55 Winter 2025 n commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina) bombing, it is essential to refer, within the limits of this article, to the recent ruling of the Federal Criminal Cassation Court (Cámara Federal de Casación Penal). The decision defiantly established that the individuals involved in the organization, planning, and execution of the attack were not the only parties responsible for the most devastating terrorist attack on Argentina. For the first time, responsibility was squarely placed on the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was recognized as a “terrorist” state. In order to render the decision, published on April 11, 2024, the Court reviewed evidence from a long and complex judicial process that began 30 years ago, as well as legal precedent. The Court ultimately concluded that both the attack carried out against the Israeli Embassy on March 17, 1992, and the attack perpetrated against the Jewish Mutual Aid Society on July 18, 1994, were committed by members of the Hezbollah terrorist group. The Court also found that organizations and high-ranking government officials of the state of Iran provided various forms of support, including training, logistical, and financial support. Without additional context, it is impossible to understand why radical Islamic fundamentalists chose to carry out a terrorist attack in Argentina. However, the geopolitical and international situation, along with retaliation for Argentina’s unilateral decision to terminate three contracts with Iran for the supply of nuclear material and technology (a decision that was motivated by a drastic change in foreign policy between late 1991 and mid-1992) undoubtedly played a role in the occurrence of these regrettable events. Iran’s unwavering determination to use terrorism as a political strategy (propaganda por hechos, as its founders phrased it) managed to benefit from the known flaws in Argentina’s security and intelligence systems. Other significant consequences derive from this judicial ruling, which holds Iran responsible for the incitement, sponsorship, organization and execution of terrorist acts in Argentina. For example, the ruling allows victims to pursue civil liability claims for reparations, and even enables foreign claims brought through diplomatic channels to be heard before arbitration tribunals or the International Court of Justice in certain circumstances. Additionally, the classification of these acts as crimes against humanity is no less significant, as they meet the criteria set out in the Rome Statute. As a result, any act related to terrorism is a violation of a peremptory norm of international law (known as jus cogens), and therefore becomes subject to the so-called “universal jurisdiction” principle, which allows any country the authority to prosecute such crimes. These classifications, along with the indictment of local officials and judges for serious human rights violations, led to another remarkable effect of the ruling: the cases are no longer time-barred by the statute of limitations. On a prospective level, the ruling advocates public policies that address the current problem of “terrorism” – not only ideological or religious terrorism, but also narcoterrorism – and calls on federal agencies to develop an effective and coordinated strategy to combat criminal organizations worldwide. Several elements are required in a successful investigation of complex crimes such as terrorism and its financing. First, it is imperative to map the relevant criminal phenomena in each regional sector of the country. Second, the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure must set aside the concept of the “natural prosecutor,” which still currently exists. Additionally, specialized federal agencies should be vested with the authority, provided with the appropriate intelligence, and equipped with the resources needed to prevent and respond to terrorist threats in a timely and effective matter. Finally, it is also important to strengthen and coordinate local and federal justice systems. Specifically, the investigation and prosecution systems need to be restructured so that they operate with a proactive rather than a merely reactive approach. In the context of such restructurings, the inclusion of trial in absentia in the legislative agenda emerges as an alternative and complementary means of AMIA − Thirty Years Later: The Sentence and a Matter of State Carlos A. Mahiques I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=