Last Thursday, minutes before being charged by the prosecutor Ramiro Gonzalez, for breaching the DNU that he himself had signed, Alberto Fernández had requested his dismissal. Among his arguments, he cited the decision of the judge Maria Eugenia Capuchetti that when referring to VIP vaccination argued that it was behavior questionable from the ethical point of view, but that it did not constitute a crime penal. But this Monday the Federal Chamber rejected that look and ordered that case be reopened. The president’s reasoning, then, also suffered a severe setback.
To avoid any criminal responsibility for his wife’s birthday in the fifth of Olivos during the quarantine, Alberto Fernández threaded several proposals. In the first place, he said that the events “took place within the orbit of family intimacy“, and that at the time of the pandemic, the government action” moved entirely to the Olivos property and my work did not have specific days or hours. “Although it is not clear in the text, its intention was perhaps to try to extend the more justified existence of work meetings in the fifth with the questioned birthday party.
But Alberto also slipped that the “ethical commitment that could have been questioned at the time of evaluating the possible transgression of sanitary norms “and, if necessary, it clarified that”it was never the reason for the meeting to spread the pandemic in any way that harasses us. “
Under the same guidelines, he clarified that “in no way did they relax, avoid or omit the rigorous care measures”, and that is why he considers that “no specific danger of virus spread has been created SARSCOV- 2.
The head of state then used another argument, and took as a point of support that decision of Judge Capuchetti who ordered the case of the VIP vaccination to be partially shelved. “Regarding the interpretation that must be made of my actions in order to determine whether or not they constitute any crime, the resolution of Dr. Maria Eugenia Capuchetti is understandable,” the President began..
He used one paragraph in particular: “The outrage over the way certain events unfold does not necessarily and automatically imply that the penalty law should intervenel. There are situations that are not to our liking and that we strongly repudiate but they cannot, by themselves, make us set aside the limits of the role we have and, as regards judges, they should not be enough for us to ignore constitutional principles that operate in criminal matters ”.
The President quoted verbatim from the magistrate: “This situation does not change at all due to the mere fact that there are those who vociferously demand the application of a criminal punishment, in the understanding that they consider insufficient the consequences that the facts brought by themselves, since be it in public opinion, in the legitimacy of the institutions and in the permanence in the positions of the officials involved “.
Those words had a clear interpretation for Alberto Fernández: “In this way, it is evident that my actions do not constitute a crime.“.
But his defense strategy was left without that support on Monday: the Buenos Aires Federal Chamber ordered Judge Capuchetti to reopen the investigation.
“Why were they, and not others among the millions of citizens of the country in the same conditions, were the beneficiaries of this simultaneous vaccination? ”, The judges of Chamber I of the court wrote in their resolution.
Pointing to the heart of Capuchetti’s resolution, the chambermaids pointed out that the ethical situation alleged by the judge, “It does not allow to rule out that it is the product of an illicit conduct, which -on the other hand-is always unethical”.
Delving into this criterion, the judges Leopoldo Bruglia, Pablo Bertuzzi and Mariano Llorens indicated that “the mere ethical judgment is surpassed by another, typical of this criminal field. This examination, curtailed in advance, is the one that must be carried out by facing a complete and comprehensive analysis ”.
The ethical debate, the judges concluded, cannot be grounds for not continuing to investigate the conduct of public officials, as well as the other members of the list that is again under investigation.
The reasoning is easily extrapolated to Olivosgate: the thesis in which Alberto Fernández hid himself to say that there was no crime it is also, at least, premature.