52 No. 73 JUSTICE organization Hezbollah and the financing, logistics and directives of those who led the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran at that time for their execution.”5 Accordingly, the Court examined the potential that the legal entity of a state (in this case, the Islamic Republic of Iran) could be subject to criminal prosecution when it sponsors, organizes, or executes terrorist acts. The Court agreed that the customary legal principle of “effective control” “provides a glimpse of a desirable recognition that would enable the attribution and condemnation of States responsible for serious crimes against humanity.”6 The ruling subsequently assessed the Islamic Republic of Iran’s degree of responsibility in the AMIA bombing and possible reparative actions. The Court reiterated that when a state organizes, tolerates, finances, or supports international terrorism, the offense transcends borders and triggers the international responsibility of said state. In this specific case, the Court clarified that Hezbollah was a non-state actor that was supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Court emphasized that international responsibility begets the obligation to fully repair any damage caused – both material and immaterial – through pecuniary compensation. The Court also mentioned that according to Argentine law, the Islamic Republic of Iran could not invoke “jurisdictional immunity” before Argentine courts to avoid civil liability in relation to the consequences of the attack. The ruling reiterated that by virtue of the agreement of March 4, 2005, later approved by presidential decree No. 812/2005,7 the Argentine State acknowledged its responsibility for the failure to prevent the second attack on the AMIA headquarters and cited the Israeli embassy attack as the appropriate precedent. The State also assumed responsibility for both covering up the terror act, and the serious and deliberate failure to properly investigate an extraordinary crime, declaring that such conduct amounted to a “denial of justice.” Subsequently, the Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 187/2020 (case 12.204)8 dated July 14, 2020, of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), determined that the Argentine State failed to exercise due diligence in the initial stages of the investigation, take appropriate steps to protect the crime scene, or adequately collect evidence and ensure the chain of custody. Furthermore, the officials in charge of directing the investigation failed to carry out and execute basic procedural steps that could have been useful to clarify the facts and uncover the “material truth” of the events. Finally, unlawful activities were carried out to construct an accusatory hypothesis that lacked any factual support. The first vote of the ruling – supported by Dr. Barroetaveña – addressed the Iranian defendants who did not appear before the Argentine courts and the possibility of incorporating the trial into Argentine law. In addition, the highest authorities of the Executive and Legislative Branches were called upon, “each in their respective sphere of action, to formulate, evaluate, promote, propose and enact a legislative reform that would allow the future application of the trial in absentia for events such as the one that motivated the present case.”9 Specifically, the ruling assessed the “verified circumstance that a significant number of those suspected and accused of having participated in the attack against the headquarters of A.M.I.A.-D.A.I.A. are currently in a state of contumacy, which conspires against the speed of the investigation and trial, and the implementation of efficient and timely justice.”10 These “dead times” largely neutralized the activity that investigators and judges are forced to confront as a result of the alleged perpetrators remaining fugitives abroad, and who remain either hidden or protected by states that do not have extradition agreements with Argentina or do not recognize Argentina’s jurisdictional sovereignty. In essence, the ruling emphasized the particular situation of impunity caused by Iran’s failure to execute international requests to provide the accused for questioning. This situation was further aggravated by the Iranian authorities’ refusal to cooperate with the investigation, ultimately leading to a deadlock in the progress of the case. Consequently, the presiding judge, Dr. Mahiques, considered that, in cases of serious gravity such as the AMIA case which threaten the entire international community, certain procedures should be adopted to prevent impunity. In particular, when it comes to crimes such as terrorism, which due to their lethality and magnitude 5. Id., at 36. 6. Id., at 67-68. 7. See https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/ decreto-812-2005-107751 8. See https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/decisiones/corte/2021/ ar_12.204_es.pdf 9. Supra note 2, at 118. 10. Id., at 116.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=