Marijuán. Photo via La Nación

Federal Prosecutor Guillermo Marijuán formally accused Supreme Court Justices Carlos Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Elena Highton de Nolasco of issuing a ruling that goes against the law for voting in favor of guaranteeing the procedural benefit known as “two for one” to Luis Muiña, a former military member convicted of crimes against humanity committed during the last dictatorship.

Marijuán upheld a request presented by Marcelo Parrilli, a lawyer and former legislator in the City of Buenos Aires for the MST New Left (Nueva Izquierda) party. It will now be up to Federal Judge Daniel Rafecas to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed in prosecuting the Supreme Court justices, and begin a formal investigation.

“This public office considers the solution provided by the Justices as possibly going against the social contract of the Argentine population and the State policy upheld by the three branches of government to pursue, judge and sanction the grave violations to human rights committed during the last military dictatorship,” argued Marijuán in his ruling, judicial branch sources told Infobae. 

Three other organisations pressed charges as a result of the ruling, but in these cases charges were filed against the Argentine State for allegedly violating the rights of the victims of state terrorism. This was done before the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IAHCR).

The decision prompted national and international human rights organizations to join in the criticism, which will be illustrated on the streets tomorrow in a March to Plaza de Mayo at 6PM. The Center of Legal and Social Studies (CELS), Amnesty International and mothers and grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo are just some of the ones that have called people to march.

At an international level, disapproval came from the United Nation’s Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner in South America (OHCHR). In a press release issued yesterday, the office warned that when the Justices talk about “applying the most benign law [the legal principle they used to apply the benefit] they can’t overlook the international standards that are applied to crimes against humanity.”

“The Argentine State and the Supreme Court, as the highest legal instance, must abide not only to Argentine law, but also to international law and commitments made at an international level,” the release added. The OHCHR is the UN’s body in charge of coordinating all mechanisms aimed at overlooking human rights in the region. No Supreme Court Justice has come out to explain the decision ever since the ruling was issued