Paper Short Abstract:

Examining judicial actors’ responses to an Argentine Supreme Court decision and the social and political reactions it generated, I reflect on the place of emotions, and the impact of historical interpretations and political-ideological changes on justice making in trials of crimes against humanity.

Paper Abstract:

In this paper I examine the emotional after-life of an Argentine Supreme Court decision from May 2017, which cut down prison time for convicted felons including those who were tried and convicted of committing crimes against humanity during the last military dictatorship (1976-1983). Social and political responses to the decision were swift and very dramatic, marking this decision as a turning point not only for the ongoing post-transitional justice processes but also for judicial actors’ interpretation of their work and role in contending with the country's difficult past.

Building on interviews conducted before and just after this Supreme Court decision and my more recent fieldwork in Buenos Aires (2022-2023) that looks at this event over half a decade later, in this paper I reflect on the way judicial decision making as well as judicial actors’ understanding of history are shaped by the ebbs and flows of social and political processes, emotional reactions and alternative interpretations of the law.