From the Operational “Film” to the Judicial “Photo”: Administrative Traceability as a Guarantee of Judicial Control of Institutional Penitentiary Violence

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26422/RJA.2026.0701.rab

Keywords:

institutional violence, penitentiary service, administrative traceability, judicial review, due process, human rights

Abstract

This article examines a specific legal-institutional problem: the impact that the quality of prison administrative documentation has on the real possibility of judicially reviewing incidents of institutional violence, use of force, disciplinary sanctions, solitary confinement measures, medical omissions, and other state decisions affecting the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty. It argues that administrative traceability is not an accessory requirement of good management, but rather an autonomous legal category and a structural guarantee of the legality of state custody. Its autonomy lies in the fact that it is not exhausted by the duty to state reasons, nor is it reducible to transparency, accountability, or investigative due diligence: it refers, in its own right, to the institutional capacity to produce, preserve, connect, and make available chronological, complete, consistent, and auditable records of events and decisions occurring under confinement. When the custodial system documents events in a delayed, fragmented, vague, or contradictory manner, it does not merely generate deficient files: it undermines the ascertainable truth of the case, weakens the defense, reduces the intensity of judicial review, and increases the risk of institutional impunity. The article reconstructs the applicable constitutional, conventional, and statutory framework; analyzes the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Argentina; and proposes criteria to distinguish traceability from related categories and translate it into verifiable standards of documentation, evidence preservation, interdocumentary consistency, and communication with oversight bodies. On that basis, the article argues that administrative traceability operates as a precondition for legality, contradiction, reviewability, and effective judicial protection in contexts of confinement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Nicolás José Rabbone, Departamento Judicial de La Plata, Ministerio Público Fiscal (Argentina)

    Nicolás José Rabbone, a law graduate of the Catholic University of La Plata. I have 17 years of experience in the Judiciary, including the last 13 years at the Assistant Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes Committed in Penitentiary Units of the Judicial Department of La Plata.

    My work specializes in the investigation of acts of institutional violence in detention settings. Over the years, I have developed a technical and strategic approach to addressing the complexity of crimes committed within the penitentiary system, always with the aim of ensuring transparency and compliance with the law in highly vulnerable environments.

References

Assis Neto, N. D. de. (2023). Relación especial de sujeción y legalidad en Brasil: análisis de la aplicación de la teoría de sujeción especial en ejecución penal brasileña. Tla-Melaua, 17(55).

Cassagne, J. C. (2002). Derecho administrativo (7ª ed.). Abeledo-Perrot.

Cesano, J. D. (Dir.). (2020). Ley 24.660. Ejecución de la pena privativa de la libertad. Concordancias, análisis doctrinario y jurisprudencial, reglamentaciones. Alveroni.

Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2011). Informe sobre los derechos humanos de las personas privadas de libertad en las Américas (OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 64).

Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2025). Resolución 2/25. Los derechos de familiares y personas con vínculos afectivos de las personas privadas de libertad.

Comité Nacional para la Prevención de la Tortura. (2026). La privación de la libertad en establecimientos penitenciarios en datos. Argentina, año 2024.

Ferrajoli, L. (2011). Principia iuris. Teoría del derecho y de la democracia. Trotta.

Fondevila, G. y Vilalta-Perdomo, C. (2024). Prison violence in Latin America: Criminal governance and an absent state. International Criminology.

Goffman, E. (2001). Internados. Ensayos sobre la situación social de los enfermos mentales. Amorrortu.

Gordillo, A. A. (2011). Tratado de derecho administrativo y obras selectas. Tomo 3. El acto administrativo (10ª ed.). Fundación de Derecho Administrativo.

Maier, J. B. J. (2004). Derecho procesal penal. Tomo I. Fundamentos (2ª ed.). Del Puerto.

Naciones Unidas. (2015). Reglas mínimas de las Naciones Unidas para el tratamiento de los reclusos (Reglas Nelson Mandela). A/RES/70/175.

Naciones Unidas. (2022). Protocolo de Estambul. Manual para la investigación y documentación eficaces de la tortura y otros tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes.

Ponce Solé, J. (2019). La lucha por el buen gobierno y el derecho a una buena administración mediante el estándar jurídico de diligencia debida. Editorial Universidad de Alcalá.

Procuración Penitenciaria de la Nación. (2025). Informe anual 2024. La situación de los derechos humanos en las cárceles federales de la Argentina.

Salerno, V. (2024). Sistema integral de gestión para personas privadas de la libertad de alto riesgo en el Servicio Penitenciario Federal. Una visión desde la defensa. Revista Pensamiento Penal, (512).

Published

2026-06-30

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

Rabbone, N. J. (2026). From the Operational “Film” to the Judicial “Photo”: Administrative Traceability as a Guarantee of Judicial Control of Institutional Penitentiary Violence. Revista Jurídica Austral, 7(1), 579-607. https://doi.org/10.26422/RJA.2026.0701.rab