{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017777777777777778, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007676767676767677, 'mean_word_length': 5.316326530612245, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Disappeared children in Argentina: genocidal logic and illegal appropriation 1

On March 24, 1976, a dictatorship began which devastated Argentina. One of its distinctive features was its creation of a systematic plan for the illegal appropriation of children of the victims of forced disappearance and of children born during the captivity of their mothers. This essay examines to what extent such illegal appropriations and crimes can be included within the conceptual framework of genocide. We intend to examine a definition contained in the introduction to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to assess its applicability to the Argentine case, since the definition restricts the classification of the groups to those explicitly identified by their national, ethnic, racial or religious origin. Genocide is one of the most serious crimes against humankind, its purpose is to eliminate—either totally or partially—certain groups of persons, and such intention, or aspect of subjectivity, is a determining factor when distinguishing genocide from other similar crimes against humanity. We begin by inquiring to what extent these crimes may be considered as a genocide on the basis of the UN’s Convention definition, given that a systematic plan was followed, that members of a group were killed, that serious injuries to their physical and mental integrity were inflicted, and that children were forcibly transferred and relocated to environments foreign to them. We will examine the extent to which such crimes formally contradict the Convention definition, since disappeared children are a group with such particular characteristics that their inclusion in the description proposed by the Convention is very complex. For this reason, it is necessary to analyze the logic that defines the constitution of the populations that may need protection. Historical precedence exists for the addition of new criteria, and for reformulating the construction of categories of protected groups. Perhaps we can propose that the main criterion for the genocidal elimination of members of groups is identity. Such a focus may be less accurate, but more temporarily useful. We will point out that, within the logic of genocides, groups are categorized for inclusion based on a set of properties by which individuals can be identified as members of a specific community. Victims of genocide are Journal of Genocide Research (2006), 8(2), June, 181–190