Just two days before the 48th anniversary of March 24, 1976, the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation
rejected as inadmissible a request by the lawyers of a repressor
, but
did not
rule on whether it is unconstitutional to keep soldiers convicted of crimes against humanity in prison. over 70 years of age or if Argentina complies with an Inter-American convention.
A judicial source clarified to
Clarín
that the highest criminal court in the country
“did not rule on the merits in that Friday ruling,”
that is, whether subsection “d” of article 32 of law 24660 allows the judge to order house arrest. of those over 70 years of age automatically.
And neither is it about
whether Argentina is complying with the Inter-American Convention on the Protection of the Human Rights of Older Persons, which has constitutional hierarchy.
Lawyers Ricardo Saint Jean and María Laura Olea used
the case of former member of the Federal Penitentiary Service Diego Chemes
to request a plenary session in the Chamber of Cassation in which the scope of house arrest for older adults would be discussed.
Chemes, during the dictatorship, acted in the clandestine detention center known as Vesuvius.
Luis Petri, poses with the head of the Association of Relatives and Friends of Political Prisoners of Argentina (AFyAPPA), Cecilia Pando, and a group of women who ask to release soldiers convicted of illegal repression.
Chemes' lawyers wanted them to define that prisoners aged 70 automatically accessed the benefit.
It is estimated that there are about 150 former soldiers and former police officers in this condition, out of a total of 1,176 convicted.
The rejection of the appeal was signed, in a mayoral meeting, by the Cassation judges Mariano Borinsky, Daniel Petrone, Angela Ledesma and Carlos Mahiques and had to do with “a regulatory issue” which was to unify criteria between the four Cassation chambers.
It happens that two of the judges who had signed contradictory rulings, Eduardo Riggi and Liliana Catucci, have already retired.
Rosario March 11, 2024Patricia Bullrich and Luis Petri meeting this week with members of the Argentine Army at Mobile Detachment 2 Gendarmería RosarioPhoto: JUAN JOSE GARCIA
The issue took on political significance because Security Minister Patricia Bullrich complained about this situation, which, in her opinion, “is revenge,” to the extent that this benefit is given to common prisoners but not to the repressors.
This week, President Javier Milei denied that it is in the Government's plans to promote the outright release of repressors convicted of crimes against humanity.
“
It's a big lie,”
he said when asked about a journalistic version that spoke of that possibility.
However, the versions grew in recent days after the Minister of Defense, Luis Petri, posed with the head of the Association of Relatives and Friends of Political Prisoners of Argentina (AFyAPPA), Cecilia Pando, and a group of women who ask to release repressors.
Legislative act tribute to the victims of left-wing terrorism.
Photo Federico Lopez Claro
The photo of Petri and Pando took place after an event by the minister in the Military Circle, where he also denounced an alleged "demonization of the Armed Forces that acted in the 70s."
And Security Minister Patricia Bullrich went further.
She said that “there are (soldiers detained) for 15 years without cause, that
cannot happen in a rule of law, these people cannot remain imprisoned
.”
And, furthermore, he said due to an interpretation promoted by human rights organizations
“the benefit of the 70 years was obtained
.”
That is absolutely to be discussed and especially in those people who did not have direct action and are without causes.”
“The judges have to order that and really encourage themselves to be within the framework of what the laws and international conventions establish in Argentina.
I defend that.
A person who has lost that situation, sick, detained...
has already become a revenge
,” he added.
Bullrich.
Thus, the Minister of Security
gave her opinion in line with Vice President Victoria Villarruel, who is a member of the Center for Legal Studies on Terrorism and its Victims (Celtyv), the CELS of the military tells her.
Article 32 of Law 24,660 says that “the executing judge, or competent judge, may order compliance with the sentence imposed under house arrest: a) To the sick inmate when the deprivation of liberty in the prison establishment prevents him from recovering or adequately treat your illness and your accommodation in a hospital establishment is not appropriate;
b) To the inmate who suffers from an incurable disease in the terminal period;
c) To the disabled inmate when the deprivation of liberty in the prison establishment is inappropriate due to his condition, implying undignified, inhuman or cruel treatment;
and d) To the inmate over seventy (70) years of age.”
In Friday's unanimous ruling it is said that "the cited rulings present majorities that
do not correspond
to the current composition of the chambers of this collegiate court."
“It is therefore essential that the contradiction be real and current and
not the product of a contingent majority
.
A different interpretation could imply an excess in the exercise of the nomophylactic function, by establishing a mandatory interpretation of the rules without verifying the need for unification.
Finally, “it is observed that the proposed topic has already been the subject of repeated pronouncements by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in an adverse sense to that advocated by the appellants (Rulings: 339:542; 340:493 and, more recently , 346:1521, of December 14, pp. and 347:94, of February 29, pp.)”.
For the reasons stated, “the appeal for inapplicability of the law presented by Dr. Ricardo Saint Jean and Dr. María Laura Olea, in their capacity as defenders of Diego Salvador Chemes, must be declared inadmissible, with costs.”