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 punishment have for a society that was not only in a delicate period of transition but also historically rather unstable, without a non-military and democratically elected government that has completed its mandate since 1928? [1] Let's say no to plagiarism . Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay On the other hand, what consequences, both moral and political, would result from not pursuing such punishment? And, more fundamentally, what has been the truth about the last seven years? What had happened to the disappeared and who had done this to them? Questions like these are not unique to Argentina. Around the world, nations emerging from repression have developed ways to move from dictatorship to democracy and to deal with the memory of massive human rights violations. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of right-wing and communist dictatorships, a literature on “transitional justice” has emerged in an attempt to draw conclusions about these processes. Originally, this literature seemed to come to a consensus on the existence of two fundamental options for societies in transition. The first was alternatively defined as the choice of “reconciliation”, “peace” or “truth”. In this situation, transgressors would not be punished, usually for fear that punishment would reopen old wounds, leading to violence and further instability (hence the name “peace”). The focus would instead be on forward-looking policies aimed at consolidating a pluralistic democracy (“reconciliation”) and on creating an accurate collective memory of violations (“truth”). The second option, usually called “justice,” would involve punishing the fallen dictatorship for its violations. This punishment would be imposed by a judicial body at the end of a national or international trial[MN1]. The most prominent example of the “truth”, “peace” or “reconciliation” option is that of Nelson Mandela's South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, while an example such as the Nuremberg Trials more accurately shows the option of "justice". 2] This brilliant dichotomy, while useful in some ways, fails to accurately explain the complexity of many nations' 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, there were amnesties following the trials, but those amnesties were ultimately annulled, paving the way for new trials to occur twenty years after the fall of the dictatorship. Amnesties and the truth commission would seem to fit the “truth” or “peace” option, but the early trials and more recent attempts to punish violations would seem to place Argentina in the “justice” category. Transitional justice literature has attempted to address complexities such as these in various ways. One suggestion has been that while we may assign mechanisms such as trials to the category of “justice” and those such as truth commissions to the category of “truth” or “peace,” most nations use a combination of 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 friendlier to less friendly to fallen dictatorships.[4] [MN3] Despite these proposed theories, no consensus has yet been reached. been reached on how the field of transitional justicecan 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 Argentina's transition, and then engage in an analysis of its various phases through that new lens. Specifically, rather than viewing the options available to Argentina as both a dichotomy and a scale, this essay will present Argentina's transition process as an attempt to achieve three interconnected goals: justice, truth, and peace. Furthermore, by examining the ways in which different actors in the transition process interpreted or perceived these objectives, we will attempt to explain how and why such different opinions on the success of the processes emerged. Finally, the essay will include 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 going through significant changes with regards to the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations that occurred from 1976 to 1983, when the country was ruled by a military dictatorship and estimated that between 10,000 and 30,000 people “ would disappear." This article outlines transitional justice developments in Argentina and explores the history behind these advances. Various governments have implemented a number of initiatives related to truth-seeking, prosecution and reparations since Argentina's return to democracy in 1983. Raul Alfonsín, the first democratically elected president after the end of military rule, inherited a weakened democratic infrastructure and a strong military apparatus. who have actively resisted accountability for past crimes, frustrating initial justice efforts. However, some important military leaders were successfully prosecuted in two important landmark trials. In 1989 and 1990, President Carlos Menem issued two pardons, one for a handful of officers still facing trials and another for those who had already been convicted. This has been a severe blow to victims and their families and has closed off many options for continuing to pursue justice for past crimes. In the second half of the 1990s, several cases were opened in court and have continued ever since. An economic crisis that began in the late 1990s and reached its peak 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 faced questions of justice for violations committed more than 25 years ago. There is a movement to end impunity for human rights abuses 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, the initiatives of the Argentine justice system and the contribution of activists who have created a solid base of information and they continued to work for justice for the victims. Furthermore, the field of transitional justice – or continuing global justice during periods of political transition – is interested in developing a wide variety of strategies to address the legacy of human rights violations in the past, analyzed and applied in the practice, to create a more just and democratic future. From a theoretical and practical perspective, transitional justice aimed at addressing the legacy of abuse in a broad and comprehensive way includes criminal justice and equity in redressing harm, social justice and economic justice. Furthermore, it is based on the belief that responsibility is politicsJudicial justice must include measures that provide a dual purpose, namely responsibility for past crimes and the prevention of new crimes, taking into account the collective character of some forms of violation. Therefore, transitional justice, as defined by the United Nations, is “the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society's attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability , serve justice and achieve reconciliation." .During this transition period, society is facing a very important problem which concerns issues related to violations of human rights, be it physical, economic or even political rights. Indeed, the transitional justice process focuses on five initial approaches to addressing human rights violations that occurred during the war. In particular, civil or criminal, national or international, national or foreign judicial proceedings. Secondly, the search for truth and commissions of inquiry. Third, reparations through symbolic or in-kind compensation or rehabilitation. Fourth, institutional reform with the removal of those responsible from public offices. Fifth, memorials and the establishment of so-called collective memory. Indeed, in the aftermath of conflict, societies experiencing trauma and the transition into a period of transition often express the need to understand the extent of the violence and the nature of the conflict or abuse that occurred during the period of the previous regime. According to In the case of Argentina, the Argentine trials for crimes committed during the dictatorship of military juntas are widely seen as a successful national effort to seek accountability for past abuses. And while calls for justice from victims continue to remain high, the judiciary faces challenges in ensuring that cases are dealt with quickly and fairly. At the same time, the harrowing evidence presented during trials seems 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 kidnapping. In its wake, thousands of victims have called for justice. Argentina has successfully established criminal trials and truth-seeking mechanisms to establish responsibility for widespread abuses and to establish the truth about the disappearance 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, killed and disappeared. In 1983, Argentina established 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 came about because the outcry from society was enormous. It was a way of gathering information that was largely unknown or at least believed to be unknown. The truth commission was the first attempt to organize existing information and give people a place to file complaints. In our trials today we still use the criminal reports filed at that time as evidence because they are valuable. Thirty years later, the memories of the witnesses may be thirty years old, but all those criminal complaints remain fresh[MN5]. In 1976, when Argentina was ravaged by economic conflict, a military junta led by General Jorge Videla took power. Parliament was dissolved. This dictatorship continued under four different generals - Jorge Videla, Roberto Eduardo Viola, Leopoldo Galtieri and Reynaldo Bignone - until it fell in 1983, after suffering significant losses in the Malvinas (Falklands) War with theGreat Britain. Civil government was then restored. Raul Alfonsín was elected president and established La Comisión Nacional Sobre la Desaparición de Personas (National Commission for Missing Persons, CONADEP) to investigate the fate of missing persons. In 1984, CONADEP published a report, Nunca Más (“Never Again”), which listed the number of victims and the detention centers where people were murdered and tortured under the authority of the army, navy and security forces. police. CONADEP has not obtained any evidence through military cooperation, either officially or unofficially.[8] Once democratic government was restored, there was an immediate need to investigate past human rights violations. In early 1984, judges began ordering exhumations. However, the doctors in charge of the 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] In the course of its work, CONADEP joined forces with Abuelas. de Plaza de Mayo (Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo), a group of women with missing children and grandchildren. Since its inception in 1977, the group has searched for missing children, some born in clandestine detention centers or disappeared with their parents. CONADEP and 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 has traveled to Argentina, calling for a halt to the exhumations until they have been carried out correctly. Dr. Clyde Snow, an expert in forensic anthropology, worked with archaeologists, anthropologists and doctors to form the Argentine forensic anthropology team. The team was trained using traditional archaeological and forensic anthropology techniques to identify and discover the remains of the disappeared in a way that aided in the investigation and documentation of human rights violations, as well as in the identification of bodies for victims' families . President Alfonsín has sent a law to Congress proposing that military courts try top leaders responsible for committing human rights violations during the regime. The law stipulated that all those who had planned, controlled and organized the repressive operation[MN7] had to be punished. The trials ultimately took place in a civil appeals court. CONADEP delivered the files directly to the justice 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 trial against members of the junta, more than 800 witnesses were presented, covering around 700 individual cases taken from CONADEP documents, including others. The issue of financial aid to victims (in the form of partial pensions) arose under Alfonsín and reparation laws were passed starting in the early 1990s under the Menem government. Starting in 1991, Menem issued Decree 70, ordering compensation for some former prisoners who had sued Argentina before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The decree constituted, in effect, a solution to that case. 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, and to those prosecuted or tried by military tribunals. Subsequently, a similar statute was passed to benefit the families of the disappeared. CONADEP had reported that 8,960 people had disappeared under the military regime and the files on these individuals constituted the key documentation for,.