Matías Cúneo Libarona is one of the most experienced and respected criminal lawyers in the country, although his name rarely appears on the media agenda. A specialist in criminal law, economic criminal law, customs, tax, and banking law, he has devoted himself for decades to handling extremely complex cases, with an obsessive working method and a surgical eye on judicial and police procedures. Those who know him describe him as relentless, meticulous, and low-profile, an unusual combination in the world of Argentine criminal law.
Trained for years in the national criminal courts, it is well known in judicial corridors that he has as clients key figures such as the Minister of Economy, Luis "Toto" Caputo; the president of the Central Bank, Santiago Bausili; the prestigious physician and scientist Fernando Polack, who is responsible for the development of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine; Lionel Messi and his father Jorge; and journalist Javier Negre. He is the brother of the current Minister of Justice, Mariano Cúneo Libarona. At his request, he took charge of the cases that Mariano had to leave when he assumed public office. With a deep knowledge of constitutional guarantees and international conventions, his legal perspective combines technical rigor with a strong concern for crime victims.
Interview with Matías Cúneo Libarona
—Does he consider it necessary to lower the age of criminal responsibility in Argentina?
—Obviously, it should have been lowered a long time ago. The current regulation dates from around 1980. The world has changed: society, the ways in which crimes are committed, criminal activity, and also the actors. The 18, 16, or 14-year-olds of that time are not the same as young people of that age today.
—Why does he believe that the current legislation has become outdated?
—Because reality is different. Today there is a degree of awareness, information, and participation in criminal acts that did not exist before. Maintaining a law designed for another era means leaving serious conduct unpunished when it is committed by people who know perfectly well what they are doing. Moreover, this new law contains many more provisions than just the lowering of the age. It is very good and absolutely superior to the current one.
—Some sectors argue that lowering the age violates rights. What is his response to that argument?
—It is necessary to focus simultaneously on the victim. There must be rights for those under investigation and rights for victims, rights for everyone, without sacrificing some in order to guarantee others. It is not a zero-sum game. The person under investigation has the right to be heard, to the presumption of innocence, and to due process of law; but the victim also has the right to have the damage repaired, to have the validity of the norm restored, and to have the corresponding penalty applied according to the principle of culpability.
—How is this reconciled with a rights-based, or "garantista," view of criminal law?
—That is "garantismo" properly understood and properly applied, which has nothing to do with abolitionism. Those who commit crimes, through due process of law, pay for them. That's why the age of criminal responsibility must be lowered: in order to avoid leaving unpunished acts committed by people who, at the age established by the new law, were fully aware of what they did.
—Lately, the case of Jeremías Monzón has gained a lot of relevance after the crime went viral on social networks. Why does he consider it a paradigmatic case?
—The case of Jeremías Monzón is paradigmatic in relation to the essence of this new juvenile criminal law. It is not only about a victim who was 15 years old, but also about several defendants who were between 16 and 14 years old. Regardless of the motive, the method, the plan, the division of roles, and the specific contribution of each one, it is undeniable that they had knowledge of and the will to carry out the plan that had been drawn up.
