Federal prosecutor Diego Luciani warned that Cristina Kirchner would be violating the conditions imposed to maintain the benefit of house arrest in the highway case. Along with her colleague Sergio Mola, she asked the Federal Oral Court 2 to tell the former president to avoid behavior that alters public order and the tranquility of the
neighborhood where she lives.
The proposal focuses on the episodes that occurred on March 24, when militants and supporters gathered in front of the former president's home, located at 1111 San José Street. According to the prosecution, these mobilizations contradict the rules established by the Justice for the granting
of house arrest. The former president hung a sign on her balcony and set fire to the demonstration.
Cristina Kirchner has been under house arrest since June 2025, after the Supreme Court upheld her conviction for fraudulent administration to the detriment of the State. Among the conditions imposed by the court is the obligation not to disturb the coexistence of the neighborhood or to generate alterations
in public roads.
In their opinion, Luciani and Mola emphasized that the events recorded were not completely spontaneous, but that there would have been calls organized through social networks and political groups. This situation, they argue, not only calls into question compliance with the regulations, but also the security conditions that were used as an argument to grant the benefit
.
The prosecutors pointed out that these types of mass gatherings not only expose the convict herself to possible risks, but also have a direct impact on circulation and order in the area. In this sense, they consider that the grounds on which house arrest was granted are distorted
. Diego Luciani was the prosecutor in the Road Case for which CFK was convicted.
Although the court had so far considered that the conditions had been met, the Public Prosecutor's Office understands that there are sufficient elements to review the situation. For this reason, he asked that Cristina Kirchner be formally urged to adopt measures to prevent the repetition of these acts
.
The requirement includes a specific warning: if these behaviors persist, the revocation of the benefit of house arrest could be evaluated. The prosecution insists that strict compliance with the conditions is not optional, but an indispensable requirement for maintaining the current regime
