The Inter-American Court stated its ruling to clarify the scope of the second instance in criminal cases established as the basis for the definitive sentence, clearly due to the current situation of the judicial system in Argentina. With this ruling, it is intended to debunk the false idea of a third instance that lacks support in the regulations of modern states.
According to a critical approach, the judicial system in Argentina operates based on the principle of double instance, without a third instance in effect. The erroneous interpretation of the firmness of Cassation resolutions has led to a mix of notions of firmness with the judge's ability to issue decisions with suspended effect, which raises questions about the legal interpretation of the magistrates.
In this context, it is argued that the high-ranking judicial instances in criminal law have full knowledge of the differences between negligence and intention in punishable acts. This, unless the violation of constitutional guarantees, the review of firm sentences, or substantial legal errors are invoked, all of which enrich the discussion about the validity and firmness of judicial resolutions.
According to the cited and analyzed jurisprudence, there is a prolonged belief in the supposed need for a third instance to ensure the firmness of criminal sentences. It is imperative to clarify that the Cassation ruling has a firm character and must be executed, regardless of the extraordinary appeal, as established by law.
It is essential to understand that the distinction between a firm and definitive sentence has fundamental implications in the legal sphere, affecting both legal processes and the lives of the parties involved in them. Maintaining a firm sentence does not mean transforming the Court into a third instance, but rather validating its role as a guarantor of the constitution and respect for individual rights.
In summary, it is concluded that the firm sentence of Cassation is imminent and must be complied with, unless stated otherwise by the Supreme Court. The confusion between a firm and definitive sentence results in a legal misunderstanding that, if it persists, could distort the Argentine judicial system.
