IN THE late 1980s Argentina's government pushed through two laws intended to halt prosecutions of military officers for their crimes in a “dirty war” against left-wing guerrillas. A later president, Carlos Menem, amnestied those military commanders who had been jailed. On June 14th, Argentina's Supreme Court ruled by 7-1 that the two laws were unconstitutional. Some 300-500 elderly officers are now likely to face prosecution.
The ruling was hailed by human-rights groups. Many lawyers argue that the court was right. The laws were extracted from a reluctant government by coup threats and barracks rebellions. They violated the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, to which Argentina is a signatory.
The Argentine junta of 1976-83 was the most vicious of its Latin American peers: it murdered at least 8,900 people, and perhaps 30,000. The vast majority of its victims were not directly involved with the guerrillas. The reopening of the cases is unlikely to provoke serious tension with the much-shrunken armed forces. Most of the officers concerned are long-retired. (One notorious general, Guillermo Suárez Mason, died on June 21st.)
The decision pleased Néstor Kirchner, Argentina's president, who has championed the cause of the “dirty war” victims. The government faces a congressional election in October. The justice minister, Horacio Rosatti, has suggested that the court declare Mr Menem's pardons unconstitutional.
That might raise doubts about the court's independence. Since taking office two years ago, Mr Kirchner has selected four of the court's nine members. A fifth has announced his retirement; a sixth was suspended on June 22nd. Packing the court is an Argentine tradition: the departing justices were cronies of Mr Menem. To Mr Kirchner's credit, the new judges are well-qualified and were chosen by a more open process. But a decision to revoke the pardons ahead of a vote in which Mr Menem, a foe of the president, is seeking a Senate seat, would smack of political justice.
Some analysts worry that the court's decision reverses that of its predecessor—a reminder that in Argentine jurisprudence “never” never really means never. A bigger test of the court will be whether it goes against other presidential initiatives. Mr Rosatti has said that the government, which is in dispute with several foreign companies, will appeal to the court against unfavourable rulings at the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. In that case, Mr Kirchner would doubtless hope that the justices pay less heed to Argentina's bilateral investment treaties than they did to its human-rights pacts.