Characteristics and challenges for the best performance of the Honor Courts of public universities.

Abstract

The University Honor Tribunals are investigative bodies that issue value judgments and recommend sanctions established in the University Law for misconduct committed by students and university professors (the latter also when they perform government or administrative functions); they are regulated by the University Law and supplementarily by the General Administrative Procedure Law and in specific cases by the Civil Service Law.

From the legal evaluation carried out, shortcomings have been identified in the typification and specific competence of the teacher of the course and the Honor Tribunal in the case of misconduct committed by students, as well as the academic department director and the University Honor Tribunal in the case of sanctions with reprimand and suspension.
Likewise, in the specific case of evaluation of possible offenses, the University Honor Tribunal can only issue rulings proposing sanctions when there is a final judgment before the Judiciary, and can only recommend the adoption of the precautionary measure of suspension of the teacher before the University Council, being necessary to regulate the procedure for the imposition of this type of precautionary measure.

Finally, the right to double instance must be guaranteed, for which reason it is recommended that universities should have a single University Honor Tribunal as instructor (or first instance) or Faculty Council as first instance and University Council as the body in charge of resolving appeals; all of which requires that public universities have their own administrative sanctioning procedure.