After years of brutal state terrorism, who deserved to pay for the suffering of the people? Has anyone done it? And what consequences would such a punishment have for a society that was not only in a delicate transition period but also historically rather unstable, with no non-military, democratically elected government having completed its mandate since 1928?[1] ]Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay On the other hand, what consequences, both moral and political, would follow from not applying such a punishment? And even more fundamentally, what was the real truth about the last seven years? What happened to the missing and who did this to them? Questions like these are not unique to Argentina. Around the world, nations emerging from repression have developed methods to move from dictatorship to democracy and to deal with the memory of massive human rights violations. As the Cold War ended and right-wing and communist dictatorships fell, a literature on “transitional justice” emerged attempting to draw conclusions about these processes. Initially, this literature seemed to reach a consensus on the existence of two fundamental options for societies in transition. The first was alternately mentioned as the choice of “reconciliation”, “peace” or “truth”. In this situation, wrongdoers would not be punished, usually for fear that punishment would reopen old wounds, leading to violence and greater instability (hence the name "peace"). The emphasis would instead be on forward-looking policies aimed at consolidating pluralist democracy (“reconciliation”) and on establishing an accurate collective memory of violations (“truth”). The second option, generally referred to as “justice,” would be to punish the fallen dictatorship for its violations. This sanction would be imposed by a judicial body following a national or international trial[MN1]. The most striking example of the "truth", "peace" or "reconciliation" option is that of Nelson Mandela's South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, while an example like that of the Nuremberg Trials illustrates more precisely the option of “justice”. 2] This clear dichotomy, while useful in some ways, is unable to accurately capture the complexity of many countries' transition experiences. Argentina, for example, has had both trials and a truth commission, CONADEP (for Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas[MN2]). To further complicate the situation, amnesties were granted following the trials, but these amnesties were ultimately annulled, paving the way for new trials which took place twenty years after the fall of the dictatorship. Amnesties and the truth commission seem to fit the “truth” or “peace” option, but early trials and more recent attempts to punish violations seem to place Argentina in the “justice” category. The transitional justice literature has attempted to address such complexities in various ways. One suggestion has been that although we can assign mechanisms such as trials to the category of "justice" and those like truth commissions to the category of "truth" or "peace", most countries use a combination mechanisms from both categories.[3] Another proposed theory is that instead of two distinct choices, there is a spectrum of options for nations in transition, ranging from most favorable to least favorable to fallen dictatorships.[4][MN3] Despite thesetheories proposed, no consensus has yet been established. Progress has been made on how the field of transitional justice can most effectively account for complexity, and the truth versus justice view is still dominant in many ways. This essay will contribute to this debate by developing a new framework through which to view the transition in Argentina and then engage in an analysis of its various stages through this new lens. Specifically, rather than viewing the options available to Argentina as a dichotomy or scale, this essay will present the Argentine transition process as an attempt to achieve three interrelated goals: justice, truth, and peace. Furthermore, by examining how different actors in the transition process interpreted or perceived these goals, we will attempt to explain how and why such varied views on the success of the trials arose. Finally, the essay will incorporate an analysis of the recent resurrection of dirty war trials, an issue with which most scholars have not yet had the opportunity to engage. Argentina is experiencing significant changes regarding the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations that occurred from 1976 until 1983, when the country was ruled by a military dictatorship and approximately 10 000 to 30,000 people had “disappeared”. This article describes developments in transitional justice in Argentina and explores the history behind these advances. Since Argentina's return to democracy in 1983, various governments have implemented a range of initiatives related to truth-seeking, prosecutions and reparations. Raul Alfonsín, the first democratically elected president after the end of military rule, inherited a weakened democratic infrastructure and a strong military. who actively resisted accountability for past crimes, thereby frustrating early efforts at justice. However, some key military leaders have been successfully prosecuted in two landmark trials. In 1989 and 1990, President Carlos Menem granted two pardons, one to a handful of officers who were still on trial and another to those who had already been convicted. This was a blow to the victims and their families and prevented many options for continuing to obtain justice for past crimes. Several cases were brought before the courts in the second half of the 1990s and have continued since. An economic crisis that began in the late 1990s and peaked in December 2001 diverted attention from transitional justice initiatives but did not stop them. Since Nestor Kirchner was elected president in May 2003, he has addressed issues of justice for violations committed more than 25 years ago. There is a movement to end impunity for human rights violations in Argentina. This is partly due to the support of recent governments, but also the result of years of hard work by Argentine human rights organizations, initiatives by the Argentine justice system and the contribution of activists who have established a strong information base and continued to work for justice for the victims. Additionally, the field of transitional justice – or continuing global justice during periods of political transition – is concerned with developing a wide variety of strategies to address the legacy of human rights violations in the past, analyzed and applied. in practice in order to create a fairer and more democratic future. From a theoretical and practical point of view, transitional justice aimed at treating the after-effects of abuse ofbroad and comprehensive way includes criminal justice and equity to repair damage, social justice and economic justice. Judicial policy must include measures aimed at a dual objective, namely accountability for past crimes and the prevention of new crimes, taking into account the collective nature of certain forms of violations. Thus, transitional justice as defined by the United Nations is "the set of processes and mechanisms associated with a society's attempts to confront a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, to serve justice and achieve reconciliation.” .- During this transition period, society is facing a very important problem which concerns the issues of human rights violations, whether physical, economic or even political. Indeed, the transitional justice process focuses on five initial approaches to addressing human rights violations that occurred during the war. Including, firstly, prosecutions whether civil or criminal, domestic or international, domestic or foreign. Second, the search for truth and commissions of inquiry. Third, reparations in the form of symbolic or in-kind compensation or rehabilitation. Fourth, institutional reform with the removal of perpetrators of crimes from public office. Fifth, memorials and the establishment of what is called collective memory. Indeed, in the aftermath of the conflict, societies experiencing trauma and going through a period of transition often express their need to understand the extent of the violence and the nature of the conflict or abuses that occurred under the former regime. In Argentina's case, the trials for crimes committed under the dictatorship of military juntas are widely seen as a successful national effort to seek accountability for past abuses. And while victims' demands for justice remain high, the justice system faces challenges in ensuring cases are handled quickly and fairly. At the same time, the harrowing evidence presented during trials appears to receive less and less attention in public discourse. The collapse of Argentina's military dictatorship in 1983 ended a dark chapter of terror, torture and kidnappings. In the aftermath, thousands of victims demanded justice. Argentina has successfully established criminal trials and truth-seeking mechanisms to seek responsibility for widespread abuses and to establish the truth about the disappearances of more than 30,000 people. Argentina has been a pioneer of transitional justice not only for the region, but for the world. Between 1976 and 1983, thousands of people were tortured, murdered and disappeared. In 1983, Argentina created a truth commission to shed light on crimes committed during the military dictatorship. What led to the decision to create a truth commission? The decision to create a truth commission was born out of societal outcry. It was a way of collecting information that was largely unknown or at least considered unknown. The truth commission was the first attempt to organize existing information and give people a place to file complaints. Today, in our trials, we still use the criminal reports filed at the time as evidence because they are valuable. Thirty years later, the memories of the witnesses are perhaps thirty years old, but all these criminal complaints remain fresh[MN5]. In 1976, when Argentina was wracked by economic conflict, a military junta led by General Jorge Videla took power. Parliament was dissolved. ThisDictatorship continued under four different generals – Jorge Videla, Roberto Eduardo Viola, Leopoldo Galtieri and Reynaldo Bignone – until its fall in 1983, after suffering significant losses in the Falklands War with Britain . Civilian rule was then reestablished. Raul Alfonsín was elected president and created La Comisión Nacional Sobre la Desaparición de Personas (National Commission of Missing Persons, CONADEP) and tasked it with investigating the fate of the disappeared. In 1984, CONADEP published a report, Nunca Más ("Never Again"), which listed victims and detention centers where individuals had been murdered and tortured under the authority of the army, navy and police forces. CONADEP did not obtain any evidence through the cooperation of the army, either officially or unofficially.[8] As democratic government was restored, it became necessary to immediately investigate past human rights violations. In early 1984, judges began ordering exhumations. However, the doctors assigned to this work had little experience in analyzing skeletal remains, while many local forensic experts were part of the police force and complicit in the previous justice system.[9]During his work , CONADEP joined forces with Abuelas. de Plaza de Mayo (Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo), a group of women with missing children and grandchildren. Since its creation in 1977, the group has searched for missing children, some born in clandestine detention centers or missing with their parents. CONADEP and the Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo requested assistance from the Science and Human Rights program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A group of experts traveled to Argentina to call for a halt to the exhumations until they could be carried out properly. Forensic anthropology expert Dr. Clyde Snow worked with archaeologists, anthropologists and doctors to form the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team. The team was trained using traditional archeology and forensic anthropology techniques to identify and discover the remains of the missing in a manner that would facilitate the investigation and documentation of human rights violations, as well as identification of the bodies of the victims' families. President Alfonsín sent a law to Congress proposing that military courts try top leaders responsible for human rights abuses under the regime. The law provided that all those who planned, controlled and organized the repressive operation[MN7] were to be punished. The trials ultimately took place before a civil appeals court. CONADEP transmitted the files directly to the judicial system, which had access to a large number of witnesses and was able to quickly build cases.[11] The trials began just 18 months after the military government left power. In the significant case of the junta members' trial, more than 800 witnesses were presented, covering approximately 700 individual cases taken from the CONADEP file, among others. The issue of economic assistance to victims (in the form of partial pensions) emerged under Alfonsín and reparations laws were approved from the early 1990s under the Menem administration. Beginning in 1991, Menem issued Decree 70, ordering reparations for some former prisoners who had sued Argentina before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The decree was in effect a settlement of this lawsuit. In 1994, similar benefits were extended, this time by law, to all persons who had been administratively detained without charge under the state of siege, as well,.