Justice sometimes feels like a slow machine. Other times it turns into a wall. And sometimes, he does exactly what he should: putting things in place regardless of the risks, inconveniences, or easy shortcuts. This happened on November 27, during the session of the Third Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber He overturned the decision that sought to limit the investigation to The disappearance of Danilo Peña’s loan Within a period of only 60 days. The resolution does not just right a wrong: it re-establishes a fundamental principle in any country that takes human rights seriously. Deadlines can be discussed. Hypotheses can change. Investigation strategies as well. But the search for a child is non-negotiable.
A lost child in the depths of Argentina
The loan disappeared one afternoon, during a family lunch. Since then, nothing. There are no traces, no signs, and no certainty. The only thing that is clear is the pain of his parents and the need for the state to do what it must: search for him and explain what happened and not close the lines of investigation due to fatigue or formalities. The Federal Chamber of Currents had imposed a maximum limit: sixty days. Sixty days to resolve or file. Sixty days to impose an identification in a very complex case, with a child under the age of six missing and with experience, searches and proceedings pending. The discerner understood what was clear and essential: You cannot close what is still open.
The vote that brought back the air
Judges Diego Paruetafina, Juan Carlos Gemignani and Carlos Mahikis They agreed on something preliminary: the Corrientes Chamber’s decision was “arbitrary,” based on “mere superficial grounds” and ignoring the reality of the file and the country. The victim is still missing. The measures are still ongoing. International obligations force us to search for it. The deadlines set by the Code of Criminal Procedure are – as the court itself states – “ordinary”, and not contrary to the truth. The decision restored more than just a legal framework: The air is back. air until the investigation progressed without the artificial corset that the county authority intended to impose.
Authoritarians don’t like this
The practice of professional and critical journalism is an essential pillar of democracy. This is why it bothers those who believe they are the bearers of the truth.
Prosecutor Blé’s voice: precision, firmness and humanity
There are judicial decisions that explain themselves. Others understand the quality of those involved in the process. Actions of the Attorney General Raoul, yes It is placed in the latter category. While listening to art. 468 CPPN, Bly did not improvise. He was not looking for fame. He did what was consistent with the Prosecutor in an Argentine-wide case: he recalled that the disappearance of a child is an event of institutional gravity, that international treaties do not allow for deadlines for closure, that there is no impact on the “inability to be tried twice for the same crime,” and that the investigation must continue without time limits, because that is what the law demands and the collective conscience demands.
Loan case: The federal judiciary puts an end to fallacies and refers the kidnapping of a 5-year-old child to trial
Bly also did something extraordinary: He asked Lon’s parents, who were in the room, if they could talk. The court allowed this for “humanitarian reasons.” And they talked. What they said still resonates: “We don’t want to close the case… We want to know something about our son.” This statement is sufficient to understand why the cassation decision is necessary.
Institutional influence
In times of mistrust, disbelief and noise, this decision is an important point: it restores coherence to research; Protects the best interests of the child; It avoids defensive interpretations of the criminal process and reaffirms that in matters of the disappearance of minors, the only correct term is truth. This time justice was up to the task.
A message to the homeland. No epic is possible in the search for a missing child. There is no easy victory. There is no guaranteed happy ending. But there is a responsibility: Don’t give up. I understood that veto. Prosecutor Blé explained this clearly. The parents said in a broken voice. The record bears this out again and again: much remains to be done. The Third Chamber’s decision is not just a technical decision. This is a reminder that there are still judges and prosecutors willing to put the victim’s interest above any procedural convenience. In a tired, disbelieving and defeated country, this gesture is important.