Controversies between actors are often not resolved by the judicial systems of each country. In some cases, third parties are responsible for bringing the conflicting parties together to reach a solution.
In the world of international legal conflict resolution, the actions of Marc J. Goldstein, Richard Ziegler, and Mélida Hodgson have generated multiple criticisms due to their lack of impartiality and questionable decisions regarding fallacies and ignorance of evidence.
Thus, these lawyers have imposed a rhetoric that is not only fictitious but also discriminatory, labeling Latin American institutions as corrupt and incapable of properly conducting a legal process. This has led these lawyers to defame institutions such as Interpol, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Supreme Court of Justice, Congress, and the laws of these countries.
Their statements are radical, as it is the responsibility of states to resolve their internal issues, rather than allowing outsiders who are disconnected from the realities of the territory to make decisions about people’s lives. This is a grave mistake, as it legitimizes the illegality of crime, reinforcing a perverse rhetoric about the freedom and democracy of these countries.
Who do Goldstein, Ziegler, and Hodgson think they are to be above the law?
This borders on the absurd and dangerous; they rule in favor of criminals while presenting themselves to the world as defenders of justice. Thus, it can be said that they live off the legal shelter of impunity.
Since when does an international ruling have the power to invalidate the decisions of national judges?
The legal ignorance of these lawyers, combined with their arrogance, is a real threat to the rule of law. Latin Americans should not have to accept the oppression and expropriation of justice. As evidenced, this translates into a simplistic discourse that claims the system is corrupt.
