The Superior Court of Justice of Córdoba rejected the request for parole submitted by Jorge Marcelino Chávez. The decision was adopted by majority in the Criminal Chamber of the TSJ. The reason for the rejection: Chávez is a repeat offender and the law expressly excludes him from this benefit.
The convicted individual has been serving a life sentence since 1998 for a double homicide that occurred in the Santa Isabel II neighborhood. In November 1996, during a street fight, he killed Manuel Romo with several gunshots. A bullet also killed Roberto Arnaldo Pérez, who was not involved in the fight and was playing soccer.
Since then, Chávez has remained imprisoned with no concrete possibility of regaining his freedom. Therepeat offense was key to the court's ruling. The judges recalled that this aggravating factor is insurmountable under Article 14 of the Penal Code.
Chavez cumple una pena de prisión perpetua desde 1998.
Legal arguments and rejection of progressive theses
Judges Sebastián López Peña and María Marta Cáceres de Bollati voted to deny parole. They detailed that the defense did not constitutionally challenge the rule that prevents the release of repeat offenders. Nor did it file a valid appeal to do so.
The ruling also dismissed the opinion of Zaffaroni, who advocated reviewing life sentences after 25 years. The judges stated that this perspective doesn't represent the current court. They indicated that any change must be made by law in Congress.
The ruling reinforces Córdoba's judicial doctrine regarding serious crimes. According to current law, a repeat offender can't access parole. He could only do so if he serves 35 years of his sentence, or 40 in the case of multiple repeat offenses.
un reincidente no puede acceder a libertad condicional
He will remain behind bars by final decision
The TSJ's position reaffirms respect for the legal order and the deterrent function of life imprisonment. There were no cracks in the legal analysis of the facts nor room for ideological reinterpretations. Chávez must remain imprisoned as ordered by the sentence.
This type of judicial decision sends a clear message regarding crime. There is no room for legal leniency, even less so in cases of extreme violence and repeat offenses. Society demands firm justice and strict enforcement of sentences.
