Otras publicaciones:



Otras publicaciones:



IV.2 The return to democracy and the long path to combat impunity

IV.2.1 The Alfonsín Administration. From CONADEP and the Trial of the Juntas to the amnesty laws

President Alfonsín took office on 10 December 1983. The first measures adopted by the democratic President focused on the reestablishment of the rule of law and holding the military accountable for gross human rights violations committed during the regime.[1] Only a few days after the beginning of the new democratic government, the Alfonsín Administration decided to create the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP) through Decree 187/83. Said commission was made up of representatives from different social sectors, e.g. scientific, religious, juridical, legislative, and literary.

The Commission was created to complement the work of the national courts. Its mandate was specifically limited to receiving complaints and evidence, and referring them to the competent tribunals when appropriate; finding out the whereabouts and fate of the disappeared persons; determining the location of children taken away from their parents’ and guardian’s care; denouncing any concealment attempt before the courts; and issuing a final report 180 days after its creation.[2]

As a result of its work, the commission mentions the existence of 340 illegal detention centers in different locations within the country. Due to the size of the investigation, the Commission requested a three-month extension to complete its report. By the end of its work, it had registered 8,961 disappearances, identified 1,300 victims in illegal detention centers and classified the disappeared persons into a series of groups. On 20 September 1984, the Commission submitted its final report, entitled Nunca Más (Never Again), which soon became a best seller in the country.

Soon after the publication of the CONADEP report, the Government decided to create a new position: the Under-Secretary for Human and Social Rights. At first, this position was hierarchically under the Ministry of the Interior with the aim, inter alia, of systematizing the information of the CONADEP, gathering new complaints of disappearances, identifying remains, and searching for the children born in captivity. In 1991, the structure of the Ministry was changed by Decree 645 and the office of the Under-Secretary became a National Directorship for Human Rights with additional functions including the coordination of operations with the National Genetic Data Bank. By Decree 660 of 1996, the Directorship became the Undersecretary for Human and Social Rights. In 1999, it was moved to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and, in 2002, it was upgraded to Secretary of Human Rights and remained with this status until present. This has been the highest public position in human rights within the country ever since.[3]

To strengthen the rule of law, the new Government promoted in Congress the adoption of the Defense of Democracy Act (Law No. 23.,077), whereby Congress established the crime of attacking the constitutional order and democratic life. This law made the rules applicable to such attacks more stringent.

In terms of reparations, the first democratic Administration also took some steps. It passed a series of laws to vindicate the situation of the public officials who were dismissed during the dictatorship, including in sectors such as the diplomatic service, State companies, teachers, and to consider those years outside of work for their retirement.[4] Also, the first reparation law was adopted in 1986: Law to grant pension to the spouses and children of the disappeared persons as well as other members of the families under specific circumstances (Law No. 23,466).[5] In the early 1990s, Law No. 23,852 was also adopted , whereby those who had suffered the disappearances of their parents and siblings before 10 December 1983 were exempted from military service. The military service was, however, repealed a few years later.

The major issue, however, was to decide what to do about the terrible crimes committed by the dictatorship. One of the first limitations to overcome was the de facto Decree-law No. 22,924 adopted by the military regime, known as the self-amnesty law, which provided for the extinguishment of the right to bring in court a legal action over crimes committed with a terrorist purpose which took place from 25 May 1973 up to 17 June 1982. This law was declared null and unconstitutional by the adoption of Law No. 23,040 of 1983. The decision on how to deal with legislation adopted by a dictatorship was controversial at the time and it had also raised debates before in the context of transition after other de facto Governments.[6]

In this context, President Alfonsín signed Decree No. 158/83 ordering summary proceedings before a Military Tribunal against the members of the Military Junta that illegitimately took over the national government on 24 March 1976 as well as the members of the two subsequent Military Juntas.[7] Likewise, it decided to criminally prosecute the higher-ranking leaders of rebel organizations, such as Montoneros and Ejército de Revolucionarios del Pueblo (ERP).[8]

The Decree established that an appeal against the judgment pronounced by the Military Tribunal might be filed before a civil tribunal, the National Federal Court of Appeals in Criminal and Correctional Matters of Buenos Aires. As this special appeal was not available under applicable law, some amendments were proposed to the Military Justice Code, through Law No. 23,049. According to Article 10 of the new legislation, upon a given period of time without the trial coming to an end, and inasmuch as the Federal Criminal Court of Appeals of Buenos Aires considered undue delay and negligence on the part of the Military Tribunal, this civil tribunal would be in a position to take over the case, whatever the status of the proceedings.

In the end, the matter was heard by the Federal Criminal Court. The trial started on 22 April 1985, and it was conducted in a remarkably short period, bearing in mind the political necessity of providing a quick conclusion to the issue. Out of the nearly 9,000 cases recorded, the Public Prosecutor for the case, Julio Strassera, only presented 709 cases. The judgment provided as follows: the three commanders of the First Junta and two commanders of the Second Junta were convicted, while the Air Force commander of the Second Junta, as well as the members of the Third Junta, were acquitted.[9]

The commanders were convicted in their capacities as principals by virtue of the facts that could be proven under the proceedings. The ruling also urged the Military Tribunal to prosecute the higher officers who had held specific positions in the so-called anti-subversive operations. In the end, a Federal Criminal Court also judged other important high-ranking military officers and senior officers of the security forces including General Ramon Juan Alberto Camps and Miguel Osvaldo Etchecolatz.[10]

The historic Trial of the Juntas received special attention and generated a profound national debate among different sectors of society about its rather limited scope. Nevertheless, the impact of such proceedings in the Latin American region and the international community was remarkable.

The trial against the commanders of the Juntas of the three military forces, as determined by the Executive Branch, only focused on the chief officers, pursuant to the government’s general strategy that was designed to avoid prosecuting those who had followed the orders of a superior without exceeding the task with which they had been entrusted or without committing atrocities. Indeed, Alfonsín identified different levels of accountability and emphasized the need to sanction, in particular, higher authorities.

Notwithstanding the strategy implemented by the Executive Branch, further jurisprudential interpretation by the Judiciary on the basis of Law 23,049 enabled accountability for military agents who had complied with orders. This attribution of responsibility resulted from the statement that no legitimate obedience to a higher-ranking officer might be accepted in case of the commission of atrocities.

In this context, and after a series of military protests and revolts, the Alfonsín Administration was forced to push for the adoption of two amnesty laws, known as the Full Stop Law (Law No. 23,492) and the Due Obedience Law (Law No. 23,521). The first one was adopted to establish a final and short deadline of sixty days for bringing crimes under the dictatorship to justice. This resulted in an overwhelming number of cases brought by families and their representatives as well as the decisions of judges to accelerate investigations into gross human rights violations committed during this period. The second law ended the possibility of incriminating and prosecuting those who committed crimes under the instructions of their superiors. The Supreme Court of Justice confirmed in the Camps Case that it was impossible to go on prosecuting those responsible for severe human rights violations in Argentina and confirmed the validity of the Due Obedience Law. Both aforementioned laws remained in force until they were abrogated in 1998 by Law 24,952, which deprived them of any effects for the future.[11]

These laws did not include the crime of appropriation of children of the disappeared. Thus, acts related to illegal appropriation, retention, concealment, and change of identity of the children of the disappeared persons have been investigated in court proceedings.[12] To contribute to the task of recovering the identity of children of the disappeared persons, Congress passed Law No. 23,511, which established the Genetic Data Bank with the main task of identifying genetic information on children separated from their families in the dictatorship or who were born during their mothers’ captivity, and who were taken away and given new identities by persons associated with the dictatorship. To date, it has been possible to identify with scientific certainty 130 children who had been appropriated and who have been able to see their identity restored. [13] This has been done in close cooperation with the NGO Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo and the National Commission on the Right to an Identity (CONADI), created in 1992 by Law No. 25,457.

IV.2.2 The Menem Administration. From the pardons to the truth trials and the reparation laws

From 1989, the newly elected President, Carlos Saul Menem (1989-1999), reinforced the impossibility of prosecuting and sanctioning those responsible for gross human rights violations. He issued a series of decrees granting presidential pardons, including in particular, to military officers and rebel groups, and all ongoing criminal procedures were thus terminated.[14] As a result of these decrees, all pending cases against military officers were closed, whatever their procedural status.

These decisions triggered a doctrinal discussion on the scope of the power to pardon according to provisions of the National Constitution because it was not clear if a pardon could be granted to a person under investigation but not yet convicted. The Supreme Court of Justice settled the matter in the Aquino Mercedes Case by admitting the constitutionality of a decision of this nature.[15]

In this context, the members of the Military Juntas who were sentenced in the Trial of the Juntas or convicted under other cases were pardoned. Also, the convicted senior officers of the Province of Buenos Aires Police were pardoned. In addition, some decrees benefited other governmental officials.

However, the pardons did not affect the cases relating to the appropriation of children of disappeared persons born in captivity or illegally adopted. As a consequence, since the 1990s, there have been a number of trials and, in 1998, one of the former Presidents during the dictatorship, General Videla, was detained in a case concerning children abducted and subjected to identity change in secret illegal detention centers.[16]

The amnesties and pardons did not discourage relatives of victims and human rights organizations from continuing to fight against impunity in relation to other crimes committed during the dictatorship. In 1995, the public statements by former Lieutenant Commander Adolfo Scilingo that a number of bodies of illegal detainees had been thrown into the sea by the Navy and the Coast Guard caused outrage in Argentine society and intensified the need to exercise the right to the truth about the human rights violations perpetrated during the dictatorship, not only on the part of the victims’ families but also for society as a whole.

The request to investigate the facts alleged in cases that had been closed upon the pardons and Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws was thus hastened.[17] The plaintiffs asserted their right to the truth about what had happened, which, among other things, included the right to find the remains of their relatives and to mourn their dead.[18]

As mentioned in the previous chapter, a landmark event took place within the context of the Lapacó Case (Nº 12059) before the Inter-American Commission. In August 1998, the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice declared that the extraordinary appeal filed by Ms. Carmen Aguiar de Lapacó, mainly intended to find out the whereabouts of her disappeared daughter, was inadmissible. The Supreme Court argued that, in a criminal proceeding, the investigation is aimed at proving the existence of a punishable action. One month later, however, the Supreme Court decided otherwise in the Urteaga Case (Sentence 321:2767) and allowed a person to know the truth about his brother. The Supreme Court justified the change of position arguing that the request had been made under a specific appeal, and not under a criminal procedure.[19]

In any case, the Lapacó case was submitted before the Inter-American Commission and declared admissible by this regional body. The Argentine Government showed its willingness to reach a solution to Ms. Lapacó’s claim. The result finally benefited not only the claimant, but also all the Argentine families who were searching for the truth. In the friendly settlement facilitated by the Inter-American Commission, Argentina recognized the right to the truth, which was defined as the exhaustion of every available resource to reach any clarification about what had happened to the disappeared persons.

The truth trials allowed the continuation of the investigation into the facts surrounding the disappearance of thousands of persons during the last military government. These investigations greatly contributed to the development of the right to the truth in Argentine jurisprudence.

In 2003, in the Hagelin Case (Sentence 326:3268), the Supreme Court recognized the right to the truth, beyond the responsibility of the State to punish the perpetrators and to provide economic compensation to the victims and families. In 2004, the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation recognized that the obligation of the State to investigate the truth extended beyond the rights of the families and affirmed that it is of the utmost importance to promote collective memory and to prevent future human rights violations.[20]

The Argentine human rights movement not only focused on the right to the truth, but also on the right to reparation. This right was also recognized in the Inter-American Human Rights System. On 2 October 1992, the Inter-American Commission issued and published Report 28/92, whereby it stated that, by adopting the amnesty laws and presidential pardon 1002/89, Argentina had violated the right to justice as set out in the American Convention. As a consequence, it recommended that Argentina provide reparations to the petitioners and take measures to establish the facts and identify those responsible for the perpetration of human rights violations.

This decision strengthened some complaints brought before civil jurisdiction for compensation for the illegal detentions during the violent period of 1970s and 1980s. Judicial decisions, considered on an individual basis, reached different conclusions depending on the case. Those who were affected by the interpretation presented petitions to the Inter-American Commission and the issue was pending when Menem assumed office.

It is important to highlight that President Menem himself was a political prisoner between 1976 and 1981 and thus that he had been one of the approximately 10,000 prisoners during the dictatorship and its preceding years.[21] In 1991, President Menem issued Decree 70/91 in response to the petitioners’ claims. Decree 70/91 decided to give compensation to those persons who were arrested by the Executive Branch—under a warrant issued by the latter—up to 10 December 1983. As a consequence, the cases brought before the Inter-American Commission were closed following an amicable solution reached between the Argentine Government and more than ten petitioners (Report 1/93). That solution was beneficial not only to the petitioners in the case—who received compensation—but also to those individuals who were in a similar situation.

Decree 70/91 was subsequently supplemented with laws adopted by Congress that extended the benefits provided thereby. In 1992, Congress adopted Law No. 24,043, which validated Presidential Decree 70/91 and extended its content to the civilians detained under a military tribunal. Law No. 24,411 was enacted at the end of 1994 to provide reparations in cases of enforced disappearance. It established a benefit for the relatives of those persons who were subjected to enforced disappearance. The same benefit extended to the relatives of any persons who had died as a consequence of State officials’ activities.[22] Nonetheless, Law 24,411 proved controversial because some of the victims’ relatives considered that they would be accepting money in exchange for the fate of their children. Indeed, the relatives had to recognize that the victim of enforced disappearance was dead in order to be able to receive economic compensation, but they were not willing to do so because they were still looking for them.

The problem was addressed on 11 March 1994 through the adoption of Law No. 24,321, which entitled the State to declare the absence by enforced disappearance of any person who, up to 10 December 1983, had disappeared from his/her domicile and/or place of residence with no notice of his/her whereabouts. A subsequent law, Law No. 24,823, provided that as long as the person remained disappeared, the benefits would be distributed amongst his/her descendants, spouse, ancestors and relatives, in that order of priority. The judge would declare the absence by enforced disappearance and the effects of the declaration would be similar to those of a declaration of death. However, the disappeared persons were not considered dead and therefore the investigations to determine their fate and whereabouts had to continue.[23]

In any case, not all families accepted reparations under Law No. 24,411. Mothers of Plaza de Mayo—led by Hebe de Bonafini—did not want to accept compensation, while the rest of the NGOs, including Mothers of Plaza de Mayo Founding Line, considered that it was a personal decision. Moreover, although some politicians were against it, the law included the disappearances that were committed by the Argentine Anti-Communist Alliance (AAA), a paramilitary force that was established during the violent years that preceded the dictatorship.[24] Additional reparations laws and measures were also adopted a few years later, during other administrations. [25]

A final remark should be made about a landmark event that took place during Menem’s Government and that greatly contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights at the national level: the constitutional reform of 1994. Said reform inter alia stipulated that a number of international human rights treaties and declarations enjoyed constitutional hierarchy (cf. Section 75, subsection 22). The National Constitution, as reformed, further stipulates that other human rights conventions may acquire constitutional status in the future in accordance with the procedure provided for therein.

IV.2.3 The De la Rua administration. In absentia trials abroad and a limit on extraditions

Due to the impunity for gross human rights violations generated by the amnesty laws and pardons, a number of European national tribunals initiated processes to investigate and punish human rights violations committed during the last dictatorship (e.g. Italy and France).[26] On 5 December 2001, during the short Administration of President Fernando De la Rúa (1999-2001), Decree 1581/2001 was enacted, providing that the requests for extradition for events that occurred during the last military dictatorship within the national territory and other places subject to national jurisdiction would be dismissed. Those events included, among others, those relating to the enforced disappearances.

This decision was justified by making reference to, inter alia, the fact that some of the cases being tried by foreign courts had already been investigated and prosecuted by the national judiciary, with the pertinent criminal cases being extinguished pursuant to applicable laws, or continued being investigated by national courts.

In the same year as the aforesaid Decree was passed, and despite the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the constitutionality of the amnesty laws, on 6 March 2001, Federal Judge Gabriel Cavallo declared the unconstitutionality of the Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws, thus adopting a different position from the rest of the national courts since 1987. This approach was followed by other courts and reached the Supreme Court a few years later.

IV.2.4 The Kirchners’ administrations. Towards the end of impunity

After an economic and political crisis at the end of 2001, which led to a succession of Presidents who held office for short periods of time, Nestor Kirchner was elected President in 2003 in democratic elections. His successor, in 2007, was his wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who was elected for two successive terms and led the country until December 2015. The Kirchners adopted a series of measures that were key to ending impunity for the gross human rights violations committed during the 1970s and 1980s.

First, the new Government of Nestor Kirchner promoted the adhesion to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, which later acquired constitutional status. Second, the matter of the amnesty laws and pardons was put under consideration of Congress in a similar way to how the nullity of the “self-amnesty law” was dealt with during the Alfonsín administration. As a result, Law No. 25,779 was adopted on 2 September 2003, whereby the aforesaid laws were declared irretrievably null. This decision gave rise to different doctrinal positions regarding its validity and legitimacy, as had happened 20 years before.[27]

During the Kirchners’ administrations, the Prosecutor General also contributed to the fight against impunity with the decision to create a unit to investigate crimes against humanity during the dictatorship (decision PGN 14-07); and the Executive Branch decided to retire a number of army generals, in addition to consulting civil society about the promotion of military officers.[28]

Upon the declaration of the nullity of the amnesty laws, the Federal Court of Appeals in Criminal and Correctional Matters of Buenos Aires proceeded to re-open the “mega-cases” related to the serious crimes perpetrated during the dictatorship: Case 761 (related to the events that took place within the framework of the Army Mechanic School “ESMA”), Case 450 (known as “Case of the Army’s First Body or “Case Suárez Mason”), and Case 44 (usually called “Case Camps”). On the other hand, even though not covered by Law No. 25,779, a series of judges declared the unconstitutionality of presidential pardons adopted during Menem’s Government.[29]

The Supreme Court of Justice also decisively contributed to ending impunity, in particular through three judgments identified by Ricardo Lorenzetti.[30] The first one was the Arancibia Clavel Case (Sentence 327:3312), where the Court decided on the non-applicability of the statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. According to the majority vote of the Supreme Court, the principle of legality—that is to say, the possibility of condemning someone for an act that was not a crime when it was perpetrated—was not applicable because the Convention on the applicability of non-statutory limitations for war crimes and crimes against humanity only “declared” an existing jus cogens norm. The Supreme Court also took into consideration the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court in cases such as Barrios Altos and Velazquez Rodriguez.[31] The second key sentence of the Supreme Court was delivered in the Simon Case (Sentence 328:2056), in which it decided on the unconstitutionality of the Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws and strengthened the nullity declared by Congress. Applicable international human rights law, the customary nature of the crimes against humanity and the regional jurisprudence in relation to human rights—once again, for instance, it made reference to the Barrios Altos case of the Inter-American Court—were elements considered by the majority of the Court to declare the unconstitutionality of the amnesty laws.[32]

The last one was the Mazzeo Case (Sentence 330:3248), where the Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of the pardon decrees for cases of crimes against humanity. The main defense of the military officers in the case was the previous declaration of the constitutionality of the pardons and the principle of ne bis in idem (not to judge a person twice for the same crime). The majority of the Court considered the nature of the crimes against humanity—not subject to the statute of limitations—and their existence as international customary norms. They also based their decision on the Almonacid Case of the Inter-American Court, which indicated that domestic legislation, including amnesties, is not applicable in cases of crimes against humanity.[33]

Concerning the Executive Branch, in July 2003, President Kirchner repealed Decree 1581/2001. Indeed, by Decree 420/2003, it established the obligation to process extradition requests under the justice system, as required under Law No. 24,767 on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, relating to the events that took place in the Republic of Argentina between 24 March 1976 and 10 December 1983.

From that moment on, it has been possible for those responsible for human rights violations during the last military dictatorship to be extradited to another State, provided that they have not been prosecuted in the country and other applicable legal conditions are met. Nevertheless, this has not been necessary because all cases were re-opened in Argentina.

The Kirchner administrations also promoted an additional series of reparations laws. Law No. 25,914, adopted on 30 August 2004, extended economic compensation to persons who were born in captivity while their mothers were illegally detained; children who were detained or remained in military areas following the disappearance of their parents; and children whose identity was substituted. Moreover, in 2013, the Argentine Parliament adopted Law No. 26,564 to extend reparations established in Laws 24,043 and 24,411 to those persons who were victims of detention, enforced disappearances or died under specific circumstances between 16 June 1955 and 10 December 1983.[34]

The right to economic compensation for persons in exile was discussed for a long time, but there were divided opinions in that regard. In October 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the situation of those who escaped to save their lives was similar to that of those who were illegally detained and, therefore, they enjoyed the right to reparation. This opened the possibility for persons in exile to ask for compensation.[35]

Furthermore, there were decisions aimed at enhancing the right of grandmothers to find their grandchildren. In 2009, Congress adopted Law No. 26,548 on the National Genetic Data Bank to ensure the collection, storage and analysis of the genetic information required as evidence for the investigations on enforced disappearances. Argentina also signed an agreement with the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) with the aim of implementing the “Latin American initiative for the identification of disappeared persons”.

The identification of children abducted from their biological families has not always been easy. There have been cases of children—now adults—who have refused to contribute to the cases so as to protect their adopted parents from legal prosecution. Not all of them have had the intention of initiating contact with their biological families.[36]

In this context, the jurisprudence regarding the possibility of ordering a DNA test on a compulsory basis changed over time. Following Lorenzetti, one can observe that the right to the truth of families and society and the right to privacy of every individual were in conflict. In 1996, the Supreme Court decided to allow a compulsory blood extraction (Guarino Case). Nevertheless, in 2003, the Supreme Court changed its position and opposed compulsory blood extraction, which affected the privacy of the victim and would be used as evidence to prosecute her adoptive parents (Evelyn Vazquez Ferrá Case). Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo brought this case before the Inter-American Human Rights System and, in the end, it reached a friendly settlement with the Argentine Government to ensure the participation of victims in judicial processes through specific legislation.[37] The judicial case, meanwhile, was resolved because the genetic information was taken from Evelyn’s belongings, without a compulsory blood test, and it was proved that she was the daughter of a disappeared woman.[38]

In 2005, the Director of the National Data Bank affirmed that there was no need to extract blood from someone to identify his/her DNA because such information could be obtained from personal objects. In light of this development, in the framework of the case of two brothers (Prieto I and II Cases), and following a series of appeals, the Supreme Court decided that DNA tests performed using biological material found in someone’s belongings—not through a compulsory blood test—do not affect the victim’s right to privacy and are an acceptable way to find the truth without affecting the integrity of any part of the victim’s body.[39]

Finally, Law No. 26,549 was adopted, whereby DNA tests could be undertaken using material extracted on a compulsory basis upon a judicial decision and with the assistance of the National Data Genetic Bank. This law was in line with the friendly settlement signed between the Government of Argentina and Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo in 2009 in the case of Evelyn Vazquez Ferrá and approved by the Inter-American Commission in 2010.[40] Nevertheless, the issue is still controversial because it clashes with the right to privacy and there was even a proposal to amend this law in 2019.[41]

In 2011, the National Congress passed Law No. 26,679, whereby it adopted the criminal offence of “enforced disappearance”. Since that moment on, there has been no need to resort to a multiplicity of related offences to criminalize the terrible practice which has made the Argentine military dictatorship known worldwide.

The creation of the National Memory Archive was another important measure adopted during the Kirchners’ administrations. It was decided that it would function as a decentralized body under the Secretary for Human Rights.[42] Likewise, the President and the Mayor of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires signed Agreement Nº 8/04, which ended in the construction of a space for memory and for the promotion and defense of human rights at the Navy Mechanics School (ESMA). Today, the Secretary of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice has its offices in ESMA.

  1. Alfonsín, Raúl, “Democracia y derechos humanos”, Síntesis Magazine Nº 29, Fundación Argentina para la Libertad de Información (FUALI)), Buenos Aires, Argentina, December 2003.
  2. Decree No. 187/83. See in particular its preambular part and Article 2.
  3. Guembe, María José, “Economic reparations for grave human rights violations: The Argentinean experience”, in De Greiff Pablo, The Handbook of Reparations, Oxford University Press, Chapter 1, pages 21-54.
  4. See for instance, Laws No 23.053, 23.238 and 23.278.
  5. See in this regard, Guembe, María José, “Economic reparations…”, Ibid, pages 25-26.
  6. See for instance, Nino, Carlos S, “Una nueva estrategia para el tratamiento de las normas de facto’”, La Ley 1983-d, Sec. Doctrina, pg. 935-946, in Sancinetti Marcelo A. “Derechos humanos en la Argentina postdictatorial”; Lerner Editores y asociados, 1988. See also, Sancinetti Marcelo “El derecho penal en la protección de derechos humanos. La protección de los derechos humanos mediante el derecho penal en las transiciones democráticas en Argentina, Editorial Hammurabi SRL, 1999, page 292. See also Enrique Bacigalupo’s position, for instance, in “Algo más sobre la derogación de la legislación de un gobierno ‘de facto’”, in El Derecho, tomo 49, p. 989.
  7. Decree No. 158/83, December 1983.
  8. See in this regard: https://bit.ly/3mgInMk.
  9. Federal Criminal Chamber of Buenos Aires, Judgment of 9 December 1985.
  10. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis et al., Derechos Humanos: Justicia y Reparación. La experiencia de los juicios en la Argentina. Crímenes de lesa humanidad, Editorial Sudamericana, 2011, pages 94-95.
  11. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 97-98.
  12. See for example, Proceedings 10326/96 over the crime of misappropriation of children, related to case “Nicolaides C. and Others”.
  13. Diario Infobae, “Las Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo anunciaron la restitución del nieto 130”, 10 June 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2UovAKx.
  14. Decrees No. 1002/89, 1004/89, 2741/90, 2745/90 and 2746/90. See also as reference Decrees No. 1003/89, 1005/89, 2742/90, and 2743/90 and 2744/90.
  15. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, page 100.
  16. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 104-105.
  17. This was the case in relation to Case Nº 761 “Facts that took place within the Navy Mechanic School”, National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court of Appeals. See in this regard, CELS. Informe anual 1995, section IV, pages 85-90 available at: https://bit.ly/3sJYiVO.
  18. See Cases 450 and 761.
  19. See in this regard, Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 114-115.
  20. Decision of the Cámara Nacional de Casación Penal, Sala I, “Defensor Público Oficial ante la Cámara Federal de Apelaciones de Mendoza s/recurso de casación”, Case 3501, Sentence of 2 December 2004. See in this regard Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 115-116.
  21. Guembe, María José, “Economic reparations…”, Ibid, page 28.
  22. Law No 24,411, Articles 3- 5.
  23. Guembe, María José, “Economic reparations…”, Ibid, page 36-40.
  24. Guembe, María José, “Economic reparations…”, Ibid, pages 38-39.
  25. Guembe, María José, “Economic reparations…”, Ibid, page 41.
  26. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 124-126.
  27. Rivera, Julio César, Anulación de leyes por el Congreso, La Ley 22 August 2003. See also, Gordillo, Agustín, Decláranse insanablemente nulas las leyes 23492 y 23521, La Ley 25 August 2003. See also Gil Domínguez, Andrés, La nulidad de las leyes y el valor epistémico de la democracia, La ley, 27 August 2003.
  28. González Ocampo, Ezequiel, Shifting legal vision. Judicial change and human rights trials in Latin America, Cambridge University Press, 2016, pages 116-140.
  29. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, “Derechos Humanos en la Argentina. Informe 2004”, Siglo XXI, 2004, 1st Edition, in Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 126-128. See also Decision adopted by the National Federal Court in Criminal and Correctional Matters N° 3, 2004/3/19 related to case “Suárez Mason, Guillermo and others”.
  30. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 129-167.
  31. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 134-145.
  32. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 145-158.
  33. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 158-167.
  34. Argentine Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, “Reparation laws. Financial reparation for victims of State terrorism”, available at: https://bit.ly/32Gtgmz.
  35. Supreme Court of Justice, Case “Patricia Yofre de Vaca Narvaja”. See also Ministry of Justice and Human Rights Resolution 670/2016, which limits the possibility of being compensated in case of exile, available at: https://bit.ly/3lvBa9O.
  36. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 107-108.
  37. Decree No. 1800/2009, available at: https://bit.ly/2IyWpcD.
  38. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 110.
  39. Lorenzetti, Ricardo Luis, Derechos humanos…, Ibid, pages 110-113.
  40. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report 160/10, Petition 242-03, Friendly Settlement, Inocencia Luca de Pegoraro et al. Argentina, November 1, 2010.
  41. Honorable Congreso de la Nación Argentina, “Diputados Argentina”, “Proyecto de Ley”, 8 March 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/32FECay.
  42. Decree No. 1259/2003, published on 17 December 2003.

Leave a comment