Lorenzetti spoke about the ruling on Cristina Kirchner and called for filling the vacancies on the Supreme Court

The justice gave a long interview in which he explained the ruling in the conviction of the former president and called for the composition of the highest court to be completed More than a year after the conviction against the former president, Supreme Court Justice Ricardo Lorenzetti stated that the court did not analyze the constitutionality of the lifetime disqualification of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in the Vialidad case and called for filling the two vacancies that keep the highest court with three members. The justice referred to the case against the former president, the functioning of the Court, and the limits of impeachment requests against judges. He also explained the scope of the decision related to the Land Law. When asked on the program Cata de noticias, on radio Con Vos, about the conviction against Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and the debates over her disqualification from holding public office, Lorenzetti avoided giving an opinion on a decision of the court itself. However, he specified what the scope of the Court's intervention in that case was. According to his explanation, the case reached the highest court through a complaint after the rejection of an extraordinary appeal. The Court dismissed that filing for lack of substantiation and, for that reason, did not proceed with a substantive review. "The oral court ruled, in the Vialidad matter, it made a decision. That decision was later upheld by the Chamber of Cassation. There is the double conformity that is required, and the Court received a denied appeal, that is, only a complaint," Lorenzetti noted. The justice emphasized that the Court's decision was limited to that filing. "In that complaint, which is a very narrow avenue, that is, we did not analyze the merits, the Court resolved it for lack of substantiation, that is, it was not well founded. Anyone can read that, and that is as far as we went," he stated. Lorenzetti warned about the concentration of powers in three judges and supported the incorporation of women to the Supreme Court. (REUTERS/Agustin Marcarian) He also indicated that the Court did not address the issue of lifetime disqualification, a penalty provided for in the Criminal Code that was imposed along with the prison sentence. "In those rulings, that issue is not raised in what reaches the Court," he affirmed, referring to the possibility of Fernández de Kirchner running in elections. Regarding the legal debate over the potential unconstitutionality of the penalty, he added: "What is discussed is whether the unconstitutionality of that lifetime disqualification is raised or not in relation to a more limited prison sentence, which is not lifetime. That is an issue, but the Court did not address that issue." Likewise, in the face of political statements describing the former president as proscribed, Lorenzetti separated the political plane from the legal one. "I don't think political discussions are bad. Let each sector have its arguments and use them and fight for what it believes is good. That is fine in a democracy," he said. However, he clarified: "Legally it is another matter. We abide by the law, by the law, by the Constitution." In the same interview, Lorenzetti called for completing the composition of the Court. The law sets five members, but the court operates with three following the vacancies left by Elena Highton de Nolasco and Juan Carlos Maqueda. "The president has to send those nominations, make that decision, and then there has to be a Senate with two-thirds that approves them," he said. He considered that the lack of agreements to fill the positions is a deficit that has persisted through different governments. The justice argued that the current composition requires greater effort to reach decisions, since the required majority is also three votes. He clarified that his central concern is not the volume of work, but the concentration of powers. "Three people deciding everything is too much power for three people, and there has to be diversity as well," he noted. "I never complain about work because I have always worked and the cases get done. But three people deciding everything is too much power for three people," he added. Lorenzetti considered the incorporation of women to the Court positive. "Within that diversity, gender diversity is good. Of course it would be good for them to incorporate women," he affirmed, although he clarified that the decision on candidacies belongs to the Executive Branch and their approval to the Senate. The justice recalled that the law prohibits promoting impeachment proceedings against judges over the content of their rulings. (Photographs: Maximiliano Luna) The judge was cautious about the possibility of expanding the number of members of the court. He warned that such a modification could generate uncertainty about judicial criteria. "If the Court sets a criterion and a law is passed to expand it and then it takes as long as it is taking to comply with it, we will be a year, two years, three years without knowing what the Court's jurisprudence is," he stated. Regarding the decision related to the Land Law, Lorenzetti rejected the notion that the Court had ruled on the validity of that law, on the questioned necessity and urgency decree, or on the sale of natural resources. He explained that the case reached the court within collective proceedings discussing precautionary measures. In one of the cases, the Court rejected a filing by Malvinas veterans for lack of standing, concluding that they had not proven direct legal representation to pursue the claim. "First, the Court did not opine on the Land Law," he affirmed. "Here everything is precarious. We are not talking about the Land Law, which did not reach the Court, we are not talking about the DNU or a law. We are talking about a precautionary measure, which is something very precarious, and a DNU, which is also precarious." The judge explained that the court first resolved the situation of the veterans' association. "We have great respect for the Malvinas veterans, because all of society respects them. But in this case we said that they do not have a direct legal representation relationship regarding this matter. So, it was rejected for lack of standing. Period, no other assessment," he stated. Lorenzetti indicated that a second case was then addressed, which had remained without a substantive ruling because it had been consolidated with the first case. In that case, he and Horacio Rosatti voted to issue a precautionary measure, arguing that there was an environmental issue and that the action had not received prior consideration. Carlos Rosenkrantz held a different position. "The Court can never be thought of as someone who sells land or who is against natural resources, because we have always defended natural resources," he affirmed. As precedents, he mentioned the decisions on the cleanup of the Matanza-Riachuelo basin, the Glaciers Law, and other environmental rulings. On another front, Lorenzetti criticized impeachment requests against judges that originate in disagreements with the content of their rulings. The point arose when discussing the debate over lowering the age of criminal responsibility and the claims against a judge who questioned a law. "The law prohibits impeaching a judge over the ruling," he affirmed. "If there are other behaviors, yes, but over the ruling, no. Because moreover, a court's ruling can be appealed. So, what happens? It is appealed and another court corrects it, which is what happened." For the justice, using impeachment as a response to a jurisdictional decision affects judicial independence and the separation of powers. "It's not that every time something doesn't seem right to us we have to tear down the system," he stated.