What about austerity? They give luxury SUVs to Supreme Court justices and justify why.

4

It seems austerity has been forgotten at the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), after it confirmed that the nine justices are now driving new luxury armored SUVs, valued at over one million pesos each. What are they afraid of?

In a statement, the Supreme Court justified the expenditure on the nine SUVs, but what was their argument?

“The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation reports that this renewal was carried out in strict accordance with current internal regulations issued in 2019, which establish that these types of vehicles, for security reasons and due to the service they provide, must be renewed periodically—every four years or sooner if the vehicle’s condition is unsafe—to guarantee adequate operating and safety conditions,” the statement argued.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) stated that the decision was due to security reasons and in accordance with regulations, which stipulate that the vehicle fleet must be renewed every four years or sooner when the vehicle’s condition no longer guarantees adequate operation and safety.

“With the objective of guaranteeing adequate security and protection of the personal integrity of those who perform functions of high institutional responsibility, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) made the decision to renew the vehicle fleet assigned to justices through the acquisition of nine units,” it reported.

Cars for the justices did not meet safety standards, says the Court
In its justification, the Court also mentioned that the purchase of these SUVs “was based on technical opinions issued by federal authorities.”

The result, it asserted, was that it was necessary to replace the vehicles, which, it affirmed, “no longer met adequate safety standards, and therefore their continued use compromised their operation.”

“The acquisition of the new vehicles therefore responds to criteria of prevention, institutional security and not to discretionary considerations,” the Court said.

SCJN

Source: tvazteca