The Supreme Court is preparing to uphold Cristina Kirchner's conviction

The politician convicted of corruption Cristina Kirchner has less and less time, and her political horizon is dissolving. At this moment, her future is in the hands of a single person: a single magistrate. A judge who, ironically, wasn't appointed by her: Carlos Rosenkrantz.

Ricardo Lorenzetti keeps his position without changes. Rosatti would also be inclined to support the conviction in the Vialidad case, although perhaps not at the next meeting on Tuesday. Everything depends on Rosenkrantz, who has the power to tip the balance against Cristina or open a window of opportunity for her by postponing the decision.

Fifteen days ago, the former president confirmed that she will be a candidate in the Third Electoral Section of Buenos Aires province, seeking to secure judicial protection in advance through parliamentary immunity.

The deadline for submitting national lists expires on August 17, and immunity would only be activated after federal judge María Servini officially recognizes the candidates. Too late. For this reason, she chose to run at the provincial level, where the deadlines for closing and officializing candidacies are set in July.

Despite that strategy, the objective could remain out of reach. The Supreme Court is formally composed of five members, but currently only three are in office, since the other two positions remain vacant.

The only way the highest court can issue a ruling is if the three sitting judges agree on the same position. That simple fact is, in reality, the determining factor for Cristina Kirchner's judicial future.

Two of the magistrates, Horacio Rosatti—current president of the Court—and his predecessor, Ricardo Lorenzetti, share the intention to confirm the conviction against the former president.

Although their personal relationship is distant and tense, both agree on the essentials: the ruling that imposes six years in prison shouldn't be modified or reduced, and it should be ratified as soon as possible. The only difference between them is timing: Rosatti would prefer not to rush the decision next Tuesday.

The most direct way to close the case is through Article 280 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code. This rule establishes that the Court can reject an extraordinary appeal without further explanation when it considers that there is no relevant federal issue or that the claim lacks importance.

A brief but forceful formula, sufficient to uphold a conviction and, eventually, send someone to prison. Although Rosatti also considers this outcome valid, he isn't willing to execute it immediately.

In clear terms, Rosatti and Lorenzetti have no intention of opening the extraordinary appeal filed by Cristina and the other defendants. Analyzing it would take months. If it is dismissed, the six-year conviction would stand.

Both agree on this; their only disagreement is about when to announce the decision. However, within the Court, the idea is gaining strength that the final ruling could be known before the end of June.

There are plenty of precedents for proceeding in this way. When a defendant receives a conviction from an oral court and that sentence is ratified by the Court of Cassation, it is customary for the Court not to intervene in the substance of the matter and to apply Article 280 directly.

This is what happened in the cases of Milagro Sala and many other convicted individuals. In this case, according to the majority of judges, there are no reasons to act differently.

However, there is a third key member in the Court: Carlos Rosenkrantz. This judge also believes that Cristina Kirchner should be convicted, although he isn't convinced about the length of the sentence.

He has doubts about whether the six-year sentence imposed by the Cassation should be confirmed or if, as all the prosecutors in the Vialidad case argued—including Attorney General Eduardo Casal—a 12-year sentence should be applied for having acted as leader of a criminal organization.

Unlike his colleagues, Rosenkrantz isn't willing to reject the appeal outright. He believes that, due to the institutional relevance of the case, which involves a former president, the Court should open the file, thoroughly analyze each claim, and issue an extensive ruling with solid arguments supporting the conviction, regardless of the sentence ultimately imposed.

This approach, although legally justified, would entail a considerable delay: if his position prevails, the final ruling wouldn't arrive before 2026. If, on the other hand, Rosenkrantz were to align with Rosatti and Lorenzetti, the sentence could be known as soon as next Tuesday, or at least before the end of June.

Whether six or twelve years, the prison sentence would be accompanied by a special disqualification from holding public office. Several judges interpret that, with this disqualification confirmed by the Court, Cristina wouldn't be able to run either as a national deputy or as a provincial legislator.

As a precaution, the former president registered as a candidate in Buenos Aires province. This move would allow her to present a questionable argument, but one that would open a legal debate: since she is disqualified only for national offices, she could run at the provincial level, arguing that each jurisdiction sets its own electoral rules.

However, that line of defense is considered weak, since the disqualification arises from the national Penal Code, has federal scope, and a final ruling from the Court can't be disregarded by any local court.

If, on the other hand, the Court delays the ruling until after her candidacy is officialized, Cristina would obtain parliamentary immunity, which would shield her legally and prevent her from being arrested.