A cluster of final rulings by supreme courts in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and the US state of Ohio has brought legal closure to a series of violent crime cases, while a separate decision by Argentina’s highest tribunal has ordered a fresh review of a femicide sentence to safeguard the defendant’s right to a second hearing. The decisions, issued in early July, uphold sentences ranging from nine to 83 years for murder, aggravated homicide and sexual abuse, and in one instance reject a last-ditch appeal filed a single day past the deadline.

In Brazil, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) dismissed a habeas corpus petition from César Francisco Moranza Júnior, who was sentenced to 83 years for killing his former girlfriend and her son over a financial debt. The defence had argued that the punishment for concealing the corpses was excessive and that the court improperly considered prior bad records. The STJ minister ruled that the sentence was grounded in concrete facts, including premeditation and cruelty. In Colombia, the Supreme Court’s criminal chamber upheld a 41-year term for retired army major Oscar Iván Hernández Bermúdez, who stabbed his wife to death in front of their five-year-old daughter and also attacked his former mother-in-law. The court rejected defence claims that the attack on the mother-in-law should have been classified as personal injuries rather than attempted homicide, and found that the assailant had waited for the victim’s father to leave the house before striking.

Argentina’s Supreme Court confirmed two lengthy sentences for sexual violence and homicide, but also ordered a provincial court to re-examine the 16-year sentence of Ángel Morales, who was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend Talía Recabarren in 2016 when both were minors. The court held that the increase from an initial 10-year term to 16 years, imposed by a provincial appeals chamber, had not been reviewed by a different judicial body, violating the principle of “double conforme” — the right to have a conviction confirmed by two separate courts. The victim’s mother, Anabella Recabarren, announced a hunger strike and said she would chain herself inside her home until the sentence is upheld. In the US, Mackenzie Shirilla, convicted of deliberately crashing a car at 160 km/h and killing her boyfriend and a friend, is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to hear her post-conviction petition after lower courts dismissed it as one day late. Her legal team contends the deadline was miscalculated because of a leap year and delays in related juvenile court transcripts.

The rulings illustrate how apex courts across the hemisphere are navigating the tension between finality in criminal justice and procedural guarantees. Viewed from Buenos Aires, the “double conforme” doctrine has become a flashpoint in cases where sentences are increased on appeal, with victims’ families often perceiving the review as a path to impunity. In Ohio, the strict application of filing deadlines has drawn attention to the narrow window for post-conviction relief, while the STJ’s decision in Brazil underscores a judicial reluctance to revisit jury verdicts absent clear illegality. The Ohio Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to accept Shirilla’s late petition; in San Juan, a new panel of judges is expected to hear arguments in August; and in Minas Gerais, Brazil, an investigation continues into a father accused of raping his 14-year-old daughter over six months.