This Thursday, after the dissemination of the 1616 pages with the grounds of the sentence to Cristina Kirchner and Lázaro Báez in the Cause Roadthe judges of the court wrote a separate paragraph to refer to the attempted ban against the vice president and that is one of the reasons why there will be a march next Saturday in Avellaneda.
In their brief, the judges highlighted that from the outset, they were accused that the case “had been aimed at delegitimize their clients to politically disqualify them or persecute them for bearing their last name or for their ideological or partisan identification.”
“So much has been said about this matter, especially in the media, that it seems important to us first to clarify that our response, in principle, is going to be limited and subject only to the considerations formulated that point to this court as part of an alleged ‘judicial war,’” the judges wrote. Jorge Gorini, Rodrigo Giménez Uriburu and Andrés Basso.
“Nothing that has not been seen or heard before: electoral speculation, political persecution, media operation, legal warfare, armed cause, attempted proscription, false denunciation, conspiracy, criminal law of the enemy, conspiracy, judicial manhunt”, listed the magistrates and finished off with irony: “Now it seems more sophisticated to talk about lawfare (as if things, when described in English, had more value)”.
During one stage of the trial, the judges were accused of starting the oral and public debate a few days before the closing of the lists for the 2019 elections, with the intention of exposing Cristina Kirchner, then candidate for vice president of Alberto Fernández, at the expense of a judicial conflict.
“It is appropriate to remember that originally, in 2018, the beginning of the debate had been set for February 26, 2019. But, as the defenses well remember, due to the health problems of the then member of this court, Dr. Jorge Alberto Tassara, which suddenly arose in the same month of February 2019, and his subsequent and unfortunate death in March, two of the current judges found ourselves obliged, on the one hand, to request the superintendency to complete the conformation of the court, and on the other, of inevitably deferring the start of the debate, setting it for the month of May (three months after what was originally planned)”, the judges explained and asked themselves: “How can you say years later with total I impudence that the date was chosen speculating with the electoral calendar? “This position is only explained in a media and extrajudicial defense”, they summarized.
