40 años de democracia: un fallo para entender los discursos de la Corte desde entonces

Abstract

Since the restoration of democracy forty years ago, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has had multiple opportunities to take a stance the judicialization of the acts committed during the last civil-military dictatorship. In these attempts to define some type of trend towards the next composition of the highest court of justice in the country, it pitches upon different narratives or discourses that imply discarding others. In this specific case of the analyzed sentence, the underlying issue is not addressed, which is the crime of child abduction, but rather the admissibility of an evidentiary measure is evaluated: can the justice force a person to have their blood drawn to be used against their parents in a criminal proceeding? To define this, the judges first propose a result and then adapt their fundamentation to it. In this work, I intend to demonstrate the importance of the report elected, as well as think about the effects that the judicial resolution brings to the community; the judicial practice, because of its inherently social essence, cannot be alienated from the reality of social subjects and the community ties that are formed between them. Finally, it’s my interest to ask myself if the sentences, as part of literature, are successful in achieving the purpose they propose. Such examination requires time to be able to see its effects and that just now, fourteen years after, we can verify its (in)efficiency.