Sentences with gender perspective without a common criterion: A foreseeable mistake?

Argentina has an extensive legal framework guaranteeing legal equality, but translating this principle into reality requires concrete actions. In this regard, integrating a gender perspective into the justice system is a fundamental step to avoid reproducing inequalities. Through the creation of its own database, this study aims to analyze the votes of judges in provincial high courts in decisions with a gender perspective, as compiled by the Office of Women of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. In the absence of a Protocol for Judging with a Gender Perspective at both the national and subnational levels, the study seeks to evaluate, using the Supreme Court Protocol of Mexico as a measurement criterion, how judges ultimately rule when claiming to have a gender perspective in their judgments. The goal is to demonstrate that what ultimately happens is that these judgments result in favorable outcomes for women, but without a corresponding gender perspective in the argumentation. Through the analysis of 564 votes in 143 judgments, it was found that only half use a gender perspective as an argumentative tool. Furthermore, the study proposes the judges' profile as an explanatory factor for these results, finding that young judges are more likely to incorporate a gender perspective into their argumentation. This evidence supports the need to develop a protocol with a gender perspective that maximizes Argentine legislation and addresses the needs and demands of justice operators.