Cassation rejected Cristina's appeal and the Vialidad Case will go to the Court

The progress of the Vialidad case, involving Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and eight other people, marked a key milestone this afternoon. Meanwhile, the Donald Trump administration sanctioned her for her corruption cases.

The Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation rejected the appeals from both the prosecutor and the defendants' defenses. With this decision, the case could now reach the Supreme Court through a complaint appeal, that is, without the Chamber's support.

The intervention of the highest court, without a defined deadline, will be decisive for the sentences to become final and effective.

Chamber IV of the Criminal Cassation Chamber, composed of judges Mariano Borinsky, Gustavo Hornos, and Diego Barroetaveña, dismissed the appeals filed by the convicted individuals' lawyers and prosecutor Mario Villar against the ruling issued by the same Chamber last November.

In that ruling, the sentences handed down by Federal Oral Court 2 were upheld, which established a six-year prison sentence and perpetual disqualification from holding public office for defrauding the Public Administration, in relation to the 51 road works awarded to businessman Lázaro Báez between 2003 and 2015.

In its resolution, Chamber IV declared inadmissible the federal extraordinary appeals filed by the defenses of the nine convicted individuals, including Cristina Fernández, Lázaro Báez, and José López.

In addition to the prison sentences, the ruling includes the forfeiture of 84.8 billion pesos, adjustable, and the absolute and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Furthermore, the court rejected the extraordinary appeal filed by the general prosecutor Mario Villar regarding the confirmation of acquittals for the crime of illicit association.

At this point, Judge Hornos dissented and proposed granting the extraordinary appeal to the prosecutor exclusively regarding the accusation of illicit association and the increase in the amount of the forfeiture.

The former president's defense argued that the ruling had a character of "institutional gravity." However, the Cassation judges, citing Supreme Court case law, noted that while they do not ignore the importance of the case, institutional gravity is linked to the relevance of the appealed sentence and the need for the highest court to rule on the point in debate. In conclusion, they maintained that not every significant case automatically constitutes a case of institutional gravity.

The defense lawyers of all parties, along with prosecutor Mario Villar, now have a period of five business days to file the "complaint appeal" before the Cassation Chamber with the aim of having the Supreme Court intervene in the Vialidad case. This procedure is expected to be completed in the coming days, opening the final judicial stage of this process.

The Role of the Court

From this point, the Court has two options. The first is to reject the appeal without analyzing the substance of the claim, applying Article 280 of the National Civil and Commercial Procedural Code.

In this scenario, the sentence would become final and those accused with sentences of more than three years and one day of imprisonment would have to be detained. In the case of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, if she did not have legislative immunity, her age—72 years—would allow her to access house arrest.

The second option is for the Court to decide to open the case for analysis, which would involve a more detailed study of the file and a resolution that could take more time.

In this case, the court has the power to confirm what was done by the previous instances, annul the sentences, modify the penalties—either reducing or increasing them—or even acquit some of the accused.

With the confirmation of the sentences by the Cassation Chamber, the Vialidad case is in the stage known as "double conformity," that is, it has two sentences in the same direction, which reinforces its legal solidity.

This was the same procedural stage in which the case of former Vice President Amado Boudou was before the Court solved his situation.

However, the Supreme Court has no established deadlines to address the claim. It can solve the case immediately with the judges who make up the court at that time or take a prolonged time before issuing a final ruling.

In the event of running for election and being elected, parliamentary immunity could grant her immunity from potential detention, adding a new factor of political speculation around the resolution of the case.