Descripción
Sumario:The author analyses the decision made by the Supreme Court of Argentina of not complying with the mandate of the Interamerican Human Rights Court in the Fontevecchia vs. Argentina case regarding the overruling of a previous case decided by the national tribunal concerning the violation of the claimant's right to freedom of speech. The author's criticism to the Supreme Court's decision focuses on the fact that it disregarded the relevance and binding character of the decisions made by the Interamerican Human Rights Court for the States signatories of the Interamerican Human Rights Convention. Drawing from academic works of the Justices that were part of the majority, the author points out to the main critical aspects of their perspectives such as a mistaken conception of political community and interpretative community that they defend. Saba also applies the notion of law as integrity to suggest a possible alternative solution for the interpretative dispute between national and international tribunals arguing in favor of the importance of judicial dialogue as a means for identifying the meaning of fundamental rights and principles established in the Constitution and in the international treaties of human rights.