The second cause has to do with the signing of a memorandum with Iran in which alleged Iranian terrorists would be covered up.
The Federal Court of Cassation of Argentina has reopened the two dismissed cases against the vice president of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, for a case of alleged money laundering and another related to the signing of a memorandum with Iran, which would have covered up the suspects Iranians of the attack perpetrated in 1994 against the Buenos Aires headquarters of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA).
The country's highest criminal court has ordered an oral trial against Fernández for the 'Hotesur-Los Sauces' case, which has to do with his relationship with the hotel businesses and in which his son, deputy Máximo Kirchner, is also involved, according to the Argentine newspaper 'La Nación'.
However, Florencia Kirchner, daughter of the vice president, will not have to go to trial and the dismissal that was applied to her in November 2021 will be maintained.
The investigation aims to find out if the vice president received money from public works contractors Lázaro Báez and Cristóbal López in exchange for being favored, which is why Báez was already convicted in a case of overpriced tenders; López, however, was acquitted.
Thus, 'Hotesur' analyzes business with Báez, responsible for managing the Kirchner hotels; while in 'Los Sauces' the alleged implementation of a money laundering structure is studied through the simulation of rentals managed by the family real estate company.
Regarding the case of Iran, the National Treasury Attorney, Carlos Zannini, the Minister of Development of Buenos Aires, Carlos Zannini, Senator Oscar Parrilli and the Vice Minister of Justice Juan Martín Mena, among others, will also attend the oral trial.
This trial will determine whether the pact with Iran was intended to annul the international arrest warrants against six former Iranian officials and another Lebanese who were accused of perpetrating the attack against the AMIA headquarters in Buenos Aires in 1994, which left 85 dead and more than 300 injured.
It should be noted that the complaint that prompted this second trial was filed in 2015 by prosecutor Alberto Nisman just a few days before he died after being shot in the head.
The money laundering case was dismissed by the Argentine Justice in November 2021 on the grounds that there was no crime, a decision supported by judges Adrián Grunberg and Daniel Obligado, although judge Adriana Palliotti was against it and advocated prosecuting the facts in an oral and public trial.
The case of Iran was also dismissed due to the fact that the international search and arrest warrants for Iranian citizens did not lose their validity.
CRITICISM OF THE DISMISSAL
The members of the appeals chamber have decided to remove Grunberg and Obligado from the case because they considered that their decision was based "on highly debatable valuation issues", that it was an arbitrary ruling based on an apparent foundation; Palliotti will continue in his position.
In fact, prosecutors Diego Velasco and Mario Villar have charged Grungerg and Obligado, whose resolution they have described as "institutional seriousness" that "devastated" years of the investigation into "the possible money laundering carried out by those who occupied the First Judiciary of Argentina for more than 12 years."
In the process regarding Iran, Obligado has also been removed, in addition to judges José Michilini and Gabriela López Iñiguez, considering that they had given their opinion on the evidence and the case.
The ruling issued had to do with the presentation of the latest evidence: a report from the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) in which it was reported that the arrest warrants could not be withdrawn without an order from the judge in the case.
However, the prosecution and the Prosecutor's Office stressed that Interpol could withdraw these orders. It is worth remembering that in 2006, the Argentine Justice Department held officials from Tehran and Interpol responsible for the attack, and that the organization itself supported the agreements between Iran and Argentina.
Added to the previously cited report was the impossibility of summoning the then head of Interpol, Ronald Noble, because he enjoyed immunity, although the cassation has assured that the court wrongly interpreted the document, that "it could not be deduced, simply, that the witness could not appear to testify" and, therefore, "they made a forced and arbitrary interpretation."