Against the ropes: The Court's ruling against Cristina Kirchner is approaching

As soon as it became known that Eduardo Casal had to issue an opinion on the conviction of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in the Vialidad case, judicial experts agreed on the same diagnosis:

The Attorney General of the Nation would support the position of prosecutors from previous instances, who had requested a 12-year prison sentence for the former president for her alleged role as head of a criminal organization aimed at defrauding the State.

This is exactly what happened. A few weeks ago, Casal submitted his opinion to the Supreme Court, in which he called for that sentence, which would mean doubling the penalty already set by the Oral Court, the Federal Chamber, and the Court of Cassation, also including permanent disqualification from holding public office.

In this context, both in the judicial and political spheres, speculation is growing about what decision the Court might make. Few believe that the judges of the highest court will depart from the criteria adopted by the lower courts. It is a complicated outlook for Cristina, and the big question is when the verdict will be announced.

Until not long ago, it was assumed that the ruling would be issued after the elections, with the argument of avoiding the Judiciary's influence on the "electoral process." In fact, within Kirchnerism, the main concern regarding Cristina's possible disqualification was focused on the progress of the “Ficha Limpia” project.

However, the scenario changed. The legislative initiative that sought to prevent candidacies of people with corruption convictions failed, and the principle of non-judicial intervention during electoral periods began to be questioned. Today, no one dares to set a date for the Court's decision.

The highest court, which currently operates with three of the five judges it should have by law, will review the Vialidad case file for the first time. It will do so with precedents that are not encouraging for Kirchnerism: despite internal tensions between Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti, the three have repeatedly agreed on tough rulings against former officials linked to corruption cases.

This fact is key: with two vacancies still unfilled, rulings require unanimity from the three sitting judges. In the case known as "la Ruta del Dinero K," for example, when Rosenkrantz proposed consulting the Attorney General, it was necessary to summon two substitute judges. Even so, the defendants were unable to avoid conviction. Moreover, six of them ended up in custody.

The Supreme Court's ruling

After her nomination was confirmed by the Third Electoral Section of the province of Buenos Aires, ahead of the local elections on September 7, Cristina Kirchner now faces two decisive dates: on July 9 the deadline for alliance registration expires, and on the 19th the candidate lists are made official.

This means that the Supreme Court still has more than a month to issue a ruling in the Vialidad case. Although in other circumstances this period might seem short, a judicial source closely following the case described it as "an eternity" given the significance of the case.

In the judicial world, some recent moves in the political arena are interpreted as signals that could anticipate an imminent decision by the highest court regarding the former president's situation. Among them, criticism of the Court for operating with only three judges and the introduction of a bill by an opposition senator to expand the number of members to seven stand out.

If the Court upholds the conviction against her, the former president would not be able to take a seat as a deputy. The sentence includes six years in prison (which she would serve under house arrest) and permanent disqualification from holding public office.