CFK asks Supreme Court not to transfer illegal espionage case to Comodoro Py
Vice-president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to keep the illegal espionage case against the preceding Mauricio Macri administration in Lomas de Zamora instead of the Federal Capital’s Comodoro Py courthouse.
The request was filed by her lawyer Carlos Beraldi after the Criminal Cassation Court ruled that the case pass from Lomas de Zamora judge Juan Pablo Augé to the Retiro courthouse.
“This crisis resolution is tantamount to a final sentence, thus making subsequent reparations impossible or insufficient,” reads the writ, which was seen by the Noticias Argentinas news agency.
Furthermore, the lawyer said: “It would be a real legal scandal, yet another, if on this occasion (the head of the Senate or the other litigants) were to be turned down, thus showing the existence of differential legal criteria according to the political allegiance of the plaintiff.”
“The decision adopted hampers the investigation to an unprecedentedly serious degree with the consequent risk of undermining the entire democratic system by creating impunity,” fired off Beraldi, offering a harsh critique of the Cassation Court judges.
The vice-president’s lawyer thinks that the case should stay in Lomas de Zamora “because of the significant and profuse advances made during the trial.”
The two cases now passing to Comodoro Py involve illegal espionage against Fernández de Kirchner at both her Recoleta flat and her Instituto Patria think tank and more general snooping on political leaders (both Kirchnerite and opposition), social activists and trade unionists, among others.
The indicted include the former head and deputy director of AFI intelligence, Gustavo Arribas and Silvia Majdalani respectively.
Earlier this month the Cassation Court judges Mariano Borinsky, Javier Carbajo and Angela Ledesma (who dissented) resolved the jurisdictional conflict between Lomas de Zamora and the Federal Capital in favour of the latter.
Prior to this ruling Augé and the City Federal Appeals Court judges initiating this conflict had agreed that this case cannot be split up, making a joint investigation necessary.