[marron]Summary[/marron]

Adolf Eichmann’s trial, that took place in Jerusalem in 1961, was the scenario of two fallacious arguments regarding responsibility/accountability. The first one was that of the accused himself who, invoking the argument of ‘due obedience to superior orders’, denied his responsibility in the part he played in the extermination, claiming to have been a mere clog in the wheel. The second fallacy, was the Law as a discipline, which states that those acting under due obedience to superior orders cannot be accused, which is why it resorted to psychological arguments to condemn a person who, in truth, was guilty of obeying. This work highlights due obedience as a culturally unresolved problem in that it serves as refuge for situations that arouse varying degrees of discontent and unrest.