This comparative analysis, focusing on Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, explores the complex relationship between executive politics and judicial action, showing that judicial independence is a crucial factor in prosecution. It will engage Latin Americanists as well as all who are concerned with justice and human rights around the world.

Why do courts hold political power-holders accountable in some democratic and democratizing countries, but not in others? And, why do some courts remain very timid while others--under seemingly similar circumstances--become "hyper-active"? These are questions of central theoretical and practical importance in a context of increasing juridification of politics in many parts of the world, combined with persisting problems of holding elected leaders to account. This book contributes to the ongoing debate over the institutionalization of democratic accountability and examines the "accountability function" exercised by higher courts in Latin America and Africa.

"In many Latin American countries, former military officers are now facing charges of torture, murder, forced disappearance, and genocide committed under the dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s. Why is this happening now, years after the transition to democracy? And why are courts in some countries leading the way? This comparative analysis, focusing on the key countries of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, explores the complex relationship between executive politics and judicial action, showing that judicial independence is a crucial factor in prosecution. It will engage Latin Americanists as well as all who are concerned with justice and human rights around the world"--