Estado vs. Estado: 35 años de juzgamiento del genocidio argentino

Abstract

The Argentine case is often presented as an example of transitional justice. A critical view of this paradigm is proposed in light of the analysis of the three stages of the Argentine genocide judging. The hypothesis of this work is that the potentiality of state crimes trials does not lie in their ability to resolve or leave behind the past, but rather to tie it to the present based on its symbolic efficacy. Emphasis is placed in trials that takes place since 2006 in  the ordinary national courts, analyzing its particularities inside and outside the judicial territory.