The judge is the highest authority of a court of lawwhose main function is precisely this, that of administer justiceIn the event that a controversial situation between two people arises before him, for example, that requires the fair and objective decision of a man who thoroughly knows the laws like him. Also among his responsibilities is that of defining the future of a defendant for a certain crime or crime and in this situation the same, he must submit to trial the evidence or evidence gathered, to declare him guilty or innocent, as appropriate.
In most of the world, judges are public servants, paid by the state and an integral part of the judiciary of the country they represent. Although in theory the exclusive characteristics of this public office are fixed independence, autonomy and immobility enjoyed by those who occupy it, reality (and in many cases our own experience), unfortunately, shows us that it is more of a utopia, a desire or a duty that was embodied in the constitution rather than a question that is fulfilled and strictly abide by in all countries. Although I do not want to fall into a capricious generalization, this situation is usually very common and current in Latin America, in those countries where corruption and the ambition of excessive power on the part of their leaders leads to the ideal division of powers and autonomy of the judges is more a dream to achieve than a tangible reality.
In this context, it is worth noting that one of the main principles of the existence of republican models is precisely the division of powers and the autonomy of justice. Centuries ago, the concentration of the entire public power in a single individual caused a situation of iron dependence on the courts of justice by those who governed. From the limitations originally originated in the Magna Carta In the 13th century British government and the 19th century United States Constitution, the existence of a judiciary differentiated from political power gave citizens a greater possibility of respecting their rights.
In societies where justice works independently, there is an integration of the judiciary with the other structures of the State that allows mutual control. Thus, for a judge may be designated as such, it is necessary, in addition to the logical training in Law provided by university studies, to have the agreement of Parliament (the Senate in bicameral legislative powers) and the enactment of the Executive Power. In return, the judges are in charge of monitoring constitutionality and compliance with the regulations issued by Parliament (laws) and the president or prime minister (decrees or cédulas, according to each nation).
In accordance with the structure offered by the institutional environment of the different countries, the judges they act in different strata or fueros, according to the corresponding competence. Thus, judges who define civil, labor, criminal or economic situations are recognized. In general, all judges are under the advice and guidance of a highest court, which receives different names (Supreme Court of Justice, among others). Likewise, in nations structured with federal governments, certain circumstances are evaluated by national judges, while other courts are conducted by municipal or provincial (state) judges, depending on the magnitude and characteristics of the problem that motivates their intervention. .
In short, beyond these questions that are more reserved for the political field, the judge is a human being and, therefore, he is not exempt from committing some error in his decisions or. As I said above, you can also be tempted by the "bad herbs" to do it. So, so that the citizen does not feel pressured by this contingency, the judgments of a judge can be reviewed by higher courts through a judicial appeal, allowing in this way to confirm, modify or revoke the decisions made by the judge who issued his verdict in First instance. In extraordinary situations, there are even international reference courts for conflict dynamics produced between different nations.
