Due Obedience Law

Due Obedience Law
Name	Due Obedience Law
Enacted	1987
Jurisdiction	Argentina
Status	repealed

Due Obedience Law The Due Obedience Law was an Argentine statute enacted in 1987 during the presidency of Raúl Alfonsín that created legal presumptions about the criminal responsibility of subordinates during the National Reorganization Process and the Dirty War. It immediately affected prosecutions connected to Jorge Rafael Videla, Leopoldo Galtieri, Emilio Massera, and members of the Argentine Navy and Argentine Army, generating responses from courts such as the Supreme Court of Argentina and international bodies like the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The statute framed debates involving figures and institutions including Héctor José Cámpora, Ricardo Alfonsín, Isabel Perón, Hugo Banzer, and human rights organizations such as Madres de Plaza de Mayo and Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo.

Background and Context

The law emerged in the aftermath of the Falklands War and the transition from military rule symbolized by trials like the Trial of the Juntas. Political negotiations involved actors such as Raúl Alfonsín, Antonio Cafiero, and representatives of the Armed Forces including Leopoldo Galtieri and Orlando Ramón Agosti. International norms referenced included decisions of the International Court of Justice, precedents from the Nuremberg Trials, and doctrines debated during the Madrid Conference and in opinions from jurists like Emmanuel Levinas and Hans Kelsen. Domestic pressure came from civic movements including Servicio Paz y Justicia and media outlets such as Clarín and La Nación, alongside labor unions allied with leaders like Hugo Moyano.

Provisions and Legal Principles

The statute codified a presumption that members of the Armed Forces and security agencies acted under superior orders, echoing legal debates from the Nuremberg Defense and the Reichstag Fire Decree-era jurisprudence. It established categorical exclusions for responsibility except for commanders, reflecting principles contested by scholars such as Carlos Nino and jurists connected to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The law intersected with constitutional provisions in the Constitution of Argentina and with treaties ratified by Argentina including the American Convention on Human Rights and instruments influenced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Implementation and Application

Implementation affected ongoing cases at the Federal Criminal Courts and prompted decisions by judges connected to tribunals in Buenos Aires, Córdoba, and Rosario. Prosecutors like Luis Moreno Ocampo and defense attorneys linked to figures such as Christian von Wernich navigated the moratorium created by the statute. The measure influenced trials that had investigated ESMA detention center crimes, operations like Operativo Independencia, and disappearances associated with militias tied to Montoneros and ERP. Enforcement also brought attention from international prosecutors and entities like Amnesty International and the United Nations.

Domestic and International Legal Responses

The law drew criticism and legal challenges from organizations including Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, Human Rights Watch, and litigation before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. National judges and the Supreme Court of Argentina faced appeals invoking doctrines from the International Criminal Court and comparative rulings from the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Diplomatic actors such as ambassadors from United States, Spain, and France registered positions, while jurists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonio Cassese influenced scholarly debate about command responsibility.

Political and Social Impact

Politically the statute affected coalitions including the Radical Civic Union and the Justicialist Party, shaping campaigns by leaders such as Carlos Menem and later Néstor Kirchner. Social movements intensified mobilizations in spaces like Plaza de Mayo and cultural responses in works by artists such as León Ferrari and filmmakers like Lisandro Alonso and Pino Solanas. Media coverage by outlets including Página/12 and Perfil amplified disputes, while international exhibitions and conferences in cities like Madrid, Paris, and New York City kept the issue in public view.

Repeal, Challenges, and Subsequent Trials

Subsequent legal reform and judicial rulings, notably decisions by the Supreme Court of Argentina and legislative action by the National Congress of Argentina, led to repeal and reopening of investigations during administrations of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Prosecutors including Luis Moreno Ocampo and judges such as Jorge Ballesteros advanced trials against figures tied to the Military Junta and officers implicated in disappearances at sites like Club Atlético facilities and Campo de Mayo. International rulings from bodies including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and advocacy by organizations like Interpol contributed to extraditions and prosecutions involving suspects who had sought refuge in countries such as Spain, Switzerland, and Paraguay.

Category:Argentine law Category:Human rights in Argentina