The Argentine Supreme Court of Justice and the Equality before the Law in Crimes against Humanity

Autores/as

  • Daniel Gustavo Gorra
  • Manuel Francisco Serrano

Palabras clave:

Human Rights, Interpretation, Sentence, Permanent Crime, Supreme Court

Resumen

The aim of this paper is to analyze a selection of arguments used by the Argentine Supreme Court to reduce the sentence of individuals convicted of crimes against humanity. The focus will be primarily centered on “Muiña´s case”, in which a lenient outdated ruling was made. The questions that this work will try to answer revolve around the court´s merit in issuing this lenient ruling to Muiña´s case and its justification. First, Muiña´s case is analyzed in depth. Then, a critical analysis about the ruling and a decision concerning the existence of a true justification will be developed. Finally, we will discuss the appropriateness of the Court’s decision in Muiña´s case as opposed to the decision made in “Batalla´s case”, in which a less beneficial law was applied retroactively

Biografía del autor/a

Daniel Gustavo Gorra

PhD in Law. Adjunct professor of jurisprudence at the Universidad Nacional de San Luis (UNSL).

Manuel Francisco Serrano

PhD in Law and Social Science. Assistant professor of ethics at the Universidad Nacional de San Luis (UNSL) and a fellow at the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET).

Descargas

Publicado

2023-12-05 — Actualizado el 2023-12-07

Versiones

Número

Sección

Articles