TRUTH AS A BASIS FOR RECONCILIATION: COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF SPAIN AND ARGENTINA UNDER THE PERSPECTIVE OF UN MECHANISMS¿.

Abstract

This study explores the practices of Transitional Justice in Argentina and Spain, analyzing their approaches through a qualitative review of United Nations documents, mainly reports from Committees and Special Procedures. Focusing on how each State has addressed human rights abuses from past authoritarian regimes, the research highlights the role and effectiveness of UN interventions in shaping Transitional Justice strategies. While Argentina has actively pursued justice through trials and truth commissions, such as the renowned CONADEP, leading to substantial human rights redress, Spain¿s approach has been more cautious, marked by a struggle with amnesty laws and less aggressive pursuit of transitional justice mechanisms. This comparative analysis not only elucidates the distinct paths taken by Argentina and Spain but also examines the broader implications of these approaches for policy-making in transitional justice globally. The study¿s findings suggest that while international frameworks provide a basis for justice and reconciliation, national contexts deeply influence their implementation and success.