 resulted in convictions.
   • A separate study (2005-2017) found that of 82 judges subjected to disciplinary action, 53 were forced into compulsory retirement, a measure that allows them to retain their pensions and avoids genuine punishment.

2. Peru

   Peru’s oversight bodies demonstrate a similar pattern of impunity, where a high volume of complaints results in minimal and lenient disciplinary action.

   • Between 2010 and 2012, 450 corruption cases involved members of the judiciary. Only 30% of these proceeded to a sentence, with 86% of those convicted receiving suspended sentences.
   • A 2019 study found that 31,370 formal complaints against court officers resulted in only 185 judges being found guilty, with 90% of disciplinary actions consisting of fines or voluntary retirement.

3. Ecuador

   Investigations reveal links between the judiciary and organized crime, with corruption directly impacting environmental justice and the rights of Indigenous peoples, undermining SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

   • Between March 2019 and May 2022, 24 judges and 30 prosecutors were investigated for corruption, yet only six judges and one prosecutor were dismissed.
   • In one case, a judge was allegedly bribed to issue a ruling favoring a hydropower company in a dispute with an Indigenous community, illustrating how corruption subverts justice for vulnerable populations and facilitates environmentally damaging projects.

4. Suriname

   The institutional framework for accountability has been compromised by blatant embezzlement, highlighting a severe governance failure.

   • The Office of the Ombudsman, tasked with protecting citizens from official misconduct, was left vacant from 2005 to 2009.
   • During this period, its budgetary allocation of over US$42 million was spent, representing a significant case of embezzlement within the justice system itself.

Conclusion: The Imperative for Judicial Reform to Achieve the SDGs

The evidence from Pan-Amazon countries indicates that systemic judicial corruption is a fundamental barrier to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure to establish accountable and transparent institutions (SDG 16) directly enables environmental degradation (SDG 15) and perpetuates social injustices against marginalized communities (SDG 10). Meaningful and comprehensive reform of the judiciary is therefore a prerequisite for creating just, peaceful, and sustainable societies in the region.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the primary SDG addressed in the article. The text extensively discusses issues of judicial corruption, bribery, extortion, and the failure of justice systems in Pan Amazon and Andean countries. It highlights the lack of accountability and transparency within judicial institutions, which directly relates to the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

  The article demonstrates a failure to uphold the rule of law. In Brazil, judges use “delaying tactics that allow cases to spend years in a state of suspended litigation.” In Peru, a high percentage of corruption cases involving judicial members are dismissed on procedural grounds or result in suspended sentences, undermining equal access to justice.

• Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.

  The article directly addresses this target by stating that in Andean countries, “environmental crimes are committed through bribery and extortion, major sources of judicial corruption.” It provides specific examples, such as the case in Ecuador where a judge was allegedly bribed to favor a hydropower company, and in Suriname, where millions were embezzled from the budget of the Office of the Ombudsman.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  The article critiques the ineffectiveness and lack of transparency of institutions designed to ensure judicial accountability. For example, Brazil’s judicial oversight body, the Corregedoria, “does not provide (easily understandable) statistics that reveal its record in fighting judicial corruption.” The article concludes that despite reforms, “the system remains opaque, and there are few reports in the mass media of disciplinary actions that target the judicial elite.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number of corruption cases processed vs. convictions: The article provides data for Brazil, where out of 5,917 cases processed, only 205 resulted in convictions. This can be used as an indicator to measure the effectiveness of the justice system in prosecuting corruption.
• Proportion of judicial officers disciplined for misconduct: In Peru, out of “31,370 formal complaints lodged against officers of the court; of these, only 201 prosecutors and 185 judges were found guilty.” In Ecuador, “24 judges and thirty prosecutors were investigated for alleged corruption… however, only six judges and one prosecutor were dismissed.” These figures serve as indicators of institutional accountability.
• Nature of disciplinary actions: The article implies that the severity of punishment is a key indicator. It notes that in Brazil, a common punishment was “compulsory retirement, a punishment that removed them from the courts but did not deprive them of their pension.” In Peru, it highlights that for disciplined officials, “Nobody went to jail.”
• Case dismissal rates on procedural grounds: The article mentions that in Brazil, 2,918 cases “were dismissed on technicalities or because of the statute of limitations.” This can indicate judicial inefficiency or intentional delaying tactics, which are relevant to measuring the rule of law.
• Proportion of suspended sentences in corruption cases: In Peru, of the corruption cases involving judicial members that went to trial, “86 per cent receiving a suspended sentence.” This statistic is an indicator of the lack of stringent enforcement against corruption within the judiciary.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.mongabay.com