[Digi a e qui]
A ianna Jacqmin
Oña i In e na ional Ins i u e o he Sociology o Law
The Cons uc ion o
a Human Righ
THE CASE OF THE RIGHT TO TRUTH FOR THE FAMILIES OF
“DESAPARECIDOS”: WHEN HUMAN CLAIMS BECOME RIGHTS
I
“Un innegabile bisogno di di i i, e di di i o, si mani es a o unque,
s ida ogni o ma di ep essione, inne a la s essa poli ica”
1
1
Rodo à, S e ano. 2012. Il di i o di a e e di i i. Roma, Ba i: La e za. p.2.
Table o Con en s
II
The Cons uc ion o a Human Righ
The Case o he Righ o T u h o he Families o “Desapa ecidos”:
When Human Claims Become Righ s
Table o Con en s
P e ace 1
I. Human Righ s: F om he Idealis ic Concep ion o he Social Cons uc ion 2
1. Human Righ s E e ywhe e 2
2. F om he Enligh enmen o he P esen Day 2
3. Looking o a Common Concep 3
4. F om he Na u al o he Social Concep ion 4
5. F om he Poli ical o he Legal Dimension 7
6. Human Righ s and T ansi ional Jus ice 8
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h 10
1. In oduc ion 10
2. The Poli ical and His o ical Con ex 10
3. Mobiliza ion in Cou : The Juicios po la Ve dad 12
3.1. The E en s 12
3.2. Con o e sial E ec s and T ai s 14
4. The E olu ion o he Righ o T u h Beyond A gen ina 17
III. The Righ o T u h: A Human Claim in o Legal Te ms 21
1. In oduc ion 21
2. The Legal Ac i ism 21
3. The Legal Rhe o ic 23
Conclusions 30
Bibliog aphy 32
P e ace
1
P e ace
The i s ime I came ac oss he poli ical and ju idical ansi ion o A gen ina, I was ascina ed
by he enaci y o he mo he s and wi es o disappea ed pe sons who asked o u h be o e s a e
ins i u ions: bo h in and ou o cou s, hey claimed hei will o lea n he a e o hei lo ed ones
who had been abduc ed by he Mili a y unde he p e ious dic a o ship. Ten yea s a e he d a o
he In e na ional Con en ion o he P o ec ion o All Pe sons om En o ced Disappea ance, I
wonde how his deep need o u h happened o become a igh and, in pa icula , a human igh .
This ans o ma ion in ol es wo impo an aspec s: he i s is he shi om he ield o poli ics,
whe e he claim o u h is deba ed, o ha o legali y, whe e i is ensh ined as a igh ; he second
is he use o he o ical and a gumen a i e s a egies ha enable legal ac i is s o c ea e a new
human igh , which claims o ul ill a i al, na u al, and uni e sal need o he human being. In o he
wo ds, I will deal wi h he p ocess ha a ibu es legal quali ica ion o mo al aspi a ions.
Classical heo ies on human igh s ail o ell such a dynamic and e olu iona y dimension o
igh s, which, as p oduc s o a gi en socie y a a p ecise his o ical momen , a ise om human claims
and do no p e-exis o hem. The igh o u h, which was bo n in he pos -dic a o ial A gen ina, is
he esul o a speci ic his o ical-poli ical con ex : as such, i p o ides a e ealing example o he
social cons uc ion o human igh s.
In o de o analyze his p ocess, I di ided he wo k in o h ee pa s. The i s will p esen he
heo e ical amewo k, namely he li e a u e on human igh s and hei double possible
in e p e a ion: ei he acco ding o a heo e ical-philosophical app oach, o o a p ac ical-
sociological pe spec i e. The second pa will p o ide an analysis o he his o ical and poli ical
con ex ha led o he bi h o he igh o u h in A gen ina. In pa icula , I will ocus on an o iginal
ins i u ion, he T u h T ials, o Juicios po la Ve dad, which pa ed he way o he ecogni ion o his
igh as an au onomous en i lemen , o he i s ime. Finally, I will analyze in de ail a legal ex ha
I conside emblema ic o unde s anding how he he o ic and he ypical a gumen s o human
igh s ac i is s p omo ed he eme gence o he igh o u h. To en ich his las phase, I will also
e e o some in e iews o lawye s and ac i is s o ha ime who es i ied o hei in ol emen in
ac i i ies a he bo de s be ween he ields o poli ics and law.
I. Human Righ s: F om he Idealis ic Concep ion o he Social Cons uc ion
2
I. Human Righ s: F om he Idealis ic Concep ion o he Social Cons uc ion
1. Human Righ s E e ywhe e
Today e e yone alks abou human igh s. In I aly, ac i is s, legal expe s and media, men ion
human igh s when hey deal wi h abo ion, ci il unions o he use o he eil by Muslim women. In
coun ies in con lic , he human igh s alk gi es causes o conce n wi h ega d o mo e bla an
claims, such as he p o ec ion o li e and digni y. In A gen ina in he Nine ies, he human igh s
discou se eme ged in connec ion o he eques o he ela i es o missing pe sons o know he a e
o hei lo ed ones. In sho , oday he exp ession “human igh s” is a common e ain and an easy
ool o legi imize an ac ion o o claim ano he 's du y. Ma y Ann Glendon unde lines ha he legal
concep o igh has pene a ed he Ame ican – bu mo e gene ally Wes e n – common and poli ical
speech so much ha , ul ima ely, no only legal expe s bu also laymen end “ o speak o wha is
mo e impo an o [ hem] in e ms o igh s, and o ame nea ly e e y social con o e sy as a clash
o igh s” (1991: 4). No be o Bobbio (1992) and Law ence F iedman (2011) go e en u he , by
claiming ha we li e in he “age o human igh s”. Bu whe e do human igh s come om and wha
a e hey? In his chap e , I will b ie ly e ace he o igins o human igh s, hen ocus on hei p esen
meaning. The aim is o decons uc hei mo al and philosophical dimension and o place hem in
he social con ex in which hey a ise and de elop. In pa icula , I will ocus on con ex s o ansi ion,
whe e human igh s a e likely o be iola ed, claimed, and, la e , posi i ized. This s udy will o m
he backg ound o he analysis o he igh o u h, which, indeed, was bo n in a si ua ion o
ansi ion om dic a o ship o democ acy.
2. F om he Enligh enmen o he p esen day
The his o y o human igh s is qui e deba ed. E en hough he exp ession sp ead in he legal
domain only a e he Second Wo ld Wa , i s unde lying philosophy, which is based on he idea ha
men a e en i led o na u al igh s as human beings, has ancien o igins. Some schola s ind he
philan h opic and aspi a ional oo s o he concep wi hin he S oic hinking (Beck 2006; Douzinas
2007), while o he s iden i y a ew a ini ies wi h he Roman idea o ius humanum (Cascione 2016).
Howe e , all ag ee on a ibu ing he g ea es con ibu ion o he de elopmen o human igh s o
Na u al Law hinke s o he Enligh enmen . Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau based hei specula ions
on he idea ha he me e quali y o human being en ails inalienable igh s, which, he e o e, belong
o e e y indi idual. Ye , hose heo ies, which claimed alleged uni e sal alues, we e adop ed by
I. Human Righ s: F om he Idealis ic Concep ion o he Social Cons uc ion
3
single na ional legisla ions o Wes e n coun ies, while, e en ually, he condi ion o he holde o
undamen al igh s coincided wi h ha o ci izen. The d a o he “Decla a ion o he Righ s o Man
and o Ci izen” in 1789 is emblema ic in his sense. The discou se o e igh s did no challenge he
ole o he s a e; a he , i s eng hened i , since he s a e was he ul ima e sou ce o igh s (Moyn
2010). Only he humani a ian agedies o he Twen ie h Cen u y pushed owa d a “mo e uni e sal”
ecogni ion o human igh s, and, om he Fi ies on, he numbe o in e na ional ea ies inc eased
exponen ially. Human igh s, by claiming he uni e sali y and he “absolu eness” (Glendon 1991) o
hei mo al basis, ha e ascina ed a plu ali y o social ac o s and ha e ans o med in o some hing
mo e han a ca ego y o pa icula ly s ong indi idual igh s: hey ha e become a mo al pa adigm,
an ideology (Igna ie 2003), a “u opia” (Moyn 2010).
Nowadays, he de elopmen o in e and ans-na ional law ools and ne wo ks has pe mi ed
o he human igh s discou se o g ow e en beyond na ional bo de s. T ansna ional ac i ism as well
as in e na ional legisla ion and ju isp udence ha e os e ed uni e sal – o alleged as such – mo ali y,
policy, and law, which de elop in pa allel o s a e ac ion and con ibu e o he g ow h o a “wo ld
socie y” (Teubne in Ve sch aegen 2013: 74). The ocus on he indi idual, a he han on he ci izen,
has de eloped along wi h he hando e o human igh s p o ec ion om s a e ins i u ions o
ansna ional ac o s. Today, local and global mo emen s in e ac beyond s a e consul a ion o
despi e i s willingness: mos o he ecen human igh s mobiliza ions de eloped p ecisely o igh
s a e powe s. As I will explain below, human igh s ha e achie ed a u he and speci ic meaning
wi h ega d o si ua ions o ansi ion om dic a o ship o democ acy, and om con lic o peace.
In hese con ex s, he discou se abou human igh s has been used by opponen s, ic ims, legal and
poli ical ac i is s, as a pa adigm ha is able o delegi imize a policy o a go e nmen . Based on a
cosmopoli an ision o he human condi ion (Beck 2006: 2), i has os e ed a ansna ional ac ion,
which “sanc ion[s] ins i u ions, social hie a chies and inequali ies wi h he imp ima u o eason and
na u e (nowadays uni e salism and human igh s)” (Douzinas 2007: 159). Such pa adigm, by
claiming wo ldwide sha ed alues, ob ains in e na ional suppo , and becomes pa o an
ad e sa ial e ain agains despo ic egimes. As such, he human igh s discou se has u ned in o a
policy i sel (A hu 2009).
3. Looking o a Common Concep
De ining human igh s is a ha d ask. P e ailing concep ions end o unde line ei he hei
aspi a ional and abs ac cha ac e o hei ins i u ional side, which hey achie e h ough he
I. Human Righ s: F om he Idealis ic Concep ion o he Social Cons uc ion
4
ecogni ion om s a e au ho i ies. Looking o a common concep en ails an a emp o squa e he
ci cle: o econcile mo ali y wi h legali y. Vincenzo Fe a i (1989: 173-174) emphases wo inhe en
ea u es o human igh s: hey a e absolu e and con incing. Absolu e since hey belong o human
beings ega dless o any pe sonal condi ion no speci ic socio-poli ical con ex ; i.e. hey a e
uni e sal. And con incing, as hey p omo e models o ac ion ha a ely ind heo e ical
con es a ion: he human igh s discou se does no need o ecu o sanc ions no p omises o
pe suade, since i is based on b oadly sha ed mo al alues. Beyond hei e hical dimension, human
igh s en ail a ju idical aspec , wi hou which hey would emain me e wish. Some schola s
(Douzinas 2007: 166; Sousa San os 2009:3) ecognise hei double dimension by iden i ying hem as
bo h legal en i lemen s and mo al demands, while G ego io Peces-Ba ba (1993) de ines hem as a
“legalised mo ali y”, an exp ession ha econciles bo h educ ionis heo ies o Posi i ism and o
Na u al Law. The idea o human digni y can ind ins i u ional p o ec ion only once “posi i ized”
wi hin he ju idical sys em. This p ocess implies he in e en ion o s a e o ex a-s a e poli ical
powe o ecognise undamen al igh s o mally, and o en o ce hem p ac ically. Wi hou
ecogni ion nei he wi hin ex s o law no wi hin social p ac ice, mo al claims emain “c ippled
igh s” (Podgó ecki 1989: 132).
Faced wi h a complex heo e ical concep o human igh s, which swings om he ield o
mo ali y o ha o legali y, and e en ually o ha o poli ics, i is wo h unde s anding human igh s
om a p ac ical poin o iew, by ocusing on he way hey a ise and hey wo k wi hin socie y. The
sociological app oach ends o abandon he na u alis ic concep ion o human igh s and o
emphasise he social p ocess o hei cons uc ion. This app oach does no o ge he idealis ic
dimension o human igh s, bu scales hem down by placing hem in o he geog aphical and socio-
poli ical con ex .
4. F om he Na u al o he Social Concep ion
The idea ha undamen al igh s a e oo ed in human na u e, a quali y ha anscends and
p e-exis s o s a es, has os e ed he d a o in e na ional human igh s cha e s. Ye , his
jusna u alis ic concep is s ic ly connec ed o he cul u al and philosophical amewo k o mode n
socie y, whe e he indi idual and his possibili y o ac ion co e pi o al oles. Human igh s a e
p ima ily indi idual igh s (F iedman 2011: 156). Since he Enligh enmen , he p o agonis s o
philosophical scena ios ha e been indi iduals as na u al c ea u es, and as lone and equal igh -
bea e s. As concei ed by hese heo ies, he Law has o p o ec he indi idual om undue
I. Human Righ s: F om he Idealis ic Concep ion o he Social Cons uc ion
5
in e e ence om he s a e and o he enemies. Tha is why he i s igh s o be gua an eed we e
ci il and poli ical eedoms (Ma shall 1963).
In he las decades, sociologis s ha e ques ioned he heo e ical link be ween human na u e
and human igh s: by looking a he ways h ough which ac i is s mobilize a he local le el, hey
e ealed he ins i u ional cha ac e o human igh s. E en hough a ising om human needs, which,
po en ially, belong o all human beings, human igh s a e embedded wi hin he social con ex whe e
hey de elop (Madsen and Ve sch aegen 2013). Righ s do no belong o he indi idual dimension
wi hou p e iously being acknowledged a he social le el. They a e he speci ic p oduc o a
pa icula socie y. Ra he han p e-exis ing in “Na u e”, hey a e social cons uc ions. The same igh
can de elop in di e en coun ies bu wi h ine i ably di e en meanings (Glendon 1991: 11). As he
cul u al ela i is c i ique claims, human igh s na a i es a e his o ically and cul u ally bounded
(Dwo kin 1977; F iedman 2011). Thei ins i u ional cha ac e p edomina es, in he sense ha igh s
ha e o be socially ecognised in o de o exis , ei he unde he shape o me e claims o as legal
en i lemen s. They a e he p oduc o he ic o y o he homo socie a is o e he homo biologicus
(Cassese 2005: 230). Acco ding o Émile Du kheim, he idea o indi idual igh s comes om he
de elopmen o an o ganic model o socie y, whe e he indi idual co e s a pi o al ole, so much
ha schola s alk abou a “secula humanism” (Ve sch aegen 2013: 63). G ego io Peces-Ba ba
(1993) iden i ies a double philosophical concep ion in he human igh s discou se: he acknowledges
he indi idualis ic heo y ha ounds hei bi h, bu he also ecognises ha he en o cemen o
human igh s equi es a con ac ualis ic ounda ion. En o cing igh s means acing poli ics and
powe in he p ocess o selec ing he speci ic igh s, hei bene icia ies, and hei gua an o s.
Schola s, by looking a he con igu a ion o mode n igh s, namely hei cons uc ion in eac ion o
s a e powe , ha e iden i ied hei ins i u ional, a he han na u al, o igins. All he mo e so since
Na u e has los i s appeal as legal basis o uni e sal human igh s, in eason o he de elopmen o
na ionalis ic and ace heo ies du ing he Twen ie h Cen u y (Vincen 2010). No o men ion he
mul iplici y o heo ies ha , om Hobbes and Locke on, y o unde s and he uni e sal human
na u e, bu ail o ind a common concep , hus demons a ing he lexibili y o such na u e
(Podgó ecki 1989:134-135).
Human igh s ac i is s s ill base hei legal easoning on he pe suasi e jusna u alis ic he o ic
ha acco ds o human igh s na u al and uni e sal quali ies, e en hough he objec s o hei
campaigns end o be pa icula is ic. Indeed, in hei mobiliza ion o he en o cemen o igh s,
ac i is s a e mo i a ed by e y speci ic ci cums ances o dis ess, while hey s uggle o he
I. Human Righ s: F om he Idealis ic Concep ion o he Social Cons uc ion
6
p o ec ion o a igh o a speci ic g oup o people, whose ecogni ion could h ea en he p o ec ion
o o he coun e posed igh s. Thus, hei pa icula is ic ision ends o con lic wi h he uni e sal
unde s anding o human igh s a he heo e ical le el, and wi h o he ’s equally legi ima e igh s a
he p ac ical le el. Ne e heless, he he o ic o human igh s seems o no ecognize con lic s o
igh s and subjec i e legal posi ions, while p e e ing o adop a Manichean ision ha coun e poses
iola ed and iola o s and ha does no en ail he o e lap o hese wo oles (Wilson 2009: 209). I
iden i ies in a nea way hose who a e “en i led o” speci ic human igh s and hose who obs uc
hem. The na a i e o human igh s shows hem as uni e sal bu he ecogni ion o a speci ic igh
o a ce ain pe son o g oup implies balancing a pa icula is ic demand wi h o he opposed
indi idual and collec i e posi ions. Asse i e human igh s speeches isk p omo ing exagge a ed
expec a ions and limi ing dialogue wi h coun e pa ies (Glendon 1991: 14).
The “na u al” and he “uni e sal” a gumen s ail, since, i human na u e is he legal basis o
igh s claims, hese claims could no be bu in a ou o e e ybody. Ne e heless, human igh s
discou se ecu s o he seman ic o Na u al Law o acco d o human beings a na u al digni y, om
which igh s au oma ically de i e. By asse ing ha igh s should be ecognised because he na u e
o e e y human being equi es so and because i is a “mo al sel -e idence” (Moyn 2010: 9), human
igh s ac i is s insis no o igh o a speci ic g oup o in e es , bu o e e ybody. In hei
pe spec i e, igh s a e no c ea ed wi h a poli ical aim; a he , hey a e “disco e ed” in he human
na u e. Howe e , he e is inconsis ency be ween wha human igh s claim o be – na u al and
uni e sal – and wha hey inally a e – pa icula is ic and con adic o y.
Finally, i we look a he ple ho a o human igh s ha ha e been legally ecognised, o a leas
claimed, un il oday, he con adic ion o hei discou se jumps ou : he plu ali y o ways o
unde s anding human digni y, which e lec s no jus in o he a ie y o human igh s bu also in he
mul iplici y o hei in e p e a ions, canno i wi h one single and uni e sal concep ion o human
na u e. The uniqueness o he concep o human digni y, upon which human igh s a e based, is
biased by he numbe o ways o in e p e ing i and by he con ingency o human igh s. The ise
and he ins i u ionaliza ion o ce ain o hem ins ead o o he s can be explained in e ms o a
pa icula mo ali y ha p e ails o e ano he h ough dynamics o powe . In o he wo ds, “i
humani y is one alone, why a e he e so many di e en p inciples conce ning human digni y and a
jus socie y, all o hem p esumably unique, ye o en con adic o y among hemsel es?” (Sousa
San os 2009: 3).
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h in A gen ina and Beyond
13
in i s ea ly s ages. The o me had a ibu ed i o bo h he amilies o he ic ims and he whole
socie y and had s a ed he du y o e e y go e nmen o a ange all he necessa y measu es o
p ope ly in es iga e human igh s iola ions o he p e ious egime. This du y pe sis ed e en when
legi ima e ju idical ci cums ances p e en ed he p osecu ion o he c iminals (1988, Velásquez-
Rod íguez, 181). The Cou and o he in e na ional ins i u ions con i med his posi ion in he
ollowing yea s (e.g. ICHR 2000, Bámaca Velásquez).
Some schola s (Schapi o 2002; And io i Romanin 2011; Ga ibian 2012; Na ali 2014) ha e
econs uc ed he e olu ion o he Juicios om he Nine ies on. In 1995, Emilio Mignone was he
i s who, suppo ed by he Cen o de Es udio Legales y Sociales (CELS), ied ha s a egy, since he
amnes y had led o he closu e o his case. He appealed o he Cáma a Fede al de Apelaciones en lo
C iminal y lo Co ecional de la Capi al Fede al, asking o he disco e y o he ac s ha had led o
he disappea ance o his daugh e , who had been once iden i ied a he ESMA, an illegal de en ion
cen e in 1976. The Cou , in u n, add essed o he Mili a y, asking o he cla i ica ion o he e en s
ha occu ed a he cen e, he collec ion o es imonies, and he opening o he a chi es, bu he
Mili a y denied hei coope a ion and he Cou closed he case. Ne e heless, a simila eques o
u h disco e y ollowed: Ca men Aguila de Lapacó add essed o he same Cou in sea ch o he
daugh e who was supposed o ha e spen some ime a he Club A lé ico, ano he illegal p ison.
Again, in Augus 1998, he Cou ejec ed he claim. Thus, Lapacó, who was sponso ed by se e al
human igh s o ganisa ions, appealed o he In e -Ame ican Cou , which held he claim.
Meanwhile, he A gen inian Fede al Cou acco ded he igh o u h h ough he ecou se o
adminis a i e p ocedu e (habeas da a) o plain i Facundo U eaga. This i s openness om he
Cou s, added o he a ou able posi ion o he Na ional Cong ess, led owa d he sp ead o he
p ac ice o he Juicios in he whole Coun y om he end o he Nine ies (And io i Romanin 2011).
In 1998, he Asemblea Pe manen e po los De echos Humanos (APDH) and some amilies o he
missing u ged he Cáma a Fede al o La Pla a o disco e he des iny o he disappea ed and he
ci cums ances o he abduc ions. In he ollowing yea s, his Cou , u ged by APDH, eopened mo e
han 1800 sui s. In he same wake, o he ic ims add essed o he Cáma a Fede al in Bahia Blanca.
The ial p ocedu e was highly di e en ia ed: some cou s based hei enqui y o e he documen s
ha had been p e iously collec ed, while o he s, such as ha o La Pla a, p omo ed public hea ings
weekly, consul ed he su i o s, he amilies, and local human igh s associa ions. The majo i y o
he ials concluded wi h a e dic ha iden i ied he co pses.
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h in A gen ina and Beyond
14
The a gumen s ha lawye s used du ing he ials wi h ela ion o he claim o u h came om
di e en ields. As I will show h ough he analysis o he wo ds ha he amici cu iae p onounced
be o e he cou s, an h opological and philosophical easonings p o ed he human and uni e sal
need o u h, wi h ela ion o disappea ed ela i es, and ounded i s legal ecogni ion. These
a gumen s ound u he suppo in he ju isp udence o he In e -Ame ican Cou , especially in he
1988 Velásquez-Rod íguez case, bu he plain i s ook an e en mo e adical posi ion: hey claimed
ha he igh o u h was an au onomous and jus iciable igh ha limi a ions o p osecu ion,
namely he amnes ies, could no p e en . T u h, a he han being he means o achie e jus ice, was
mean o be he end o hei demands.
3.2 Con o e sial E ec s and T ai s
The Juicios we e o iginal ins i u ions ha ound no p eceden in he his o y o A gen ina, no
ab oad. Schola s si ua e hem “be ween u h commissions and classic c iminal p oceedings,
symbolic epa a ion and e ibu ion” (Ga ibian 2014: 4), since hey sha ed he goals o he o me
and he s uc u e o he la e . Indeed, simila ly o u h commissions, hey aimed me ely a
es ablishing e en s and es o ing ic ims, a he han g an ing e ibu i e jus ice, bu hey ollowed
he p ocedu al ules o adi ional c iminal ials: hey ook place in c iminal Fede al Cou s – mos ly
hose o La Pla a and Buenos Ai es – and hey en isaged in es iga ions, wi nesses, public
pa icipa ion, and he possibili y o subpoena he suspec ed people as wi nesses
2
. Only a ew s udies
analysed hese unusual ins i u ions, p obably in eason o hei low e ec i eness: a he beginning
o he Twen y- i s Cen u y, legal de elopmen s a he na ional and in e na ional le el, among
which he ab oga ion o he amnes y laws and he eopening o he ials, including hose o
Mignone and Lapacó, led owa d he dec ease o T u h T ials, while hey emained almos unknown
ab oad. Ne e heless, we ind hei legacy in he implemen a ion o he discou se abou he igh
o u h and i s ins i u ionalisa ion a he in e na ional le el.
Some schola s analysed he p ocedu al aspec s o he Juicios and hei complex implica ions
wi h he ollowing adi ional c iminal ials (Maculan 2012; And io i Romanin 2013; Na ali 2014).
Indeed, hese pa a-legal ins i u ions aised many doub s wi h ela ion o he gua an ees o he
de endan . The cou s could subpoena he Mili a y membe s who, e en ually, co e ed an
ambiguous and isky posi ion, be ween ha o wi ness and de endan , and isked sel -inc imina ion.
2
In 2000 he Na ional Cou o Cassa ion decla ed ha he Mili a y had he igh no o inc imina e hemsel es:
hey could no es i y unde oa h and hei deposi ions could no be used in a sepa a e ial.
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h in A gen ina and Beyond
15
Fu he mo e, wi h he eopening o he adi ional p oceedings, he issue o ne bis in idem and he
au ho i y o he es judica a we e a s ake, while judges did no know whe he hey could use he
e idence o he Juicios. The di icul y in collec ing p oo s, inding ins i u ional suppo , and
o ganizing he ials ma ked hei weakness (Schapi o 2002: 399).
The posi ion o he judges aised some doub s as well. They co e ed a ole ha was decla a o y
and inquisi o ial, a he han puni i e and ad e sa ial, since hey we e asked o shed ligh on he
ac ual u h abou pas disappea ances h ough ju isdic ional p ocedu es. The judge was called o
econs uc a na a i e abou he pas h ough he collec ed p oo s, and o conside a scope o ime,
space, and e idence ha wen beyond his adi ional ange o in es iga ion and ha challenged he
p inciple o ule o law (And io i Romanin 2013). Basically, he was eques ed o pe o m as an
his o ian o as a wi ness, a he han as a judge (Ga ibian 2014), while “ he bo de s be ween judicial
u h and his o ical u h [we e] blu ed and unde ined” (Maculan 2012: 115).
E en he posi ion o some ic ims, namely hose child en who had been kidnapped and
changed in hei iden i y, was a s ake. Thei o iginal amilies claimed o u h, bu his igh
con lic ed wi h he igh o p i acy o hose sons who e used o unde go a DNA es , o disco e
hei biological iden i y, and possibly o be ay hei alleged pa en s (Ga ibian 2012).
Besides hese con es ed issues, he Juicios had some posi i e impac . They ep esen ed a
chance o social pa icipa ion and ee exp ession o he ic ims, while hey managed o
s eng hen social cohesion h ough he elabo a ion o a common na a i e abou he pas . They
pe o med as “ i uals o memo y” (Mo a 2005), since hey helped econs uc ing he his o y om
he poin o iew o he ic ims, and hey collec ed a g ea amoun o da a o e single cases. The
mobiliza ion o u h om ic ims, human igh s associa ions, and legal expe s, complemen ed by
i s ju idical ecogni ion, led owa d he ins i u ionaliza ion o u h as a common alue and as an
obliga ion o s a e ins i u ions (Schapi o 2002: 400). Schola s (And io i Romanin 2013) ha e s udied
he ole o hese ials wi hin he A gen inian ansi ion, and hei con ibu ion o he ic ims as
ools o jus ice in b oad e ms: he chance o ask o u h be o e c iminal cou s ga e back o jus ice
and ins i u ions an “e hical dimension” (2013: 12). Fu he mo e, i ep esen ed a canalisa ion o he
so ow and o he desi e o e enge. Beyond he indi idual sphe e, knowing he u h abou he
pas was he basis o s eng hening democ acy.
I is impo an , o he pu poses o he p esen esea ch, o ocus on he p oblema ic and
ambi alen na u e o he u h eques s du ing he Juicios. Memo ia Abie a (2010) and CELS (2011)
shed ligh on he double unc ion o he demands o u h. I , on he one hand, hey exp essed a
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h in A gen ina and Beyond
16
since e need o know he ac s ela ed o he disappea ance o hei ela i es and he whe eabou s
o hei dea h, on he o he , hei use was a s a egy o challenge he impuni y g an ed by he
amnes y laws. Indeed, h ough he T u h T ials, he ic ims collec ed documen s and es imonies
ha could be a p ecious e idence in po en ial u u e p oceedings. This legal s a egy aises
ques ions abou he unc ion o he igh o u h. Pa icia Na ali (2014, 2015a, 2015b) emphasizes
he ambi alence o such igh as concei ed by he associa ions and he ic ims in A gen ina, as he
speeches o he applican s be o e he cou s es i y. On he one hand, men ioning his igh
appea ed o be a “neu al” discou se in poli ical e ms, inasmuch i claimed a legi ima e, since
na u al, igh o he ic ims, ha o acknowledge pas a oci ies. A igh ha has he mo al po en ial
o human igh s and ha , once ecognized by posi i e in e na ional law, pe ec ly i s wi hin he
human igh s ca ego y. As o iginally concei ed in he na a i es o he claiman s, his igh is jus i ied
by i s alleged uni e sali y and i s cogency. No silence could be “humanely” admi ed be o e he
desi e o he amilies o know why he missing disappea ed and whe e his co pse lies a p esen . As
he Thi d Chap e will show, he a gumen s and he wo ds o he ac i is s e e ed o he easoning
and he language o human igh s discou se. Ye , such igh , as se in he A gen inian con ex ,
ine i ably aised doub s in ela ion o he igh o ull in es iga ion, and o he punishmen in he
e en o a c ime, since he ecogni ion o he igh o u h could lead o ano he claim, ha o
puni i e jus ice. Indeed, some applican s ques ioned he legali y o he amnes y laws ha impeded
he p oceedings and demanded, in pa allel o he igh o know he a e o he missing, he
accomplishmen o he s a e du y o in es iga e and punish. O he claiman s, ins ead, included
wi hin he scope o he igh o u h he iden i y o hose esponsible, a ci cums ance ha would
jeopa dize he gua an ees o he de endan s. O he s, s ill, did no di ec ly exp ess any claim o
jus ice, bu s ongly sugges ed eno a ing he sys em o wa an ies and o epa a ion o he ic ims
o he dic a o ship. Acco ding o he mos p og essi e hesis, he igh o u h would no belong
only o he ela i es o he disappea ed, bu o he whole socie y, which would be sa is ied by he
sp ead o a public and collec i e his o ical u h abou he o ali a ian pas . A u h ha would
demons a e a clea s ance by public ins i u ions on he p e ious egime and ha would p o e mo e
han e e o be poli ical (Na ali 2014: 78-80). Finally, he beha io o he associa ions o ic ims,
om he Eigh ies on, con i med hei keen in e es in seeking o he epeal o he amnes y laws
and he eopening o adi ional c iminal ials. The epo o Memo ia Abie a (2010), which collec s
he opinions o ic ims, lawye s and judges o he Juicios, es i ies he willingness o he plain i s o
ake any use ul s a egy o please he need o he ic ims o ge jus ice. I also shows he c ea i i y
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h in A gen ina and Beyond
17
o he p ocess o ac s inding by he ju isdic ional powe , which o e comes he na u al connec ion
be ween ial, judgmen , and punishmen . The igh o u h, as claimed by he A gen inian ic ims,
seems o ha e de eloped as a esidual igh o ha o jus ice, in he sense ha i eme ged p ecisely
because o he lack o any chance o c iminal jus ice. Achie ing u h was he second bes op ion
(Na ali 2014).
4. The Righ o T u h Beyond A gen ina
The i s clea exp ession o he igh o u h, wi h ela ion o he need o he amily o a
disappea ed pe son o disco e his a e, can be ound in he al eady men ioned epo s and
judgemen s o he In e -Ame ican Commission and Cou o Human Righ s. Be o e such e olu ion,
he acknowledgemen o he e en s ha conce ned he abduc ion was no i ele an , bu i was no
signi ican pe se. The disco e y o he ac s was conside ed as a necessa y p elimina y pa o he
ial, bu logically, empo ally, and ins umen ally placed be o e he puni i e phase. Knowing wha
happened, and hus sa is ying he need o u h o ic ims, was jus i ied by he in en ion o iden i y
and punish he c iminals. The In e -Ame ican ju isp udence helped he igh o u h de eloping
beyond he scope o he igh o jus ice and achie ing an au onomous meaning. I s implemen a ion
and i s ecogni ion in in e na ional ea ies would no be achie ed wi hou he i m mobiliza ion o
he A gen inian ic ims and he launch o he Juicios. The case ha b ough he In e -Ame ican
Commission o explici ly ecognise he igh o u h, and o o ce he A gen inian Go e nmen o
g an i , came om one o he ic ims who had claimed o me e disco e y be o e he judges (IACHR
2000, Lapacó . A gen ina). As s a ed in he achie ed se lemen be ween he S a e and he
pe i ione s, “ he A gen ine Go e nmen accep s and gua an ees he igh o he u h, which
in ol es he exhaus ion o all means o ob ain in o ma ion on he whe eabou s o he disappea ed
pe sons. I is an obliga ion o means, no o esul s, which is alid as long as he esul s a e no
achie ed, no subjec o p esc ip ion. This igh is speci ically ecognized in ela ion o he
disappea ance o Alejand a Lapacó” (Ibid. ¶17). The igh o u h, wi h ela ion o he c ime o
abduc ion, was inally ecognised wo hy o p o ec ion as such.
The impac o he Juicios expanded beyond he A gen inian expe ience. As o hei me hod, a
simila in es iga ion ook place in Buenos Ai es wi h ega d o he slaugh e o A menian people in
Tu key
3
. The judges, u ged by descendan s o A menian ic ims, adop ed a pu ely decla a i e
3
Juzgado Fede al de Buenos Ai es, Judge No be o Oya bide, Resolución decla a i a de los sucesos his ó icos
conocidos como el genocidio del pueblo a menio – años 1915-1923. (Ap ., 1, 2011).
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h in A gen ina and Beyond
18
esolu ion, which iden i ied he c imes as genocide, s a ed ha , as such, hey could no bene i om
any s a u e o limi a ions, and assessed he igh o u h o he ic ims. Such igh would se he
legal basis o he in es iga ion o he A gen inian Cou (F onza 2012). Some schola s (Maculan
2012, Ga ibian 2014) ind in he Juicios a sou ce o inspi a ion o u he ials, such as hose
conduc ed by Judge Bal asa Ga zón in Spain wi h ega d o he o ced disappea ances ha had
occu ed unde F anco’s egime
4
. Again, by appealing o he igh o u h o he ic ims, he judge
aimed a eopening c iminal p oceedings.
Howe e , he impac o he Juicios is e iden no so much wi h ega d o he chosen p ocedu e
– a c iminal ial wi h a decla a i e aim –; a he p ecisely o he basis o such ials: he exis ence
o he igh o u h. By looking a expe iences o bo h c iminal and al e na i e, mainly es o a i e,
jus ice, i is clea ha u h has achie ed an essen ial ole a he local and a he in e na ional le el.
Pa ly in luenced by he ju isp udence o he In e -Ame ican Cou – i sel he esul o local ju idical
mobiliza ion – he Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s, since he Nine ies, has unde lined he s a e
du y o conduc an e ec i e o icial in es iga ion wi h ega d o human igh s iola ions om public
agen s, especially in case o use o le hal o ce (ECHR 1998, Kaya . Tu key). The igh o u h, i no
explici ly s a ed, was ne e heless ecognised as s ic ly linked o he igh o li e and o an e ec i e
emedy in case o mu de (An kowiak 2002). In he ollowing yea s, he Cou b oadened he
concep ion o such igh , and s a ed ques ioning he possibili y o ecu o he igh o u h in case
o o u e, se ious human igh s iola ions, and b each o in e na ional humani a ian law (2012 El-
Mas i . Macedonia; 2013 Janowiec . Russia). The s a e du y o in es iga e, as an obliga ion o
means, has been he objec also o se e al ecommenda ions o he UN Human Righ s Commi ee,
which has ecognised he igh o u h, wi h speci ic e e ence o he c ime o abduc ion, as pa o
he e ec i e emedy. The o gans o he Uni ed Na ions ha e welcomed he doc inal p oposals o
in e na ional o ganiza ions, i s o which ICTJ and ICRC, which s o e o he ins i u ionalisa ion o
his igh . The o mal ecogni ion eme ged om he enac men o epo s and ecommenda ions,
bu especially om he adop ion in Decembe 2006 o he a o emen ioned In e na ional Con en ion
o he P o ec ion o All Pe sons om En o ced Disappea ance, whose A icle 24.2 inally se s on
pape he igh o u h o he amilies o missing pe sons.
The discou se o e he igh o u h did no only de elop in ela ion o ju isdic ional
p ocedu es, bu also o al e na i e ways o jus ice, such as hose ha a e common in con ex s o
4
Juzgado Cen al de Ins ucción no. 5, Audiencia Nacional de Mad id, Judge Bal asa Ga zón, Diligencias P e ias
P oc. Ab e iado 399/2006 V. (Oc ., 16, 2008). And Suma io (P oc. O dina io) 53/2008 E. (No ., 18, 2008).
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h in A gen ina and Beyond
19
poli ical ansi ion. The ema kable ise o u h and econcilia ion commissions all a ound he wo ld
ounds i s basis p ecisely on he s uggle o u h wi h ega d o a pas o mass human igh s
iola ions. Cou s and u h commissions sha e he willingness o e ace pas a oci ies. Howe e ,
such p ocess o disco e y ends o e ol e in o wo di e en ways, since he scope o he u h a
which he wo ins i u ions aim does no coincide. I , on he one hand, ju isdic ional u h is he one
ha ela es wi h me e ac s and ha eme ges om ju idical enqui y and he mechanism o
e idence, he u h a which he commissions seek – ye highly di e en ia ed om a commission o
ano he – aims a some hing u he , which, depending on he social, poli ical, and cul u al con ex
o he in ol ed coun y, goes om he acknowledgemen o he causes o mass iolence, o he
econs uc ion o a common memo y, o he elabo a ion o he ic ims’ emo ional expe ience…
Di e en ly om c iminal ials, which base hei disco e y on hose ac s ha can be p o ed in
cou ooms h ough a con adic o y p ocedu e, commissions bene i om wide ma gins o
e alua ion, since hey do no apply he s anda ds o due p ocess, no do hey use c oss-
examina ions. Thei in es iga ion is no limi ed o a single case; a he , i is linked o a si ua ion o
widesp ead iolence ha migh ha e co e ed e en long pe iods (ICTJ 2013: 11). Unde s anding he
socio-legal con ex o mass iola ions is unc ional, in his case, no o punish c iminals, bu o
p o ide compensa ion and ehabili a ion o ic ims. The wo d “ u h”, wi h ela ion o i s disco e y
wi hin ials and wi hin commissions, has achie ed a b oade in e p e a ion, mos ly om an
indi idual and ac ual pe spec i e o a collec i e and na a i e one. The Sou h-A ican T u h and
Reconcilia ion Commission, which was ac i e in he same yea s o he Juicios and which in luenced
he manda e o he ollowing commissions in Sou h-Ame ican and Eas -Asian coun ies,
dis inguished ou ca ego ies o u h. Fac ual and o ensic u h ocuses bo h on he indi idual
indings and on gene al causes and pa e ns. Pe sonal and na a i e u h in ol es ic ims and
pe pe a o s by sha ing con lic ing poin s o iew; while in e ac ion and deba e c ea e social u h.
Finally, healing and es o a i e u h aims a acknowledging he ic ims’ so ow and a es o ing
hei digni y (TRC 1993: 111-114).
In e es ingly, he igh o u h, which was bo n in he A gen inian con ex as a close claim o
ha o jus ice, has hen de eloped in a di e en di ec ion a ound he wo ld. Schola s and p omo e s
o ansi ional jus ice associa e he concep o he igh o u h, as in e na ionally ecognized, o
he heme o econcilia ion, social peace and, possibly, o gi eness. T u h and – indeed –
econcilia ion commissions d aw inspi a ion om a model o social ha mony ha did no belong o
he he o ic o he A gen inian ac i is s. The eme gence o u h p ocedu es, which aim a u h
II. The De elopmen o he Righ o T u h in A gen ina and Beyond
20
disco e y o bo h indi idual and collec i e needs, ind jus i ica ion in his new model. Ye , he logic
o econcilia ion, e en hough based on he disco e y o pas c imes, does no e lec he o igin o
he igh o u h. The A gen inian ic ims claimed o u h mos ly in o de o sa is y a pe sonal will
o econs uc he des iny o disappea ed pe sons and o collec e idence o u he ials. The idea
o econcilia ion wi h he opposing pa y was a om he aim o he ic ims; while he p ocedu e
hey selec ed o ace pas c imes, namely he appeal o c iminal cou s, e lec ed such a speci ic
app oach owa d u h. Di e en ly om o he coun ies, he ins i u ion who was eques ed o shed
ligh on he pas was a c iminal cou , no an in o mal commission, no a his o ian, no he ic ims
and he c iminals h ough public deba es. Also in A gen ina he e had been a u h commission, he
CONADEP, be o e he Juicios, bu e en i s in e en ion had no en isaged public sessions, no a deep
in ol emen o ic ims and c iminals. I s mission was mos ly in es iga i e: e en hough i was no
esponsible o he 1,400 denuncia ions i collec ed, i was asked o ansmi all he da a o an ad
hoc c iminal commission. The co e ed u h o A gen ina, h ough he in e en ion o s a e
ins i u ions, as in he case o he CONADEP, o despi e s a e denial, as in he case o he Juicios, was
e y close o c iminal u h, which is ac ual and indi idual. Ul ima ely, he g ea es pa adox
conce ning he igh o u h is he ollowing. The o iginal p omo e s o his igh aimed a e oding
he e ec i eness o he amnes y laws, hus a compensa ing he lack o c iminal jus ice; while,
oday, schola s aise i o a co e alue o ano he kind o jus ice, he es o a i e and dialogical one,
he same jus ice ha is able o legi imize he adop ion o amnes ies in he name o econcilia ion.
In o he wo ds, h oughou his o y, ac i is s and poli icians ha e used he he o ic o he igh o
u h bo h o legi imize and o delegi imize he lack o judicial p oceedings (Na ali 2014:14).
III. The Righ o T u h: A Human Claim in o Legal Te ms
21
III. The Righ o T u h: A Human Claim in o Legal Te ms
1. In oduc ion
The p esen chap e will ocus on he p ocess h ough which a social demand de elops in o a
human igh , h ough he example o he igh o u h in A gen ina in he Nine ies. How i happened
ha he claim o u h om he amilies o he desapa ecidos, which basically had no legal g ound,
achie ed a ju idical ecogni ion (so much o be la e enlis ed wi hin an in e na ional ea y)?
The cons uc ion o he igh o u h, as ha o e e y human igh , in ol ed a plu ali y o social
ac o s. F om he Go e nmen , who app o ed he amnes ies, o he soldie s, some o whom publicly
con essed hei pas c imes, o he ic ims and hei associa ions, who enaciously asked o he
disco e y o he a ocious pas : all o hem con ibu ed o he su acing o he igh o u h. The
bigges inpu o i s ecogni ion came om legal expe s: lawye s and judges. These wo subjec s
played a key ole in de eloping he legal concep o igh o u h, h ough a hea ed dialec ic ha
accompanied he Juicios in he Nine ies. Lawye s, by using he he o ic o human igh s, pa ed he
way o i s ecogni ion no only wi hin he A gen inian bo de s, bu also a he in e na ional le el.
The legal s a egy o which hey ecu ed ela ed wi h he ans o ma ion o a social and poli ical
issue, he will o u h, in o a legal issue, he igh o u h. All his happened cohe en ly wi h he
dis inc i e policy o human igh s ac i is s, who seek o “channel mo al indigna ion in o legally
en o ceable mechanisms a he na ional and in e na ional le el” (Wilson 2007: 351).
This chap e will i s ocus on he ole ha lawye s played du ing he campaign o he igh o
u h; hen, i will analyse in de ail one o he key legal ex s o he mo emen , h ough which ic ims
and lawye s claimed he exis ence and he p o ec ion o his igh . Bo h sec ions will be en iched by
he con ibu ions o some lawye s who ook pa o he Juicios and who g an ed in e iews o
Memo ia Abie a, he ins i u ion ha g oups all A gen inian human igh non-go e nmen al
o ganisa ions and ha aims a keeping ali e he memo y o e s a e e o ism unde he la es
dic a o ship.
2. The Legal Ac i ism
The cons uc ion o he igh o u h is s ic ly ela ed wi h he ac i ism o hose lawye s and
ic ims in A gen ina, who, al hough coming om di e en social, poli ical, and cul u al backg ounds,
ound hemsel es on he same side: ha o he opp essed by he mili a y dic a o ship and
dis ega ded by he ollowing go e nmen s. Since he Six ies, many lawye s had helped he amilies
o he missing wi h ju idical assis ance, h ough a poli ical and pe sonal ba le. This ac i i y had
III. The Righ o T u h: A Human Claim in o Legal Te ms
22
in ol ed lawye s as legal expe s and, a he same ime, as suppo e s o a ce ain ca ego y o clien s,
namely he e y o alleged opponen s o he egime. When choosing o o e legal ad ices o
poli ical p isone s, lawye s could no help ge ing poli ically in ol ed as well. In his sense, lawye s
es ablished a i s ace con ac be ween he ield o poli ics and ha o law. In ca ying ou hei
p o essional legal ac i i y, hey isked he same consequences o poli ical opponen s: h ea s,
o u e, o ced disappea ance, and mu de . Ne e heless, he legal in e en ion did no end soon.
The poli ical campaign and he legal easoning de eloped a mu ually en o cing ela ionship, which
s eng hened soon a e he all o he dic a o ship h ough he ac i i y o denuncia ion, and o
egula iza ion o he ju idical s a e o disappea ed people, ebels and p isone s. The ac ion o
lawye s was suppo ed a he in e na ional le el by a de eloped ne wo k o human igh s
associa ions and ins i u ions, among which he In e -Ame ican Commission on Human Righ s, which
had isi ed he Coun y in 1979. I s s ic epo abou he human igh s si ua ion in A gen ina had
legi imised and os e ed he claims o he ic ims, pa ed he way o u he mobiliza ion a he local
and in e na ional le el, and gi en bi h o a mul iplici y o human igh s associa ions in he Coun y.
Ac i is s adop ed di e en legal s a egies o bypass poli ical impedimen s o jus ice, u h, and
epa a ion, and hey became undamen al ac o s in he igh agains impuni y h ough hei unusual
“poli iciza ion”: hey did no publicly con es he scope o he amnes ies, bu hey aimed a e oding
hei scope h ough o he legal ools. Memo ia Abie a (2010) analysed he s a egies ha lawye s
enac ed a e he all o he dic a o ship o suppo he ic ims. Among hem, he e is he
elabo a ion o o iginal ju idical concep s, such as he igh o u h, ha could help he ic ims
dealing wi h he lack o ins i u ional jus ice and u h, and which ga e bi h o he Juicios po la
Ve dad. This echnique was only one o he ways o igh impuni y and, hus, o es o e jus ice. In
pa allel o he claim o u h in cou , lawye s ough o he decla a ion o uncons i u ionali y o
he amnes y laws, o he eopening o adi ional ials, and o he “ es i u ion o iden i y” o
disappea ed child en. Thei oadmap was complex and i included di e en s a egies, which we e
s ic ly connec ed o each o he , in he name o a main pu pose: jus ice.
As schola s obse e, he claim o new igh s can be pe cei ed as a ool o poli ical mobiliza ion,
e en in lack o any ecogni ion o such igh s om cou s: “wha coun s is no whe he he cou
o de ac ually leads o a edis ibu ion o alues, bu a he he impac o he judicial decision on
cogni ion” (Scheingold 2011: 131). In his sense, igh s a e ele an as means o poli ical ac ion,
a he han as ends in hemsel es. Thei esonance in he poli ical sphe e migh ma e mo e han
hei e ec i e ju idical app ecia ion. In he case o A gen ina, he ecogni ion o he igh o u h
III. The Righ o T u h: A Human Claim in o Legal Te ms
29
legi ima e, he ul ima e and mos in luen ial gua an o o he digni y o he ic ims, e en owa ds
go e nmen iola ions (Vedio, in Memo ia Abie a 2009: 128). A judicial decision, e en un a o able,
shows ha an issue ha was p i a e has achie ed public ele ance, since he cou , a leas , has
ecognized he claim as exis en . In he wo ds o he amici cu iae,
Solamen e el Pode Judicial ep esen ado po es a Excma. Cáma a cuen a con el g ado de c edibilidad necesa ia
pa a es ablece , inalmen e, la e dad de lo ocu ido con cien os de pe sonas que ue on desapa ecidas po agen es del
Es ado en A gen ina
14
(ESMA 1995).
Fu he mo e, he use o legal language helps ans o ming me e claims in o “ igh s”, e en
hough in he o m o denied igh s. Such language encapsula es a discou se abou en i lemen s and
du ies (Scheingold 2011: 136), which is add essed o cou s as media o s o he dialogue be ween
ci izens and ep esen a i es. The echnique o choosing he judicial way o claim o new igh s, o
supplemen legisla i e and adminis a i e p ocedu es, has been widely used in di e en ields (Sax
1970): ac i is s p e e using he naï e language o igh s, especially o human igh s, a he ha he
s onge and iskie poli ical language.
14
“Only he Judicial Powe , ep esen ed by his Hon. Cou , has he deg ee o c edibili y needed o inally es ablish
he u h o wha happened o hund eds o people who disappea ed a he hands o s a e agen s in A gen ina”.
Conclusions
30
Conclusions
I s a ed he p esen esea ch by claiming ha oday human igh s a e e e ywhe e. They ha e
become he mindse h ough which, no only legal expe s, bu also laye people hink and alk
abou indi idual, o , mo e a ely, collec i e, human needs. Pe sonal conce ns a e likely o be amed
as igh s, o , e en, as human igh s, namely hose igh s ha belong o he human being as such,
and ha a e, hus, uni e sal.
The he o ic o human igh s, which is se led in Na u al Law philosophy, is pa icula ly
success ul in coun ies “in ansi ion” om dic a o ship o con lic o democ acy and peace. In he
a e ma h o a pe iod o mass iolence, ic ims, lawye s, and ac i is s in gene al, a e likely o lay
claim o a high le el o p o ec ion o subjec i e posi ions, which we e no gua an eed in he
p e ious pe iod. In o he wo ds, hey demand igh s, since igh s legally ecognize and de end
pe sonal demands and posi ions. And, i s o all, hey seek human igh s, as hey co espond o
basic human needs. I is in e es ing o ocus on he s a egy ha lawye s use o ound hese claims.
As p e iously no ed, hey o en ecu o he human igh s discou se, bo h in e ms o he o ic and
a gumen s. So i happened in A gen ina in he Nine ies, whe e legal expe s obse ed he need el
by he amilies o missing pe sons o disco e hei des iny, and hey econ igu ed i unde he shape
o igh o u h. A igh ha had ne e exis ed be o e beyond he ame o he igh o jus ice.
The ac i is s highligh ed a social p oblem, caused by he impossibili y o he amilies o know
he whe eabou s o he missing, and designed i no longe as a will, bu as a p e-es ablished and
undeniable human igh , as i i had always exis ed. They shaped an o iginal legal a i ac , he igh
o u h, h ough an inno a i e p ocedu e, he Juicios po la Ve dad. The analysis o he memo ial
ha he wo main human igh s o ganiza ions p oposed o he Fede al Chambe o he Capi al and
o he s a emen s o some lawye s shows he p ocess o c ea ion o a new human igh h ough he
use o Na u al Law seman ic. The ac i is s spoke abou he igh o u h as a human, na u al and
uni e sal igh , ha belongs o all ela i e o missing people. This s a egy helps ounding a igh
ha has no enough poli ical suppo and ha , hus, needs u he legi ima ion. They use he human
igh s discou se as legal means, in he sense ha hey add ess di ec ly o a cou by claiming o he
ecogni ion o a p e-exis ing and “na u al” igh , bu hey look o a poli ical aim, namely he
cons i u ion o i , e en hough hey bypass he legisla i e p ocess. Lawye s ecu o he human igh s
discou se when hey s uggle ans e ing impo an conce ns in o he wo ds o poli ics. Indeed,
he e is no be e legi ima ion o a igh han ounding i on a condi ion ha is “essen ially human”
(ICHR 1993, Aloeboe oe e al.). Such language appea s neu al, p e-poli ical, and naï e, in he sense
Conclusions
31
ha i does no e e o a pa icula socio-poli ical con ex o legi imize he need o a speci ic igh .
This he o ical s a egy, which is de oid o pa icula is ic conno a ions, ends o be success ul, since
i legi imizes a speci ic igh by appealing o an alleged uni e sal human condi ion. Bu wha makes
he human condi ion uni e sal is he philosophical and he o ical mindse ha ounds human igh s
ac i ism. Law ence F iedman would alk abou he “o e whelming global cul u e” o human igh s
(2011: 126).
As disco e ed by looking a he A gen inian expe ience, he e olu ion o a igh has a s ic
ela ion wi h he socio-legal con ex whe e i g ows. The igh o u h, as e e y human igh , is
highly poli icized. I canno anscend he cul u al, social and poli ical condi ions o a speci ic
con ex , namely ha o A gen ina in he Nine ies. Ra he , i is he esul o such peculia si ua ion:
i was bo n in a con ex o ansi ion, o mass disappea ances and o denied jus ice. These h ee
condi ions, oge he wi h a s ong ac i ism o he ic ims and a winning legal s a egy o he lawye s,
b ough o he c ea ion o he igh o u h as igh ha belongs o he amilies o he abduc ed. In
o he con ex s, he exp ession “ igh o u h” has been used o suppo a plu ali y o aims, as he
one o build a common memo y, o know he esponsibili y o e e y pas c ime, o o econcile
ic ims and c iminals. Ye , he igh o u h as concei ed by he A gen inian ic ims is some hing
di e en , e y close o he igh o ull in es iga ion and s ic ly linked o he c ime o abduc ion.
The speci ici y o his c ime equi es he disco e y o e en s no only o a pu pose o u h
asce ainmen , bu also, and p ima ily, o he aim o jus ice. Indeed, he c ime o abduc ion is based
on a “non- ac ” (Ga ibian 2012: 31), namely he lack o he ic im, hus on a concealed u h.
The e o e, jus ice, o he amilies o he missing, en ails he opposi e p ocess: he disclosu e o such
u h. Knowing wha happened o he bodies is a way o s op he c ime, i s o all. As long as ac s
emain unknown, he c ime pe sis s, while he amilies keep on missing hei ela i e.
Ano he elemen ha con ibu ed o he de elopmen o he igh o u h in ha momen and
place, and unde ha o iginal o m, was he ambiguous policy o pos -dic a o ship go e nmen s.
The amnes ies, he legal pa dons, he denial o s a e esponsibili y, and he Theo y o he Two
Demons, con ibu ed o he elabo a ion o new and uncon en ional pa hs o look o jus ice, whe e
he igh o u h de eloped as he second bes al e na i e o a missing c iminal jus ice.
To conclude, he igh o u h, as he igh o he amilies o he missing o know he
whe eabou s o hei lo ed ones, g ew as he speci ic social p oduc o he A gen inian legal ac i is s
o he Nine ies, who managed in his ope a ion, by ecu ing o he seduc i e, al hough abs ac and
gene al, he o ic o human igh s.
Bibliog aphy
32
Bibliog aphy
And io i Romanin, En ique. 2013. “Deci la e dad, hace jus icia: los juicios po la Ve dad en A gen ina.” Eu opean
Re iew o La in Ame ican and Ca ibbean S udies 94:5–23.
And io i Romanin, En ique. 2011. “La Ve dad como Jus icia: Acción, Mo ilización y C eación de Opo unidades en el
Juicio po la Ve dad de Ma del Pla a, A gen ina.” Asian Jou nal o La in Ame ican S udies 24(4):1–19.
An kowiak, Thomas M. 2002. “T u h as Righ and Remedy in In e na ional Human Righ s Expe ience.” Michigan Jou nal
o In e na ional Law 23:977–1013.
Beck, Ul ich. 2006. Cosmopoli an Vision. Camb idge, Malden: Poli y P ess.
Bobbio, No be o. 1992. L’e à dei di i i. To ino: Einaudi.
B ysk, Alison. 1994. “The Poli ics o Measu emen : The Con es ed Coun o he Disappea ed in A gen ina.” Human Righ s
Qua e ly 16(4):676–92.
Cascione, Cosimo. 2016. Ius Humanum: la ‘gene azione’ an ica dei di i i umani?. Lesson a Uni e si à degli S udi di
Milano (May, 23, 2016).
Cassese, An onio. 2005. I Di i i umani oggi. Ba i: La e za.
CELS and ICTJ. 2011. Hace jus icia. Neu os deba es sob e el juzgamien o de c ímenes de lesa humanidad en la A gen ina.
Buenos Ai es: Siglo XXI.
CONADEP. 1984. Nunca Más: In o me de La Comisión Nacional Sob e La Desapa icion de Pe sonas. Buenos Ai es:
Eudeba.
Douzinas, Cos as. 2007. Human Righ s and Empi e. The Poli ical Philosophy o Cosmopoli anism. Abing on, New Yo k:
Rou ledge. Ca endish. Taylo & F ancis G oup.
Dwo kin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Righ s Se iously. Camb idge, Massachuse s: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Eu .C .H.R. 2000. No.22535/93. Kaya . Tu key. (Ma ., 28, 2000).
Eu .C .H.R. 2012. No.55508/07. Janowiec and O he s . Russia. (Ap ., 16, 2012).
Eu .C .H.R. 2012. No.39630/09. El-Mas i . Macedonia. (Dec., 13, 2012).
Fe a i, Vincenzo. 1989. “Sociologia dei di i i umani: i lessioni conclusi e.” Pp. 165–82 in Sociologia dei di i i umani,
edi ed by R. T e es and V. Fe a i. Milan: F ancoAngeli.
F iedman, Law ence M. 2011. The Human Righ s Cul u e. A S udy in His o y and Con ex . New O leans: Quid P o Books.
F onza, Emanuela. 2012. Il Negazionismo come ea o. Milano: Giu è.
Ga ibian, Sé ane. 2014. “Ghos s Also Die.” Jou nal o In e na ional C iminal Jus ice 12 no.3:515–38.
Ga ibian, Sé ane. 2012. “Che che les mo s pa mi les i an s. Donne co ps aux dispa us de la dic a u e a gen ine pa
le d oi .” Pp. 29–41 in Cada es Impensables, Cada es Impensés. App oches Mé hodologiques du T ai emen des
Co ps dans les Violences de Masse e les Génocides.
Glendon, Ma y A. 1991. Righ s Talk. The Impo e ishmen o Poli ical Discou se. New Yo k: The F ee P ess.
Bibliog aphy
33
Goodale, Ma k. 2007. “Loca ing Righ s, En isioning Law Be ween he Global and he Local.” Pp. 1–38 in The P ac ice o
Human Righ s. T acking Law Be ween he Global and he Local, edi ed by M. Goodale and S. E. Me y. Camb idge,
New Yo k e al.: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
HRW/Ame icas and CEJIL. 1995. Memo ial en de echo Amicus Cu iae p esen ado po Human Righ s Wa ch/Ame icas y
el Cen o po la Jus icia y el De echo In e nacional a la Exma. Cáma a Fede al en lo C iminal y Co eccional de la
Capi al Fede al en el asun o Mignone, Emilio F., s/p esen ación en causa N o. 761, “Hechos denunciados como
occu idosen el ámbi o de la escuela supe io de mecánica de la a mada (E.S.M.A.). A ailable a
h ps://cejil.o g/si es/de aul / iles/amicus-esma_0.pd .
ICTJ. 2013. T u h Seeking. Elemen s o C ea ing an E ec i e T u h Commission. edi ed by E. González and H. Va ney.
B asilia, New Yo k: Amnes y Commission o he Minis y o Jus ice o B azil.
Igna ie , Michael. 2003. Human Righ s as Poli ics and Idola y. Thi d. edi ed by A. Gu mann. P ince on: P ince on
Uni e si y P ess.
In e -Am.Comm.H.R. In o me No. 21/00. Case 12.059. Ca men Aguila de Lapacó . A gen ina, (Feb., 29, 2000).
In e -Am.C .H.R. (Se .C.) No.15 (1993). Aloeboe oe y o os, Repa aciones. (Sep., 10 1993).
In e -Am.C .H.R. (Se .C) No.4 (1998). Velásquez-Rod íguez . Hondu as. (Jul., 29, 1988).
In e -Am.C .H.R. (Se .C) No.70 (2000). Bámaca-Velásquez . Gua emala. (No ., 25, 2000).
Jun a Mili a . 1983. Documen o inal sob e la gue a con a la sub e sión y el e o ismo.
Juzgado Cen al de Ins ucción no. 5, Audiencia Nacional de Mad id, Judge Bal asa Ga zón, Diligencias P e ias P oc.
Ab e iado 399/2006 V. (Oc ., 16, 2008). And Suma io (P oc. O dina io) 53/2008 E. (No ., 18, 2008).
Juzgado C iminal Y Co eccional Fede al N. 5 de Buenos Ai es, Judge N. Oya bide. Resolución decla a i a de los sucesos
his ó icos conocidos como el genocidio del pueblo a menio – años 1915-1923. (Ap ., 01, 2011).
Maculan, Elena. 2012. “P osecu ing In e na ional C imes a Na ional Le el: Lessons om he A gen ine ‘T u h-Finding
T ials.’” U ech Law Re iew 8(1):106–21.
Madsen, Mikael R. e al. 2013. Making Human Righ s In elligible. Towa ds a Sociology o Human Righ s. Oña i
In e na ional Ins i u e o he Sociology o Law. edi ed by M. R. Madsen and G. Ve sch aegen. Ox o d, Po land:
Ha Publishing.
Mallinde , Louise. 2009. “The Ongoing Ques o T u h and Jus ice: Enac ing and Annulling A gen ina’s Amnes y Laws.”
Beyond Legalism: Amnes ies, T ansi ion and Con lic T ans o ma ion. 5.
Ma shall, Thomas H. 1950. Ci izenship and Social Class, and O he Essays. To ino: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Memo ia Abie a. 2010. Abogados, de echo y poli ica. Buenos Ai es.
Mo a, Belén N. 2005. Juicios po la Ve dad Hís o ica, Ri uales de la Memo ia. La Reapa ición de una T ama en Ma del
Pla a. Uni e sidad de Buenos Ai es.
Moyn, Samuel. 2010. The Las U opia. Human Righ s in His o y. Camb idge, London: The Belknap P ess o Ha a d
Uni e si y P ess.
Na ali, Pa icia. 2014. “«Tou e la é i é, ien que la é i é»? Les mobilisa ions du <<d oi à la é i é>> dans les a ai es
Mignone e Lapacó en A gen ine.” Reche ches e a aux du REDS à la Fonda ion Maison des Sciences de l’Homme
30:73–93.
Bibliog aphy
34
Na ali, Pa icia. 2015a. “Le «d oi à la é i é» à l’ép eu e de ses mobilisa ions en Amé ique La ine. En e essou ce e
con ain e.” Re ue in e disciplinai e d’é ude ju idique 2(73):139–65.
Na ali, Pa icia. 2015b. “The Poli ics o T u h and Complemen a i y: On Legal Fe ishism and he Rhe o ic o T ansi ional
Jus ice. In oduc ion: T u h s. Jus ice: An Obsole e Deba e? The Complemen a i y be ween C iminal Jus ice and
T u h and Reconcilia ion.” Re ue Québéquoise de D oi In e na ional o se ies(Decembe ):101–28.
OHCHR. Communica ion No. 107/1981. Ma ía del Ca men Almeida de Quin e os e al. . U uguay. (Jul., 21, 1983).
Peces-Ba ba Ma ínez, G ego io. 1989. “Sul ondamen o dei di i i umani. Un p oblema della mo ale e del di i o.” Pp.
101–16 in Sociologia dei di i i umani, edi ed by R. T e es and V. Fe a i. Milan: F ancoAngeli.
Peces-Ba ba, G ego io. 1993. Teo ia dei di i i ondamen ali. edi ed by V. Fe a i. Milano: Giu è.
Podgó ecki, Adam. 1989. “Ve so una sociologia dei di i i dell’uomo.” Pp. 131–46 in Sociologia dei di i i umani, edi ed
by R. T e es and V. Fe a i. Milan: F ancoAngeli.
P esiden e de la Nación A gen ina. 1983. Ley 22.924. Paci icación Nacional. A gen ina.
Sax, Joseph L. 1970. De ending he En i onmen : A S a egy o Ci izen Ac ion. New Yo k: Knop .
Schapi o, He nán I. 2001-2002 “Su gimien o de los <<Juicios po la Ve dad>> en la A gen ina de los No en a.” El Vuelo
de Ica o 2-3:359–401.
Scheingold, S ua A. 2011. The Poli ics o Righ s. Lawye s, Public Policy, and Poli ical Change. second. Michigan: The
Uni e si y o Michigan P ess.
Senado y Cáma a de Dipu ados de la Nación A gen ina. 1987. Ley 23.521. Obediencia Debida.
Senado y Cáma a de Dipu ados de la Nación A gen ina. 1986. Ley 23.492. Pun o Final.
Snyde , F ede ick E. 1983. “S a e o Siege and Rule o Law in A gen ina: The Poli ics and Rhe o ic o Vindica ion.” In e -
Ame ican Law Re iew 503–12.
Sousa San os, Boa en u a De. 2009. “I God We e a Human Righ s Ac i is : Human Righ s and he Challenge o Poli ical
Theologies.” Law, Social Jus ice & Global De elopmen Jou nal 1(Ma ch):1–42.
Tei el, Ru i. 2003. “T ansi ional Jus ice Genealogy.” Ha a d Human Righ s Jou nal 16:69–94.
T e es, Rena o e al. 1989. Sociologia dei di i i umani. Edi ed by R. T e es and V. Fe a i. Milan: F ancoAngeli.
TRC o Sou h A ica. 1998. Repo .
UNGA. A/RES/61/177. In e na ional Con en ion o he P o ec ion o All he Pe sons om En o ced Disappea ance. (Dec.,
20, 2006).
Ve bi sky, Ho acio and Rica do G. La ed a. 2000. “El camino de la e dad.” Los puen es de la memo ia. Causas po la
e dad. La jus icia no se inde 34–37.
Ve sch aengen, Ge . 2013. “Di e en ia ion and Inclusion: A Neglec ed Sociological App oach o Fundamen al Righ s.”
Pp. 61–80 in Making Human Righ s In elligible. Towa ds a Sociology o Human Righ s, edi ed by M. R. Madsen and
G. Ve sch aengen. Ox o d, Po land: Ha Publishing.
Vincen , And ew. 2010. The Poli ics o Human Righ s. Ox o d, New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Bibliog aphy
35
Wilson, Richa d A. 2007. “The Ty annosau us Lex: The An h opology o Human Righ s and T ansna ional Law.” Pp. 342–
69 in The P ac ice o Human Righ s. T acking Law Be ween he Global and he Local, edi ed by M. Goodale and S.
E. Me y. Camb idge, New Yo k e al.: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Wilson, Richa d A. 2009. “Rep esen ing Human Righ s Viola ions: Social Con ex s and Subjec i i ies.” Pp. 209–28 in
Human Righ s. An An h opological Reade , edi ed by M. Goodale. Malden, Ox o d, Chiches e : Wiley-Blackwell.
Wilson, Richa d A. e al. 1997. Human Righ s, Cul u e & Con ex . An h opological Pe spec i es. edi ed by R. A. Wilson.
London, S e ling: Plu o P ess.
