He Superior Court of Justice of Chubut restored to his position Mariel Suarezthe criminal judge of Comodoro Rivadavia that in November 2023 she had been dismissed by a trial jury after discovering a video in which she was seen kissing a prisoner convicted of homicide. The unanimous decision declares the absolute nullity of the entire disciplinary process.
The five judges who signed the resolution —Diego Trad, Roberto Barrios, Carina Estefanía, Javier Raidan and Andrés Giacomone—concluded that the jury was flawed from the beginning due to lack of impartiality. The target of criticism is the judge Daniel Baezwho presided over the disciplinary court but had previously signed the resolution that opened the summary, described the case as “exceptional” in the media and anticipated negative evaluations of Suárez’s conduct before the trial. When the defense requested his recusal, the court rejected the request without analyzing the evidence provided.
The ruling maintains that Báez not only acted in incompatible roles cumulatively, but during the debate he limited the number of defense witnesses and intervened with expressions perceived as disqualifying. All of this, according to the Superior Court, “contaminated” the proceedings from the first day.
The case had begun in January 2023 with the public dissemination of a recording from the Provincial Penitentiary Institute in which Suárez was seen visiting Cristian “Mai” Bustossentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his nine-month-old stepson and the crime of a police officer. The then judge had voted in dissent for a lesser sentence. He argued that the visits responded to academic work.
The jury found her guilty of lack of impartiality, indecent conduct and falsifying the truth. In 2024, the criminal case was acquitted: the court considered that her conduct was “ethically reprehensible” but it did not constitute a crime. Now, the annulment of the jury returns her to office.
The Superior Court clarified that the decision does not imply endorsing Suárez’s conduct or ignoring the victims of the original case, but warned that no punishment can be sustained on the basis of violated fundamental guarantees.
