Justice. Carrió accused Zaffaroni and Aníbal Fernández of attacking “the constitutional order”

“They are statements made with ignorance and bad faith, which violate the Constitution and international treaties against corruption,” emphasized Elisa Carrió.

The leader of the ARI Civic Coalition, Elisa Carrió, the party president Maximiliano Ferraro and the president of the bloc of national deputies, Juan Manuel Lopez, affirmed today that “the statements of the former judge Eugenio Zaffaroni, claiming the presidential pardon for crimes of corruption, and Aníbal Fernández, in which he asks to limit the control of constitutionality, represent a new attack on constitutional order“.

“They are statements made with ignorance and bad faith, which violate the Constitution and international anti-corruption treaties. Cristina Kirchner he is the one who desperately promotes these initiatives, “they added.

“There is ignorance and bad faith in the claims of pardon of Zaffaroni. Article 36 of our Constitution equates the crimes of corruption to those of treason and attacks against the democratic order, and excludes them from the benefits of pardon and commutation of sentences. Case closed, the trials have to continue “, assured Carrió, Ferraro and López.” On the other hand, corruption crimes have already been declared imprescriptible by the Federal Chamber of La Plata, in an extraordinary ruling by the great jurist and judge Leopoldo Schiffrin in 2016, and then by the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber in 2018. How do you think of pardoning or amnesty for imprescriptible crimes?“said the leaders of the CC ARI.” We are going to analyze the conduct of Zaffaroni and request his dismissal as judge of the Inter-American Court, because his ignorance of the convention of that organization against corruption is intolerable, “they added.

“As well there is ignorance and bad faith of Aníbal Fernández when he affirms that a law can limit the control of constitutionality. This issue was settled definitively in article 43 of the Constitution. That article says the judge may declare the unconstitutionality of the rule on which the harmful act or omission is based, even ex officio. In the drafting commission of the 1994 constitutional reform, Elisa Carrió introduced this clause to establish constitutionally the control of constitutionality by the judiciary. It is impossible to limit this control by law “, explained Carrió, Ferraro and López.

“Cristina Kirchner he has to assume that his trials will continue, that he will have to respond to the courts and that there is no pardon, amnesty, or judicial reform that could prevent him from being held accountable, “they concluded.

The former Supreme Court judge, Eugenio Zaffaroni, had joined the onslaught that Kirchnerism faced against the highest court from different sides, after confirming the conviction of Amado Boudou for keeping the shares of the banknote printer, Ciccone Calcográfica, and left standing the possibility that it should return to prison.

Zaffaroni maintained that “the house arrest that has Boudou it is due to the risk of a pandemic and for family reasons. Those same reasons hold true. I don’t see any reason for him to go back to prison. “But Zaffaroni also attacked the Government, saying that” current officials are afraid of lawfare, of the cacerolazo, of Clarion and that they apply a complaint to him. “And he was in favor of pardoning those convicted of corruption crimes, whom he defined as” political prisoners. “” The figure that exists today is pardon. Without the pardon, the political prisoners will continue. The pardon is a government act that exists in all constitutions, “he said.

But the idea of ​​the pardon opened a rift in Christianity. The senator Oscar Parrilli, of Cristina Kirchner’s highest confidence, criticized Zaffaroni’s idea. “To pardon is to recognize that Boudou was well convicted and this is an absolutely irregular conviction,” he argued. “The Boudou ruling has to be reviewed,” Parrilli insisted in radio statements.

At the same time, both Zaffaroni como Aníbal Fernández they spoke out in favor of creating a new superior court that would take away powers from the Supreme Court.

According to the criteria of

More information


Leave a Comment