Santiago del Estero, the Ardiles case, and property rights as a human right.

By: Ricardo Israel - 02/05/2025

In Doral, at the Florida Museum of Contemporary Art, the Human Rights Committee of the Interamerican Institute for Democracy presented on Wednesday, April 30, a documentary about a case of human rights violations that took place in Argentina, as well as the report of the last trip its president and secretary made to Buenos Aires and Santiago del Estero, between March 22 and 29 of this year.

This is a case of land dispossession and usurpation that culminated in the death of its main victim, Manuel Ascencio Ardiles, whose surname gives it its name. It is a human rights case, with familiar elements such as abuse of power, lack of due process, and shameful conduct by authorities of all kinds, but it also draws attention to other factors that are difficult to find in this type of case.

In this regard, it has always struck me that situations where the victim is deprived of their legitimate property are not automatically associated with the issue of human rights, especially if they also involve defenselessness and poverty. Little is known about this, but private property is also included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948.

The documentary presented by Marcel Feraud and its president, Armando Valladares, former United States Ambassador to the UN Commission on Human Rights, tells a story of abuse, a painful truth that demonstrates that human rights are violated under dictatorships, but also under democracies. However, there should be no impunity here, a fact contributed to by the sometimes almost feudal system in some Argentine provinces, where there are not only abuses but also great asymmetries of power, in politics, but also in access to justice.

It is little known, but property as a human right is recognized by Article 17 of the Universal Declaration in the following terms:

“1. Everyone has the right to own property individually and in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

After its approval, those who participated in this important document, including its principal drafter, the French jurist Rene Cassin, explained three things: first, if it was ultimately written in this way, it was also a consequence of the Second World War, and especially the Holocaust, due to an issue that has been prominent in many trials around the world: the confiscation of property and works of art from Jews, as well as other minority groups such as homosexuals and Roma, primarily for the enrichment of Nazi militants. This is not the case in Argentina, but it explains why this issue was incorporated in 1948.

Second, Cassin knew that, to ensure its approval, given that the world had already entered what would become known as the Cold War, Soviet support was essential. The Soviet Union ultimately accepted that no one could be arbitrarily deprived of their property, in exchange for language that was both delimited and precise. Third, the concept of human rights was still novel, so much so that it had to be limited to a Declaration, as there was not sufficient global support at the time for a more solid instrument of international law, such as a treaty could have been from the outset.

However, we all know that, from then on, a powerful movement began, creating an architecture of powerful instruments that have allowed for a consensus today on the universality of human rights principles, regardless of national borders or the characteristics of political, social, or economic systems.

That's why it's shocking that, in the midst of democracy, not only have those principles that are now national and international law not fully reached this northern Argentine province, but also the impunity that has partially surrounded it, as well as the media and political silence that has even reached well-known NGOs, despite how shocking the case is, so much so that it shouldn't be surprising if Netflix offers us a movie in the not-too-distant future.

Although the case is only just beginning to be publicized, the fact that both the principles of human rights are strong and the clarity and contribution of the Universal Declaration represent a success story works in its favor. Its content has been incorporated into national legislation and constitutions at the regional and local levels, starting with the fact that each and every one of these values is enshrined in the Argentine Republic, constituting the law. It is also reflected in the following way in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:

“Everyone has the right to private property sufficient for a decent life and contributing to the dignity of the person and the home.”

This is how the Argentine Constitution guarantees two things, both present in the laws of the nation as well as in international law: first, that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of their property; second, that the corresponding compensation must always be included, with freedom to accept or reject the proposal, principles that in our Latin America, we insist on forgetting, both by dictatorships and habitually by that deformation of democracy known as populism, which has infected it through its left-wing and right-wing variants.

The meaning of the connection between property and human rights is explained when, as the American Declaration and international law do, it is added that "Everyone has the right in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations or for the examination of any accusation." This is also Argentine law.

And herein lies the uniqueness of this case, as it is unusual for those accused of its violation to be linked to the Administration of Justice, and to be considered untouchable because their tentacles reach the Superior Court of Justice of Santiago del Estero itself, that is, the Supreme Court of that province, part of the country's federal system.

And this is serious, since rights have meaning to the extent that there is a system that protects them from violation or manipulation, since we go to court to be protected and not the opposite, that a judge participates in their violation, which totally questions the meaning of a protection system, since from the point of view of human rights, the right to property is the right of every person to use, enjoy, enjoy and dispose of their property, in accordance with the law.

The aforementioned documentary shows that justice was not served here, since the rights of those affected were not respected, nor did the authorities fulfill their duty of protection. In other words, there was no due process, since the court was neither independent nor impartial, acting, on the contrary, in an abusive and arbitrary manner.

Finally, a significant body of case law has been accumulating for years, stating that heirs of victims of abuse can claim ownership, even from a third country. Furthermore, there are cases involving works of art where the heirs' rights triumphed in court, even though the stolen property was in a museum and had been legally acquired. This was the case because justice and law should always be able to defend legitimate inheritance, since the passage of time can never transform into justice that which, by definition, is not just, when there was abuse and dispossession at its origin.

This is exactly what happened in the Ardiles case in the Santiago del Estero justice system, which is why a review at the national level is necessary. Under international law, the central government, which is responsible for the country's foreign relations, is always ultimately responsible. It is ultimately the central government that is responsible to the international community.

And although there is respect for political freedoms, freedom of the press, and freedom of opinion, as is exemplary in the case of Argentina, history shows us in Latin America that respect for property is also a barometer for assessing that worse violations and injustices may come, especially if the violation of the right to property has to do with the material means of subsistence of any of us, since abuses that began with property owners have later spread to other countries in the region to the rest of the citizens.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights kicked off a process of globalization, which has had advances and setbacks, but which is part of humanity's civilizing record, so we are grateful to the Institute's authorities and to those who traveled to Argentina to document and disseminate what happened there.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Law (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».