Brazil's Top Judge Calls for Ethics, Impartiality Amid Judicial Congress

Brazil's Supreme Court Minister Cármen Lúcia has called for greater impartiality and transparency within the Brazilian judiciary, urging judges to adhere to strict ethical standards. Speaking at an international congress on the Rule of Law and Judicial Ethics in Brasília, Lúcia emphasized the importance of integrity in the judicial system.

“

We are a group of human beings, with our flaws, our limits, our errors, but also with a great desire to get it right.

Her remarks were seen as a subtle counterpoint to the "Gilmarpalooza" event, a forum organized by Minister Gilmar Mendes. Lúcia acknowledged that judges, like all humans, have flaws and make mistakes. However, she stressed the necessity of identifying and addressing any judicial misconduct, stating that those who lack a commitment to ethical conduct should be "pointed out."

“

What we need is to educate society democratically so that it knows what it can expect from us and we also know what is expected of us.

Lúcia expressed confidence in the Brazilian judiciary but highlighted the need for democratic education to inform society about judicial expectations and responsibilities. She advocated for institutions that foster high levels of trust, contrasting this with potential distrust. The minister also noted the global context of democratic erosion, underscoring the need for courageous and independent judges to safeguard democracy through the rule of law.

“

I believe in the Brazilian Judiciary, in Brazilian judges, and I know that [there are] occasional flaws, and they exist.

During the congress, which included participants from supreme courts of other countries, Lúcia specifically addressed the court's president, Minister Herman Benjamin. She stressed the seriousness of the event in providing magistrates with tools to navigate risks to democracy. Lúcia concluded by asserting that law remains the "salvation for a strong democracy," reinforcing the imperative for judges to act with independence to ensure public confidence.

“

It is necessary to point out the magistrate who does not have a commitment to an ethical posture.