El remedio parlamentario al fallo de la Corte en el caso Muiña
; Rodrigez Nasuti, Florencia ; Seleme, Hugo Omar 
Otros responsables
Fecha
11/2018
Editorial
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Derecho. Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales
Revista
Anuario del Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales
Título del libro
Nombre del evento
Fecha del evento
Institución organizadora
ISSN
1667-6122
eISSN
ISBN
Idioma
Español
Tipo del evento
Clasificación temática
Palabras clave
Resumen
Tras la Sentencia dictada en el caso Muiña se extendió la idea de que la Corte Suprema había actuado de forma correcta al conceder el beneficio del cómputo de 2x1 a un condenado por delitos de lesa humanidad. Esta afirmación descansa en la creencia de que la consecuencia reprochable del fallo no se debió a un error de la Corte sino a una laguna del sistema normativo, la que fue subsanada por la ley N° 27362 dictada por el Congreso días después. El objetivo de este trabajo es mostrar que, contrariamente a esta opinión, el fallo no fue el resultado de un vacío legal sino de una interpretación incorrecta de las normas por parte de la Corte. Por tanto, la ley dictada por el Congreso no tuvo como objetivo suplir una laguna sino corregir este error mediante una interpretación auténtica del material normativo. Asimismo, se intenta mostrar que la interpretación restaurada por el Congreso es la correcta por ser la que mejor se adecua a nuestra historia institucional en materia de persecución y condena de delitos de lesa humanidad.
After the judgment rendered in the ―Muiña‖ case, many considered that the Supreme Court had ruled properly by granting the ―2x1‖ calculation benefit to a person convicted for the commission of crimes against humanity. This statement was based on the idea that the undesirable outcome of the judgment did not result from a Court’s misinterpretation of the law but from a gap in the legal system, which was filled through an act passed by the Parliament in the following days. The aim of this paper is to show that, contrary to this widely held opinion, the Court misconstrued the law and, therefore, the purpose of the parliamentary act was not to fill a normative gap but to correct this mistake by an authentic interpretation of the legal rules. Moreover, this paper aims to show that the Parliament's interpretation is the correct one since it is the one that best meets our institutional history with regard to the persecution and conviction of crimes against humanity.
After the judgment rendered in the ―Muiña‖ case, many considered that the Supreme Court had ruled properly by granting the ―2x1‖ calculation benefit to a person convicted for the commission of crimes against humanity. This statement was based on the idea that the undesirable outcome of the judgment did not result from a Court’s misinterpretation of the law but from a gap in the legal system, which was filled through an act passed by the Parliament in the following days. The aim of this paper is to show that, contrary to this widely held opinion, the Court misconstrued the law and, therefore, the purpose of the parliamentary act was not to fill a normative gap but to correct this mistake by an authentic interpretation of the legal rules. Moreover, this paper aims to show that the Parliament's interpretation is the correct one since it is the one that best meets our institutional history with regard to the persecution and conviction of crimes against humanity.
Colecciones
Aprobación
Revisión
Complementado por
Referenciado por
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como by-nc-sa
