Cristina Kirchner's attempt to turn her house arrest into a convention center sparked great indignation in society and clashed with the justice system. After the photograph that she herself shared, posing in the living room of the apartment at San José 1111 with a group of nine economists, federal judge Jorge Gorini decided to impose formal restrictions on the visitation regime that applied to the former president convicted of stealing $685,000 million in the Causa Vialidad.
The image, which Cristina presented on social media as just another "political debate" meeting, was the last straw in a situation that had been building for months. Until now, Federal Oral Court 2 had granted the visits requested by her lawyer Carlos Beraldi, always under generic arguments and without major objections. However, a scene like the one she chose to show had never been authorized: ten people gathered simultaneously inside a residence that legally functions as a detention unit. Cristina, en otra multitudinaria reunión junto al diputado de origen israelí, Itai Hagman.
Judge Gorini ruled that, from now on, Cristina Kirchner may only receive visitors twice a week, with a maximum of three people per meeting and a two-hour limit. In other words: what was applied is not a political sanction, but an explicit correction to prevent house arrest—an exceptional benefit compared to regular imprisonment—from being distorted.
Cristina's reaction was swift. On her social media, she complained about the ruling and attributed it to her public criticism of the current economic model, attempting to present herself as a victim of alleged persecution. However, the reality is much more prosaic: the former president herself published an image that demonstrated the improper use of the regime granted to her by the justice system. The photo, more than a political gesture, was a public admission of the irregularity.
The Court, in its decision, stated that the mass meeting completely altered the rules of house arrest. Beraldi's request to receive the economists never specified that it would be a group meeting or that it would involve nine people at the same time. In any other legal case, such a situation would have resulted in an immediate warning. Here, the response was moderate: to order reasonable limits to prevent future excesses. Cristina en otra reunión multitudinaria.
The case exposes a well-known practice of Kirchnerism: pushing legal boundaries to the extreme until the justice system is forced to intervene. After the abuse of the protocol, she was warned that if she committed further violations, she could lose the benefit of house arrest.
The Court made it clear that house arrest doesn't entitle her to turn her residence into a grassroots unit or political operations center. Meanwhile, the former president is trying to claim that she is being harassed, but the adjustment of conditions was inevitable. Cristina will continue to receive visitors—as provided by law—but within limits compatible with her status as a convicted person.
