Kirchner Challenges House Arrest Restrictions, Citing Constitutional Rights
Argentina’s former president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK), is challenging restrictions placed on visitors during her house arrest, arguing they violate her constitutional rights and those of her political allies. The legal battle centers on limitations imposed following a six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction related to public works contracts – a case known as the “road cause.”
On Friday, Kirchner’s legal team filed a new presentation with the Federal Oral Court No. 2 seeking to revoke the restrictions, which currently limit in-home visits to immediate family, lawyers, and doctors. This move comes after the court clarified she is permitted to access the balcony of her Buenos Aires apartment.
The core of the dispute, as articulated by a national deputy, Leopoldo Moreau, is the perceived overreach of the judiciary. Moreau, on his X (formerly Twitter) account, echoed concerns of a “dictatorship of the judges,” stating, “Only with this judicial party… in Argentina you have to explain the obvious.” He asserted that no detainee under house arrest, even with electronic monitoring, should be subjected to prior judicial authorization for visits.
Moreau further emphasized that the restrictions infringe upon the rights of legislators to visit Kirchner, arguing that Article 38 of the National Constitution protects the fundamental role of political parties and the privileges afforded to parliamentary members. “We can present ourselves to visit those who consider the driver of our political space with the single accreditation of our status as national deputies or senators,” he stated.
Kirchner herself, in her presentation, described the restrictions on her broader relationships as an “totally arbitrary exclusion regime” that violates her “most elementary civil rights.” She alluded to further limitations on her “political rights,” stating, “I owe it to you,” suggesting a deeper concern about political persecution.
Her defense team, led by Carlos Beraldi, argued that the current measures create a “current, concrete and specific grievance” and that Kirchner has not forfeited her inherent human rights – both civil and political – beyond the scope of her sentence. They contend that judges lack the authority to impose “additional rules of behavior” beyond the confines of her house arrest.
The legal challenge highlights a lack of transparency in the court’s reasoning. According to the defense, the court has not articulated a clear purpose for requiring prior authorization for visits, nor has it established criteria for evaluating such requests, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions. They argue the rule lacks “normative foundation” and has a “not explained” purpose.
This dispute is escalating, with Moreau indicating plans to denounce the situation to the World Interparliamentary Union as evidence of a “severe conflict of powers” and a potential “state of exception” orchestrated by judges and prosecutors. The case underscores the ongoing political and legal tensions surrounding Kirchner, a deeply polarizing figure in Argentine politics, and raises fundamental questions about the balance of power within the country’s judicial system.
