La autoría y la participación en un delito especial : a propósito de la autoría y la participación en el tipo penal de "torturas"

Many categories of criminal offenses name the active party making reference to a particular characteristic ("the driver," "the public officer," "the obligor," etc.) instead of just referring to "any person who". This has led scholars to study the justification for such restriction of subjects in order to solve, mainly, liability and participation related problems. One of such crimes is that of "torture", which names the active party as "the public officer", and then states\nthat "private individuals" shall also be punished. This ambivalent reference (in\nthe first place to the specific subject and then to the generic one) leads to strange courts" decisions. The easiest way out to explain such confusing ambivalent reference is for the interpreter to state that the law is inaccurate. In this article, a different path is proposedFil: Kierszenbaum, Mariano. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho; ArgentinaUna gran cantidad de tipos penales enuncian al sujeto activo utilizando un término que alude a una especial cualidad ("el conductor", "el funcionario público", "el obligado", etc.), en lugar de referirse simplemente "al que". Esta característica ha llevado a la doctrina a reflexionar en busca del fundamento de la restricción de sujetos para resolver, principalmente, problemas de autoría y participación. Uno de esos delitos es el de "tortura", que se refiere al sujeto activo como "el funcionario público", para luego afirmar que es punible, también, "el\nparticular". Esta referencia ambivalente (primero al sujeto especial y luego al sujeto genérico) conduce a la jurisprudencia a respuestas verdaderamente extrañas. La salida más sencilla para explicar esa confusa referencia ambivalente conduce\nal intérprete a tachar de incorrecta la ley. Se tomará aquí un camino distinto

El bien jurídico en el derecho penal. Algunas nociones básicas desde la óptica de la discusión actual

The notion of "legally protected interest" has served, to date, relevant\npurposes in the study of Criminal Law: it has been used as criterion for the classification of crimes and as a boundary for Criminal Law. In that way, the notion\nof "legally protected interest" has been used by liberalism as a restraining barrier for punitive power. But the understanding of ?legally protected interest? as a coercion-reducing notion is currently undergoing one of the most serious crisis ever. The harshest criticism comes from Jakobs, within German scholars, and from Sancinetti, within Argentine ones. The purpose of this work is to briefly explain current discussions regarding whether the notion in question is significant or not according to current theoriesFil: Kierszenbaum, Mariano. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho; ArgentinaEl concepto de bien jurídico ha cumplido hasta hoy importantes funciones en la dogmática penal; lo ha hecho como criterio para la clasificación de los delitos, y como elemento de base y límite al orden penal. Así, el bien jurídico ha servido al liberalismo como barrera contenedora del poder punitivo. Sin embargo, esta idea de bien jurídico como noción reductora de la coerción estatal se encuentra actualmente en una de sus más fuertes crisis. Las críticas más duras provienen de la pluma de Jakobs, en la doctrina alemana, y de la pluma de Sancinetti, en la doctrina argentina. Pretendemos aquí exponer sucintamente las aristas de la discusión actual en torno a la relevancia o no de esta noción desde las teorías actuale

Testis-expressed profilins 3 and 4 show distinct functional characteristics and localize in the acroplaxome-manchette complex in spermatids

Background Multiple profilin isoforms exist in mammals; at least four are expressed in the mammalian testis. The testis-specific isoforms profilin-3 (PFN3) and profilin-4 (PFN4) may have specialized roles in spermatogenic cells which are distinct from known functions fulfilled by the somatic profilins, profilin-1 (PFN1) and profilin-2 (PFN2). Results Ligand interactions and spatial distributions of PFN3 and PFN4 were compared by biochemical, molecular and immunological methods; PFN1 and PFN2 were employed as controls. β-actin, phosphoinositides, poly-L-proline and mDia3, but not VASP, were confirmed as in vitro interaction partners of PFN3. In parallel experiments, PFN4 bound to selected phosphoinositides but not to poly-L-proline, proline-rich proteins, or actin. Immunofluorescence microscopy of PFN3 and PFN4 revealed distinct subcellular locations in differentiating spermatids. Both were associated first with the acroplaxome and later with the transient manchette. Predicted 3D structures indicated that PFN3 has the actin-binding site conserved, but retains only approximately half of the common poly-L-proline binding site. PFN4, in comparison, has lost both, polyproline and actin binding sites completely, which is well in line with the experimental data. Conclusion The testis-specific isoform PFN3 showed major hallmarks of the well characterized somatic profilin isoforms, albeit with distinct binding affinities. PFN4, on the other hand, did not interact with actin or polyproline in vitro. Rather, it seemed to be specialized for phospholipid binding, possibly providing cellular functions which are distinct from actin dynamics regulation