143. Regarding the representatives’ request to initiate a discussion on the procedural system in
force, its implications and importance within the democratic rule of law, the State underlined the
implementation of the “2020 Justice Plan,” sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights
of the Nation, the purpose of which was for justice to play a leading role in the life of the Argentine
people permitting the settlement of disputes independently, promptly and safely through a
comprehensive enhancement of the judicial system. It added that different initiatives had been
implemented in this area to modernize the criminal procedural system in Argentina, including the
initiative to amend the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, implementation of which was subject to
the provisions of Decree No. 257/2015. It stressed that, starting in January 2018, the process of
implementing a new code introducing an accusatory system had begun with the launch of the plan,
the proposals and the work schedule, and the implementation model would be adopted by regions,
from the periphery towards the center, with the first goal being to begin in the provinces of Salta
and Jujuy on October 1, 2018.
144. The Court recalls that the State must ensure that preventive detention is applied exceptionally,
strictly observing the principles of legality, presumption of innocence, necessity and proportionality,
and that no difference of treatment exists based on the nature of the offense investigated. However,
it considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered herein are sufficient and
adequate.
D.
Compensation
d.1 Pecuniary damage
145. In its case law, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and has established
that this supposes the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victims, the expenses incurred as
a result of the facts, and the consequences of a pecuniary nature that have a causal nexus with the
facts of the case.127
146. In general, the Commission asked that the State provide Mr. Jenkins with full reparation by
measures of pecuniary compensation and satisfaction that included the pecuniary damage caused to
the victim as a result of the violations declared in its report.
(i) Consequential damage
147. The representatives asked that, for the concept of consequential damage, the Court order,
in equity, the payment of US$35,000 (thirty-five thousand United States dollars). They also
requested US$5,000 (five thousand United States dollars) for the travel, and board and lodging
expenses of his defense counsel to attend the hearing held before the Inter-American Commission.
Lastly, they requested US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) for the following expenses
incurred by Mr. Jenkins:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Purchase of food during his time in prison;
Purchase of articles for hygiene and cleaning during this time;
Purchase of medicines for treating diseases contracted in prison;
Purchase of clothing;
Expenses for transportation to the establishment where Mr. Jenkins was detained, and
Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No.
91, para. 43, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of
October 10, 2019. Series C No. 385, para. 243.
127
34