Las garantías en la revisión

Carlos A. Mahiques


SOMMARIO   1. Introducción. – 2. Consideraciones generales sobre el derecho al recurso. – 3. Aspectos constitucionales del derecho al recurso. Evolución de la jurisprudencia y su recepción en la regulación del CPPF. Hacia una nueva forma de revisión. – 3.1. El derecho al recurso en la jurisprudencia de la CIDH y la CSJN. – 3.2. El impacto de la jurisprudencia en el CPPF. – 4. Doble conforme. Revisión horizontal en Casación. Estándares de protección del sistema interamericano, universal y europeo. Reenvío. – 4.1. El doble conforme. – 4.2. La revisión horizontal como garantía del “doble conforme”. – 4.3. La regulación en el derecho comparado. – 4.4. El reenvío. – 5. Decisiones impugnables: la disciplina del recurso. Legitimación y trámite. El control de constitucionalidad. – 6. Revisión de condena firme: contenido y finalidad. Nuevos supuestos: las sentencias de los organismos internacionales.


The guarantees in the right to appeal

The Argentine Constitution has established the Accusatory system and the Penal trial by jury, leaving its implementation to a law regulating it. Since 2020, a new Code of Criminal Procedure in federal criminal matters has been in force. The accusatory system is based on a scheme of guarantees (Fair Play) that goes beyond the defense of the defendant and which are the expression of a new order (Nomos), with a focus at the same time on the conflict, the accused, and the victim. It is a new procedural paradigm, with orality as a method and main tool, in all phases of the process. This work analyzes the review phase in the new code, and especially the “right to appeal” in Cassation jurisdiction. This is a relatively new guarantee, devoid of a tradition enjoyed by other guarantees which characterize fair trial. Since it is at the service of foundational guarantee: the principle of innocence, from which, in turn, a reasonable claim not to be wrongly convicted derives, the right to appeal is legitimate from an instrumental viewpoint. The instrumental political justification of the right to appeal would enable a more flexible and selective regulation, since the double instance could be guaranteed for the most severe sentences, and excluded for milder cases. 
It is worth mentioning the issue of “costs” in a recursive system, which should be balanced with its benefits, and be provided according to a regulation that includes the scope of its impact on the duration of the processes, on the effectiveness in conflict resolution, and on the general functioning of the justice system. Finally, it is crucial to contemplate what the real situation is vis-à-vis the right to appeal in the ICDH jurisprudence and the Argentine Supreme Court, bearing in mind the constitutional and conventional aspects, double compliant, horizontal review in Cassation, and the protection standards of the Inter-American, universal and European systems.

Fair play – Revision – Federal Cassation – Right to appeal – Double compliant