The statement issued by the Comodoro Rivadavia Public Bar Association on October 1, 2025 is not an isolated or anecdotal event: it is a worrying symptom of an institutional culture that oscillates between complicit silence in the face of corruption and opportunistic severity against those who dare to express an opinion outside the script.
The dangerous drift towards institutional censorship
The undersigned, Dr. Cynthia Castro, in my capacity as a lawyer with active registration in the city of Comodoro Rivadavia, Mat. C-1228-CPA-CR and a lawyer committed to the defense of human rights, I express my serious concern about the statement in question, whose tenor reflects a dangerous institutional politicization unrelated to the legal principles that must be protected. It is inadmissible that a professional Association, called to guarantee respect for the Rule of Law, engages in expressions that reveal a notorious ignorance of the current constitutional and conventional framework. These types of demonstrations not only erode the legitimacy of the institution, but also undermine the credibility of the legal profession in its essential mission of protecting fundamental rights.
Freedom of judicial expression: the College’s blind spot
The target of this disciplinary attempt is Dr. Carina Estefanía, Esquel prison chambermaid and elected President of the Chubut Judiciary Association. His intervention in a radio interview did not violate any impartiality or ethical duty: he limited himself to expressing his concern about the institutional situation of the province. However, the College reacted with a restrictive statement that, under an alleged defense of “institutional seriousness,” actually constitutes a form of symbolic censorship.
The constitutional right is unequivocal: Article 14 of the National Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, and Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights reinforces that protection. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the case of Kimel vs. Argentina (2008) made it clear that public debate on the functioning of institutions must be protected even when it is uncomfortable. There it was established that sanctioning a journalist for criticizing justice was incompatible with a democratic society. If this protection is robust for journalists and citizens, it is even more so for judges who, in the exercise of their role, warn about structural problems that affect the justice system.
The College’s statement ignores this standard and seeks to install the idea that judges can only speak within a corporate corset. This reasoning is not only legally unsustainable: it is dangerous, because it reduces democracy to a formal ritual without critical voices, a scenario where “prudence” becomes an excuse for self-censorship.
The double standard: silence in the face of corruption, noise in the face of criticism
The most serious thing, however, is not what the College said, but what it remains silent about. It is striking – and scandalous – that this institution remains silent in the face of public and documented complaints about facts that allegedly constitute corruption in the Superior Court of Justice, facts that undermine citizen confidence in the Judiciary. In the face of these cases, stony silence. Faced with a radio opinion from a judge, immediate and lapidary communication.
This double standard reveals the essence of the maneuver: it is not about taking care of judicial ethics, but about preserving a power structure. The College carefully chooses its battles: it avoids confronting those who concentrate real authority and prefers to attack a magistrate who, elected by her peers, precisely represents an institutional renewal. In other words: critical speech is punished and concealment is rewarded.
Doctrine and democracy: the right to speak without fear
Argentine constitutional doctrine has been forceful on this point. Néstor Pedro Sagüés teaches that the freedom of expression of judges must be guaranteed as long as it does not compromise their impartiality or affect public trust. Dr. Estefanía’s statement did not interfere with any of those parameters. Roberto Gargarella, for his part, warns that democracy is not exhausted by the existence of formal institutions: it needs a vibrant, plural, uncomfortable public space, where institutional voices participate in the debate without fear of reprisals.
The attitude of the Comodoro Rivadavia Public Bar Association is exactly the opposite: it seeks to close the public space, reduce the institutional debate to a complacent echo and send an intimidating message to all the judges in the province: “having an opinion is expensive.” This pedagogy of fear degrades judicial independence, which not only consists of judging without direct pressure, but also of being able to express oneself without veiled threats of sanction or ridicule.
A mirror of the judicial crisis in Chubut
The episode is also a mirror of the structural crisis that Chubut justice is going through. While citizens perceive the courts as spaces captured by political and economic interests, professional institutions seem more concerned with safeguarding privileges than with strengthening the rule of law. It is not surprising that in this climate public trust collapses: those in power are protected and dissidents are persecuted.
In this context, the reaction against Dr. Estefanía functions as a collective warning. It is not just about her: the message is addressed to all judicial operators, lawyers and judges who dare to point out the shortcomings of a system corroded by discredit. The College, far from establishing itself as a shield against power, has become an instrument of discipline, thus exhibiting the institutional decay of which it is not only a part, but also an actor and protagonist.
It is no coincidence that Dr. Estefanía’s statements were given in an independent media outlet, one of those few press spaces that cannot be bought or submitted. Hence the excessive reaction: when the word arises in a free, uncontrolled or negotiated environment, the system’s immediate response is to try to silence it, to “kill the messenger,” in this case the judge who dared to speak.
The duty of the College: rectify or be marked
A professional institution cannot afford to undermine basic human rights. If the Comodoro Rivadavia Bar Association intends to be taken seriously, it must rectify its position and review not only the content, but the spirit of its public interventions. He must abandon the practice of remaining silent in the face of corruption and speaking only to censure. It must recover its historical function: to be the guarantor of public ethics, the right to defense and freedom of expression.
Otherwise, he will be marked before society not as a defender of the rule of law, but as one more cog in the machinery of silence and complicity that plunges the province into a moral and institutional crisis.
A democracy without critical voices is not democracy
The substance of this discussion goes beyond a judge or a statement. What is at stake is the very quality of our democracy. A democracy without critical voices, without uncomfortable debates, without divergent opinions, is just an empty shell. And what is at stake in Chubut today is precisely that: whether we are going to accept that professional corporations dictate what can and cannot be said, or whether we are going to defend the right to speak without fear.
Because when you remain silent in the face of corruption and those who denounce or question it are censored, what is built is not justice, but a system of armored impunity. And that is the worst betrayal that a Bar Association can commit against the society it claims to represent.
A call to review the true meaning of collegiality
The crisis that the Comodoro Rivadavia Public Bar Association is going through today cannot be read as an isolated or localist event. What happened should set off an alarm for all professional associations in the country. When an institution that should defend rights becomes a transmission belt for power, the damage is not limited to its enrollees: it compromises the very health of democracy. This episode is an unavoidable wake-up call for all associations of lawyers and other professions, because what is at stake is not only the independence of a judge or the freedom of expression of a sector, but the possibility of having institutions that are a real counterweight to the advance of censorship, corruption and impunity.
Instagram: @dracynthiacastro
You may also be interested
by CONTENTNOTICAS
Image gallery
