Concurso Magistratura Nación common mistakes
Concurso Magistratura Nación · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Analyzing constitutional challenges to statutes without first stating the hierarchy of sources (Constitution, treaties, national laws) and the effect of Article 75 inc. 22 on treaty incorporation, jumping straight to the conclusion.
Candidates memorize outcomes of leading cases and reproduce them without reconstructing the norm-conflict reasoning, so the answer lacks the argumentative steps examiners score.
What to do instead
Practice a fixed template: identify the conflicting norms, locate them in the hierarchy, state the applicable control standard (conventionality and constitutionality), then apply it to the facts before concluding.
Treating the 'control de convencionalidad' as identical to judicial review of constitutionality and asserting that it is exercised only by international courts.
Overlap in terminology and reliance on summary study materials that compress two distinct doctrines into one.
What to do instead
Write a one-page comparison table distinguishing constitutional control (domestic courts, Constitution as parameter, effects inter partes/erga omnes) from conventionality control (domestic judges as first guarantors, treaty parameter), and rehearse a short hypothetical applying each.
Resolving a civil case by invoking a general principle (good faith, abuse of rights) without first identifying the applicable specific rule and the statutory basis for the gap-filling.
Thematic study encourages principled argument, and candidates use principles as a shortcut when they cannot recall the specific article.
What to do instead
Structure answers as: specific rule, then analogy or principle only if a gap exists, and always cite the legal source authorizing the integration. Solve ten fact patterns where the specific rule exists but is less intuitive than the principle.
Confusing representation with mandate, or the effects of nullity with those of rescission, and answering with the regime of one while the question is about the other.
Institutions are studied in adjacent units and share vocabulary (vices of consent, effects between parties and third parties), so recall blends them.
What to do instead
Build side-by-side cards for each easily confused pair (representación/mandato, nulidad/rescisión, obligaciones de medios/de resultado) listing definition, source, effects, and limitation period, and self-test by writing the distinguishing sentence from memory.
Answering a criminal law problem by naming the offense immediately, without first establishing the elements of the type and then testing imputability, culpability, and grounds of justification in order.
Case-based exam pressure rewards fast labeling, and candidates skip the layered analysis that the grading rubric requires.
What to do instead
Use a mandatory written checklist: factual conduct, elements of the objective type, subjective type, unlawfulness, culpability, iter criminis, participation. Apply it to at least fifteen hypotheticals until the sequence is automatic.
Mixing the rules of tentative offense (tentativa) with those of participation, or misapplying the distinction between author and accomplice when the fact pattern involves several interveners.
Both topics involve grading of the contribution and share the language of 'beginning of execution' and 'contribution', and study outlines often present them together.
What to do instead
Rewrite the statutory provisions on autoría, participación, and tentativa in your own words, then solve mixed fact patterns that require classifying each participant and determining whether the act reached execution.
Drafting a procedural answer that states the correct remedy without verifying its procedural opportunity (etapa procesal) and the applicable time limit.
Candidates focus on the name of the remedy as the 'answer' and treat timing as a detail, though the exam tests admissibility as much as substance.
What to do instead
For each remedy (recurso de apelación, revocatoria, nulidad, amparo), memorize a triad: competent body, stage and time limit, effects. Practice by dating a hypothetical and asking 'is this remedy still available today?'.
Confusing the effects of procedural nullity with those of a substantive nullity, or asserting that any procedural defect voids the proceeding.
The same word 'nulidad' covers distinct regimes, and candidates apply the civil law effects to procedural defects.
What to do instead
Write a comparison of nullity regimes covering the principle of convalidation, the requirement of specific remedy where the law so provides, and the distinction between defects that affect the guarantee of defense and those that do not, then apply it to a short case.
Answering administrative law questions about the validity of an administrative act without separating the requirements of the act from the regime of its challenge, and omitting the presumption of legitimacy and the effect of the enabling clause.
The topic is taught as a list of elements, and candidates recite them without connecting invalidity to the available challenge and its consequences.
What to do instead
Use a two-column scheme for every act: formation requirements (competence, form, cause, motivation) versus challenge regime (administrative or judicial route, suspensive effects, revocation limits). Practice on a concrete administrative decision.
Applying the general labor statute to a situation governed by a special regime, or resolving a dismissal case without first classifying the employment relationship and the applicable collective agreement.
Candidates memorize the general regime and treat special regimes and collective bargaining as secondary, though the exam frequently tests the boundary between them.
What to do instead
Before analyzing any labor hypothetical, write one line identifying the applicable regime (general, special, or collective agreement) and the source of each rule you invoke. Drill with cases that turn on that classification.