The Supreme Court rejected the proposals of Cristina Kirchner in the trial for Vialidad

The Supreme Court of Justice rejected for “lack of substantiation” the arguments presented by the defense of Cristina Kirchner, in the context of the case that investigates the alleged corruption maneuvers in works and tenders between the management of the Kirchner family and the contractor Lázaro Báez.

The objections of the vice president had focused on three axes: a) the omission to produce evidence, b) the incompetence of the judges, c) and that part of the facts had already been duly judged by the Justice of Santa Cruz.

Regarding the first question, the defense of Cristina Kirchner, by Alberto Beraldi, He argued before the Federal Oral Court No. 2, which is carrying out the trial, that the corresponding evidence was not produced. Based on this objection, it was requested that expert reports and other additional measures be carried out. The judges of the oral court accepted some measures and they rejected others, considering them “superabundant or irrelevant”.

The vice president questioned said resolution before Room IV of the Criminal Cassation Chamber, which found the appeal filed “inadmissible” for not going against a final sentence.

The case required examination by the Court, which ratified the provisions of the Cassation Chamber, after stating that the defense had failed to determine that the sentence was comparable to final.

Also, it was held that rejecting the production of certain tests did not close the case or prevent its development until the final rulingwhich could even be favorable for defense.

The court stated that it has jurisdiction only to review final or assimilable sentences

“The fact that it is a trial that involves a senior national public official does not change that conclusion. It is not possible to think that any adverse decision that is adopted in processes where officials of this nature are involved requires, for that circumstance alone, the intervention of this Court”, the judges expressed.

“Nothing authorizes ruling out the possibility that the appellant is acquitted or that, even, and in the opinion of the interested party, the pronouncement satisfies the requirements of legality and justice. For this reason, the grievances in question become hypothetical and conjectural, and their treatment, due to their prematureness, is inadmissible,” added the Court.

In the same direction, any case of institutional gravity attributed to the refusal to produce some of the evidence requested by the defense.

It is not possible to see how the refusal to produce some of the evidence requested by the defense – a refusal that also reached the accusing parties and other co-defendants – could lead to move the smooth running of institutions”, they replied to CFK. Nor “is it noticed that the early intervention of this Court pursued by the defense has another purpose than to review decisions that affect private interests,” the judges considered.

The Court also spoke about other accusations by Cristina Kirchner, who had claimed to be facing “a simulation of a trial, devoid of all legal and evidentiary content,” whose file would be used “for political and improper purposes, putting the democratic institutions of the country at risk”. The magistrates declared that said objections constitute “mere conjecture without support in the records of the case”.

“The institutional gravity is not related to the influence, popularity or importance of the people who are part of the lawsuit,” the judges warned.

Cristina Kirchner maintains several judicial fronts open in corruption cases

Second proposal: intervention of the Chamber IV of the Cassation

Another of the objections of the vice president focused on the intervention of the judges of the IV Chamber of the Cassation. The defense argued that in its place, Chamber I should intervene since he had previously arbitrated in a related case (“Hotesur”).

Against said appeal, the Court insisted again with the position that the judgment in question was not final or comparable, in addition to asserting that there was no violation of the guarantee of a natural judge.

Additionally, the Court understood that the claim was deficient insofar as the defense did not recognize that Chamber I itself had rejected the objection arguing that Chamber IV had already issued more than twenty-nine resolutions in the Vialidad case, which had been ordered for the sake of a “better administration of justice.”

Third proposal: Santa Cruz

Cristina Kirchner had pointed out the incompetence of the judges that make up the Federal Oral Court 2, In addition to emphasizing that part of the facts had already been duly judged in Santa Cruz, after a process in which the federal justice dismissed the case for “non-existence of crime”. By virtue of which, the vice president’s defense considered, it was not appropriate to try CFK again for the same facts.

Faced with this, the court rejected the appeals, emphasizing that there was no risk of double criminal prosecution for the practically null probative activity of the federal justice of Santa Cruz, added to “the lack of fiscal impetus” that led to a lack of delimitation of the object of investigation. Therefore, as the identity of the object was not verified between both investigationsthere would be no incompetence on the part of the oral tribunal nor would the guarantee of ne bis in idem (“not twice for the same thing”).

Regarding the objection of an alleged “multiple criminal prosecution”the Court responded that the statement lacks grounds and that progress was made in charging national officials for the alleged “participation in a criminal plan aimed at directly harming the income of the Nation”.

Referring to what was resolved in these three files, the Court also rejected the appeals of the defenses of Carlos Santiago Kirchner, Julio de Vido and Lázaro Báez.


You may also like

Leave a Reply