Radio Caput
SOLEDAD DEZA en Somos Nosotras - Radio Caput
@radiocaput 🎙️Soledad Deza, Abogada litigante, Magister en Género y Políticas (FLACSO) y Profesora de Feminismos Jurídicos en la UNT ⚖️💜📚 💥Somos …
2
18
2
572
Legal Expert Slams Argentine Supreme Court's 'Veiled' Ruling on Ex-President's Conviction
Buenos Aires, Argentina – Legal expert Soledad Deza has voiced strong criticisms regarding the Argentine Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold a conviction against a former president, widely understood to be Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Speaking on 'Somos Nosotras' on Radio Caput, Deza, a litigating lawyer and professor of legal feminisms, argued that the Court's reliance on Article 280 was a "super striking" and "veiled" method to avoid a thorough legal review. "It doesn't seem wrong to analyze the texture of someone's technical defense," Deza stated, "What does seem strange to me is that three judges of the Court, when confirming the conviction, I believe, at the time of the most important political prisoner Argentina has, it seemed super striking, that direction and that animosity with the technical defense." She further elaborated that the Court's invocation of Article 280, which allows it to reject appeals without providing detailed reasoning, was a "half-way" approach. Deza contended that the Court's action suggested an attempt to "mask itself," stating, "The highest court, masking itself and saying this is not worth looking at." She emphasized that a conviction against a former president should necessitate a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and a corroboration of the legal reasoning. "A sentence of conviction against a former president that does not analyze the precedents of that conviction, that does not corroborate the existence of evidence, that does not explain or confirm the judicial reasoning, and that only dedicates itself to saying that the defense did not refute this, that it did not argue that, that it was deficient in such a thing... it seemed like a mockery," Deza concluded, highlighting the perceived lack of substantive legal justification in the ruling.
