"it says, to implement the" illegal scheme designed by Videla, it drew a zoning of the country ", and most detainees were available to joint the Judiciary and the Executive Branch (PEN), which makes it "unlikely" to ignore the systematic method was used to kill prisoners who were at his disposal.
addition, members of the court held in the ruling that all those convicted were part of the "organization of a comprehensive systematic criminal plan, which, protected by state mechanisms, aimed at the elimination of political opponents ".
Within this "criminal plan." ARGENTINE TIME FEBRUARY 22 . NOTE
An excellent note of weather (which is good time lately), I recommend reading it has a lot of info, I produced the following observation: In a court of Córdoba, a sentence that marks out a path. The statement that state terrorism was an integral systematic criminal plan. Well. Now I am struck by this statement: ... the majority of detainees were available conjnta the Judiciary and the Executive., So it is unlikely to ignore (talk about a) the systematic method was used to eliminate detainees who were at his disposal. So far so good I want to raise this hypothesis have (1) a judge, that given the events, could not know that torture existed. Now if the detainees were generally held together by executive order and justice, then it means that there were more than a judge who was in the same situation.
What I say is if the plan was systematic and had matching powers under illegal detention. Then nothing enables not be required to excuse such judge, in cases of crimes against humanity. And void say.
However, if the systematic plan comes as one of its legs the judiciary means that judges of the Dictatorship remain or be any person of about fifty-odd years. Then it may be necessary for the tenure of judges be reframed. Should retire. It is not the same thing Judge 60, a 40. It is obviously a matter of substance that should not be admitted under the rule of law and a society that wants to grow and be free, go ahead.
Times change, ideas change. Changing policies, basic fundamental rights continue to grow, the company continues to grow and a guy like 80 years, hardly suited to such changes in this area. No, do not misunderstand I do not discriminate the type, but I question the field. Why? Because it is made for that for certain people to acquire a precise formation. Which I find totally hypocritical in a state of law. I believe the rule of law is the welfare state, which means that people are happy and content. Or at least have access to the key issues, which makes recognition of rights, open to new social problems. But not in this case it is not.
Why? because I think that in any case so, at least in Argentina and some other Western countries or do not have the Common Law System. I think this
judicial system has been created by a corporation that has decided that things would be in a certain way, to defend friends, doing business, have social status, to feel the power of that "someone might need a favor."
course is not a coincidence that a man's world, this system in Argentina is a system created by men in their early days. By this I mean the dawn of the country.
Well if someone does not today respect human rights, if not internalized, if you do not feel themselves can not be judge, can not be a lawyer. No way ...
could raise a discussion forum in relation to all judges of the dictatorship, Tax Agents who have worked, even interns today can not form the judiciary. This would not affect many in terms of numbers, because judges are referred to as elderly people, as any Argentine, who retires at 60 or 65 years.
structures need to be changed that is not done by little, becomes at once, open contests of urgency, a profound renewal, where men and women have the same rights, benefits and responsibilities. Otherwise the command is transferred. For the system as it is created.
Are we trying to judge crimes against humanity to these judges, we will not get exactly where we want. (For me reconstruct the personal and collective histories and with them the country that we ever dreamed and off).
I do not think too much to ask. If resignificamos the sense of justice in our country, we also have a great great future, we would win in seriously break the status quo, we would gain rights, more equality. Equality is important so important that sometimes we can not resize, feel an equal to any other generates a quasi-brotherhood, in the deepest sense of the term. Imagine without categories? imagine for example that the category of "minorities" does not exist?. Leaving you imagine calling the judge His Honour? seriously if it still does. What do you mean for us today the category "Your Honor", think anything, in any way, almost did not stick with our customs. What we are a kingdom? Feudal society is it? that would take place for any of us Your Honor? . What we could not even identify?
In short I am saying is that I need a thorough reform in the judiciary. But very deep. Is essential.
0 comments:
Post a Comment