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

Auteurs-es

  • Daniel Gustavo Gorra
  • Manuel Francisco Serrano

Mots-clés :

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

Résumé

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 The focus will be primarily centered on “Muiña´s case”, in which a lenient outdated ruling was made.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

Biographies de l'auteur-e

  • 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).

Téléchargements

Publié

2023-12-05 — Mis(e) à jour 2023-12-07

Versions

Articles similaires

1-10 de 86

Vous pouvez également Lancer une recherche avancée d’articles similaires à cet article.