The State Comptroller General’s Office presented the report, with its conclusions and recommendations, on the employment of the company MétricasWeb to apply trust tests to applicants for judges of the National Court of Justice.
The results of the audit were released on October 28, 2024, two and a half months after the Judicial Council suspended the competition and required the State Accounting Judge to conduct a special examination of this contract regarding alleged irregularities.
The Office of the Comptroller General concludes that the selection of the supplier, through the very small amount procedure (less than USD 10,000), “did not meet the criteria for contractual tests of labor capabilities and honesty.” And that the selection of the supplier was made with a requirement report and incomplete terms of reference and comments.
The judges review the appointment of the committee of experts who participated in the competition for judges of the National Court
In addition, the control body decided that “the characteristics of the web application, established in the methodology for the trust examination, were not taken into account.”
The Office of the Comptroller General noted “the lack of definition of values and counter-values to be evaluated by applicants.” And he says “it was not clear whether or not those proposed by the provider are consistent with the institutional definitions and requirements. The validity, reliability, assessment and standardization parameters of the tests were also not determined.
Therefore, he issued two recommendations, related to formal issues, but which do not end this contract, for example.
The resumption of the competition for judges of the National Court was made by the Judges subject to this report from the Office of the Comptroller General and a review of other internal matters in the organisation.
Through the confidence tests, 35 applicants were left for the competition. Among them are two current judges of the National Court, who were among the top scorers in the process at the merit stage.
To use this material, please cite the source and link to the original note i
Interview between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert
Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we’re diving into an important development in the judicial sector, particularly concerning the recent findings released by the State Comptroller General’s Office. Joining us is Dr. Maria Lopez, a legal expert with extensive experience in judicial oversight and public procurement. Maria, thank you for being here.
Dr. Lopez: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to discuss such a significant issue.
Editor: Let’s get right into it. The State Comptroller General’s Office presented an audit report concerning the employment of MétricasWeb to conduct trust tests for candidates intending to become judges. Can you give us an overview of what this report revealed?
Dr. Lopez: Certainly. The report brought to light serious concerns about how the contract with MétricasWeb was awarded. Particularly noteworthy is the finding that the selection process—conducted under a very small amount procedure, which generally allows for quicker awards under $10,000—failed to meet the necessary criteria for assessing the labor capabilities and integrity of the supplier. Essentially, there was a lack of proper vetting.
Editor: That sounds quite alarming! The audit also mentions that the Judicial Council had to suspend the competition for judges. What prompted this suspension, and what does it mean for the integrity of the judicial appointment process?
Dr. Lopez: The suspension was prompted by allegations of irregularities in the contract with MétricasWeb, and it’s a critical step towards ensuring accountability. Such a suspension indicates a significant breach of procedural integrity, which is vital for maintaining public trust in the judiciary. When candidates for the National Court of Justice are subjected to a flawed evaluation process, it calls into question not just the immediate selection but also the overall credibility of the judicial system.
Editor: The findings highlighted that the supplier selection was based on incomplete documentation and a requirements report. How could such oversights impact the judicial process long term?
Dr. Lopez: Incomplete documentation can lead to the selection of unqualified or inappropriate service providers, which, in this case, could compromise the integrity of the trust tests applied to judicial candidates. Long-term, if the standards for evaluating judges are not met, this can result in a judiciary that lacks the necessary qualifications or ethical standards, ultimately eroding public confidence in the justice system. This situation may lead to greater scrutiny of appointments and could necessitate reforms in judicial selection procedures.
Editor: Given the context of this audit, what recommendations might you foresee being implemented, and how can such lapses be prevented in the future?
Dr. Lopez: The report likely emphasizes the importance of adhering to strict procurement guidelines and improving oversight in the selection process. Recommendations may include more rigorous standards for documentation and evaluation, as well as developing a transparent system for accountability. Training for judicial council members regarding procurement and ethical standards is crucial to prevent similar issues. Implementing a more robust review process before contracts are awarded would also be beneficial.
Editor: Thank you, Maria, for sharing your insights on this pressing issue. It’s clear that transparency and adherence to ethical standards are essential for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary. We appreciate your expertise and look forward to seeing how this situation develops!
Dr. Lopez: Thank you for having me! It’s vital for the public to remain informed about such matters, and I hope these discussions help foster greater accountability in our judicial processes.