The Chamber focused on the principle of separation of powers and stated that courts cannot refrain from applying a valid norm simply because they consider its consequences inconvenient or misguided, especially when it comes to decisions related to criminal policy, a matter primarily reserved for the Legislative Power.
To support their decision, the court cited the precedent “Thomas, Enrique c/ E.N.A. s/ amparo” from the Supreme Court, issued in 2010. It established that the Argentine system adopts a diffuse model of constitutional control, allowing judges to analyze the validity of a norm in specific cases, but not to cease its validity in a general manner.
With this reasoning, the Chamber considered that temporarily suspending a law enacted by Congress throughout the provincial territory is incompatible with the republican system of government. Therefore, it upheld the appeal and annulled the 60-day suspension.
Finally, the Chamber ordered the first-instance judge to urgently review her competence to continue intervening, considering that the subject of this habeas corpus was different from another action related to the detention conditions at the Reception Center of Lomas de Zamora.
