Crónica de una prisión anunciada
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53794/ro.v8i2.698Keywords:
Best interest of th child, Judges, non-imputability, Hospitalization, Administrative bodiesAbstract
The purpose of this article is to try to exhibit and demonstrate from a real case the consequences of the existing tensions between the powers that emerge in Law 26061 (Comprehensive Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents) in favor of the administrative bodies conceived as executing authority and those legally assigned to criminal judges by Law 22278 (Minority Criminal Regime).
Specifically, the purpose is to exemplify how passivity and inaction —which are often hidden under the guise of an overlap of powers provided for in the various laws that come into play, which in reality is not the case— conspires against the best interests of the child for which the State must ensure (article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of constitutional hierarchy as provided in article 75, paragraph 22 of the National Constitution).
