They claim that the processes will be faster with the new Criminal Procedure Code: the 3 "exemplary" cases

Attorney Alejandro Gullé praised the changes and said a few days ago that the defense "may question the terms of the investigation, but they will be done at the appropriate time and in the meantime, the investigation can continue."

For the head of the prosecutors, "they are not cutting 'rights'. If we oppose each step of the investigation taken by the prosecutor, the process becomes eternal, because when it is challenged it goes before a judge of first instance and then before a collegiate court and finally to the Court, so when we take up the case again, many times more than a year and a half has passed."

"The reform is justified because there are cases that were delayed so much that in some cases it even led to the release of the accused due to procedural times, and then he even reoffended," they argued in the MPF.

On the other hand, they exemplified that "each robbery prosecutor has an average of 100 detainees (among those under investigation plus those who were brought to trial but have not yet been sentenced); and in addition, each one attends at least 7 hearings a day . It is necessary to begin to speed up in order to lower that number," they indicated.

Indeed, the MPF referred to the case of the murder of Emilio Giménez , on September 15, 2022. Regarding the six defendants, the defense presented 4 jurisdictional controls, 6 appeals, 2 cassation appeals, 2 federal extraordinary appeals, 3 requests for nullity, 2 requests for exclusion of evidence and 3 objections.

They also argued that an extraordinary extension of pretrial detention has already been granted, since the maximum period is two years and can be extended to one more year. "If the situation of the accused is not resolved urgently through the corresponding trial, the pretrial detention periods may expire and freedom will have to be granted," they warned.

Another case is the murder of Matias Miralles, a moneylender from the Fourth Section of the Capital , on June 15, 2022, in which there have been 6 defendants arrested (during 2022 and 2023) and the defense filed 4 appeals, one opposition, one appeal and one complaint; and the hearing of opposition to the summons to trial request is pending.

Furthermore, the terms of pretrial detention are about to expire, and the extension of one of the detainees expires on March 14.

The third case is paradigmatic. It concerns an accused, surnamed Coria , who had accumulated 15 files, including robbery aggravated by the use of a firearm suitable for firing; robbery aggravated by being in a populated area and in a gang, robbery aggravated by the use of a weapon in an improper sense; among others. In one of the cases, it occurred in 2020 with six defendants; and the defense presented 3 objections, 3 jurisdictional controls, 2 appeals, 2 nullities and a cassation appeal.

The delay in processing the cases "caused the defendant Coria to be released in July 2023, having completed the two years of preventive detention," the MPF said. After that, he committed two criminal acts, for which he was arrested again in 2024.

In its defense of the current law, the Government pointed out that the reforms seek to "make the processing of cases more expeditious." The criteria for the admission of evidence are adjusted, the times and conditions are regulated "so that appeals do not slow down the course of the investigation and the role of the Judge of Guarantees in the supervision of the procedures is reinforced."

In addition, mechanisms were incorporated "that allow for a quicker resolution of discrepancies between the prosecutor and the judge, establishing review instances when there are disagreements about the filing of a case or the dismissal of an accused. This seeks to make judicial decisions more dynamic and for cases to advance without unnecessary delays."

Alejandro Gullé, Martín Kerchner, Mercedes Rus, Andrés Lombardi and Marcelo D'Agostino

Legislature Press.

Regarding the appropriate moments to present challenges, Gullé explained on Radio Mitre that the possibility of challenging is not lost, but rather is transferred to the preliminary hearing. "It is said: you want to challenge, challenge, but the process is not suspended, the prosecutor continues investigating and this is essential because it prevents the loss of fundamental evidence," he said.

"If the court decides within a reasonable period and rules in favor of the challenger, the investigation stops immediately, but if it rejects the challenge, the evidence is not lost and we continue investigating," he said.

Regarding opposition to the reform from some sectors, he assured that all the observations presented had been taken into account, although he considered that many were "absolutely unjustified."

He explained that prolonging the proceedings implies an excessive expenditure of resources and affects the efficiency of the judicial system . "There are acts that are unnecessary to question in the early stages of investigation, let the prosecutor investigate and question it when appropriate," he concluded, insisting on the need to avoid the irreparable loss of evidence.

Some judges have questioned the reforms approved and have pointed out two things: on the one hand, that there will be no progress in speeding up the proceedings, and on the other hand, that the "power" of the prosecutors will increase considerably.

"We all want to speed up processes, but the problem is that many more cases are coming in than the system can handle," they warn, and stated that while the process may not "slow down" in the preparatory criminal investigation stage, "it will collapse in the trial stages because the system cannot process the number it receives."

They stated that from now on "very little can be appealed and the prosecutor becomes the lord and master of the process," and they pointed out, for example, that the request for referral to trial "is not appealable," nor can it be appealed for any change in the qualification of the charge.

"Previously, a decision by a judge of guarantees was appealable when the law provided for it or when it generated irreparable harm, such as a deprivation of liberty, but now it is not, and it is a problem for the defense of rights," they added.

Another point is the institute of discrepancy , which is when the prosecutor requests dismissal and the judge of guarantees rejects it. "The logical thing is that it goes to the chief prosecutor of the unit, but instead it will go to the deputy prosecutor, who is the right hand of the Attorney General. The door is opened for the Attorney General to give directives to the cases," they said, and added that "the deputy prosecutor has too much work to add this one.

The MPF rejected the accusations and said that the chief prosecutor "is working on the investigation with the prosecutor in charge of the case. In the case of the deputy prosecutor, he will have a more objective view of the matter."