The prosecutor asked to set a date for the debate and questioned the delays after years without trial.
The prosecutor argued that setting the trial date does not necessarily depend on the completion of all evidentiary measures, and that such evidence can be incorporated and discussed during the oral debate. In this regard, he warned that the court's decision implies a restrictive interpretation of the procedural rules that, in fact, contribute to delaying the progress of the
He also questioned the way in which the court adopted its decision. He noted that the refusal to set a date was signed by the president of the body, Juan Michilini, together with Judge Fernando Machado Pelloni, one day before the return of Judge Adriana Palliotti from a license. According to the prosecutor, this circumstance prevented the court from being issued with its full integration, which he described as an irregularity affecting the validity of the
decision.
The prosecutor also recalled that there are precedents in which progress was made with the setting of trial dates even with pending evidentiary measures, in complex cases of a different nature. In his view, these cases show that the interpretation adopted by the court in this file is not the only one possible within the current legal framework
.The Hotesur and Los Sauces case had already experienced instances of closure that were later reversed. In 2024, the Supreme Court rescinded the previously issued dismissals, which reactivated the process and enabled the path
to oral proceedings.The prosecutor Diego Velasco asked the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber to order to immediately set the date of the oral trial against Cristina Kirchner and her son Máximo in the Hotesur and Los Sauces case, warning that the file accumulates years of delays without substantial progress and to report irregularities in the actions of the oral court.
The prosecutor's argument was directed against the decision of the Federal Oral Court No. 5, which decided not to move forward with fixing the debate until the end of an accounting review currently in progress. This test seeks to establish whether there was a correlation between the income earned by businessmen who benefited during Kirchnerism and transfers directed to Kirchner family companies, through rentals and contracts linked to Hotesur and Los Sauces
.
In his presentation, Velasco argued that the delay in processing the file exceeds any reasonable parameter. He pointed out that the supplementary investigation phase has lasted for between six and seven years, which, in his opinion, constitutes a situation of delay incompatible with the obligation to resolve the case within an adequate period of
