Juzgar la contrainsurgencia: la discusión pública sobre la extensión de la responsabilidad penal militar por crímenes de lesa humanidad

Otros responsables
Fecha
12/2024
Editorial
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani
Revista
Cuadernos de Marte
Título del libro
Nombre del evento
Fecha del evento
Institución organizadora
ISSN
1852-9879
eISSN
ISBN
Idioma
Español
Tipo del evento
Clasificación temática
Resumen
Este trabajo examina el debate público sobre los alcances y límites de la responsabilidad penal militar en los juicios por crímenes de lesa humanidad en Argentina entre 2003 y 2015. Para ello efectúa un análisis cualitativo de fuentes primarias articulando la dimensión jurídico-institucional con el debate público. En el primer apartado recorre el tratamiento de la extensión de la responsabilidad, desde el Juicio a las Juntas hasta la reapertura de los juicios. Luego, analiza casos particulares que expusieron la discusión que aquí interesa. Primero, las acusaciones contra Aníbal Guevara y César Milani, quienes se desempeñaron como rangos inferiores de las Fuerzas Armadas en Mendoza y Tucumán y La Rioja, respectivamente, durante la dictadura. Seguidamente, las absoluciones de Humberto Lobaiza, Teófilo Saá y Jorge Felipe Alespeiti, jefes de área en la ciudad de Buenos Aires durante el mismo período. El texto cuestiona la idea de una responsabilidad penal militar ilimitada durante el periodo estudiado, al mostrar cómo su implementación fue objeto de debate, en especial debido a la re-emergencia del principio de obediencia debida, revelando las dificultades existentes para consolidar un criterio unánime sobre la extensión del castigo, en particular, y sobre el juzgamiento de los delitos vinculados a la doctrina contrainsurgente, en general.
This paper examines the public debate on the extent and limits of military criminal responsibility in the trials for crimes against humanity in Argentina between 2003 and 2015. To achieve this, it carries out a qualitative analysis of primary sources, linking the legal-institutional dimension with the public debate. In the first section, it explores the treatment of the extent of responsibility, from the Trial of the Juntas to the reopening of the trials. Then, it analyses specific cases that have brought this discussion to the forefront. First, the accusations against Aníbal Guevara and César Milani, who served as lower ranks of the Armed Forces in Mendoza and Tucumán and La Rioja, respectively, during the dictatorship. Next, the acquittals of Humberto Lobaiza, Teófilo Saá and Felipe Jorge Alespeiti, area chiefs in the city of Buenos Aires during the same period. The text questions the idea of unlimited military criminal responsibility during the period under study, showing how its implementation was subject to debate, especially due to the re-emergence of the principle of due obedience. It also reveals the difficulties in establishing unanimous criteria on the extent of punishment, in particular, and on the prosecution of crimes linked to the counter-insurgency doctrine, in general.
This paper examines the public debate on the extent and limits of military criminal responsibility in the trials for crimes against humanity in Argentina between 2003 and 2015. To achieve this, it carries out a qualitative analysis of primary sources, linking the legal-institutional dimension with the public debate. In the first section, it explores the treatment of the extent of responsibility, from the Trial of the Juntas to the reopening of the trials. Then, it analyses specific cases that have brought this discussion to the forefront. First, the accusations against Aníbal Guevara and César Milani, who served as lower ranks of the Armed Forces in Mendoza and Tucumán and La Rioja, respectively, during the dictatorship. Next, the acquittals of Humberto Lobaiza, Teófilo Saá and Felipe Jorge Alespeiti, area chiefs in the city of Buenos Aires during the same period. The text questions the idea of unlimited military criminal responsibility during the period under study, showing how its implementation was subject to debate, especially due to the re-emergence of the principle of due obedience. It also reveals the difficulties in establishing unanimous criteria on the extent of punishment, in particular, and on the prosecution of crimes linked to the counter-insurgency doctrine, in general.
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
